Investigating the biophysical impact of electromagnetic fields on cellular structures: a comparative study on normal and cancer cells

This research aimed to investigate the effects of two distinct light exposure systems, the Bioptron device (hyperpolarized light) and the Vielight NeuroPro device (InfraRed radiation), on cellular responses in three cancer cell lines: PC3, HeLa, and MCF7. The study focused on elucidating the impact of different irradiation conditions on cell viability, morphological changes, ATP production, and metabolic shifts. Cells were cultured in standard conditions and exposed to light using the Bioptron device (40 mW/cm2) or the Vielight NeuroPro device (60 mW/cm2, 10 Hz frequency sweep). Exposure times ranged from 10 to 60 minutes, with some groups receiving intermittent breaks. Cell viability was assessed using the Alamar blue assay, while morphological changes were evaluated through immunofluorescence staining of actin, tubulin, and mitochondria. ATP production and metabolic shifts were analyzed using a Glycolysis/OXPHOS Assay kit. Results revealed a complex, biphasic dose-response relationship across all cell lines. Initial exposure (10 minutes) consistently led to decreased cell viability, suggesting an initial stress response. However, longer exposure times yielded variable results, with some conditions promoting cell proliferation while others induced cell death. Notably, the Bioptron device, which generates "hyperpolarized light" through a unique polarization pattern, exhibited distinct cellular responses compared to the Vielight NeuroPro device. Immunofluorescence analysis revealed cell line-specific morphological alterations, including cytoplasmic shrinkage, changes in actin distribution, and potential mitochondrial damage. These structural changes were more pronounced in cells exposed to the Bioptron device, particularly after 10 minutes of exposure. Metabolic assessments indicated a shift in energy production pathways following irradiation. Some experimental sets showed increased glycolytic activity with reduced mitochondrial ATP production, while others demonstrated the opposite trend. This metabolic reprogramming appeared to be influenced by both the irradiation conditions and the specific cell line. Interestingly, experiments involving the irradiation of culture medium alone suggested that the medium plays a crucial role in mediating the effects of electromagnetic waves on cells. This finding highlights the complexity of PBM mechanisms and the potential involvement of extracellular factors in cellular responses to light exposure. The study also observed that the efficacy of PBM treatment appeared to follow the Arndt-Schultz law or hormesis principle, where low doses stimulated cellular processes while high doses exerted inhibitory effects. This biphasic response underscores the importance of optimizing treatment parameters to achieve desired therapeutic outcomes. In conclusion, this comprehensive investigation into the effects of two distinct devices on multiple cancer cell lines reveals the complex interplay between light exposure parameters, cellular characteristics, and metabolic reprogramming. The findings highlight the potential of PBM and hyperpolarized light as a therapeutic modality while emphasizing the critical need for careful optimization of treatment protocols. Future research should focus on elucidating their underlying mechanisms, cellular responses and exploring the potential synergistic effects of combining PBM and hyperpolarized light with conventional cancer therapies.