Moderate Dose of Trolox Preventing the Deleterious Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Spermatozoa In vitro through Reduction of Oxidative Stress Damage

Abstract

Background:The worsening of semen quality, due to the application of Wi-Fi, can be ameliorated by Vitamin E. This study aimed to demonstrate whether a moderate dose of trolox, a new Vitamin E, inhibits oxidative damage on sperms in vitro after exposure to Wi-Fi radiation.Methods:Each of the twenty qualified semen, gathered from June to October 2014 in eugenics clinic, was separated into four aliquots, including sham, Wi-Fi-exposed, Wi-Fi plus 5 mmol/L trolox, and Wi-Fi plus 10 mmol/L trolox groups. At 0 min, all baseline parameters of the 20 samples were measured in sequence. Reactive oxygen species, glutathione, and superoxide dismutase were evaluated in the four aliquots at 45 and 90 min, as were sperm DNA fragments, sperm mitochondrial potential, relative amplification of sperm mitochondrial DNA, sperm vitality, and progressive and immotility sperm. The parameters were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's posttest.Results:Among Wi-Fi plus 5 mmol/L trolox, Wi-Fi-exposed and Wi-Fi plus 10 mmol/L trolox groups, reactive oxygen species levels (45 min: 3.80 ± 0.41 RLU·10−6·ml−1 vs. 7.50 ± 0.35 RLU·10−6·ml−1 vs. 6.70 ± 0.47 RLU·10−6·ml−1, P < 0.001; 90 min: 5.40 ± 0.21 RLU·10−6·ml−1 vs. 10.10 ± 0.31 RLU·10−6·ml−1 vs. 7.00 ± 0.42 RLU·10−6·ml−1, P < 0.001, respectively), percentages of tail DNA (45 min: 16.8 ± 2.0% vs. 31.9 ± 2.5% vs. 61.3 ± 1.6%, P < 0.001; 90 min: 19.7 ± 1.5% vs. 73.7 ± 1.3% vs. 73.1 ± 1.1%, P < 0.001, respectively), 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine (45 min: 51.89 ± 1.46 pg/ml vs. 104.89 ± 2.19 pg/ml vs. 106.11 ± 1.81 pg/ml, P = 0.012; 90 min: 79.96 ± 1.73 pg/ml vs. 141.73 ± 2.90 pg/ml vs. 139.06 ± 2.79 pg/ml; P < 0.001), and percentages of immotility sperm (45 min: 27.7 ± 2.7% vs. 41.7 ± 2.2% vs. 41.7 ± 2.5%; 90 min: 29.9 ± 3.3% vs. 58.9 ± 4.0% vs. 63.1 ± 4.0%; all P < 0.001) were lowest, and glutathione peroxidase (45 min: 60.50 ± 1.54 U/ml vs. 37.09 ± 1.77 U/ml vs. 28.18 ± 1.06 U/ml; 90 min: 44.61 ± 1.23 U/ml vs. 16.86 ± 0.93 U/ml vs. 29.94 ± 1.56 U/ml; all P < 0.001), percentages of head DNA (45 min: 83.2 ± 2.0% vs. 68.2 ± 2.5% vs. 38.8 ± 1.6%; 90 min: 80.3 ± 1.5% vs. 26.3 ± 1.3% vs. 26.9 ± 1.1%; all P < 0.001), percentages of sperm vitality (45 min: 89.5 ± 1.6% vs. 70.7 ± 3.1% vs. 57.7 ± 2.4%; 90 min: 80.8 ± 2.2% vs. 40.4 ± 4.0% vs. 34.7 ± 3.9%; all P < 0.001), and progressive sperm (45 min: 69.3 ± 2.7% vs. 55.8 ± 2.2% vs. 55.4 ± 2.5%; 90 min: 67.2 ± 3.3% vs. 38.2 ± 4.0% vs. 33.9 ± 4.0%; all P < 0.001) were highest in Wi-Fi plus 5 mmol/L trolox group at 45 and 90 min, respectively. Other parameters were not affected, while the sham group maintained the baseline.Conclusion:This study found that 5 mmol/L trolox protected the Wi-Fi-exposed semen in vitro from the damage of electromagnetic radiation-induced oxidative stress.

Diabetes and Sperm DNA Damage: Efficacy of Antioxidants

“…Trolox could mitigate the harmful effects of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi electromagnetic radiation by inhibiting OS damage to sperm DNA and mitochondria. They offer supportive evidence for clinical use of Trolox to prevent the adverse effects of Wi-Fi exposure on the male reproductive system [146].…”

Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health

“…Ex vivo investigation yielded ambivalent observations and conclusions in a few studies with human sperm on the influence of RF-EMF with respect to oxidative stress and quality, although similar exposure durations (45–90 min) and doses (SAR: 1–6 W/kg) were applied [ 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 ]. Two studies reported no signs of increased ROS, no oxidative DNA damage, or any other negative effects such as induced cell death and reduction in sperm quality, when sperm was exposed to a 900 MHz GSM or a 1.95 GHz UMTS signal [ 166 , 167 ].…”

“…Two studies reported no signs of increased ROS, no oxidative DNA damage, or any other negative effects such as induced cell death and reduction in sperm quality, when sperm was exposed to a 900 MHz GSM or a 1.95 GHz UMTS signal [ 166 , 167 ]. In contrast, oxidative stress and, in some cases, massive DNA damage and loss of sperm vitality were observed after exposure to 900 MHz GSM or 2.45 GHz WiFi signal [ 165 , 168 ]. However, it has to be noted that the two studies without significant effects were conducted under controlled temperature and exposure conditions, while user devices were applied in the other two.…”

Adverse Effects of Wi-Fi Radiation on Male Reproductive System: A Systematic Review

“…Human study: Five articles reported the effects of RF-EMR exposure on human subjects, whereby four were experimental studies (Oni et al 2011;Avendano et al 2012;Kamali et al 2017;Ding et al 2018b) and one was a retrospective cohort study (Ding et al 2018a). In the three of the experimental studies, semen ejaculates were placed a few centimeters away from a laptop, which was actively connected to Wi-Fi (Oni et al 2011;Avendano et al 2012;Kamali et al 2017;Ding et al 2018b) while one study used a Wi-Fi modem (Kamali et al 2017). The closest distance was 3 to 5 cm while 60 cm was the farthest distance.…”

“…Two studies have clearly stated the characteristic of the samples subjected to the exposure. They consisted of normozoospermia, teratozoospermia and low semen volume samples (Avendano et al 2012;Ding et al 2018b). Meanwhile, three studies were distinctly characterized chronic diseases, presence of infection and azoospermia as the exclusion criteria for the semen samples and were excluded from the study (Kamali et al 2017; Ding et al 2018a, b).…”