Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (UMTS, 1,950 MHz) induce genotoxic effects in vitro in human fibroblasts but not in lymphocytes

  • Claudia Schwarz
  • Elisabeth Kratochvil
  • Alexander Pilger
  • Niels Kuster
  • Franz Adlkofer
  • Hugo W. RüdigerEmail author
Original Article



Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) was recently introduced as the third generation mobile communication standard in Europe. This was done without any information on biological effects and genotoxic properties of these particular high-frequency electromagnetic fields. This is discomforting, because genotoxic effects of the second generation standard Global System for Mobile Communication have been reported after exposure of human cells in vitro.


Human cultured fibroblasts of three different donors and three different short-term human lymphocyte cultures were exposed to 1,950 MHz UMTS below the specific absorption rate (SAR) safety limit of 2 W/kg. The alkaline comet assay and the micronucleus assay were used to ascertain dose and time-dependent genotoxic effects. Five hundred cells per slide were visually evaluated in the comet assay and comet tail factor (CTF) was calculated. In the micronucleus assay 1,000 binucleated cells were evaluated per assay. The origin of the micronuclei was determined by fluorescence labeled anticentromere antibodies. All evaluations were performed under blinded conditions.


UMTS exposure increased the CTF and induced centromere-negative micronuclei (MN) in human cultured fibroblasts in a dose and time-dependent way. Incubation for 24 h at a SAR of 0.05 W/kg generated a statistically significant rise in both CTF and MN (P = 0.02). At a SAR of 0.1 W/kg the CTF was significantly increased after 8 h of incubation (P = 0.02), the number of MN after 12 h (P = 0.02). No UMTS effect was obtained with lymphocytes, either unstimulated or stimulated with Phytohemagglutinin.


UMTS exposure may cause genetic alterations in some but not in all human cells in vitro.


Comet assay Micronucleus assay Genotoxic effect Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields 



This study was supported in part by the Austrian Workers Compensation Board, Vienna, Austria, the Verum Foundation, Munich, Germany, and the Austrian Science Fund FWF (project number P18984-B09). The authors gratefully acknowledge the value assistance of Marietta Weninger and Petra Hartbauer and thank Dr Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger for helpful statistical advice.


  1. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 70:2281–2285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson D, Yu T, Phillips B, Schmezer P (1994) The effect of various antioxidants and other modifying agents on oxygen-radical-generated DNA damage in human lymphocytes in the Comet assay. Mutat Res 307:261–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Czyz J, Guan K, Zeng Q, Nikolova T, Meister A, Schönborn F, Kuster N, Wobus A (2004) High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) affect gene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics 25:296–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diem E, Ivancsits S, Rüdiger HW (2002) Basal levels of DNA strand breaks in human leukocytes determined by comet assay. J Toxicol Environ Health A 65:641–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW (2005) Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res 583:178–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Eastmond DA, Tucker JD (1989) Identification of aneuploidy-inducing agents using cytokinesis-blocked human lymphocytes and an antikinetochore antibody. Environ Mol Mutagen 13:34–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farooqi Z, Darroudi F, Natarajan AT (1993) Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of aneugens in cytokinesis-blocked mouse splenocytes. Mutagenesis 8:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenech M (1993) The cytokinesis-block micronucleus technique: a detailed description of the method and its application to genotoxicity studies in human populations. Mutat Res 285:35–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenech M, Morley A (1985) Measurement of micronuclei in lymphocytes. Mutat Res 203:339–345Google Scholar
  10. Hardell LO; Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K (2006) Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardell LO, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, Morgan LL (2007) Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours—increased risk associated with use >10 years. Occup Environ Med 64:626–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Höytö A, Juutilainen J, Naarala J (2007) Ornitine decarboxylase activity is affected in primary astrocytes but not in secondary cell lines exposed to 872 MHz RF radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 83:367–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), Standing Committee on Epidemiology: Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A (2004) Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ Health Perspect 112:1741–1754Google Scholar
  14. IEGMP (2000) Mobil phones and health. Report of the independent expert group on mobile phones, Chairman: Sir William Stewart, National Radiation Protection Board, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. IEGEMF (2007) Recent research on EMF and health risks. Fourth annual report from SSI’s independent expert group on electromagnetic fields. Statens Stralskyddsinstitut, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  16. Ivancsits S, Diem E, Rüdiger HW, Jahn O (2002a) Induction of DNA strand breaks by intermittent exposure to extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields in human diploid fibroblasts. Mutat Res 519:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivancsits S, Pilger A, Diem E, Schaffer A, Rüdiger HW (2002b) Vanadate induces DNA strand breaks in cultured human fibroblasts at doses relevant to occupational exposure. Mutat Res 519:25–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivancsits S, Diem E, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW (2003) Intermittent extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields cause DNA damage in a dose-dependent way. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:431–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ivancsits S, Pilger A, Diem E, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW (2005) Cell type specific genotoxic effects of intermittent extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Mutat Res 583:184–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habash RWY, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, Prato FS, Salem T, Weaver DF (2007) Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health: 2001–2003. J Toxicol Environ Health B 10:287–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell LO, Mattsson MO (2004) Mobile telephones and cancer—a review of epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 7:351–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lai H, Singh N (1996) Single- and double strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 69:513–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lai H, Singh N (2004) Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 112:687–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Shoemaker MJ, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Johansen C, Klaeboe L, Lönn S, Swerdlow AJ, Tynes T, Salminen T (2007) Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 north European countries. Int J Cancer 120(8):1769–1775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lasne C, Gu Z, Venegas W, Chouroulinkov I (1984) The in vitro micronucleus assay for detection of cytogenetic effects induced by mutagen-carcinogens: comparison with the in vitro sister-chromatid exchange assay. Mutat Res 130:273–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee S, Johnson D, Dunbar K, Dong H, Ge X, Kim Y, Wing C, Jayathilaka N, Emmanuel N, Zhou C, Gerber H, Tseng C, Wang S (2005) 2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression in cultured human cells. FEBS Lett 579:4829–4836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R (2002) Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation 70:120–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meltz M (2003) Radiofrequency exposure and mammalian cell toxicity, genotoxicity, and transformation. Bioelectromagnetics 24:196–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ndoumbè Mbonjo Mbonjo H, Streckert J, Bitz A, Hansen V, Glasmachers A, Gencol S, Rozic D (2004) Generic UMTS test signal for RF biolelectromagnetic studies. Bioelectromagnetics 25:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olive PL, Banath JP (1995) Sizing highly fragmented DNA in individual apoptotic cells using the comet assay and a DNA crosslinking agent. Exp Cell Res 221:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Östling O, Johanson K (1984) Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. Biochem Biophys Res Com 123:291–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pancini S, Ruggiero M, Sardi I, Aterini S, Gulisano F, Gulisano M (2002) Exposure to global system for mobile communication (GSM) cellular phone radiofrequency alters gene expression, proliferation, and morphology of human skin fibroblasts. Oncol Res 13:19–24Google Scholar
  33. Paulray R, Behari J (2006) Single strand DNA breaks inn rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res 596:76–80Google Scholar
  34. REFLEX Final Report (2004) European Union Project QLK4-CT-1999-01574, Risk evaluation of potential environmental hazards from low frequency electromagnetic field exposure using sensitive in vitro methods. Final Report.
  35. Repacholi M (1998) Low-Level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 19:1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG, Cardis E, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Hepworth SJ, Johansen C, Klaeboe L, Lonn S, McKinney PA, Muir K, Raitanen J, Salminen T, Thomsen J, Tynes T (2005) Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the interphone case–control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer 93:842–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schonborn F, Pokovic K, Burkhard M, Kuster N (2001) Basis for optimization of in vitro exposure apparatus for health hazard evaluations of mobile communications. Bioelectromagnetics 22:547–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuderer J (2005) EMF risk assessment: “in vitro” research and sleep studies. In: Series in microelectronics. Hartung-Gorre Verlag, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuderer J, Kuster N (2003) Effect of the meniscus at the solid/liquid interface of the SAR distribution in Petri dishes and flasks. Bioelectromagnetics 24:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schütz J, Böhler E, Berg G, Schlehofer B, Hettinger I, Schlaefer K, Wahrendorf J, Kunna-Grass K, Blettner M (2006) Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risk of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany) Am J Epidemiol 163(6):512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh N, Lai H (1998) 60 Hz magnetic field exposure induces DNA crosslinks in rat brain cells. Mutat Res 400:313–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh N, McCoy M, Tice R, Schneider E (1988) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175:184–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh N, Tice R, Stephens R, Schneider E (1991) A microgel electrophoresis technique for direct quantitation of DNA damage and repair in individual fibroblasts cultured on microscope slides. Mutat Res 252:289–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Speit G, Schütz P, Hoffmann H (2007) Genotoxic effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in cultured mammalian cells are not independently reproducible. Mutat Res 626:42–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vijayalaxmi, Obe G (2004) Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 162:481–496Google Scholar
  46. Whitehead TD, Moros EG, Brownstein BH, Roto Roti JL (2006) Gene expression does not change significantly in C3H 10T(1/2) cells after exposure to 847.74 CDMA or 835.62 FDMA radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 165:626–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Schwarz
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Kratochvil
    • 1
  • Alexander Pilger
    • 1
  • Niels Kuster
    • 3
  • Franz Adlkofer
    • 2
  • Hugo W. Rüdiger
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Occupational MedicineMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Verum, Foundation for Behavior and EnvironmentMunichGermany
  3. 3.Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in SocietySwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations