4i–j) by an average of 43 ± 13% (three independent experiments with three different donors). The proteome alterations were, however, less compared to those observed in Jurkat cells and fibroblasts. Only one protein, hsp60, was induced more than two-fold (Table 4). see more Discussion We used a highly sensitive method of measuring protein synthesis rates and protein amounts to investigate the potential effects of low-intensity mobile phone radiation exposure on cells. Our results show that the rate of protein synthesis in proliferating cells is increased by long-term (8 h) RF-EME, while no effect was detectable in quiescent white blood cells treated in the same

manner. Although Selleck Temsirolimus the observed changes reached no statistical significance at short exposure times, we observed some trends consistent with but also extend observations made by Nylund and Leszczynski (2004), who used the same exposure system, but only measured protein amounts (and not de novo synthesis). Usefully, our results appear to reconcile a number of conflicting previous findings. First, we found both RF-EME responsive and RF-EME-insensitive cells (compare Tables 1, 2 with Table 3). The RF-EME insensitive quiescent WBCs (Table 3) were rendered sensitive to RF-EME by inflammatory activation (Fig. 4). Inflammatory activation of WBC induces T-cell proliferation and consequently

an increased rate of protein synthesis (Traxler et al. 2004). Thus, our data suggest LY2603618 nmr that proliferating cells with high protein synthesis rates are more sensitive to RF-EME than cells with lower protein production. Many studies have been performed with quiescent white blood cells, which were also insensitive under our experimental conditions. Second, the exposure time seems to be a critical factor. In our preliminary experiments, we did not observe significant effects with 2 and 4 h exposure times (data not shown). An 8-h exposure was required to obtain reproducible

and significant effects, a time much longer than the longest exposure time used in most other studies. Third, the determination of protein amounts by spot integration is not very precise. Silver staining in particular, does not produce reliable quantitative data (White et al. 2004). Standard deviations obtained with the much more accurate fluorescence Thiamet G detection methods are usually of the order of 25%. Consequently, subtle alterations may easily be missed due to limited sensitivity. Table 1 Jurkat cells: proteins displaying a specific up-regulation of 35S incorporation by real exposure Acc-no Protein name Abbreviations Increase factor ANOVA (P) P43686 26S protease regulatory subunit 6B TBP-7 2.6 <0.001 P11021 78-kDa glucose-regulated protein BiP 2.5 0.005 P13639 Elongation factor 2 EF-2 4.4 0.017 P10809 60-kDa heat-shock protein, mitochondrial hsp60 1.4 >0.05 P08107 Heat-shock 70-kDa protein 1 hsp70 2.4 0.004 P43932 Heat-shock 70-kDa protein 4 hsp70/4 4.0 <0.001 P08238 Heat-shock protein 90 hsp90 2.4 <0.