Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies

Mansourian, Mahsa; Shanei, Ahmad

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6647497

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 6647497 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6647497

Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies

Mahsa Mansourian¹and Ahmad Shanei²

Academic Editor: Luis Loura

Received04 Oct 2020

Revised30 May 2021

Accepted27 Jun 2021

Published29 Jul 2021

Abstract

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is a type of physical stimulation that affects biological systems by producing interfering or coherent fields. Given that cell types are significantly distinct, which represents an important factor in stimulation, and that PEMFs can have different effects in terms of frequency and intensity, time of exposure, and waveform. This study is aimed at investigating if distinct positive and negative responses would correspond to specific characteristics of cells, frequency and flux density, time of exposure, and waveform. Necessary data were abstracted from the experimental observations of cell-based in vitro models. The observations were obtained from 92 publications between the years 1999 and 2019, which are available on PubMed and Web of Science databases. From each of the included studies, type of cells, pulse frequency of exposure, exposure flux density, and assayed cell responses were extracted. According to the obtained data, most of the experiments were carried out on human cells, and out of 2421 human cell experiments, cell changes were observed only in 51.05% of the data. In addition, the results pointed out the potential effects of PEMFs on some human cell types such as MG-63 human osteosarcoma cells ( value < 0.001) and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. However, human osteogenic sarcoma SaOS-2 () and human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs) showed less sensitivity to PEMFs. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that frequencies higher than 100 Hz, flux densities between 1 and 10 mT, and chronic exposure more than 10 days would be more effective in establishing a cellular response. This study successfully reported useful information about the role of cell type and signal characteristic parameters, which were of high importance for targeted therapies using PEMFs. Our findings would provide a deeper understanding about the effect of PEMFs in vitro, which could be useful as a reference for many in vivo experiments or preclinical trials.

1. Introduction

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are composed of magnetic and electric fields that influence each other [1]. There are many EMF subtypes with varying frequency rates, and they can cause either positive or detrimental biological effects. For medical purposes, they can be used in diagnostic modality and be considered as a potential therapeutic option as well. On the other hand, EMFs can penetrate tissues without experiencing intensity decrement [2], pass through the cell membrane, and affect cell responses. Consequently, cells may experience diverse pathophysiological disorders like cancer, thus, elevating one’s concern during the course of using EMFs for therapeutic purposes [3]. However, despite many findings, the carcinogenic role of EMF is still unclear.

Among subtypes of EMFs, low-frequency fields with specific amplitudes and waveforms are referred to as pulsed EMFs (PEMFs) [4]. Being a promising strategy and a type of the noninvasive and inexpensive physical approaches, PEMFs have exhibited therapeutic potential for treating various diseases [5]. It has already been shown that they can make changes to cell cycle, apoptosis, cell proliferation, and differentiation. Indeed, they are able to affect and alter the cell function by inducing forced vibration for free ions on the cell membrane surfaces due to an external oscillating field [6]. Irregular gating of ion channels triggered by this situation can certainly disturb the balance of transmembrane proteins and, consequently, disrupt cell function [7]. It has also been proposed that the effect of PEMFs may be propagated and amplified along the whole signal transduction pathway, thereby changing cell behavior [8]. In some studies, it has been reported that PEMFs can modulate both downstream signal transduction pathway and cell surface receptor expression/activation [8, 9]. As a result, homeostatic cell functions such as differentiation, viability, proliferation, interaction with components of extracellular matrix (ECM), and communication with neighboring cells could be restored [10]. In addition, PEMFs could enhance both the neurogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and osteogenic differentiation. Because EMFs easily permeate through cells [4] and change the electric field of the inner cell membrane, they can induce biological changes. In particular, they can induce changes in the Ca²⁺ efflux and, consequently, modulate various biological effects such as nitric oxide signaling, growth factor secretion, and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK)/Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase (ERK) [11]. It has been hypothesized that the production of second messengers is stimulated by the direct effect of PEMF on phospholipids within the plasma membrane, and subsequently, multiple intracellular signal transduction pathways are initiated [12].

There are many factors affecting the biological responses. To clarify PEMF impacts, studies have reported that signal characteristics play a crucial role in determining the type of biological responses including amplitude and frequency of exposure to the applied PEMF [13]. Indeed, to deliver a therapeutic PEMF, it is necessary to optimize these important parameters [6]. In addition, a large volume of evidence has revealed that some kinds of cells appear exquisitely sensitive to PEMF, while other types appear relatively unresponsive. For instance, undifferentiated PC12 cells are more sensitive to PEMF exposure, while differentiated PC12 cells are more resistant to stress [14]. Consequently, cell properties are of vital importance in establishing a biological response to PEMF in vitro.

Despite a relatively long history of using PEMFs in medicine, little is known about the biological mechanism of such therapies. To develop a reliable working principle of PEMF therapies, it is worth investigating the experimentally observed biological effects caused by these fields alone. Thus, in this study, a meta-analysis was performed using 3249 in vitro experimental observations available in 92 scientific journals (1999-2019) in order to determine the potential effects of PEMF on different cell types of both human and rat/mouse. Our analysis scrutinized the published experiments that had considered the effects of exposure to PEMFs (cytogenetic, gene, and protein expression analysis) on cell types from rats, mice, and humans to gain a more explicit and evidence-based conclusion on the association between PEMFs and cell responses.

2. Material and Methods

In Tables 1–15, the characteristics of experimental protocols and variables are presented. In this paper, cellular response (presence or absence) in human, mouse, or rat cells is defined as changes due to exposure to PEMFs. We analyzed the reported studies based on the different experimental readouts/endpoints which they used for their studies and the physiological variables they measured. These studies are shown in Figures 1–3, (human cells), Figure 4 (rat/mouse cells), and Figure 5 (other species), separately.

2.1. Collection of Raw Data

An electronic literature search of databases including Web of Sciences and PubMed was conducted for publications in English from 1999 up to 2019. The key terms introduced in the search engines included “pulsed electromagnetic fields” and “cell.” The process of selecting the papers was carried out by reading the titles and abstracts of the studies as well as the full article when necessary. Upon omitting duplicate titles, full-text versions of the selected papers were obtained.

We excluded those experiments that (1) targeted direct animal or human exposure followed by the analysis of individual cells and (2) applied the combination of PEMFs and other effective treatments, e.g., chemotherapy. After screening many research studies, 92 papers with different designs were eligible for meta-analysis.

For data analysis, the cell responses were classified as “presence” (PEMF exposure changed the cell response statistically significantly in comparison to the control group regardless of direction) and “absence” (no significant PEMF effect).

For each included study, the following data were extracted: type of cells, pulse frequency of exposure, exposure flux density, time of exposure, waveform, and assayed cell responses (cells, cell function, and DNA). Bibliographic details of the studies including the first author and year of publication were also retrieved.

2.2. Analysis of Raw Data

According to the above explanations, given that the frequency and intensity of the mentioned exposure differ across studies, achieving different biological responses would not be unexpected. In this respect, we pooled the retrieved experimental data based on used pulse frequencies and flux densities. Our analysis considered the effect of several subgroups of pulse frequency and flux density as follows: (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) , (f) , and (g) . Also, subgroups of exposure time and waveform were considered as follows: (H) , (I) , (J) , (K) , (L) square wave, (M) the bursts consisted of a series of consecutive, (N) triangle wave, and (O) other waveforms.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Microsoft Excel was used to organize the initial data and build a database. Meta-analysis combined the results obtained from separate studies with a similar outcome. The pooled results were obtained based on cell type, frequency, and intensity. A random-effect model was used to facilitate conducting the analysis, through which value was calculated as the indicator of heterogeneity. values greater than 50% could imply significant heterogeneity between the related studies. Also, the random-effect model could account for the above variation between studies, and thus, it achieved more conservative results than a fixed-effect model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effect of a particular study on the overall effect size. The presence of publication bias was tested using Begg’s and Egger’s regression asymmetry tests [9]. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 14.0. A value less than 0.05 was considered significant for all tests.

3. Results

A number of publications are analyzed in Figure 6, which provides an overview of the years of publication. Cellular response (presence or absence) was observed in human cells (2441 experiments in Figures 1–3), rat or mouse cells (854 experiments in Figure 4), and other species (11 experiments in Figure 5). The results indicated that most of the experiments were carried out on human cells, among which stem cells drew greater experimental attention. Of not, in case the analysis incorporated such parameters as exposure to PEMFs and individual cell types, the potential effects of PEMFs on cell types, such as bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) (based on 559 reported experiments, value < 0.001), would become clear. However, based on the reported evidence, no such effect was observed for human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs) and human osteogenic sarcoma SaOS-2 (). As a result, despite the higher susceptibility of cancer cells to PEMFS than that of other cell types, various cancer cells respond differently to PEMF stimulation.

We categorized different experimental techniques as follows: (a) cell structure (cell viability, cell morphology, apoptosis, cell proliferation, and cell differentiation), (b) cell functions (calcium concentration, signal transductions, enzyme activity, membrane potential, and membrane stability), and (c) DNA (gene expression, protein expression, ROS production, chromosome aberration, micronucleus assay, DNA damage, oxidative stress, DNA single-strand breaks, DNA double-strand breaks, and genotoxicity) in Figure 7. Our analysis of the reported results (Figure 8) suggests that most of the experiments used experimental techniques for DNA including gene expression, protein expression, and ROS production for assaying the effect of PEMFs on cells.

Figure 8

Classification of experimental techniques observed from 3306 experiments from 92 peer-reviewed scientific publications (1999-2019). Cells exposed to PEMFs in vitro experiments that reported results (cellular response (presence or absence)) for different exposure conditions (frequency and intensity). These experimental techniques are classified as (i) cells (cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell viability, cell morphology, and apoptosis), (ii) cell functions (enzyme activity, calcium concentration, signal transductions, membrane potential, and membrane stability), and (iii) DNA (chromosome aberration, micronucleus assay, DNA damage, oxidative stress, DNA single-strand breaks, DNA double-strand breaks, genotoxicity, gene expression, protein expression, and ROS production).

We also considered the effects of different pulse frequencies of PEMFs and intensity. To do so, we pooled experimental data based on the frequencies (Figure 9), intensity levels (Figure 10), time of exposure (Figure 11), and waveforms (Figure 12) used in each experiment of the 92 publications Among subgroups of frequencies, significant effects were observed at (). However, at frequencies smaller than or equal to 10 Hz, no statistically significant effects were observed. Among subgroups of intensities, the presence of response as a result of PEMFs was seen significantly in intensities between 1 and 10 mT () Analysis of different times of exposure in the studies indicated on effectiveness of PEMFs in days () and absence of cell response in ().

The cells exposed to PEMFs in in vitro experiments, which reported results (cellular response, either presence, or absence Table 1) under different exposure conditions, are shown as follows: (a) classification of experimental techniques in Figure 8, (b) frequency of PEMFs in Figure 13, (c) intensity levels in Figure 14, (d) time of exposure in Figure 15, and (e) waveform in Figure 16. It should be noted that our statistical test only reports the presence or absence of cellular responses in the literature, and it is not concerned with the increased or reduced effect of the mentioned responses.

4. Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analysis

The results of Egger’s and Begg’s test demonstrated no publication bias in the meta-analysis of cellular response (presence or absence) in human cells, rat or mouse cells, and other species according to different frequencies and intensity levels ( values for Begg’s test and Egger’s test for all categorizes were >0.05). To evaluate the effect of each single study on the pooled effect size, we removed each study, one by one. We found no significant effects of any individual study on the combined effect sizes in different meta-analysis presentation.

5. Discussion

This study scrutinized the related scientific literature for the association between PEMFs and cell responses in vitro. Realizing that there were distinctions between cell types in terms of apoptosis, rate of proliferation and age, and other characteristics and that PEMFs parameters can be characterized in terms of frequency, intensity, time of exposure, and waveform, we investigated if there were distinct properties of positive and negative findings associated with these characteristics. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the presence and absence of the cell response to PEMF stimulation in human cells, rat/mouse cells, and other species (Figure 17 for each row ()). However, several aspects of our results are notable, which are given below.

Our findings demonstrated that in in vitro studies, nearly 50% of human cells (Figure 17) would undergo changes due to PEMFs, whereas fewer number of cells in rats/mice (44.61%) and other species (18.18%) were influenced by PEMFs. Thus, a large number of experiments on cells in rats/mice and other species pointed out the absence of any effect caused by PEMFs. Among the studies conducted on human cells, most of them were performed on stem cells. According to the results, it seems that the type of stem cell plays as an effective factor in intracellular processes affected by PEMFs. Especially, in the field of bone tissue engineering in which mesenchymal stem cells are activated by EMF, this finding would be considerable.

Another significant finding of our study was among osteoblast-like cells, MG-63 human osteosarcoma cells seem to be very sensitive to PEMFs (86.1%). The studies have shown that these fields could alter activity through changes in local factor production [4]. However, in human osteogenic sarcoma SaOS-2, the absence of cell response to PEMFs alone was greater in degree than the presence of cell response (75%). PEMFs appeared to have little effect on the phenotype and number of SaOS-2 cells [7].

The potential effects of PEMFs on tendon cells showed that these fields (87.74%), focusing on the potential applicability of this cell source for regenerative medicine purpose, could be effective in the treatment of tendon disorders. In fact, these fields could influence the proliferation, release of anti-inflammatory cytokines, tendon-specific marker expression, and angiogenic factor in healthy human TCs culture models [15].

Analysis of the results of other related studies concerning the effect of PEMFs on the cells of blood cancers like leukemia and lymphoma in human (and on basophilic leukemia cells in rats/mice) showed that these cells were not affected to PEMFs. Thus, it seems that these fields alone are not an effective treatment for blood cancers. Further investigations are required to examine the responsiveness of different types of blood cancer cells to PEMFs. Evaluation of different experimental techniques used in the studies showed that most of the experiments were carried out on the expression of genes and proteins, because PEMFs could verifiably promote bone fracture healing and enhance the maturation of osteoblastic cells. Also, most of studies have examined the effect of osteogenic differentiation of these fields on mRNA level.

Another part of this study focused on evaluating the role of intensity and frequency of PEMFs in stimulating cellular responses in the subgroups. This research was subject to some constraints; first, some of the related experimental studies did not provide sufficient descriptions of exposure signal characteristics, especially in expressing waveform, which in turn made us unable to interpret the results fully. Nevertheless, analysis of frequencies of PEMFs used in the studies showed that different frequencies corresponded to different levels of cellular response. In the subgroups, frequencies higher than 100 Hz and intensities between 1 and 10 mT seemed to be more effective in establishing a cellular response. In addition, the analysis of times of exposure showed that in chronic exposure to PEMF more than 10 days may observe the effect of these fields (presence: 57.66%, absence: 42.34%; ), while acute exposure more than 24 h may cause to less effect (presence: 17.87%, absence: 82.13%, ).

It is worth noting that we may be able to find optimal parameters of PEMF in future studies in the effective ranges obtained from the present study to achieve the most effective response, depending on the desired effect.

Basically, in vitro studies use cells to investigate the interaction mechanisms better by breaking down the complexity of a whole organism into a controllable system. Indeed, each cell with a model system of its own could be suitable for a specific biological aspect. Therefore, although it cannot be expected that humans respond to PEMFs, studies of simple biological systems can advance our understanding about which systems in the body are more susceptible to PEMFs. Therefore, conducting an analysis similar to the present meta-analysis could be useful as a reference for many epidemiological studies or in vivo experiments using the whole organism animal models.

6. Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, no other meta-analysis has investigated the effects of PEMF on cell responses in vitro. The findings of this study provided us insight into that which cell types could be more responsive to PEMFs. Additionally, we determined the range of frequencies and intensities which PEMFs appeared more effective. Future research would need to explore the effects of other variables on cell response in vitro and to investigate the effectiveness of PEMFs in vivo.

Data Availability

Access to data is restricted due to ethical concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Prof. Marjan Mansourian, an expert in systematic review and meta-analysis, for insightful biostatistical comments.

References

A. Maziarz, B. Kocan, M. Bester et al., “How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 54, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Markov, “Dosimetry of magnetic fields in the radiofrequency range,” in Radio Frequency Radiation Dosimetry, B. J. Klauenberg and D. Miklavcic, Eds., Kluwer Academic Press, New York, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Akbarnejad, H. Eskandary, C. Vergallo et al., “Effects of extremely low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (ELF-PEMFs) on glioblastoma cells (U87),” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 238–247, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Lohmann, Z. Schwartz, Y. Liu et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation of MG63 osteoblast-like cells affects differentiation and local factor production,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 637–646, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Yao, Z. Li, L. Cheng, L. Zhang, X. Zha, and J. Jing, “Low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field promotes differentiation of oligodendrocyte precursor cells through upregulation of miR-219-5p in vitro,” Life sciences., vol. 223, pp. 185–193, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Ganesan, A. C. Gengadharan, C. Balachandran, B. M. Manohar, and R. Puvanakrishnan, “Low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field—a viable alternative therapy for arthritis,” Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 939–948, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
C. F. Martino, D. Belchenko, V. Ferguson, S. Nielsen-Preiss, and H. J. Qi, “The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 125–132, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Delle Monache, A. Angelucci, P. Sanità et al., “Inhibition of angiogenesis mediated by extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MFs),” PLoS One., vol. 8, no. 11, article e79309, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Furuya-Kanamori, C. Xu, L. Lin et al., “_P_ value -driven methods were underpowered to detect publication bias: analysis of Cochrane review meta-analyses,” Journal of clinical epidemiology., vol. 118, pp. 86–92, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. L. Ross, D. C. Ang, and G. Almeida-Porada, “Targeting mesenchymal stromal cells/pericytes (MSCs) with pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) has the potential to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” Frontiers in immunology., vol. 10, p. 266, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Lim, H. Seonwoo, K. S. Choi et al., “Pulsed-electromagnetic-field-assisted reduced graphene oxide substrates for multidifferentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells,” Advanced Healthcare Materials., vol. 5, no. 16, pp. 2069–2079, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Semenov, S. Xiao, and A. G. Pakhomov, “Primary pathways of intracellular Ca^{2 +} mobilization by nanosecond pulsed electric field,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Biomembranes, vol. 1828, no. 3, pp. 981–989, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hinrikus, J. Karpowicz, and J. Naarala, Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine, Taylor & Francis, 2018.
M. Vadalà, J. C. Morales-Medina, A. Vallelunga, B. Palmieri, C. Laurino, and T. Iannitti, “Mechanisms and therapeutic effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in oncology,” Cancer medicine., vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 3128–3139, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. De Girolamo, D. Stanco, E. Galliera et al., “Low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field affects proliferation, tissue-specific gene expression, and cytokines release of human tendon cells,” Cell biochemistry and biophysics., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 697–708, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Daish, R. Blanchard, S. Duchi et al., “Design, fabrication and validation of a precursor pulsed electromagnetic field device for bone fracture repair,” in 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Yin, P. Chen, Q. Yu, Y. Peng, Z. Zhu, and J. Tian, “The effects of a pulsed electromagnetic field on the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells,” Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, vol. 24, pp. 3274–3282, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Poh, C. Seeliger, M. Unger, K. Falldorf, E. R. Balmayor, and M. van Griensven, “Osteogenic effect and cell signaling activation of extremely low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields in adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells,” Stem cells international., vol. 2018, article 5402853, pp. 1–11, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ceccarelli, N. Bloise, M. Mantelli et al., “A comparative analysis of the in vitro effects of pulsed electromagnetic field treatment on osteogenic differentiation of two different mesenchymal cell lineages,” Bio Research open access., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 283–294, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Bagheri, A. Pellati, P. Rizzo et al., “Notch pathway is active during osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells induced by pulsed electromagnetic fields,” Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 304–315, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Parate, A. Franco-Obregón, J. Fröhlich et al., “Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields,” Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 9421, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. T. Tsai, W. J. Li, R. S. Tuan, and W. H. Chang, “Modulation of osteogenesis in human mesenchymal stem cells by specific pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation,” Journal of orthopaedic research, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1169–1174, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Walther, F. Mayer, W. Kafka, and N. Schütze, “Effects of weak, low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (BEMER type) on gene expression of human mesenchymal stem cells and chondrocytes: an in vitro study,” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 179–190, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Esposito, A. Lucariello, I. Riccio, V. Riccio, V. Esposito, and G. Riccardi, “Differentiation of human osteoprogenitor cells increases after treatment with pulsed electromagnetic fields,” In vivo, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 299–304, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Selvamurugan, Z. He, D. Rifkin, B. Dabovic, and N. C. Partridge, “Pulsed electromagnetic field regulates micro RNA 21 expression to activate TGF-β signaling in human bone marrow stromal cells to enhance osteoblast differentiation,” Stem cells international, vol. 2017, Article ID 2450327, 17 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. K. Choi, E. Urnukhsaikhan, H. H. Yoon et al., “Combined effect of pulsed electromagnetic field and sound wave on in vitro and in vivo neural differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells,” Biotechnology progress., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 201–211, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Griffin, S. A. Iqbal, A. Sebastian, J. Colthurst, and A. Bayat, “Degenerate wave and capacitive coupling increase human MSC invasion and proliferation while reducing cytotoxicity in an in vitro wound healing model,” PLoS One., vol. 6, no. 8, article e23404, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Jansen, O. P. van der Jagt, B. J. Punt et al., “Stimulation of osteogenic differentiation in human osteoprogenitor cells by pulsed electromagnetic fields: an in vitro study,” BMC musculoskeletal disorders., vol. 11, no. 1, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Y. Sun, D. K. Hsieh, P. C. Lin, H. T. Chiu, and T. W. Chiou, “Pulsed electromagnetic fields accelerate proliferation and osteogenic gene expression in human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells during osteogenic differentiation,” Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 209–219, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Y. Sun, D. K. Hsieh, T. C. Yu et al., “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on the proliferation and differentiation potential of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 251–260, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-C. Fu, C.-C. Lin, J.-K. Chang et al., “A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair,” PLoS One., vol. 9, no. 3, article e91581, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Wang, P. Wang, Z. Cao et al., “Effects of BMP9 and pulsed electromagnetic fields on the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of human periodontal ligament stem cells,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63–77, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Randelli, A. Menon, V. Ragone et al., “Effects of the pulsed electromagnetic field PST® on human tendon stem cells: a controlled laboratory study,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine., vol. 16, no. 1, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. H. Hei, S. Kim, J. C. Park et al., “Schwann-like cells differentiated from human dental pulp stem cells combined with a pulsed electromagnetic field can improve peripheral nerve regeneration,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 163–174, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Wang, W. Wu, X. Han et al., “Osteogenic differentiation of amniotic epithelial cells: synergism of pulsed electromagnetic field and biochemical stimuli,” BMC musculoskeletal disorders., vol. 15, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Esposito, A. Lucariello, C. Costanzo et al., “Differentiation of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells, WJ-MSCs, into chondrogenic cells in the presence of pulsed electromagnetic fields,” in vivo, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 495–500, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Luo, T. Hou, Z. Zhang, Z. Xie, X. Wu, and J. Xu, “Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field frequencies on the osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells,” Orthopedics., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. e526–e531, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kaszuba-Zwoińska, B. Nowak, P. Guzdek, and K. Gil, “Cell viability changes in cultured H4 glioma cells upon low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field (7Hz, 30mT) exposure in flow cytometry analysis,” in 2018 EMF-Med 1st World Conference on Biomedical Applications of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF-Med), Split, Croatia, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Pasi, L. Fassina, M. E. Mognaschi et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic field with temozolomide can elicit an epigenetic pro-apoptotic effect on glioblastoma T98G cells,” Anticancer research., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 5821–5826, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Pessina, C. Aldinucci, M. Palmi et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic fields affect the intracellular calcium concentrations in human astrocytoma cells,” Bio electro magnetics, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 503–510, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Aldinucci, M. Palmi, G. Sgaragli et al., “The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the physiologic behaviour of a human astrocytoma cell line,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1499, no. 1-2, pp. 101–108, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Osera, M. Amadio, S. Falone et al., “Pre-exposure of neuroblastoma cell line to pulsed electromagnetic field prevents H2O2-induced ROS production by increasing MnSOD activity,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 219–232, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Z. Alcantara, I. J. S. Soliman, R. F. Pobre, and R. N. Naguib, “Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on breast cancer cell line MCF 7 using absorption spectroscopy,” Anticancer research., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 3453–3459, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-W. Cho, S.-N. Kim, K. K. Kim, K. Kim, and K.-J. Kim, “Pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulate cellular proliferation in different types of cells,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1–4, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Crocetti, C. Beyer, G. Schade, M. Egli, J. Fröhlich, and A. Franco-Obregón, “Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 9, p. e72944, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Wójcik-Piotrowicz, J. Kaszuba-Zwoinska, E. Rokita, B. Nowak, and P. Thor, “Changes in U937 cell viability induced by stress factors—possible role of calmodulin,” Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, vol. 68, pp. 629–636, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Sontag and D. Kalka, “No effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on PC12 and HL-60 cells,” Radiation and environmental biophysics., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Loja, O. Stehlikova, L. Palko, K. Vrba, I. Rampl, and M. Klabusay, “Influence of pulsed electromagnetic and pulsed vector magnetic potential field on the growth of tumor cells,” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 190–197, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sadeghipour, S. Ahmadian, B. Bolouri, Y. Pazhang, and M. Shafiezadeh, “Effects of extremely low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields on morphological and biochemical properties of human breast carcinoma cells (T47D),” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 425–435, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Kaivosoja, V. Sariola, Y. Chen, and Y. T. Konttinen, “The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields and dehydroepiandrosterone on viability and osteo-induction of human mesenchymal stem cells,” Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Borsje, Y. Ren, H. W. de Haan-Visser, and R. Kuijer, “Comparison of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field treatments on OPG and RANKL expression in human osteoblast-like cells,” The Angle Orthodontist., vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 498–503, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Hannay, D. Leavesley, and M. Pearcy, “Timing of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation does not affect the promotion of bone cell development,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 670–676, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Sollazzo, A. Palmieri, F. Pezzetti, L. Massari, and F. Carinci, “Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on human osteoblastlike cells (MG-63): a pilot study,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 468, no. 8, pp. 2260–2277, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Mattei, N. Gagliano, C. Moscheni et al., “Changes in polyamines, c-myc and c-fos gene expression in osteoblast-like cells exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 207–214, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. De Mattei, A. Caruso, G. C. Traina, F. Pezzetti, T. Baroni, and V. Sollazzo, “Correlation between pulsed electromagnetic fields exposure time and cell proliferation increase in human osteosarcoma cell lines and human normal osteoblast cells in vitro,” Bio electro magnetics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 177–182, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Oladnabi, A. Bagheri, M. Rezaei Kanavi, A. Azadmehr, and A. Kianmehr, “Extremely low frequency-pulsed electromagnetic fields affect proangiogenic-related gene expression in retinal pigment epithelial cells,” Iranian journal of basic medical sciences., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 128–133, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Capelli, F. Torrisi, L. Venturini et al., “Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field is able to modulate miRNAs in an experimental cell model of Alzheimer’s disease,” Journal of healthcare engineering., vol. 2017, article 2530270, pp. 1–10, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kaszuba-Zwoińska, E. Zdziłowska, P. Chorobik et al., “Pulsing electromagnetic field and death of proliferating peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with acute myelogenic leukemia,” Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 721–727, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Cheng, Z. Qu, X. Fu, Q. Jiang, and J. Fei, “Hydroxytyrosol contributes to cell proliferation and inhibits apoptosis in pulsed electromagnetic fields treated human umbilical vein endothelial cells in vitro,” Molecular medicine reports., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 8826–8832, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Kubat, J. Moffett, and L. M. Fray, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field treatment on programmed resolution of inflammation pathway markers in human cells in culture,” Journal of inflammation research., vol. 8, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
L. de Girolamo, M. Viganò, E. Galliera et al., “In vitro functional response of human tendon cells to different dosages of low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 3443–3453, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Miller, D. G. Coughlin, E. I. Waldorff, J. T. Ryaby, and J. C. Lotz, “Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment reduces expression of genes associated with disc degeneration in human intervertebral disc cells,” The Spine Journal., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 770–776, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Okada, J. H. Kim, W. C. Hutton, and S. T. Yoon, “Upregulation of intervertebral disc-cell matrix synthesis by pulsed electromagnetic field is mediated by bone morphogenetic proteins,” Clinical Spine Surgery., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 167–173, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Okada, J. H. Kim, S. T. Yoon, and W. C. Hutton, “Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) plus BMP-2 upregulates intervertebral disc-cell matrix synthesis more than either BMP-2 alone or PEMF alone,” Clinical Spine Surgery., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. E221–E2E6, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Guerkov, C. Lohmann, Y. Liu et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic fields increase growth factor release by nonunion cells,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 384, pp. 265–279, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Stolfa, M. Skorvanek, P. Stolfa, J. Rosocha, G. Vasko, and J. Sabo, “Effects of static magnetic field and pulsed electromagnetic field on viability of human chondrocytes in vitro,” Physiological research., vol. 56, no. 1, p. S45, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Shah, P. Midkiff, P. Brandt, and B. Sisken, “Growth and differentiation of PC6 cells: the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF),” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 267–271, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lekhraj, D. E. Cynamon, S. E. DeLuca, E. S. Taub, A. A. Pilla, and D. Casper, “Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate neurite outgrowth in the dopaminergic MN9D cell line,” Journal of neuroscience research., vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 761–771, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Baranowska, B. Skowron, B. Nowak et al., “Changes in viability of rat adipose-derived stem cells isolated from abdominal/perinuclear adipose tissue stimulated with pulsed electromagnetic field,” J Physiol Pharmacol., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 253–264, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Gehwolf, B. Schwemberger, M. Jessen et al., “Global responses of Il-1β-primed 3D tendon constructs to treatment with pulsed electromagnetic fields,” Cells., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 399, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wu, Q. Yu, A. Lai, and J. Tian, “Pulsed electromagnetic field induces Ca²⁺-dependent osteoblastogenesis in C3H10T1/2 mesenchymal cells through the Wnt- Ca²⁺/Wnt-β-catenin signaling pathway,” Biochemical and biophysical research communications., vol. 503, no. 2, pp. 715–721, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Teven, M. Greives, R. B. Natale et al., “Differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells is induced by high-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields,” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 586–593, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Seo, S.-H. Lee, K. W. Ju et al., “Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field pretreated bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells promote the regeneration of crush-injured rat mental nerve,” Neural regeneration research., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 145–153, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Lu, Y. Huang, C. Zhang, M. Chai, and J. Zhang, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on the osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells,” Genet Mol Res., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 11535–11542, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, N. Tang, Q. Xiao et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic field may accelerate in vitro endochondral ossification,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Li, M. Zhang, L. Bai, W. Bai, W. Xu, and H. Zhu, “Effects of 50 Hz pulsed electromagnetic fields on the growth and cell cycle arrest of mesenchymal stem cells: an in vitro study,” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 356–364, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Meng, T. Xu, F. Guo, W. Yin, and T. Peng, “The effects of high-intensity pulsed electromagnetic field on proliferation and differentiation of neural stem cells of neonatal rats in vitro,” Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, vol. 29, no. 6, p. 732, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Pi, H. Liang, Q. Yu et al., “Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field inhibits RANKL-induced osteoclastic differentiation in RAW264. 7 cells by scavenging reactive oxygen species,” Molecular medicine reports., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 4129–4136, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Yang et al., “Differential intensity-dependent effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on RANKL-induced osteoclast formation, apoptosis, and bone resorbing ability in RAW264. 7 cells,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 602–612, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. L. Ross and B. S. Harrison, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on inflammatory pathway markers in RAW 264.7 murine macrophages,” Journal of inflammation research, vol. 45, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T.-a. Kudo, H. Kanetaka, Y. Shimizu et al., “Induction of neuritogenesis in PC12 cells by a pulsed electromagnetic field via MEK-ERK1/2 signaling,” Cell structure and function, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Vincenzi, M. Targa, C. Corciulo et al., “The anti-tumor effect of A 3 adenosine receptors is potentiated by pulsed electromagnetic fields in cultured neural cancer cells,” PLoS One., vol. 7, no. 6, article e39317, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Solek, L. Majchrowicz, D. Bloniarz, E. Krotoszynska, and M. Koziorowski, “Pulsed or continuous electromagnetic field induce p53/p21-mediated apoptotic signaling pathway in mouse spermatogenic cells _in vitro_ and thus may affect male fertility,” Toxicology., vol. 382, pp. 84–92, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zou, Y. Chen, J. Qian, and H. Yang, “Effect of a low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field on expression and secretion of IL-1β and TNF-α in nucleus pulposus cells,” Journal of International Medical Research., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 462–470, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Muramatsu, T. Matsui, M. Deie, and K. Sato, “Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation promotes anti-cell proliferative activity in doxorubicin-treated mouse osteosarcoma cells,” In vivo, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 61–68, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Emes, K. Akça, B. Aybar et al., “Low-level laser therapy vs. pulsed electromagnetic field on neonatal rat calvarial osteoblast-like cells,” Lasers in medical science., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 901–909, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wei, H. Xiaolin, and S. Tao, “Effects of extremely low-frequency-pulsed electromagnetic field on different-derived osteoblast-like cells,” Electromagnetic biology and medicine., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 298–311, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Selvamurugan, S. Kwok, A. Vasilov, S. C. Jefcoat, and N. C. Partridge, “Effects of BMP-2 and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on rat primary osteoblastic cell proliferation and gene expression,” Journal of orthopaedic research., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1213–1220, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schnoke and R. J. Midura, “Pulsed electromagnetic fields rapidly modulate intracellular signaling events in osteoblastic cells: comparison to parathyroid hormone and insulin,” Journal of orthopaedic research., vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 933–940, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
W. H. S. Chang, L. T. Chen, J. S. Sun, and F. H. Lin, “Effect of pulse-burst electromagnetic field stimulation on osteoblast cell activities,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 457–465, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Miyamoto, Y. Sawaji, T. Iwaki et al., “Intermittent pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation activates the mTOR pathway and stimulates the proliferation of osteoblast-like cells,” Bioelectromagnetics., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 412–421, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Suryani, J. H. Too, A. M. Hassanbhai et al., “Effects of electromagnetic field on proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization of MC3T3 cells,” Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 114–125, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Li, Y. Hui, S. Ma et al., “Inhibition of bone formation by high intensity pulsed electromagnetic field in MC3T3-E1 cells,” Progress in electromagnetics research., vol. 112, pp. 139–153, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Diniz, K. Shomura, K. Soejima, and G. Ito, “Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation on bone tissue like formation are dependent on the maturation stages of the osteoblasts,” Bio electro magnetics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 398–405, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. E. Patterson, Y. Sakai, M. D. Grabiner et al., “Exposure of murine cells to pulsed electromagnetic fields rapidly activates the mTOR signaling pathway,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 535–544, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Xu, J. Zhang, Y. Lei et al., “Low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field promotes C2C12 myoblasts proliferation via activation of MAPK/ERK pathway,” Biochemical and biophysical research communications., vol. 479, no. 1, pp. 97–102, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Choi, S. Shin, S. Kim et al., “In vitrostimulation with a strongly pulsed electromagnetic field on rat basophilic leukemia cells,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 107, no. 9, p. 09B306, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chen, H.-C. He, Q.-J. Xia, L.-Q. Huang, Y.-J. Hu, and C. Q. He, “Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the mRNA expression of RANK and CAII in ovariectomized rat osteoclast-like cell,” Connective tissue research., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Tang, D. Coughlin, A. Ballatori et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic fields reduce interleukin-6 expression in intervertebral disc cells via nuclear factor-κβ and mitogen-activated protein kinase p 38 pathways,” Spine., vol. 44, no. 22, pp. E1290–E1297, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kavand, N. Haghighipour, B. Zeynali, E. Seyedjafari, and B. Abdemami, “Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field in mesenchymal stem cells gene regulation: chondrogenic markers evaluation,” Artificial Organs., vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 929–937, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Lohmann, Z. Schwartz, Y. Liu et al., “Pulsed electromagnetic fields affect phenotype and connexin 43 protein expression in MLO-Y4 osteocyte-like cells and ROS 17/2.8 osteoblast-like cells,” Journal of orthopaedic research., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 326–334, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Mahsa Mansourian and Ahmad Shanei. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2440

Downloads

1497

Citations