The blue-light sensitive photoreceptor cryptochrome (CRY) may act as a magneto-receptor through formation of radical pairs involving a triad of tryptophans. Previous genetic analyses of behavioral responses of Drosophila to electromagnetic fields using conditioning, circadian and geotaxis assays have lent some support to the radical pair model (RPM). Here, we describe a new method that generates consistent and reliable circadian responses to electromagnetic fields that differ substantially from those already reported. We used the Schuderer apparatus to isolate Drosophila from local environmental variables, and observe extremely low frequency (3 to 50 Hz) field-induced changes in two locomotor phenotypes, circadian period and activity levels. These field-induced phenotypes are CRY- and blue-light dependent, and are correlated with enhanced CRY stability. Mutational analysis of the terminal tryptophan of the triad hypothesised to be indispensable to the electron transfer required by the RPM reveals that this residue is not necessary for field responses. We observe that deletion of the CRY C-terminus dramatically attenuates the EMF-induced period changes, whereas the N-terminus underlies the hyperactivity. Most strikingly, an isolated CRY C-terminus that does not encode the Tryptophan triad nor the FAD binding domain is nevertheless able to mediate a modest EMF-induced period change. Finally, we observe that hCRY2, but not hCRY1, transformants can detect EMFs, suggesting that hCRY2 is blue light-responsive. In contrast, when we examined circadian molecular cycles in wild-type mouse suprachiasmatic nuclei slices under blue light, there was no field effect. Our results are therefore not consistent with the classical Trp triad-mediated RPM and suggest that CRYs act as blue-light/EMF sensors depending on trans-acting factors that are present in particular cellular environments.

During an MRI scan, the radiofrequency field from the scanner's transmit coil, but also the switched gradient fields, induce currents in any conductive object in the bore. This makes any metallic medical implant an additional risk for an MRI patient, because those currents can heat up the surrounding tissues to dangerous levels. This is one of the reasons why implants are, until today, considered a contraindication for MRI; for example, by scanner manufacturers. Due to the increasing prevalence of medical implants in our aging societies, such general exclusion is no longer acceptable. Also, it should be no longer needed, because of a much‐improved safety‐assessment methodology, in particular in the field of numerical simulations. The present article reviews existing literature on implant‐related heating effects in MRI. Concepts for risk assessment and quantification are presented and also some first attempts towards an active safety management and risk mitigation. Level of Evidence 5 Technical Efficacy Stage 5

The results are found to be consistent with the history of safe use in MR scanning, but not with current safety guidelines. For future safety concepts, we suggest to use thermal dose models instead of temperatures or SAR. Special safety concerns for patients with impaired thermoregulation (e.g., the elderly, diabetics) should be addressed.