# RF-040 — Sperm apoptosis and oxidative markers in a separate Chinese rat experiment

Why this matters
More sperm cells entered programmed cell death in exposed rats, alongside chemical-stress changes. That makes cell survival a reproductive-protection question for a laboratory outside the Newcastle programme. The study did not test fertility, and a separate sperm-count result has a reporting inconsistency that should be clarified.

Id: RF-040

Author: Liu et al.

Full Authors: Qi Liu; Tianlei Si; Xiaoyun Xu; Fuqiang Liang; Lufeng Wang; Siyi Pan

Year: 2015

Title: Electromagnetic radiation at 900 MHz induces sperm apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 signaling pathways in rats

Journal: Reproductive Health

Citation: Qi Liu; Tianlei Si; Xiaoyun Xu; Fuqiang Liang; Lufeng Wang; Siyi Pan. Electromagnetic radiation at 900 MHz induces sperm apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 signaling pathways in rats. Reproductive Health. 2015;12(1):65. doi:10.1186/s12978-015-0062-3.

Doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0062-3

Pmid: 26239320

Topic: Reproductive cell injury in animals

Verification Group: Original text reviewed

Record Role: Original text reviewed

Featured: False

Exposure: 900 MHz, 50 Hz sinusoidal amplitude modulation, 100% index; 2 h/day for 50 days; power density 1±0.03 mW/cm² at 7 cm. Simplified prolate-spheroid whole-body SAR estimate 0.66±0.01 W/kg. Holding-unit temperature rise at most 0.07°C.

Design: 48 male Sprague-Dawley rats randomized 24 exposed/24 sham; identical holding units without RF for sham. Epididymal sperm assays; protein and mRNA assays n=15/group.

Finding: Sperm apoptosis increased from 11.51±0.53% to 22.47±1.83%; ROS rose and antioxidant capacity fell. Apoptosis-related proteins/transcripts changed. Overall sperm malformation percentage was not significantly different.

Statistics: Table 4, n=24/group, mean±SEM: ROS 53.00±1.89 versus 36.51±3.64; antioxidant capacity 4.80±0.12 versus 6.82±0.21. Authors mark P<.05 using t-tests.

Boundary: No mating or pregnancy outcome; sperm injury does not establish infertility. Holding-unit temperature is not organ/core thermometry; SAR uses a simplified model; blinding unestablished. Table 3 sperm-count significance appears inconsistent with its means and SEMs: do not rely on that count claim without clarification.

Related: Huazhong Agricultural University/Wuhan experiment, separate from Newcastle sperm studies; not a standardized replication.

Protection Question: Does the sperm-injury signal persist with stronger dose and temperature characterisation, and does it affect fertility? The unresolved sperm-count reporting inconsistency cannot strengthen the case without clarification.

Access: Original full methods, results, tables and disclosures reviewed using Scite and PMC XML.

Locator: Exposure methods; Table 4; Figures 4-6. Table 3 needs reporting clarification.

Notice: No editorial notice surfaced in the Scite/primary-record checks used for this record; this is not a comprehensive clean-bill certification.

Funding: China National citrus industry technology system programme CARS-27-05B, as reported.

Conflicts: Authors declare no competing interests. Biofavor assisted Western blot analyses.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0062-3

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0062-3 | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4523914/ | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26239320/

Verification Date: 2026-10-20