# RF-007 — Sperm damage after whole body exposure of mice

Why this matters
This experiment moved beyond sperm in a dish: mice received whole-body exposure for weeks. Their sperm showed functional and DNA damage, yet fertilisation and early embryo development were not impaired. That combination makes sperm injury worth examining carefully without treating it as demonstrated infertility.

Id: RF-007

Author: Houston et al.

Full Authors: Brendan J. Houston; Brett Nixon; Kristen E. McEwan; Jacinta H. Martin; Bruce V. King; R. John Aitken; Geoffry N. De Iuliis

Year: 2019

Title: Whole-body exposures to radiofrequency-electromagnetic energy can cause DNA damage in mouse spermatozoa via an oxidative mechanism

Journal: scientific reports

Citation: Houston BJ, Nixon B, McEwan KE, Martin JH, King BV, Aitken RJ, De Iuliis GN. Whole-body exposures to radiofrequency-electromagnetic energy can cause DNA damage in mouse spermatozoa via an oxidative mechanism. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):17478. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53983-9.

Doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53983-9

Pmid: 31767903

Topic: Reproduction

Verification Group: Original text reviewed

Record Role: Original text reviewed

Featured: True

Exposure: 905 MHz; reported whole-body SAR 2.2 W/kg; 12 hours/day for 1, 3 or 5 weeks.

Design: Sham, untreated and RF groups. Figure 5 sperm function n=5-8 mice/group; Figure 7 fragmentation n=5-8, comet n=3, 8-OHdG n=3-5; testis histology n=3. Exposure was 905 MHz, whole-body SAR 2.2 W/kg, 12 h/day for 1/3/5 weeks.

Finding: After five weeks, exposed mice had lower sperm vitality and motility and increased sperm DNA fragmentation. Oxidative DNA-base damage increased across exposure periods.

Boundary: Fertilisation and blastocyst development were not impaired in the study. The affirmative claim concerns sperm damage, not a demonstrated loss of fertility.

Related: Same Newcastle research network as RF-006/RF-008; distinct animal experiment.

Protection Question: Can sperm functional and DNA changes have consequences beyond the measured period? Fertilisation and early embryo development were not impaired here, so cellular injury and demonstrated reproductive impairment remain separate questions.

Access: Original full text through Scite and PMC XML rechecked for replicates/disclosures.

Locator: Figures 5,7,8; Methods; Acknowledgments.

Notice: Primary PubMed linked-notice record checked 20 Oct 2026; no correction, concern or retraction linked at check. This is not an exhaustive publisher-history certification.

Funding: NHMRC Australia APP1156997 to G.N.De Iuliis,B.Nixon,B.V.King and R.J.Aitken; B.Houston Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship.

Conflicts: Authors declare no competing interests.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53983-9

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53983-9 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31767903/

Verification Date: 2026-10-20