↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting the mitogenetic effect of ultra-weak photon emission

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Revisiting the mitogenetic effect of ultra-weak photon emission
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilya Volodyaev, Lev V. Beloussov

Abstract

This paper reviews the 90 years long controversial history of the so-called "mitogenetic radiation," the first case of non-chemical distant interactions, reported by Gurwitsch (1923). It was soon described as ultraweak UV, emitted by a number of biological systems, and stimulating mitosis in "competent" (in this sense) cells. In the following 20 years this phenomenon attracted enormous interest of the scientific community, and gave rise to more than 700 publications around the world. Yet, this wave of research vanished after several ostensibly disproving works in late 1930-s, and was not resumed later, regardless of quite serious grounds for that. The authors discuss separately two aspects of the problem: (1) do living organisms emit ultraweak radiation in the UV range (irrespective of whether it has any biological role), and (2) are there any real effects of this ultraweak photon emission (UPE) upon cell division and/or other biological functions? Analysis of the available data permits to conclude, that UV fraction of UPE should be regarded real, while its biological effects are difficult to reproduce. This causes a paradox. A number of presently known qualities of UPE were initially discovered (predicted?) by the "early workers" on the basis of biological effects. Yet the qualities they discovered were proved later (the UV component of UPE, the sources of UPE among biological systems, etc…), while the biological effect they used for UPE "detection" remains questionable. Importance of this area for basic biology and medicine, and potential usefulness of UPE as a non-invasive research method, invite scientists to attack this problem again, applying powerful research facilities of modern science. Yet, because of complexity and uncertainty of the problem, further progress in this area demands comprehensive examination of both positive and negative works, with particular attention to their methodical details.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Chemistry 6 10%
Physics and Astronomy 5 8%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,045,204
of 25,378,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,626
of 15,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,609
of 278,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#9
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.