In my opinion, the idea of looking for molecular differences in responses of humans and human-derived primary cell lines to EMF exposures is the right way to find out how EMF exposures affect human health.
For many years, I have said in my conference presentations and publications that the individual sensitivity to EMF radiation, including the so-called EHS, exists, but it has not yet been proven scientifically because the design of research studies was erroneous.
For a long time, I have advocated the need for examining molecular level responses of the human body to EMF exposures, including a search for biomarkers of EHS, by studying the effects on proteome… but, of course, others might have other ideas for molecular targets to examine.
[…On a personal note,I wonder why in the introduction, the authors misrepresent my opinion on EHS when they quote reference #33…]
The study in question is:
Sonzogni et al. Skin Fibroblasts from Individuals Self-Diagnosed as Electrosensitive Reveal Two Distinct Subsets with Delayed Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in Common. Int J Mol Sci 2025; 26(10):4792. doi: 10.3390/ijms26104792.
This study has been heralded by EHS groups as a game-changer in the press release from the French EHS group PRIARTEM (https://www.priartem.org/Ondes-et-sante-Une-avancee.html).
Unfortunately, we do not know whether this research is relevant at all for the sensitivity to electromagnetic field exposures, including EHS. We don’t know if EMF exposures caused any of the pathologies.
Briefly, the 26 self-declared EHS volunteers answered a battery of questions about their symptoms and what causes them. Then, skin punch biopsies were taken of them, skin fibroblasts were extracted and cultured in vitro, and the effects of gamma-radiation and H2O2 on these fibroblasts were examined.
The study was not about sensitivity to EMF or about EHS because there is not the slightest scientific evidence that EMF exposures caused any of the symptoms presented by the self-declared EHS volunteers. It is the same problem as with all to-date performed EHS studies – the scientists do not know if the group of volunteers consists of any EHS sufferers or whether the symptoms believed to be caused by EMF exposures are caused by something else (see Drawback#1 in: Leszczynski, D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev. Environ. Health 2022, 37, 423–450). Therefore, the study did not examine EMF-induced EHS, but it examined the idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF).
Extracting skin fibroblasts and examining their responses to gamma-radiation and H2O2 might be of interest when looking for differences between non-EHS and EHS persons. However, in this case, we have no idea whether the physiology of fibroblasts isolated from the self-declared EHS volunteers was impaired by EMF exposures. Therefore, any pathological behavior of fibroblasts cannot be directly associated with EMF exposures. Moreover, as the authors stated in their conclusions (emphasis added):
“By applying X-rays, all the DEMETER cell lines (26/26) appeared characterized by delayed radiation-induced ATM nucleoshuttling (RIANS). However, it must be stressed that a given patient showing delayed RIANS does not necessarily suffer from EHS.”
Therefore, we don’t have any idea whether the behavior of fibroblasts and their responses to X-rays were in any way a result of EMF exposures of the self-declared EHS persons or were caused by something else.
Sadly, this French study suffers from the same problem as a series of other French studies – we don’t know whether the EMF exposures, a prerequisite for EHS, caused any of the observed effects (see: Leszczynski D. 2021. Belpomme and Irigaray should rectify their own data into scientifically acceptable format. Rev Environ Health. 37(3):463-465)
We need to wait for a better-designed study that will examine the effects of EMF.