Ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929 cells following exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields

Larry W. Cress1, Russell D. Owen and Abiy B. Desta

FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-114), 9200 Corporate Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, USA


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
To determine whether there is a biological basis for epidemiological studies which suggest an association between exposure to magnetic fields and cancer, we have attempted to replicate earlier findings on cellular enzymes related to cell proliferation. Here we report on an effort to replicate the doubling of ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) activity in L929 murine fibroblasts following exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields reported by Litovitz et al. Efforts were made to reproduce the methods and exposure conditions used by the original investigators. Positive controls showed that our assay system responded to other known stimuli of ODC activity. We extended the previously reported investigations by testing a number of exposure conditions and other associated variables. Initial results suggested that cells exposed in the original investigators' laboratory demonstrated an enhanced enzyme activity, whereas cells exposed in our laboratory did not. Experiments in our laboratory using the most important elements of the original investigators' exposure system did not demonstrate any enhancement of ODC activity. Finally, a series of magnetic field exposure and sham exposure experiments conducted in the original investigators' laboratory failed to demonstrate an effect of magnetic fields on ODC activity.

Abbreviations: ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; CUA, Catholic University of America; DCS, donor calf serum; DFMO, {alpha}-difluoromethylornithine; EMEM, Eagle's minimal essential medium; EMF, electric and magnetic fields; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; FGF, fibroblast-derived growth factor; ODC, ornithine decarboxylase; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; PDGF, platelet-derived growth factor; REEF, Regional Electromagnetic Exposure Facility.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Since the first study by Wertheimer and Leeper (1) suggested a correlation between childhood cancer and wire code, a surrogate measure that is only poorly related to measured magnetic fields, other studies have refined the methodology and reported conflicting results. A 1992 review of the existing literature found that electromagnetic fields (EMF) could not be exonerated as being associated with cancer, but neither could the existing data satisfy the accepted criteria for causal inference (2). A 1996 review of the literature reported that although there was no conclusive evidence of adverse effects and magnetic field measurements did not correlate with cancer incidence, the association of childhood leukemia with wire codes could not be explained (3). A recently published, well-designed study of childhood leukemia revealed little evidence of increased risk at the levels previously suggested as potentially harmful, but found a trend toward higher risk at higher field levels (4). These studies also remain controversial because of the lack of a demonstrated biophysical interaction mechanism of such fields with cellular processes and because many of the laboratory studies reporting biological effects have not been independently replicated. For this reason, the attempted replication of some of the more important reported effects of weak magnetic fields is a major component of any risk assessment of these fields as it relates to cancer.

Ornithine decarboxylase (ODC, EC 4.1.1.17) is essential for growth by virtue of its role in the synthesis of precursors of DNA and proteins. ODC is the first and rate-limiting enzyme in the pathway for biosynthesis of polyamines, which have been shown to be necessary for cell growth and proliferation. ODC activity is closely regulated and is stimulated by a number of growth factors and by all known tumor promoters. Thus, it is a sensitive molecular marker for tumor- and growth-promoting agents.

Several investigators have described induction of ODC in cells exposed to electromagnetic fields with an extremely low frequency component. Byus et al. found increased ODC activity in a number of cell lines exposed to 60 Hz electric fields (5) and to microwaves modulated at 16 Hz. Litovitz et al. also observed ODC induction in L929 murine fibroblasts exposed to 55, 60 and 65 Hz magnetic fields and to microwaves modulated at 60 Hz (6,7). Litovitz et al. have used the ODC enhancement effect to investigate the importance of modulation and other physical characteristics of the signal to try to identify the cellular receptor for interaction with the field and thus deduce a biophysical mechanism (811). Indeed, they found that shifting between 55 and 65 Hz fields at intervals of <10 s decreased or abolished ODC enhancement, as did the superposition of random noise upon a 60 Hz field.

Although magnetic field enhancement of ODC activity has been cited as having been replicated independently (3), the work of Azadniv et al. (12) failed to substantiate such claims. Their methodology differed in several ways from that of Litovitz and co-workers. We report here the results of a comprehensive effort to confirm the accuracy and reproducibility of the reported enhancement of ODC activity in a 60 Hz magnetic field. In addition, we extend the previously reported investigations by testing a number of exposure conditions and other associated variables.


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Cell culture
L929 cells were obtained from Litovitz and Mullins of the Catholic University of America (CUA, Washington, DC) and American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD). Cells were cultured in Eagle's minimum essential medium (EMEM) supplemented with 5% donor calf serum (DCS) (both obtained from Sigma Chemical Co., St Louis, MO), 27 mM sodium bicarbonate, 20 mM HEPES and 2 mM L-glutamine. Cells were grown in 150 cm2 flasks until ~80% confluent. Cells were incubated in a Revco water jacketed incubator at 37°C in 95% humidified air with 5% CO2. The ambient AC fields in the incubator were 84.3 µT directly under the fan, 6.5 µT on the top shelf, 3.6 µT at the center and 1.8 µT on the bottom shelf of the incubator. Cells were grown in a mu-metal box (Amuneal, Philadelphia, PA) with the front open. The ambient AC field inside the mu-metal box was 0.3 µT at the front and <0.1 µT in the interior of the box.

Cells from four flasks were pooled and counted. Six 75 cm2 flasks were plated at a density of 3 000 000 cells/flask in 15 ml of EMEM and incubated for ~18 h before exposure. Three flasks were exposed and three were sham exposed. Caps were tightened immediately prior to exposure, as was done by Litovitz et al. (8).

Cell harvesting
Cells were removed from the field prior to deactivating the Helmholtz coils to preclude exposure to switching transients. Immediately after exposure, the medium was decanted from each flask and each monolayer was washed twice with 10 ml of cold (4°C) Ca2+/Mg2+-free phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). After the second wash, cells were suspended in 10 ml of cold PBS using a cell scraper and each cell suspension was transferred to a 15 ml centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 500 g for 5 min. After centrifugation the PBS was removed and each cell pellet was resuspended in 1 ml of cold PBS and transferred to a microcentrifuge tube. Cell suspensions were again centrifuged at 500 g for 5 min, the PBS was removed and the pellet was drained of excess PBS by inverting the tube onto absorbent paper. The cell pellet from each of the six flasks in an experiment was stored at –70°C until it was assayed in duplicate for ODC activity as described below.

Extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure systems
The various exposure systems used in this work are described below. Specifications of the respective systems are summarized in Table IGo.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. Comparison of exposure systems
 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ELF exposure facility. The FDA exposure facility is a custom built incubator with two mu-metal exposure chambers stacked vertically within a common incubator chamber. Incubator temperature is maintained by a temperature controlled external water bath circulating water into copper tubing heat exchangers built into the walls of the incubator. The chambers are equipped with fans located in ducts at the top and bottom to circulate air through the chambers. There are six fans outside the mu-metal chambers providing continuous air circulation and temperature uniformity. Two Helmholtz coils with axes perpendicular to each other in each mu-metal box provide magnetic field exposure. The vertically situated coils have an average radius of 22 cm and the horizontally situated coils have an average radius of 31 cm. Coils are energized by a function generator/power amplifier combination and AC and DC magnetic fields are separately controlled. Temperature and AC and DC magnetic fields in each of the exposure chambers are continuously monitored and controlled by computer (custom software written using LabView, National Instruments, Austin, TX).

Regional ELF Exposure Facility (REEF). The REEF system consists of an incubator which supplies air of uniform temperature, humidity and CO2 content to two physically separate exposure chambers. Monitored data from the exposure chamber provide feedback to computer software which controls field variables. The chambers are mechanically and electrically isolated. Each chamber is equipped with a thermocouple and a three-axis AC magnetic field sensor. Two concentric sets of Merritt coils with a common vertical axis surround each exposure chamber. The coils are energized by a function generator driving a power amplifier which energizes the Merritt coils through a system of relays which randomly selects the exposure chamber to be activated under computer control. The inner coils provide exposure and the outer coils limit stray fields from reaching the sham exposure chamber. Each coil system also has two Helmholtz coils with horizontally directed orthogonal axes. These coils can be used to compensate for the ambient static field or generate a horizontal alternating field. All data such as time, flux density, temperature and incubator humidity and CO2 levels are saved to a computer file for inspection and plotting. The REEF system was designed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) and manufactured by CMI (Kennewick, WA). Similar REEF facilities are located at PNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratories and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (Cincinnati, OH).

CUA exposure system at FDA. The CUA exposure system consists of two similar E-field shielded Helmholtz coils (average radius 10.5 cm) enclosed with a mu-metal cover (24.9 cm long, 24.1 cm wide, 26.7 cm high). Each coil is placed in an identical water jacketed incubator (VWR 6000) at 37°C. The Helmholtz coils were connected to the 8 speaker output of a power amplifier. This system uses the same coils, amplifier and mu-metal shield boxes that Litovitz and co-workers used in their earlier ODC experiments. The Helmholtz coils were energized using a Krohn-Hite (model 5200A) function generator (FDA property) connected to a 35 W (Radioshack Realistic model MPA-46) audio amplifier. The current was determined by measuring the voltage drop across a 3 resistor connected in series with the coil, using a Hewlett Packard (model 34401A) multimeter. Calibration of the relationship between voltage drop across the coil and flux density were previously determined by CUA and was independently verified both by Dr Penafiel of CUA and by Dr Misakian of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Gaithersburg, MD).

For experiments using the CUA coils and CUA mu-metal covers in the FDA system, the covers of the FDA mu-metal enclosures were removed. The CUA electronic equipment described above was used for all experiments conducted with the CUA coils. For experiments at CUA, cells were cultured at FDA, transported to CUA and exposed the next day.

ODC assay
ODC activity was determined by the method of Seely and Pegg (13) as modified for cell culture by Litovitz et al. (7). All reagents were from Sigma (St Louis, MO) except as noted. Briefly, cell pellets were lysed by adding 240 µl of lysis buffer and vortexing at maximum speed for 20 s. The lysis buffer contained 25 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 2.5 mM dithiothreitol, 100 µM EDTA, 0.10% Nonidet P-40, 50 µM pyridoxal 5'-phosphate and 50 µg/ml leupeptin. Cell lysates were centrifuged at 104 g for 30 min at 4°C. Duplicate 100 µl aliquots of supernatant were incubated for 1 h at 37°C with 2.77x105 d.p.m. 14C-labeled L-ornithine (Dupont NEN, Boston, MA), 0.4 mM unlabeled L-ornithine, 50 mM pyridoxal 5'-phosphate, 1.58 mM dithiothreitol, 50 µg/ml leupeptin and 0.2% Nonidet P-40 (250 µl final volume). Incubation was carried out in 15 ml tubes (Kimble 45160-15) in a shaking water bath. The 14CO2 generated by ODC was absorbed with 100 µl of 1.0 N sodium hydroxide contained in a center well (Kontes, Vineland, NJ) secured in a rubber septum-type stopper (Kontes). Following incubation, the reaction was terminated by the addition of 300 µl of 20% aqueous trichloroacetic acid through a 21 G needle inserted through the rubber septum and incubated for an additional 1 h. The sodium hydroxide in the center well was then transferred to a scintillation vial containing 8 µl acetic acid and 10 ml scintillation fluid (Packard Ultima Gold) and counted by liquid scintillation (Packard Tricarb 2000CA). The amount of protein in 10 µl of cell lysate was determined by the Bradford method (BioRad, Hercules, CA). Total ODC activity was calculated as pmol 14CO2/30 min/mg lysate protein multiplied by 41 (to account for the specific activity of the ornithine in the reaction).

Positive control experiments
Cells were serum starved for 24 h and then treated for 4 h with fresh EMEM containing one of the following: 5% calf serum, 100 ng/ml fibroblast growth factor (FGF), 125 ng/ml platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) or 2.5 µM insulin-like growth factor. Non-serum-starved cells were kept in normal EMEM with 5% DCS to allow comparison between serum-starved cells and cells under normal growth conditions.

Data analysis
For each flask, the ODC activities calculated from duplicate assays were averaged. These independent values from the three flasks in each exposure condition were used to calculate both the average cellular ODC activity and the standard deviation of that value for a given exposure condition. For each experiment, the average and the standard deviation for each of the exposure conditions were used to calculate the ODC activity ratio. This ratio is expressed as exposed:control for experimental treatments and as chamber A:chamber B for sham versus sham control experiments. ODC activity ratio is used to account for variations between experiments in control ODC activity. This facilitates comparisons among experiments (8). For a series of 10 experiments conducted over several weeks, the variability of the baseline ODC activity was 36 and 42% (SD ÷ meanx100) for ATCC cells and CUA cells, respectively. This variability compares favorably with that reported by Litovitz et al. for experiments conducted under comparable conditions (9; Tables I–II).

Statistical comparisons were performed using a paired, two-tailed Student's t-test. Data were analyzed using the INSTAT computer program (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Baseline ODC activities
Since the ODC activity of the control cells varies somewhat with cell passage number and other growth conditions, results of each experiment are expressed as the ODC activity ratio, calculated by dividing the activity of the exposed cultures by the activity of the matched sham-exposed cells from that experiment. Representative values of absolute ODC activity were 33.8 ± 12 pmol/30 min/mg for a series of 10 experiments conducted using cells from ATCC over a period of several weeks. During that same period, a series of 10 experiments conducted using cells from CUA gave an absolute activity of 33.5 ± 14.

Positive control experiments
In order to demonstrate cell responsiveness as well as the capability of the assay to detect enhancement of ODC activity, an initial experiment was conducted in which L929 cells were exposed to various factors known to stimulate ODC (14). Serum-starved cells exposed to fresh serum showed a 19.4-fold enhancement in ODC activity over serum-starved cells, increasing from 20.9 to 406 pmol/30 min/mg. FGF-treated cells showed 4.6-fold enhancement, PDGF-treated cells showed 4.9-fold enhancement and insulin-like growth factor-treated cells showed a 4.5-fold enhancement over serum-starved cells. Thus, the cells responded to each of four positive control agents and our assay methods were sufficiently sensitive to detect the change in ODC activity. Furthermore, we were able to establish the serum concentration which caused an approximate doubling of ODC activity and included such positive controls in many of the experiments reported herein.

Specificity of ODC assay
In order to determine the specificity of the assay for ODC, a series of L929 cell lysates was assayed with and without the addition of 1.0 mM {alpha}-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO; Hoechst Marion Roussel, Cincinnati, OH), a specific inhibitor of ODC (15). It has been shown that under some assay conditions, ODC assay results reflect non-specific cellular components (16). Addition of DFMO to the assay mixture resulted in a 96% inhibition of basal ODC activity and a 99% inhibition of the ODC activity of cells stimulated for 4 h with fresh medium. These results established that, under the conditions we employed, the enzyme assay primarily responded to ODC rather than to non-specific cellular components.

Exposures in the FDA exposure system
A series of 20 separate experiments was conducted in the FDA exposure system using 4 h exposures at 10 µT, 60 Hz and 37 ± 0.2°C. The magnetic field vector was oriented in the horizontal plane, as it was in the laboratory of Litovitz and co-workers. There was no superimposed DC magnetic field for these exposures. The active exposure chamber was arbitrarily alternated between the top (A) chamber and the bottom (B) chamber. The results of these experiments are shown in Figure 1Go (upper, filled bars). The ODC activity ratio (exposed:control) was 0.99 ± 0.21 (A coils active) or 0.96 ± 0.17 (B coils active). In neither case was the result significantly different from unity, based on statistical analysis. A series of five separate sham–sham exposures conducted in the FDA exposure system gave an ODC activity ratio of 1.02 ± 0.11 (chamber A:chamber B).



View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. ODC activity ratios (ODC activity exposed cells/ODC activity matched control cells) for 4 h exposures to a 60 Hz, 10 µT magnetic field. Coil A and coil B designate which of the coils was energized to provide the field and `Sham–Sham' indicates the runs in which neither coil was energized. In the upper panel filled bars indicate exposures in the FDA exposure system (FDA exposures, n = 24; sham, n = 5) and the open bars indicate exposures in the REEF exposure system (REEF exposures, n = 7; sham–sham, n = 4). In the lower panel filled bars indicate exposures with the CUA coils in separate incubators (coil A exposure, n = 9; coil B exposure, n = 8; sham–sham, n = 11), open bars indicate exposures with the coils located in the FDA chambers with the CUA mu-metal shields in place (coil A exposures, n = 3; coil B exposures, n = 3; sham–sham, n = 4) and hatched bars indicate exposures with the coils in the FDA exposure chambers without the CUA mu-metal shields (coil A exposures, n = 9; coil B exposures, n = 11; sham–sham, n = 7). Error bars indicate the standard deviation.

 
Exposures conducted using REEF
A series of seven experiments conducted in the REEF exposure system (10 µT, 60 Hz, magnetic field vector oriented in the vertical plane) resulted in an ODC activity ratio of 0.98 ± 0.11 (Figure 1Go, upper, open bars). A series of four sham–sham exposures in the REEF system resulted in a ratio of 1.0 ± 0.14.

Exposures conducted using the CUA Helmholtz coils
Exposures in neither of the systems at the FDA (above) demonstrated an effect of magnetic field exposure on ODC activity. Therefore, a series of three experiments (4 h, 10 µT) was conducted in the original investigators' exposure system at CUA. These experiments had an ODC activity ratio of 2.09 ± 0.35. However, the significance of these results was unclear because it was not possible to perform sham–sham exposures for this series of experiments. Furthermore, we were unable to repeat this result at a later date (see below).

The positive results obtained with cells exposed at CUA suggested an effect that needed to be pursued. The CUA Helmholtz coils were installed in paired incubators (identical to each other, but not identical to those used at CUA) in our laboratory (Materials and methods). Exposures were alternated between the coil sets. The ODC activity ratio for the series was 1.07 ± 0.07 with coil set A active and 1.52 ± 0.26 with coil set B active (Figure 1Go, lower, filled bars). Sham–sham exposures conducted with neither coil energized gave an ODC activity ratio of 0.96 ± 0.04 (coil set A:coil set B). To further evaluate the CUA coils sets and to take advantage of the lower ambient fields and more uniform temperatures provided by the FDA exposure system, the CUA coils were placed inside it. Magnetic field exposures in this experimental setup resulted in an ODC activity ratio of 1.23 ± 0.12 (coil A active) or 0.96 ± 0.07 (coil B active); under sham–sham conditions the ODC activity ratio was 1.29 ± 0.25 (coil A:coil B; Figure 1Go, lower, open bars). To address the possibility of temperature differences between exposed and control samples due to enclosure in the small metal boxes without air circulation, a series of experiments was performed without the CUA mu-metal covers (shielding from ambient fields was provided by the larger mu-metal shield boxes of the FDA system). The ODC activity ratio was 1.08 ± 0.25 (coil A active) or 1.21 ± 0.29 (coil B active); under sham–sham conditions the ODC activity ratio was 0.94 ± 0.2 (coil A:coil B; Figure 1Go, lower, hatched bars).

During the course of our studies, the exposure system used by Litovitz and co-workers at CUA was modified with new Helmholtz coils and mu-metal shields, using the same dimensions as the original equipment. Preliminary experiments conducted by Litovitz and co-workers at CUA using the modified system gave positive results for magnetic field induction of ODC activity (T.Litovitz, personal communication). These observations raised the possibility that ODC activity might respond to some exposure parameter unique to the CUA system. Thus, a new series of nine experiments was performed wherein cells were cultured at FDA and exposed at CUA. Three separate chambers were used for each experiment: (i) a sham chamber; (ii) a 10 µT chamber; (iii) a chamber at 10 µT with superimposed random noise. Exposure to 10 µT for 4 h at CUA gave an ODC ratio of 1.19 ± 0.33 (Table IIGo). Cells exposed to 10 µT with random noise superimposed gave an ODC ratio of 1.04 ± 0.37. There was no statistically significant difference between magnetic field-exposed and sham-exposed cell ODC activity (P = 0.27). Neither was there a statistically significant difference between field-exposed and field-exposed with superimposed random noise (P = 0.51).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table II. Exposure series conducted at CUA
 
Effect of exposure conditions
The effect of varying magnetic field strength on ODC activity was investigated by exposing L929 cells in the FDA exposure chamber to fields of 5, 10 and 20 µT, 60 Hz for 4 h at 37 ± 0.2°C. There was no observed change in ODC activity with exposure at any field strength tested in four separate experiments. A concurrent series of sham–sham exposures gave a ratio of 0.99 ± 0.12; 5 µT exposure gave an exposed to control ratio of 1.03 ± 0.39, 10 µT exposure gave a ratio of 0.98 ± 0.06 and 20 µT exposure gave a ratio of 0.97 ± 0.17.

To determine whether there was a change in ODC response in cells exposed for varying times, cells were exposed (60 Hz, 10 µT) in the FDA system for 1, 2, 4 and 6 h. There was no observed change in ODC activity for varying exposure duration in three separate experiments. ODC activity ratios were 1.04 ± 0.06, 1.03 ± 0.18, 1.00 ± 0.07 and 1.05 ± 0.05 for exposures of 1, 2, 4 and 6 h, respectively.

To characterize the importance of DC magnetic field for the response of ODC activity to an AC field, we conducted experiments using a 60 Hz field with a superimposed DC field. A 1.4 µT (1.2 µT vertical component, 0.7 µT horizontal component) DC field was generated in the FDA system to approximate the measured DC field within the mu-metal enclosures of the CUA exposure system. For six experiments performed with this superimposed DC field, the ODC activity ratio was 0.92 ± 0.15. In addition, six experiments (each) were performed with superimposed horizontal (only) DC fields of 1.2, 5 and 10 µT in the FDA system. These experimental series gave ODC ratios of 0.83 ± 0.05, 0.99 ± 0.28 and 1.20 ± 0.22, respectively. Thus, in no case did addition of DC fields to the AC exposure alter the ODC activity of cells. Similarly, a series of experiments performed in the REEF system with an applied DC field of 5.7 µT (vertical component 3.8 µT) resulted in an ODC activity ratio of 0.96 ± 0.16.

Effect of cell culture conditions
To address the possibility that different subcultures of L929 cells might differ with respect to ODC response to EMF exposure, we compared cells obtained from ATCC to those obtained from Litovitz and co-workers. For 17 experiments, EMF exposure of L929 cells gave ODC activity ratios of 0.91 ± 0.18 (CUA cells) and 1.00 ± 0.20 (ATCC cells). The results from the two subcultures are not significantly different (P = 0.34).

We also examined the possibility that the source of cell culture medium might influence the response of cellular ODC to EMF exposure by comparing medium obtained from CUA with that prepared in FDA laboratories. Cells grown in CUA medium gave an ODC activity ratio of 1.19 ± 0.29 and those grown in FDA medium gave a ratio of 1.01 ± 0.14. These results do not differ significantly (P = 0.34).

To test the possibility that the magnetic field exposure history of cell cultures was a critical parameter for ODC induction by 60 Hz magnetic fields, we performed a series of five experiments using cells which had been cultured in an incubator that we identified as having low ambient AC fields (<0.3 µT) with no other shielding. Thus, the magnetic field exposure history of the cells included exposure to the ambient geomagnetic field. Four hour, 60 Hz, 10 µT exposures of L929 cells grown in this manner gave an ODC activity ratio of 0.93 ± 0.20, which is not significantly different from similar exposures of cells that had been shielded from the geomagnetic field during culture.

We also evaluated whether the purity of CO2 could be important for the response of cellular ODC to EMF exposure. High purity CO2 was used for the work reported above. However, welding grade purity CO2 is used in many laboratories for cell culture. When we exposed L929 cells grown for several passages using welding grade CO2 to a 60 Hz, 10 µT field, the ODC activity ratio was 1.05 ± 0.15 for a series of five experiments. Thus, no difference in results was obtained by using CO2 of lower purity.

Finally, we examined the influence of cell culture density on ODC response to the magnetic field. In a series of three experiments, exposure of cells plated at two densities (3 000 000 and 6 000 000 cells/flask) to a 60 Hz, 10 µT field showed no significant difference from each other and in neither case did the ODC activity of the exposed cells differ significantly from the paired sham-exposed cells (data not shown).

Statistical evaluation indicated no effect of a 4 h, 10 µT, 60 Hz magnetic field exposure on ODC activity. Presentation of the data from such experiments as frequency distribution plots (Figure 2Go) further shows that while an occasional experiment might appear to indicate ODC enhancement by EMF exposure, there is no discernible difference in the distribution of data between sham versus sham experiments and exposed versus control experiments.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. The frequency distributions of ODC activity ratios (exposed:control) for 4 h exposures to a 60 Hz, 10 µT magnetic field. Results are shown for exposures in the FDA exposure system (top), REEF (middle) and the CUA coils installed in the FDA exposure system (bottom). Filled bars indicate exposures with one of the field coils energized; open bars indicate sham–sham exposures.

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The magnetic field enhancement of ODC activity reported by Litovitz et al. has been cited as an example of a robust effect that lends credence to claims of health effects of magnetic fields first suggested by epidemiological studies. A recent review by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (3) describes this work as one of the few well-replicated cellular effects of low level magnetic fields. The committee cited, in support of this description, work that reported an electric (rather than magnetic) field effect of considerably larger magnitude on different cells and with a different time response (5). In an attempt to confirm the observations of Litovitz et al., Azadniv et al. (12) conducted a series of four experiments which did not show increased ODC activity following magnetic field exposures of L929 cells. Azadniv et al. used methods and exposure conditions that differed from those of Litovitz and co-workers, particularly in their use of horse serum (rather than calf serum) in the culture medium and by exposing cells in a solenoid instead of a Helmholtz coil arrangement. Several of the details of their ODC assay protocol differed from that of Litovitz et al. as well.

We report here the results of experiments to address the accuracy and reproducibility of the EMF effect on ODC using reagents, methods and exposure conditions that duplicated those of the original investigators as closely as was practical. In addition, we worked closely with the original investigators toward identifying and testing previously unexplored parameters that might be critical to the ability to observe EMF induction of ODC activity. We also extended the previously reported investigations by testing a number of exposure conditions and other associated variables.

Initial results of exposures of L929 cells conducted in the Regional EMF Exposure System at 60 Hz and 10 µT for 4 h did not indicate a significant increase in ODC activity, in contrast to the doubling of ODC activity reported by the Litovitz group (8). Similar results were obtained from exposures in the FDA Exposure Facility. An extensive series of experiments was then conducted to test the effects of varying magnetic field strength, superimposed static field strength, cell density, serum concentration and source, source of cell growth medium and purity of CO2 in the growth incubator. This experimental series did not identify the conditions sufficient to demonstrate an effect of magnetic field exposure on ODC activity. While three preliminary cell exposures in the original investigators' system at CUA indicated a doubling of ODC activity, neither experiments conducted at FDA with the major components of the CUA exposure system nor a subsequent repetition of the exposures in the exposure system at CUA showed any enhancement of enzyme activity.

Though it is impossible to prove the absence of an effect, statistical evaluation and presentation of data as frequency distribution plots demonstrated only the baseline variability of data from a particular biological assay system. Thus, our data provide no evidence supporting an effect of exposure in vitro on the activity of a cellular enzyme.

Litovitz et al. (611) reported a significant enhancement of ODC activity in response to either 60 Hz magnetic fields or modulated microwave exposures. The magnitude of this effect was dependent on signal coherence time and superimposed random noise. The reason why we have been unable to replicate the enhancement of ODC activity by 60 Hz fields is unknown. It is possible that this effect may be dependent on biological or exposure parameters unique to the conditions that once existed at CUA. It is tempting to speculate that insufficiently defined parameters have contributed to a decrease in the magnitude of the effect observed at CUA. Their earlier work reported a doubling of ODC activity (6), whereas more recently they have reported only a 70% increase (10).

Our studies raise questions regarding the relevance of magnetic field-induced ODC enhancement to any plausible health effects of magnetic fields in the intact organism. Sensitive dependence of an EMF-induced enhancement of ODC activity in vitro upon insufficiently defined parameters may be interpreted as indicating that the biological effect is too weak to overcome the homeostatic mechanisms in the intact organism and thus would not influence the development of cancer or other adverse effects.

We have conducted a large series of experiments using a methodology which is very similar to, and probably identical to, that employed by Litovitz et al. Our ability to duplicate the original conditions was significantly enhanced by the fact that one of us (A.B.D.) was a member of the Litovitz laboratory and performed many of the experiments published by that group. Through close work with Litovitz and co-workers, we were able to share their detailed original protocols, critical reagents and exposure system components. This relationship also helped us to characterize the importance of many variables for the effect of EMF exposure on cellular ODC activity. Despite this high level of cooperation, we have been unable to define conditions that are necessary and sufficient to observe induction of ODC activity by EMF exposure.


    Acknowledgments
 
We acknowledge the enthusiastic cooperation of Dr Litovitz, Dr Mullins and Dr Pentafiel of the CUA. Dr Martin Misakian of NIST supplied invaluable assistance in the dosimetric characterization of our exposure systems. Trade names are cited for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the FDA. This work was supported by the FDA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences interagency agreement Y1-ES-0006.


    Notes
 
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed Email: lwc{at}cdrh.fda.gov Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Wertheimer,N. and Leeper,E. (1979) Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. Am. J. Epidemiol., 109, 273–284.[Abstract]
  2. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Panel (1992) Health Effects of Low-frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  3. Committee on Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems (1996) Possible Health Effects of Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  4. Linet,M.S., Hatch,E.E., Kleinerman,R.A. et al. (1997) Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N. Engl. J. Med., 337, 1–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Byus,C.V., Pieper,S.E. and Adey,W.R. (1987) The effects of low-energy 60-Hz environmental fields upon the growth related enzyme ornithine decarboxylase. Carcinogenesis, 8, 1385–1389.[Abstract]
  6. Litovitz,T.A., Krause,D. and Mullins,J.M. (1991) Effect of coherence time of the applied magnetic field on ornithine decarboxylase activity. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 178, 862–865.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Litovitz,T.A., Krause,D., Montrose,C.J. and Mullins,J.M. (1995) Temporally incoherent magnetic fields mitigate the response of biological systems to temporally coherent magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics, 15, 399–409.[ISI]
  8. Litovitz,T.A., Krause,D., Penafiel,M., Elson,E.C. and Mullins,J.M. (1993) The role of coherence time in the effect of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity. Bioelectromagnetics, 14, 395–403.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Penafiel,L.M., Litovitz,T.A., Krause,D., Desta,A.B. and Mullins,J.M. (1997) Role of modulation on the effect of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929 cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 18, 132–141.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Litovitz,T.A., Penafiel,M., Krause,D., Zhang,D. and Mullins,J.M. (1997) The role of temporal sensing in bioelectromagnetic effects. Bioelectromagnetics, 18, 388–395.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Litovitz,T.A., Penafiel,L.M., Farrel,J.M., Krause,D., Meister,R. and Mullins,J.M. (1997) Bioeffects induced by exposure to microwaves are mitigated by superposition of ELF noise. Bioelectromagnetics, 18, 422–430.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Azadniv,M., Klinge,C.M., Gelein,R., Carstensen,E.L., Cos,C., Brayman, A.A. and Miller,M.W. (1995) A test of the hypothesis that a 60 Hz magnetic field affects ornithine decarboxylase activity in mouse L929 cells in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 214, 627–631.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Seeley,J.E. and Pegg,A.E. (1983) Ornithine decarboxylase. Methods Enzymol., 94, 158–161.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Hovis,J.G., Stumpo,D.J., Halsey,D.L. and Blackshear,P.J. (1986) Effects of mitogens on ornithine decarboxylase activity and messenger RNA levels in normal and protein kinase C-deficient NIH-3T3 fibroblasts. J. Biol. Chem., 22, 10380–10386.
  15. Metcalf,B.W., Bey,P., Danzin,C., Jung,M.J., Casara,P. and Vevert,J.P. (1978) Catalytic irreversible inhibition of mammalian ornithine decarboxylase by substrate and product analogs. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 100, 2551–2553.[ISI]
  16. Gaines,D.W., Friedman,L. and McCann,P.P. (1988) Apparent ornithine decarboxylase activity measured by 14CO2 trapping after frozen storage of rat tissue and rat tissue supernatants. Anal. Biochem., 174, 88–96.[ISI][Medline]
Received November 19, 1998; revised February 5, 1999; accepted February 11, 1999.