Database Query Results : Magnetic Fields, , TumCI

MF, Magnetic Fields: Click to Expand ⟱
Features: Therapy
Magnetic Fields can be Static, or pulsed. The most common therapy is a pulsed magnetic field in the uT or mT range.
The main pathways affected are:
Calcium Signaling: -influence the activity of voltage-gated calcium channels.
Oxidative Stress and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Pathways
Heat Shock Proteins (HSPs) and Cellular Stress Responses
Cell Proliferation and Growth Signaling: MAPK/ERK pathway.
Gene Expression and Epigenetic Modifications: NF-κB
Angiogenesis Pathways: VEGF (improving VEGF for normal cells)
PEMF was found to have a 2-fold increase in drug uptake compared to traditional electrochemotherapy in rat melanoma models

Pathways:
- most reports have ROS production increasing in cancer cells , while decreasing in normal cells.
- ROS↑ related: MMP↓(ΔΨm), ER Stress↑, UPR↑, GRP78↑, Ca+2↑, Cyt‑c↑, Caspases↑, DNA damage↑, cl-PARP↑, HSP↓, Prx,
- Raises AntiOxidant defense in Normal Cells: ROS↓, NRF2↑, SOD↑, GSH↑, Catalase↑,
- lowers Inflammation : NF-kB↓, COX2↓, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines : NLRP3↓, IL-1β↓, TNF-α↓, IL-6↓, IL-8↓
- inhibit Growth/Metastases : TumMeta↓, TumCG↓, VEGF↓(mostly regulated up in normal cells),
- cause Cell cycle arrest : TumCCA↑,
- inhibits Migration/Invasion : TumCMig↓, TumCI↓, TNF-α↓,
- inhibits glycolysis /Warburg Effect and ATP depletion : HIF-1α↓, PKM2↓, GLUT1↓, LDH↓, HK2↓, PFKs↓, PDKs↓, ECAR↓, OXPHOS↓, GRP78↑, Glucose↓, GlucoseCon↓
- inhibits angiogenesis↓ : VEGF↓, HIF-1α↓, Notch↓, FGF↓, PDGF↓, EGFR↓, Integrins↓,
- Others: PI3K↓, AKT↓, STAT↓, Wnt↓, β-catenin↓, ERK↓, JNK, - SREBP (related to cholesterol).
- Synergies: chemo-sensitization, chemoProtective, cytoProtective, RadioSensitizer, RadioProtective, Others(review target notes), Neuroprotective, Hepatoprotective, CardioProtective,

- Selectivity: Cancer Cells vs Normal Cells

Non-Static Magnetic Fields (AC / Pulsed / Oscillating MF)
Rank Pathway / Axis Cancer Cells Normal Cells TSF Primary Effect Notes / Interpretation
1 Reactive oxygen species (ROS) ↑ ROS (P→R); often sustained (G) ↑ ROS (P); ↔/↓ net ROS (R→G) P, R, G Upstream redox perturbation MF perturbs electron/radical dynamics: normal cells often adapt (ROS setpoint ↓), cancer cells less so
2 NRF2 antioxidant response ↔ / insufficient NRF2 induction (R→G) ↑ NRF2 activation (R→G) R, G Adaptive redox defense Explains mixed ROS direction in normal cells (initial ↑ then adaptive ↓)
3 Glutathione (GSH) homeostasis ↓ GSH (R→G) ↔ or transient ↓ (R) with recovery (G) R, G Redox buffering capacity GSH depletion reflects sustained oxidative load; recovery indicates successful adaptation
4 Superoxide dismutase (SOD) / antioxidant enzymes ↔ or inadequate enzyme upshift (G) ↑ SOD/GPx/CAT capacity (G) G Longer-term antioxidant remodeling Often the “endpoint” readout that correlates with ROS-normalization in normal tissue
5 Mitochondrial ETC / respiration ↓ ETC efficiency; ↑ electron leak (P→R) ↔ mild, reversible ETC perturbation (P→R) P, R Bioenergetic destabilization ETC perturbation is a mechanistic bridge between MF exposure and ROS/ΔΨm changes
6 Mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm / MMP) ↓ ΔΨm (R); may progress (G) ↔ preserved or reversible dip (R) R, G Mitochondrial dysfunction thresholding ΔΨm loss typically follows ROS/ETC disruption rather than preceding it
7 Ca²⁺ signaling (VGCC / ER–mitochondria Ca²⁺ flux) ↑ dysregulated Ca²⁺ influx/transfer (P→R); overload may persist (G) ↑ transient Ca²⁺ signaling (P); homeostasis restored (R→G) P, R, G Stress signal amplification Ca²⁺ dysregulation links ROS/ETC perturbation to ER stress and mitochondrial dysfunction (amplifies ΔΨm loss and UPR commitment)
8 Mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP) ↑ MPTP opening propensity (R); sustained opening possible (G) ↔ transient or closed (R→G) P, R, G Commitment point for mitochondrial failure MPTP opening integrates ROS, Ca²⁺ overload, and ΔΨm loss; acts as a threshold event converting reversible stress into irreversible mitochondrial dysfunction
9 ER stress / UPR ↑ ER stress (R); CHOP-commitment possible (G) ↑ adaptive UPR (R); resolves (G) R, G Proteostasis stress Often downstream of ROS + Ca²⁺ handling perturbations
10 DNA damage (oxidative) ↑ damage markers (R→G) ↔ or repaired (G) R, G Checkpoint pressure Generally secondary to ROS; interpret as stress consequence not “direct genotoxicity”
11 LDH / glycolytic flux ↓ glycolytic performance (R→G) ↔ flexible substrate switching (R→G) R, G Metabolic vulnerability Redox imbalance can destabilize high-rate glycolysis in cancer-biased contexts
12 Thioredoxin system (Trx / TrxR) ↓ functional reserve / overload (R→G) ↔ preserved capacity (G) R, G Parallel antioxidant system stress Useful when GSH-only does not explain redox phenotype 
Time-Scale Flag: TSF = P / R / G
  P: 0–30 min (physical / electron / radical effects)
  R: 30 min–3 hr (redox signaling & stress response)
  G: >3 hr (gene-regulatory adaptation)
MPTP: opening represents a mitochondrial commitment event integrating ROS and Ca²⁺ stress; sustained opening indicates irreversible bioenergetic failure.
TumCI, Tumor Cell invasion: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
Tumor cell invasion is a critical process in cancer progression and metastasis, where cancer cells spread from the primary tumor to surrounding tissues and distant organs. This process involves several key steps and mechanisms:

1.Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT): Many tumors originate from epithelial cells, which are typically organized in layers. During EMT, these cells lose their epithelial characteristics (such as cell-cell adhesion) and gain mesenchymal traits (such as increased motility). This transition is crucial for invasion.

2.Degradation of Extracellular Matrix (ECM): Tumor cells secrete enzymes, such as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), that degrade the ECM, allowing cancer cells to invade surrounding tissues. This degradation facilitates the movement of cancer cells through the tissue.

3.Cell Migration: Once the ECM is degraded, cancer cells can migrate. They often use various mechanisms, including amoeboid movement and mesenchymal migration, to move through the tissue. This migration is influenced by various signaling pathways and the tumor microenvironment.

4.Angiogenesis: As tumors grow, they require a blood supply to provide nutrients and oxygen. Tumor cells can stimulate the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) through the release of growth factors like vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). This not only supports tumor growth but also provides a route for cancer cells to enter the bloodstream.

5.Invasion into Blood Vessels (Intravasation): Cancer cells can invade nearby blood vessels, allowing them to enter the circulatory system. This step is crucial for metastasis, as it enables cancer cells to travel to distant sites in the body.

6.Survival in Circulation: Once in the bloodstream, cancer cells must survive the immune response and the shear stress of blood flow. They can form clusters with platelets or other cells to evade detection.

7.Extravasation and Colonization: After traveling through the bloodstream, cancer cells can exit the circulation (extravasation) and invade new tissues. They may then establish secondary tumors (metastases) in distant organs.

8.Tumor Microenvironment: The surrounding microenvironment plays a significant role in tumor invasion. Factors such as immune cells, fibroblasts, and signaling molecules can either promote or inhibit invasion and metastasis.
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
3470- MF,    Pulsed electromagnetic fields inhibit IL-37 to alleviate CD8+ T cell dysfunction and suppress cervical cancer progression
- in-vitro, Cerv, HeLa
TNF-α↑, PEMF treatment significantly inhibited IL-37 expression (p < 0.05), promoted inflammatory factor release (TNF-α and IL-6), and activated oxidative stress, leading to increased CC cell apoptosis
IL6↑,
ROS↑,
Apoptosis↑,
TumCP↓, Co-culture of Hela cells with CD8+ T cells under PEMF treatment showed reduced proliferation (by 40%), migration, and invasion (p < 0.05).
TumCMig↓,
TumCI↓,

5247- MF,    Anticancer Activity by Magnetic Fields: Inhibition of Metastatic Spread and Growth in a Breast Cancer Model
- in-vivo, BC, MDA-MB-468
TumCI↓, significant inhibition on spread and growth of intermediate (10–100 cells) and large ( 100 cells) lung metastases compared with the MF sham-treatment.

4354- MF,  doxoR,    Modulated TRPC1 Expression Predicts Sensitivity of Breast Cancer to Doxorubicin and Magnetic Field Therapy: Segue Towards a Precision Medicine Approach
- in-vivo, BC, MDA-MB-231 - in-vivo, BC, MCF-7
selectivity↑, PEMF exposure alone impaired the survival of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells, but not that of non-malignant MCF10A breast cells; the selective vulnerability of breast cancer cells to PEMF exposure was corroborated in human tumor biopsy samples
Apoptosis↑,
TumCI↓, PEMF exposure was shown to attenuate the invasiveness of MCF-7 cells in correlation with TRPC1 expression
tumCV↓, PEMF exposure was previously shown to impair the viability of MCF-7 breast cancer cells when administered at an amplitude of 3 mT for 1 h per day
TumVol↓, PEMF treatment alone significantly reduced tumor volume by ~-20%
eff↓, Notably, stronger PEMF exposures (5 mT) were ineffective at killing MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells
eff↑, PEMF and DOX treatments hence synergize in vitro to slow breast cancer cell growth.
ROS↑, figure 4. PEMF exposure stimulates ROS production in cancer (29, 30) and non-cancer (5, 31, 32) cells.
Ca+2↑, PEMF exposure (blue) consistently increased cytoplasmic calcium over baseline (red) and was further augmented with increasing DOX concentration
TumCMig↓, PEMF Exposure Slows the Migration and Decreases the Invasiveness of TRPC1-Overexpressing Breast Cancer Cells

3500- MF,    Moderate Static Magnet Fields Suppress Ovarian Cancer Metastasis via ROS-Mediated Oxidative Stress
- in-vitro, Ovarian, SKOV3
ROS↑, SMFs increased the oxidative stress level and reduced the stemness of ovarian cancer cells.
CSCs↓,
CD44↓, xpressions of stemness-related genes were significantly decreased, including hyaluronan receptor (CD44), SRY-box transcription factor 2 (Sox2), and cell myc proto-oncogene protein (C-myc).
SOX2↓,
cMyc↓,
TumMeta↓, High Levels of Cellular ROS Inhibit Ovarian Cancer Cell Migration and Invasion
TumCI↓,
TumCMig↓, Moderate SMFs Increase Ovarian Cancer Cell ROS Levels and Inhibit Cell Migration
CD133↓, stemness-related genes were significantly downregulated by SMF treatment, including Sox2, Nanog, C-myc, CD44, and CD133
Nanog↓,

3478- MF,    One Month of Brief Weekly Magnetic Field Therapy Enhances the Anticancer Potential of Female Human Sera: Randomized Double-Blind Pilot Study
- Trial, BC, NA - in-vitro, BC, MCF-7 - in-vitro, Nor, C2C12
TumCP↓, Female sera from the magnetic therapy group (n = 12) reduced breast cancer cell proliferation (16.1%), migration (11.8%) and invasion (28.2%) and reduced the levels of key EMT markers relative to the control sera
TumCMig↓,
TumCI↓,
*toxicity∅, The provision of week 5 or week 8 PEMF sera to MCF10A cells did not alter their viability, being comparable to that observed with the control sera (
TGF-β↓, The week 8 PEMF sera resulted in the significant downregulation of (A) TGFβR2, (B) TWIST, (C) SNAI1, (D) SNAI2 (Slug), (E) β-catenin and (F) Vimentin protein expressions, when compared to week 8 control sera
Twist↓,
Slug↓,
β-catenin/ZEB1↓,
Vim↓,
p‑SMAD2↓, Week 5 PEMF sera primarily reduced the phosphorylation of SMAD 2/3 as well as the expression of TWIST protein expression.
p‑SMAD3↓,
angioG↓, Week 8 PEMF-plasma showed significant reductions in angiogenic biomarkers, including Angiopoietin-2, BMP-9, Endoglin, PLGF, VEGF-A, and VEGF-D
VEGF↓,
selectivity↑, PEMF sera did not adversely alter the growth of non-malignant cells such as MCF10A (breast epithelial) and C2C12 (myogenic).
LIF↑, Similarly, LIF (leukemia inhibitory factor) was upregulated one week after the final PEMF treatment.

205- MFrot,  MF,    Intermittent F-actin Perturbations by Magnetic Fields Inhibit Breast Cancer Metastasis
- vitro+vivo, BC, MDA-MB-231
OS↑, 31-46% prolonged survival
F-actin↓, decrease F-actin formation in vitro and in vivo
TumCI↓,
TumCMig↓, >4.5hrs
Rho↓,
selectivity↑, F-actin in noncancerous breast cells is much less sensitive than that in breast cancer cells, which indicate that the normal cells in our human bodies are less likely to be agitated by these magnetic fields.
TumMeta↓, Using an intermittent treatment modality, low-frequency rotating magnetic fields could significantly reduce mouse breast cancer metastasis, prolong mouse survival by 31.5 to 46.0% (P < 0.0001), and improve their overall physical condition.

516- MFrot,  immuno,  MF,    Anti-tumor effect of innovative tumor treatment device OM-100 through enhancing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in glioblastoma growth
- vitro+vivo, GBM, U87MG
TumCP↓,
Apoptosis↑,
TumCMig↓,
ROS↑, treatment with OM-100 led to an increase in intracellular ROS levels
PD-L1↑, upregulating PD-L1 expression, thereby enhancing the efficacy of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy
TumVol↓, in mice
eff↑, enhance the efficacy of anti‑PD‑1 immunotherapy in vivo
*toxicity∅, OM-100 did not result in noteworthy changes in the blood routine parameters (Gran, HCT, HGB, Lymph, MCH, MCV, PLT, RBC, MPV, and WBC) and biochemical indicators (ALT, AST, T-BIL, CREA, TG, TC, HDL-c, and LDL-c) in normal mice
eff↑, Particularly, there was a more pronounced response to anti-PD-1 therapy in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 3
*toxicity∅, OM-100 treatment in healthy mice showed no adverse effects, indicating its safety for normal tissues.
Dose↝, 24-day treatment with a magnetic field intensity of 1.066 mT and a frequency of 100 kHz (figure shows motor driven 120Hz, 7200rpm pulsed
tumCV↓, anti-tumor efficacy of OM-100 treatment, which by impairing cell viability, increasing apoptosis, inhibiting cell migration, and invasion capabilities, as well as promoting oxidative stress.
TumCI↓,


* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 7

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress ⓘ

ROS↑, 4,  

Core Metabolism/Glycolysis ⓘ

cMyc↓, 1,  

Cell Death ⓘ

Apoptosis↑, 3,  

Transcription & Epigenetics ⓘ

tumCV↓, 2,  

Proliferation, Differentiation & Cell State ⓘ

CD133↓, 1,   CD44↓, 1,   CSCs↓, 1,   Nanog↓, 1,   SOX2↓, 1,  

Migration ⓘ

Ca+2↑, 1,   F-actin↓, 1,   Rho↓, 1,   Slug↓, 1,   p‑SMAD2↓, 1,   p‑SMAD3↓, 1,   TGF-β↓, 1,   TumCI↓, 7,   TumCMig↓, 6,   TumCP↓, 3,   TumMeta↓, 2,   Twist↓, 1,   Vim↓, 1,   β-catenin/ZEB1↓, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature ⓘ

angioG↓, 1,   VEGF↓, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling ⓘ

IL6↑, 1,   LIF↑, 1,   PD-L1↑, 1,   TNF-α↑, 1,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance ⓘ

Dose↝, 1,   eff↓, 1,   eff↑, 3,   selectivity↑, 3,  

Clinical Biomarkers ⓘ

IL6↑, 1,   PD-L1↑, 1,  

Functional Outcomes ⓘ

OS↑, 1,   TumVol↓, 2,  
Total Targets: 37

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Functional Outcomes ⓘ

toxicity∅, 3,  
Total Targets: 1

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: TumCI, Tumor Cell invasion
7 Magnetic Fields
2 Magnetic Field Rotating
1 doxorubicin
1 immunotherapy
Query results interpretion may depend on "conditions" listed in the research papers.
Such Conditions may include : 
  -low or high Dose
  -format for product, such as nano of lipid formations
  -different cell line effects
  -synergies with other products 
  -if effect was for normal or cancerous cells

Filter Conditions: Pro/AntiFlg:%  IllCat:%  CanType:%  Cells:%  prod#:172  Target#:324  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page