1979
DOI: 10.1148/131.1.177
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic Ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells

Abstract: The effects of diagnostic levels of ultrasound on DNA of HeLa cells included: increased immunoreactivity to antinucleoside antibodies in G1 cells, strongly suggestive of unwinding of the helix or single-strand break induction, and low levels of non-semiconservative synthesis in logarithmically growing cells treated with hydroxyurea, indicating repair synthesis. In the C3H mouse cell line 10T-1/2, Cl 8, loss of contact inhibition with a criss-crossed growth pattern was seen. In one experiment, tumors developed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0
2

Year Published

1984
1984
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
11
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It was observed earlier that exposure to pulsed Doppler ultrasound induced sister chromatid exchanges (Barnett et al, 1987), and caused other detectable damage on the human genome (Garaj-Vrhovac and Kopjar, 1999a,b) as well as on male mouse germ cells (Moutschen et al, 1986). Ultrasound of diagnostic intensities impaired the DNA and growth patterns of animal cells (Fuciarelli et al, 1995;Liebeskind et al, 1979). Most readily disturbed are actively dividing cells (Barnett et al, 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It was observed earlier that exposure to pulsed Doppler ultrasound induced sister chromatid exchanges (Barnett et al, 1987), and caused other detectable damage on the human genome (Garaj-Vrhovac and Kopjar, 1999a,b) as well as on male mouse germ cells (Moutschen et al, 1986). Ultrasound of diagnostic intensities impaired the DNA and growth patterns of animal cells (Fuciarelli et al, 1995;Liebeskind et al, 1979). Most readily disturbed are actively dividing cells (Barnett et al, 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Reports on harmful effects of diagnostic ultrasound on human chromosomes are contradictory (Liebeskind et al, 1979), possibly due to different ultrasonic equipment and the exposure conditions studied. However, our previous studies on occupationally exposed medical personnel indicated significantly disturbed cytogenetic endpoints compared with the unexposed control population (Garaj-Vrhovac et al, 1997;Garaj-Vrhovac and Kopjar, 1999a,b;Garaj-Vrhovac and Kopjar, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3, MARCHiAPRlL 1985 the softening of scar tissue, was probably, in part, due to a nonthermal mechanism. Lepeschkin and Goldman (1949) concluded from some of the early ultrasound investigations, on a number of types of cells, that the changes observed did not resemble those caused by heat but rather those produced by a nonthermal mechanism. Some of the reported research conducted at different atmospheric pressures suggest that cavitation is, at least, partially involved in the production of some effects (Lehmann and Herrick 1953, Hug and Pape 1954, Gerstein 1954, Webster et al 1978, Al-Hashimit and Chapman 1980, Frizzell et al 1982, Morton et al 1983, and Ross and Edmonds 1983.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, Liebeskind et field parameters and other dosimetrically imporal. 6 • 7 discussed in some detail standing wave effects tant data. when employing polypro~ylene tubes as the insoMorris et al 5 and Barrass et aJ.…”
Section: Dosimetric Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%