Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

MRI and Genetic Damage: An Update

  • MRI Safety (M Bock, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is generally considered to be a safe imaging technology when compared to diagnostic tools utilizing ionizing radiation. Unlike ionizing radiation, for which the detrimental biological effects, such as DNA damage, are known and well established, the potential of MRI to directly or indirectly induce genetic alterations is still not evident. This review article summarizes recent findings in MRI research related to DNA damage.

Recent Findings

Applying different exposure conditions, several studies have examined the potential impact of MRI on DNA. While some authors reported increases in DNA damage, the largest studies and those with the highest field strength (up to 7 T) and highest exposure did not find a significant excess in DNA damage.

Summary

The debate about biological effects of MRI has been increasingly tackled over the last years, due to extended use of MRI systems in clinic and research. The balance of scientific evidence from available literature does not allow a final conclusion regarding any significant risk related to DNA damage induced by MRI. The risk and its impact on public health, if any, should be substantially small.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Kraff O, Ladd ME. MR safety update 2015: where do the risks come from? Curr Radiol Rep. 2016;4(6):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Budinger TF, Bird MD. MRI and MRS of the human Brain at magnetic fields of 14T to 20T: technical feasibility, safety, and neuroscience horizons. NeuroImage. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.067.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaap K, Christopher-De Vries Y, Crozier S, De Vocht F, Kromhout H. Exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields from working in the static magnetic stray fields of MRI scanners: a comprehensive survey in the Netherlands. Ann Occup Hyg. 2014;58(9):1094–1110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fatahi M, Demenescu LR, Speck O. Subjective perception of safety in healthy individuals working with 7 T MRI scanners: a retrospective multicenter survey. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med. 2016;29(3):379–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Friebe B, Wollrab A, Thormann M, Fischbach K, Ricke J, Grueschow M, Kropf S, Fischbach F, Speck O. Sensory perceptions of individuals exposed to the static field of a 7T MRI: a controlled blinded study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(6):1675–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwenzer NF, Bantleon R, Maurer B, Kehlbach R, Schraml C, Claussen CD, Rodegerdts E. Detection of DNA double-strand breaks using γh2AX after MRI exposure at 3 Tesla: an in vitro study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(5):1308–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Simi S, Ballardin M, Casella M, De Marchi D, Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Gabbriellini S, Landini L, Lombardi M. Is the genotoxic effect of magnetic resonance negligible? Low persistence of micronucleus frequency in lymphocytes of individuals after cardiac scan. Mutat Res Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 2008;645(1):39–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee JW, Kim MS, Kim YJ, Choi YJ, Lee Y, Chung HW. Genotoxic effects of 3 T magnetic resonance imaging in cultured human lymphocytes. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011;32(7):535–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yildiz S, Cece H, Kaya I, Celik H, Taskin A, Aksoy N, Kocyigit A, Eren MA. Impact of contrast enhanced MRI on lymphocyte DNA damage and serum visfatin level. Clin Biochem. 2011;44(12):975–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fiechter M, Stehli J, Fuchs TA, Dougoud S, Gaemperli O, Kaufmann PA. Impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on human lymphocyte DNA integrity. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(30):2340–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Szerencsi Á, Kubinyi G, Váliczkó É, Juhász P, Rudas G, Mester Á, Jánossy G, Bakos J, Thuróczy G. DNA integrity of human leukocytes after magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013;89(10):870–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reddig A, Fatahi M, Friebe B, Guttek K, Hartig R, Godenschweger F, Roggenbuck D, Ricke J, Reinhold D, Speck O. Analysis of DNA double-strand breaks and cytotoxicity after 7 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of isolated human lymphocytes. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0132702.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. • Fatahi M, Reddig A, Friebe B, Hartig R, Prihoda TJ, Ricke J, Roggenbuck D, Reinhold D, Speck O. DNA double-strand breaks and micronuclei in human blood lymphocytes after repeated whole body exposures to 7 T magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage. 2016;133:288–93. The first in vitro human study on potential genotoxic impact of ultra-high field 7 T on human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (which is currently only allowed for research purposes).

  14. Lancellotti P, Nchimi A, Delierneux C, Hego A, Gosset C, Gothot A, Tshibanda LJ, Oury C. Biological effects of cardiac magnetic resonance on human blood cellsCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(9):e003697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. • Brand M, Ellmann S, Sommer M, May MS, Eller A, Wuest W, Engert C, Achenbach S, Kuefner MA, Baeuerle T, Lell M. Influence of cardiac MR imaging on DNA double-strand breaks in human blood lymphocytes. Radiology. 2015;277(2):406–12. The largest study (n = 45) on cardiac MR imaging on DNA double-strand breaks.

  16. • Reddig A, Fatahi M, Roggenbuck D, Ricke J, Reinhold D, Speck O, Friebe B. Impact of in vivo high-field-strength and ultra-high-field-strength MR imaging on DNA double-strand-break formation in human lymphocytes. Radiology. 2016:160794. A recent in vivo study, in which, the impact of different magnetic field strengths (1, 1.5 and 3 T and 7 T) and contrasts agent on γH2AX formation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was investigated.

  17. •• Vijayalaxmi, Fatahi M, Speck O. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): A review of genetic damage investigations. Mutat Res/ Rev Mutat Res. 2015;764:51–63. A detailed review article on MRI and DNA damage, covering limitations of the previous studies, gaps in knowledge and suggestions for future research.

  18. •• Hill MA, O’neill P, McKenna WG. Comments on potential health effects of MRI-induced DNA lesions: quality is more important to consider than quantity. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(11):1230–8. An extensive recent review article summarizing the previous studies on potential DNA damage after MRI.

  19. • Foster KR, Moulder JE, Budinger TF. Will an MRI examination damage your genes?. Radiation Research. 2017;187(1):1–6. This commentary addressed a broad range of issues which should be considered in research about MRI genotoxicity.

  20. Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH, Ivanova VS, Bonner WM. DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem. 1998;273(10):5858–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Redon CE, Nakamura AJ, Martin OA, Parekh PR, Weyemi US, Bonner WM. Recent developments in the use of γ-H2AX as a quantitative DNA double-strand break biomarker. Aging (Albany NY). 2011;3(2):168–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Heylmann D, Kaina B. The γH2AX DNA damage assay from a drop of blood. Sci Rep. 2016. doi:10.1038/srep22682.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Scarfi MR, Fatahi M, Reddig A, Reinhold D, Speck O. Letter by Vijayalaxmi et al Regarding article”, Biological effects of cardiac magnetic resonance on human blood cells” by Lancellotti et al.

  24. Pennell Dudley J, Neubauer S, et al. No evidence that MR causes DNA damage, comments to “Impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on human lymphocyte DNA integrity’’. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(30):2340–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Willitzki A, Lorenz S, Hiemann R, Guttek K, Goihl A, Hartig R, Conrad K, Feist E, Sack U, Schierack P, Heiserich L. Fully automated analysis of chemically induced γH2AX foci in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells by indirect immunofluorescence. Cytometry Part A. 2013;83(11):1017–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology. 2009;16(2):79–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Erdamar H, Gürgel A, Namuslu M, Çelik HT, Kazanci FH, Ogretici AB, Yiğitoğlu MR. Is magnetic resonance imaging really innocent? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52(3):e33–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP statement on diagnostic devices using non-ionizing radiation: existing regulations and potential health risks. Health Physics. 2017;112(3):305–21. The most recent ICNIRP statement on MRI potential harmful effects including genetic damage.

  29. Health Protection Agency. Protection of patients and volunteers undergoing MRI procedures: advice from the Health Protection Agency. Didcot, U.K.: Health Protection Agency; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Amendment to the ICNIRP statement on medical magnetic resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients. Health Phys. 2009;97:259–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. World Health Organization. Static fields. Environmental Health Criteria 232. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.

  32. Agency Protection. Static magnetic fields: report of the independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation. Didcot, U.K.: Health Protection Agency; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys. 2009;96:504–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, Haus 65-ZENIT, 39122, Magdeburg, Germany

    Mahsa Fatahi & Oliver Speck

  2. Institute of Molecular and Clinical Immunology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, Haus 26, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Annika Reddig & Dirk Reinhold

  3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Björn Friebe

  4. Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany

    Oliver Speck

  5. Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences, Magdeburg, Germany

    Oliver Speck

  6. German Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, Magdeburg, Germany

    Oliver Speck

Authors
  1. Mahsa Fatahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Reddig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Björn Friebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dirk Reinhold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oliver Speck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahsa Fatahi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mahsa Fatahi, Annika Reddig, Björn Friebe, Dirk Reinhold, and Oliver Speck each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any experiments with human or animal subjects.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on MRI Safety.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fatahi, M., Reddig, A., Friebe, B. et al. MRI and Genetic Damage: An Update. Curr Radiol Rep 5, 20 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0216-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0216-x

Keywords