Database Query Results : Magnetic Field Rotating, , neuroP

MFrot, Magnetic Field Rotating: Click to Expand ⟱
Features:
Rotary Magnetic field can be generated by a spinning magnet or magnets. Or it can be implemented with 2 or more coils, power with a phase shift between them (90 deg for 2 coil implementation) (60deg for 3 coil implementation)
Targets affected are mostly the same as for Magnet fields
Main differences
- may enhance the EPR effect allowing targeting of drugs to cancer cells
- acts as wireless stirrer, especially on magnetic particles(inducing eddy currents in water media)
- research for use in nano surgery, and mechanical destruction of cancer cells
- continue to highlight ability to raise ROS in cancer cell and lower ROS in normal cells
- RMF may be responsible for Ca2+ distribution to pass across the plasma membrane(differental affected for cancer and normal cells)

Pathways:
- induce ROS production in cancer cells, while decreasing ROS in normal cells. Ca2+ is critical and the Ca2+ balance is increased in cancer cells while decreased in normal cells (example for wound healing)
- ROS↑ related: MMP↓(ΔΨm), 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↓, p38↓, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines : TNF-α↓, IL-6↓,
- inhibit Growth/Metastases : TumMeta↓, TumCG↓, MMPs↓, MMP2↓, MMP9↓, IGF-1↓, RhoA↓, NF-κB↓, TGF-β↓, ERK↓
- cause Cell cycle arrest : TumCCA↑,
- inhibits Migration/Invasion : TumCMig↓, TumCI↓, TNF-α↓, ERK↓,
- Others: PI3K↓, AKT↓, Wnt↓, AMPK, ERK↓, JNK,
- Synergies: < Others(review target notes), Neuroprotective, Cognitive,

- Selectivity: Cancer Cells vs Normal Cells

Rotating Magnetic Fields
Rank Pathway / Axis Cancer Cells Normal Cells TSF Primary Effect Notes / Interpretation
1 ROS (tumor-selective oxidative stress) ↑ ROS (P→R); sustained to cytotoxicity (G) ↔ minimal change or transient ↑ without injury (P→R) P, R, G Primary stress amplifier Oncomagnetic reports emphasize selective tumor ROS increase with normal-cell sparing in comparable exposure conditions
2 Mitochondrial ETC inhibition (Complex I/NADH:ubiquinone) ↓ Complex I / respiration (P→R) ↔ limited effect (P→R) P, R Bioenergetic collapse trigger Rotating/spinning fields are proposed to disrupt mitochondrial electron flow, driving ROS elevation upstream of ΔΨm loss
3 Ca²⁺ signaling (ER–mitochondria Ca²⁺ transfer / mitochondrial Ca²⁺ load) ↑ Ca²⁺ dysregulation (P→R) contributing to mitochondrial failure (G) ↔ buffered Ca²⁺ homeostasis (P→R) P, R, G Amplifies ETC/ROS-driven toxicity RMF-driven mitochondrial stress can propagate via Ca²⁺ transfer to accelerate ΔΨm loss and pro-death ER stress in tumor cells while sparing normal cells
4 Mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP) ↑ sustained MPTP opening (R→G) ↔ resistant to opening P, R, G Mitochondrial point-of-no-return RMF-enhanced ROS and Ca²⁺ loading promote persistent MPTP opening in tumor mitochondria, driving energetic collapse and apoptosis while normal cells remain below the opening threshold
5 ΔΨm / mitochondrial membrane integrity ↓ ΔΨm (R); progresses (G) ↔ preserved R, G Mitochondrial failure threshold Matches the “energy factory” targeting concept described in Oncomagnetic mechanism narratives
6 GSH depletion ↓ GSH (R→G) ↔ maintained R, G Loss of redox buffering Cancer-selective inability to restore GSH is a key discriminator vs normal cells
7 NRF2 response (selectivity gate) ↔ delayed/insufficient NRF2 (R→G) ↑ NRF2 (R→G) R, G Adaptive protection Normal-cell sparing is consistent with competent NRF2-driven antioxidant defense
8 ER stress / UPR (CHOP commitment) ↑ ER stress (R); CHOP/apoptotic UPR (G) ↑ adaptive UPR (R); resolves (G) R, G Proteostasis failure ETC/ROS stress propagates to ER; commitment vs resolution diverges by cell robustness
9 DNA damage (oxidative; checkpoint markers) ↑ DNA damage (R→G) ↔ or repaired (G) R, G Checkpoint stress Interpreted as ROS-mediated consequence; reported as increased damage markers in some translational datasets
10 LDH / glycolytic vulnerability ↓ LDH performance / ↓ glycolytic flux (R→G) ↔ metabolic flexibility R, G Metabolic choke Cancer glycolysis becomes unstable when NADH/NAD+ and redox buffering are stressed
11 TrxR / thioredoxin system overload ↓ reserve (R→G) ↔ preserved R, G Parallel antioxidant collapse Useful when GSH data are mixed; TrxR can be the limiting system under sustained ROS 
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.
neuroP, neuroprotective: Click to Expand ⟱
Source:
Type:
Neuroprotective refers to the ability of a substance, intervention, or strategy to preserve the structure and function of nerve cells (neurons) against injury or degeneration.
-While cancer and neurodegenerative processes might seem distinct, there is significant overlap in terms of treatment-related neurotoxicity, shared molecular mechanisms, and the potential for therapies that provide neuroprotection during cancer treatment.
Scientific Papers found: Click to Expand⟱
3488- MFrot,  MF,    Rotating magnetic field improves cognitive and memory impairments in APP/PS1 mice by activating autophagy and inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway
- in-vivo, AD, NA
*cognitive↑, RMF treatment significantly ameliorated their cognitive and memory impairments, attenuated neuronal damage, and reduced amyloid deposition.
*memory↑,
*neuroP↑,
*Aβ↓,
*PI3K↓, RMF improves cognitive and memory dysfunction in APP/PS1 mice by activating autophagy and inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway, thus highlighting the potential of RMF as a clinical treatment for hereditary AD.
*Akt↓,
*mTOR↓,

3567- MFrot,  MF,    The Effect of Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Field on Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review
- Review, Stroke, NA
*eff↑, All included studies showed a beneficial effect of ELF-MFs on stroke patients
*ROS↓, Improvements were observed in domains such as oxidative stress, inflammation, ischemic lesion size, functional status, depressive symptoms and cognitive abilities.
*Inflam↓,
*cognitive↑, An improvement in cognitive abilities reported in some of the included studies [25,26,27,28] is in line with other researchers’ finding
*Catalase↑, Cichoń et al. [27] also showed that catalase activity in erythrocytes and superoxide dismutase were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group.
*SOD↑,
*SOD1↑, similar effect was observed in regard to SOD1 and SOD2 mRNA levels.
*SOD2↑,
*GPx1↑, ELF-MFs impacted also the expression of GPx1 and GPx4 mRNA, which increased in the experimental group about 160% (p < 0.001) and 140% (p < 0.001), respectively.
*GPx4↑,
*IL1β↑, blood samples of IL-1β in the experimental group after 10 sessions of rehabilitation which involved ELF-MFs were significantly higher than in the control group
*neuroP↑, majority of the articles included in this study, a neuroprotective effect of ELF-MFs was indicated
*toxicity∅, Particularly noteworthy is the fact that none of the studies included in this review reported any negative side effects of ELF-MFs.

3745- MFrot,  MF,    The neurobiological foundation of effective repetitive transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease
- Review, AD, NA
*neuroP↑, neuroprotective actions aimed at mitigatingoxidative stress and inflammation, and intense stimulation of neu-rotrophic factors
*ROS↓,
*Inflam↓,
*5HT↑, increase in serotoninand its metabolites and a change in the properties of serotonergicreceptors.
*cFos↑, in rats, a single session of bothLF- (1 Hz) and HF-rTMS (10 Hz) enhanced c-Fos expression in all exam-ined cortical areas
*Aβ↓, rTMS enhances neuronal viability and counteracts oxidative stressors, such as Aβ and glutamate toxicity, in vitro
*memory↑, downregulation results in memory impairments
*BDNF↑, long-term change in synaptic proteinexpression due to BDNF-TrkB pathway activation following rTMSprotocols
*Ach↑, rTMSincreases ACh levels by modulating AChE activity.
*AChE↓,
*cognitive↑, HF-rTMS (20 Hz) and LF-rTMS (1 Hz)—in termsof neurotransmitter circuits and neurogenic signaling. 142 While bothprotocols improved cognition-related behaviors
*BDNF↑, Notably, rTMS could enhance BDNF and NGF expression irrespec-tive of frequency,
*NGF↑,
*β-catenin/ZEB1↑, both LF-rTMS (1 Hz) and HF-rTMS (10 Hz)protocols enhanced cognitive performance through the activation of β-catenin via the regulation of glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) andTau
*p‑Akt↓, 3 weeks, iTBS reducedinflammation and increased anti-inflammatory molecules, specificallylinked to reversing the downregulation of phosphorylated forms ofAkt and the mammalian target of rapamycin.
*mTOR↓,
*MMP1↓, 6 months, patients showed significant reductions in plasma levels of MMP1, MMP9, and MMP10, along with increases in TIMP1 and TIMP2
*MMP9↓,
*MMP-10↓,
*TIMP1↑,
*TIMP2↑,

204- MFrot,  MF,    Rotating magnetic field improved cognitive and memory impairments in a sporadic ad model of mice by regulating microglial polarization
- in-vivo, AD, NA
*NF-kB↓, RMF improves memory and cognitive impairments in a sporadic AD model, potentially by promoting the M1 to M2 transition of microglial polarization through inhibition of the NF-кB/MAPK signaling pathway.
*MAPK↓,
*TLR4↓,
*memory↑,
*cognitive↑,
*TGF-β1↑, RMF treatment promoted the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines (TGF-β1, Arg-1, IL-4, IL-10)
*ARG↑, Arg-1
*IL4↑,
*IL10↑,
*IL6↓,
*IL1↓, IL-1β
*TNF-α↓,
*iNOS↓,
*ROS↓, in mice brain
*NO↓, in serum
*MyD88↓,
*p‑IKKα↓, phosphorylated IKKα/β, IкBα, NF-кB p65, JNK, p38,
*p‑IκB↓, IкBα
*p‑p65↓,
*p‑JNK↓,
*p‑p38↓,
*ERK↓,
*neuroP↑, RMF treatment resulted in reduced aluminum deposition in the brains of AD mice.
*Aβ↓, RMF treatment reduced Aβ deposition in the AD model mice


* indicates research on normal cells as opposed to diseased cells
Total Research Paper Matches: 4

Pathway results for Effect on Cancer / Diseased Cells:


Total Targets: 0

Pathway results for Effect on Normal Cells:


Redox & Oxidative Stress ⓘ

Catalase↑, 1,   GPx1↑, 1,   GPx4↑, 1,   ROS↓, 3,   SOD↑, 1,   SOD1↑, 1,   SOD2↑, 1,  

Cell Death ⓘ

Akt↓, 1,   p‑Akt↓, 1,   iNOS↓, 1,   p‑JNK↓, 1,   MAPK↓, 1,   p‑p38↓, 1,  

Transcription & Epigenetics ⓘ

Ach↑, 1,  

Proliferation, Differentiation & Cell State ⓘ

cFos↑, 1,   ERK↓, 1,   mTOR↓, 2,   PI3K↓, 1,  

Migration ⓘ

ARG↑, 1,   MMP-10↓, 1,   MMP1↓, 1,   MMP9↓, 1,   TGF-β1↑, 1,   TIMP1↑, 1,   TIMP2↑, 1,   β-catenin/ZEB1↑, 1,  

Angiogenesis & Vasculature ⓘ

NO↓, 1,  

Immune & Inflammatory Signaling ⓘ

p‑IKKα↓, 1,   IL1↓, 1,   IL10↑, 1,   IL1β↑, 1,   IL4↑, 1,   IL6↓, 1,   Inflam↓, 2,   p‑IκB↓, 1,   MyD88↓, 1,   NF-kB↓, 1,   p‑p65↓, 1,   TLR4↓, 1,   TNF-α↓, 1,  

Synaptic & Neurotransmission ⓘ

5HT↑, 1,   AChE↓, 1,   BDNF↑, 2,   NGF↑, 1,  

Protein Aggregation ⓘ

Aβ↓, 3,  

Drug Metabolism & Resistance ⓘ

eff↑, 1,  

Clinical Biomarkers ⓘ

IL6↓, 1,  

Functional Outcomes ⓘ

cognitive↑, 4,   memory↑, 3,   neuroP↑, 4,   toxicity∅, 1,  
Total Targets: 51

Scientific Paper Hit Count for: neuroP, neuroprotective
4 Magnetic Field Rotating
4 Magnetic Fields
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#:192  Target#:1105  State#:%  Dir#:%
  wNotes=on  sortOrder:rid,rpid

 

Home Page