An upward 9.4 T static magnetic field inhibits DNA synthesis and increases ROS-P53 to suppress lung cancer growth
Authors: Vitalii Zablotskii
Junjun Wang
Biao Yu
Xin Zhang
Xin Yu
Lei Zhang
Xingxing Yang
Chao Song
Journal: Translational oncology (2021)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: 9.4 T static magnetic field (SMF); Cell cycle; Lung cancer; P53; ROS.
Affiliations: CAS Key Laboratory of High Magnetic Field and Ion Beam Physical Biology, High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China; Science Island Branch of Graduate School, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China., CAS Key Laboratory of High Magnetic Field and Ion Beam Physical Biology, High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China., CAS Key Laboratory of High Magnetic Field and Ion Beam Physical Biology, High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China; Institutes of Physical Science and Information Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China., Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague 18221, Czechia; International Magnetobiology Frontier Research Center (iMFRC), Science Island, 230031, China., CAS Key Laboratory of High Magnetic Field and Ion Beam Physical Biology, High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China; Science Island Branch of Graduate School, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China; Institutes of Physical Science and Information Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China; International Magnetobiology Frontier Research Center (iMFRC), Science Island, 230031, China. Electronic address: .

Abstract:  Studies have shown that 9.4 Tesla (9.4 T) high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has obvious advantages in improving image resolution and capacity, but their safety issues need to be further validated before their clinical approval. Meanwhile, emerging experimental evidences show that moderate to high intensity Static Magnetic Fields (SMFs) have some anti-cancer effects. We examined the effects of two opposite SMF directions on lung cancer bearing mice and found when the lung cancer cell-bearing mice were treated with 9.4 T SMFs for 88 h in total, the upward 9.4 T SMF significantly inhibited A549 tumor growth (tumor growth inhibition=41%), but not the downward 9.4 T SMF. In vitro cellular analysis shows that 9.4 T upward SMF treatment for 24 h not only inhibited A549 DNA synthesis, but also significantly increased ROS and P53 levels, and arrested G2 cell cycle. Moreover, the 9.4 T SMF-treatments for 88 h had no severe impairment to the key organs or blood cell count of the mice. Our findings demonstrated the safety of 9.4 T SMF long-term exposure for their future applications in MRI, and revealed the anti-cancer potential of the upward direction 9.4 T SMF. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 The present paper shows how incremental fluctuations of noise of measurements can be sold as an actual effect. Major result of the study is u201cthe upward 9.4 T SMF significantly inhibited A549 tumor growth (tumor growth inhibition = 41%), but not the downward 9.4 T SMF.u201d This result is supported by tumor shrinkage, Figure 2G. There is a concern with the data interpretation. Firstly, why sham treatments have so different data points distribution. Secondly, authors indeed have not two but rather four groups of comparison. That means using Studentu2019s t u2013test is invalid in those settings (Statistics for disinterested scientists. Life Sci, 1976. 18: p. 15). Even simple Bonferroni correction indicates that p value should be lower 0.01 for such multi-group comparison, making presented value u201c0.021u201d non-significant . Crucially, there is no positive control treatment to fully validate the result. Additionally, from Figure 2G it is clear that the tumor shrinkage is incremental, making size effect very small. Therefore, appropriate statistical power and sample size determination should be applied. With such small effect, it is definitely not 6 mice per group . ![file] Overall, the presented study does not adhere to minimal reporting standards for in vivo experiments, e.g. The ARRIVE guidelines PLOS Biol. 8 (2010) e1000412; http: doi.org 10.1371 journal.pbio.1000412, failing to provide even minimal relevant information. Figure 3D shows flow cytometry data with non-consistent gating. Can authors explain that? The presented data are not in line with reporting and gating standards for flow cytometry . The methodology fails to provide minimal reporting of flow cytometry methodology . ![file] Can authors explain surprising similarities between blots presented at Figures 3F and 4E? How many independent experiments were performed? ![file] Brightness and contrast enhancement provides surprisingly similar blots on Figure 4B and Figure 3F. Can authors explain similarities? ![file] Supplementary information does not contain any full blot for any antibody. Nowadays it is widely accepted that authors should provide full blots and comply with data integrity reporting (just few examples https: www.nature.com nature-portfolio editorial-policies reporting-standards and https: www.sciencedirect.com science article pii S0021925820394801?via%3Dihub). In context of all above discussed full blots are crucial for the integrity cross-check of the data. ,