6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.

Effect of electric fields on growth rate of embryonic chick tibiae in vitro

Bioeffects Seen

L. E. DAVIS, SUSAN SHURIN, R. T. JOHNSON · 1975

Share:

Pulsed electric fields affected growth of embryonic chick tibiae in vitro, but static fields did not.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers cultured embryonic chick tibiae in vitro and exposed them to either a static or a pulsed electric field. Histological examination and macroscopic photographs showed no differences in growth patterns between test and control bones.

Why This Matters

Tibiae from 8- to 9-day-old embryos were aseptically excised and placed on a siliconised cellulose acetate mat over a sterile sponge. The 9 d incubation period at 37 °C was determined by prior trials measuring bone length until growth became asymptotic. The pulsed field used a square wave with approximately a 1:10 mark-space ratio generated by switching the upper plate between -1,400 V and ground.

Finding

We report that the gross development of embryonic chick tibiae grown in vitro is affected by a pulsed, transverse electric field, but that no significant changes were observed when a static, non-varying field was used.

In their words

“We report that the gross development of embryonic chick tibiae grown in vitro is affected by a pulsed, transverse electric field, but that no significant changes were observed when a static, non-varying field was used.”
Cite This Study
L. E. DAVIS, SUSAN SHURIN, R. T. JOHNSON (1975). Effect of electric fields on growth rate of embryonic chick tibiae in vitro.
Show BibTeX
@article{effect_of_electric_fields_on_growth_rate_of_embryonic_chick_tibiae_in_vitro_g5713,
  author = {L. E. DAVIS and SUSAN SHURIN and R. T. JOHNSON},
  title = {Effect of electric fields on growth rate of embryonic chick tibiae in vitro},
  year = {1975},
  
  
}
No DOI on file for this study.

Quick Questions About This Study

A pulsed transverse electric field affected growth, but a static non-varying field did not.
The pulsed field was 1,000 V cm-1 at about 1 pulse s-1 with a square wave of approximately 1:10 mark-space ratio.
No, the static field produced no significant difference in fractional length increase between test and control bones.
Microscopic examination of stained sections did not reveal any differences between test and control slides, and macroscopic inspection of photographs showed no differences in growth patterns.