Anti-Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Action of Biofield Energy Treatment Using Synovial Sarcoma Cell Line (SW982)

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic autoimmune bone disorder reported to having a high prevalence worldwide [1]. The severe inflammation in RA leads to joint stiffness, pain, and symmetrical synovitis of diarthrodial joints such as the knee joint, which results in the functional decline in joint movements, articular destruction, and extensive co-morbidity related with the physiological systems including cardiovascular, neurologic, and metabolic changes. Immune cells such as B and T cells are present in the RA synovial membrane, and sometimes plasma cells and activated macrophages are present in the synovial fluid with neo-vascularization process [2]. However, host tissue cells are involved in the destruction of the joints and cartilage results in the perpetuation of the inflammation. Cells recruitment, initiation, activation, inflammation, etc. all are mediated with the wide network of cytokines, which are one of the major sign of RA. Nuclear factor (NF)-kB and activator protein (AP)-1 is the various transcriptional factors that are responsible for gene regulation during inflammatory reactions, along with the inflammatory cytokines (interleukins), MMPs, and COX-2. Proinflammatory cytokines have been reported with significant roles such as synovial fluid interleukin-8 (IL-8) and neutrophil in RA pathogenesis [3]. Triggering factors play a significant role in the initiation of the diseases, it may be internal such as chemotactic factors like leukocytes released in the inflammation area or might be some external injuries that activate the internal inflammatory mechanism. Time course of leukocyte immigration and kind of cellular infiltration were determined by various triggering factors [4]. IL-8 was found to have high selectivity for neutrophils formed by the mononuclear phagocytes and different tissue cells, on stimulation with interleukin-1 (IL-1), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and bacterial endotoxins [5]. Currently, various synthetic drugs such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine have been recommended using therapeutic approaches on the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, these drugs have been reported with very partial clinical benefits and largely related to high toxicity. Thus, in order to find some golden method using alternative treatment approach, Biofield Energy Healing was used in this study as the treatment approach in RA using human synovial sarcoma cell line with standard experimental protocols. SW982 (human synovial sarcoma cell line) is characterized by expression of inflammatory cytokines and MMP genes. SW982 cells express genes encoding IL-1β, IL-6, cyclooxygenase (COX)-2, and MMPs [6]. Dexamethasone has been used as one of the best approaches for the treatment of RA and is reported to inhibit secretion of IL-6 and IL-8 in SW982 cells [7]. Hence, in the present study, inhibition of cytokine secretion (IL-8) by SW982 cells against IL-1β stimulated levels suggested beneficial effects of Biofield Energy Treatment in DMEM against RA.

Biofield Energy Healing Therapies purport to sense and control the body’s subtle energies, which are reported with a wide range of effectiveness concerning reduced tension level, anxiety, and pain. These therapies are used as a complement to other types of medical care with a wide range of significant outputs in living and non-living things due to the absence of any associated sideeffects [8]. Biofield Energy Healing is one of the best approaches in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) because a human can harness energy from the universal and can transmit it to any living organism(s) or nonliving object(s) around the globe. It was accepted and recommended by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) [9] due to several advantages in addition to other therapies, medicines and practices such as natural products, Tai Chi, chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation, healing touch, movement therapy, deep breathing, yoga, Qi Gong, meditation, Reiki, cranial sacral therapy, massage, special diets, homeopathy, progressive relaxation, guided imagery, acupressure, acupuncture, relaxation techniques, hypnotherapy, essential oils, and aromatherapy, naturopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, traditional Chinese herbs and medicines, mindfulness, [10,11]. Biofield Energy Healing Treatment (The Trivedi Effect®) contains putative bioenergy, which is channeled by a renowned practitioner from a distance. Biofield Energy Healing as a CAM showed significant results in biological studies [12]. However, NCCAM had welldefined and categorized the Biofield therapies under the class of Energy Therapies [13]. The Trivedi Effect®- Consciousness Energy Healing Treatment has been reported with a significant revolution in materials science, agriculture, microbiology, biotechnology, improved bioavailability, skin health, nutraceuticals, cancer research, bone health [14-35], human health and wellness.

In this consequence, the authors evaluate the impact of the Biofield Energy Treatment on DMEM for bone cell development with respect to the assessment of various bone health-related parameter, inhibition of cytokine secretion (IL-8) by SW982 cells against IL-1β stimulated effect using the standard in vitro assay in SW982 cells.

Chemicals and reagents

Antibiotics solution (penicillin-streptomycin) was procured from HiMedia, India, while 3-(4, 5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2, 5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium) (MTT), Direct Red 80, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were purchased from Sigma, USA. Fetal bovine serum (FBS) and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) were purchased from Life Technology, USA. All the other chemicals used in this experiment were analytical grade procured from India.

Cell culture

SW982 (Synovial cell line) was used as a test system in the present study. The SW982 cell line was maintained in DMEM growth medium for routine cell culture supplemented with 10% FBS. Growth conditions were maintained at 37°C, 5%CO2, and 95% humidity and subcultured by trypsinization followed by splitting the cell suspension into fresh flasks and supplementing with fresh cell growth medium. Three days before the start of the experiment, the growth medium of near-confluent cells was replaced with fresh phenol-free DMEM, supplemented with 10% charcoal-dextran stripped FBS (CD-FBS) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin [36].

Experimental design

The experimental groups consisted of group 1 (G-I) with cells with untreated DMEM. Group 2 (G-II) contained cells with Biofield Energy treated DMEM group.

Consciousness energy healing treatment strategies The test item, DMEM was divided into two parts. One part each of the test item was treated with the Biofield Energy by a renowned Biofield Energy Healer (also known as The Trivedi Effect®) and coded as the Biofield Energy Treated DMEM, while the second part did not receive any sort of treatment and referred as the untreated DMEM group. This Biofield Energy Healing Treatment was provided by Dahryn Trivedi remotely for ~5 minutes through the Healer’s unique Energy Transmission process to the test sample. Biofield Energy Healer was located in the USA, while the test item was located in the research laboratory of Dabur Research Foundation, New Delhi, India. Dahryn Trivedi in this study never visited the laboratory in person, nor had any contact with the test item (DMEM medium). Further, the control group was treated with a “sham” healer for better comparative purposes. The “sham” healer did not have any knowledge about the Biofield Energy Treatment. After that, the Biofield Energy Treated and untreated samples were kept in similar sealed conditions for experimental study.

MTT assay for cell viability

MTT assay was used for the assessment of cell viability in SW982 cells of untreated and Biofield Energy Treated test samples. The details methodology of cell viability assay was followed by Lorraine et al. [37] with few modifications [37]. The cytotoxicity of each tested concentration of the test items was calculated with the help of Equation (1):

% Cytotoxicity = {(1-X)/R}*100…………… (1)

Where, X = Absorbance of treated cells; R = Absorbance of untreated cells

The percentage of cell viability corresponding to each treatment group was calculated by Equation (2):

% Cell Viability = (100 - % Cytotoxicity)…………… (2)

The concentration exhibiting ≥70% cell viability was defined as non-cytotoxic [38].

Assessment of IL-8 using ELISA

SW982 cell suspension in DMEM medium containing 10% FBS was plated at a density of 0.1 x 106 cells/well/mL in 12-well-plates. The cells were incubated in a CO2 incubator for 24 hours at 37 °C, 5% CO2, and 95% humidity. The cells were sera starved by replacing with the DMEM medium and 1% FBS for 24 hours. After 24 hours of sera starvation, a medium was removed, treatments were provided with the test items. A test item with 900 μL was added to each well along with inflammatory stimulus IL-1β at the final concentration of 0.25ng/mL (100μL from 2.5ng/mL). After treatment, cells were incubated in a 5% CO2 incubator for 24 hours. The level of a cytokine (IL-8) in culture supernatants of SW982 cells was determined using ELISA as per manufacturer’s instructions. The absorbance of each well was taken using Synergy HT microplate reader, BioTek, the USA at 450nm.

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as Mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) of three independent experiments. The statistical analysis was done by statistical software, Sigma Plot (v11.0). Between two groups comparison, Student’s t-test was performed followed by post-hoc analysis using Dunnett’s test. Statistically significant values were set at the level of p≤0.05.

Cell viability assay

Figure 1:Evaluation of non-cytotoxic concentration of the test items (DMEM) using MTT cell viability assay in SW982 cells.

Cell viability test was performed using MTT assay in SW982 cells for testing the effect of test item on percentage cell viability. The results of MTT assay data in terms of percentage values are presented in Figure 1. The MTT cell viability assay results showed that the test items were found to have significant cell viability with more than 100%. Overall, experimental MTT data suggested that the Biofield Energy Treated DMEM was found as safe and non-toxic in nature. Thus, the test items were used to study the bone health parameter, cytokine IL-8 in SW982 cells.

Study of the test Item on IL-8 in SW982 Cells

Inflammation is one of the major factors responsible for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Joints inflammation results in the synovial membrane and proliferation in its lining results in a severe pathological condition in RA. The inflammations of joints lead to erosion of the cartilage and bone. Macrophage-like synoviocytes and the fibroblast-like synoviocytes are the major contributors in the joint destructive process [39]. IL-8 is one of the novel cytokine, which has an important role in arthritis. IL-6 and IL-8 are the major mediators in inflammation that results in RA [40,41]. Proinflammatory mediator’s expression was initiated by the IL-1β formed by the synovial lining macrophages [42]. The RA physiology can be controlled using a decreased level of IL-8 in joints and synovial fluids, which can be achieved using some medication or alternative therapies. Thus, the present experiment was carried out to evaluate the alteration in the level of IL-8 secretion in SW982 cells against IL-1β stimulation after 24 hours. The test item (DMEM) was treated with the Biofield Energy and results are presented in Figure 2 about the inhibitory effect of the test items on IL-8 secretion in SW982 cells. The Biofield Energy Treated DMEM group was significantly (p≤0.001) inhibits the level of IL-8 by 70.05% compared to the untreated DMEM group. As per the experimental data using SW982 cells, the results established that Biofield Energy Healing Based test item has shown significant inhibition of IL-1β stimulated IL-8 secretion that would be a beneficial and important measure in bone-health and diseases-related with joints such as osteoporosis. The Trivedi Effect®-Energy of Consciousness Healing based DMEM can be significantly used as an anti-RA activity to improve overall bone health.

The bone health study for anti-RA activity using SW982 cells demonstrated significant results from Biofield Energy Healing based DMEM in bone health. MTT assay showed significant improvement of cell viability with more than 100% that suggested that the test items were safe and non-toxic in nature. The Biofield Energy Treated test item showed significant inhibition of interleukin-8 (IL-8) by 70.05% in SW982 cells after 24 hours stimulation with the IL-1β as compared to the untreated DMEM group. Overall, the experimental data showed that the Biofield Energy Treated (The Trivedi Effect®) DMEM has a significant impact to improve the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis and could significantly improve the overall bone health. Thus, the Biofield Energy Treated DMEM might be suitable for an alternative media for cell growth. It can also be useful for the management of various bone-related disorders (such as rickets, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, Paget’s disease of bone, etc.), hormonal imbalance, and aging. Besides, it might be useful various immune-related disease conditions (viz. Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Pernicious Anemia, Ulcerative Colitis, Multiple Sclerosis, Aplastic Anemia, Alzheimer’s Disease, Dermatitis, Asthma, Hashimoto Thyroiditis, Hepatitis, Graves’ Disease, Diabetes, Atherosclerosis, Myasthenia Gravis, Parkinson’s Disease, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, stress, etc.).

Figure 2:Effect of the test item on the level of IL-8 under stimulation with IL-1β in SW982 cells after 24 hours. p≤0.001 vs. untreated DMEM group.

1. Scott DL, Wolfe F, Huizinga TW (2010) Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 376: 1094-1108.
2. Birch JT, Bhattacharya S (2010) Emerging trends in diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Prim Care 37(4): 779-792.
3. Feldmann M, Brennan FM, Maini RN (1996) Role of cytokines in rheumatoid arthritis. Annu Rev Immunol 14: 397-440.
4. Jin R, Yang G, Li G (2010) Inflammatory mechanisms in ischemic stroke: Role of inflammatory cells. J Leukoc Biol 87: 779-789.
5. Clavel G, Thiolat A, Boissier MC (2013) Interleukin newcomers creating new numbers in rheumatology: IL-34 to IL-38. Joint Bone Spine 80: 449- 453.
6. Lee YS, Choi EM (2010) Myricetin inhibits IL-1beta-induced inflammatory mediators in SW982 human synovial sarcoma cells. Int Immunopharmacol 10: 812-814.
7. Yamazaki T, Tukiyama T, Tokiwa T (2005) Effect of dexamethasone on binding activity of transcription factors nuclear factor-kappaB and activator protein-1 in SW982 human synovial sarcoma cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 41: 80-82.
8. Institute of Medicine (US) (2005) Committee on the use of complementary and alternative medicine by the American public. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. National Academies Press (US); Integration of CAM and Conventional Medicine, Washington (DC), USA.
9. Tabish SA (2008) Complementary and alternative healthcare: Is it Evidence- based? Int J Health Sci Qassim 2(1): 5-9.
10. Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States. 2005.Natl Health Stat Report 12: 1-23.
11. Jain S, Hammerschlag R, Mills P, Cohen L, Krieger R, et al. (2015) Clinical studies of biofield therapies: Summary, methodological challenges, and recommendations. Glob Adv Health Med 4: 58-66.
12. Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States. 2002. National Center for Health Statistics 343: 1-19.
13. Frass M, Strassl RP, Friehs H, Müllner M, Kundi M, et al. (2012) Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: A systematic review. Ochsner J 12: 45-56.
14. Trivedi MK, Tallapragada RM (2008) A transcendental to changing metal powder characteristics. Met Powder Rep 63: 22-28.
15. Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Latiyal O (2015) Studies of the atomic and crystalline characteristics of ceramic oxide nano powders after bio field treatment. Ind Eng Manage 4: 161.
16. Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Latiyal O, et al. (2015) Effect of biofield energy treatment on physical and structural properties of calcium carbide and praseodymium oxide. International Journal of Materials Science and Applications 4: 390-395.
17. Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Mondal SC, et al. (2015) Morphological characterization, quality, yield and DNA fingerprinting of biofield energy treated alphonso mango (Mangifera indica L.). Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 3: 245-250.
18. Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Mondal SC, et al. (2015) Evaluation of biochemical marker-Glutathione and DNA fingerprinting of biofield energy treated Oryza sativa. American Journal of Bio Science 3: 243-248.
19. Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Charan S, et al. (2015) Phenotyping and 16S rDNA analysis after biofield treatment on Citrobacter braakii: A urinary pathogen. J Clin Med Genom 3: 129.
20. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Mondal SC, Jana S (2015) Evaluation of biofield modality on viral load of Hepatitis B and C viruses. J Antivir Antiretrovir 7: 083-088.
21. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Mondal SC, Jana S (2015) An impact of biofield treatment: Antimycobacterial susceptibility potential using BACTEC 460/MGIT-TB System. Mycobact Dis 5: 189.
22. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Bairwa K, Jana S (2015) Phenotypic and biotypic characterization of Klebsiella oxytoca: An impact of biofield treatment. J Microb Biochem Technol 7: 203-206.
23. Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.
24. Branton A, Jana S (2017) The influence of energy of consciousness healing treatment on low bioavailable resveratrol in male Sprague Dawley rats. International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy 3: 9-15.
25. Branton A, Jana S (2017) The use of novel and unique biofield energy healing treatment for the improvement of poorly bioavailable compound, berberine in male Sprague Dawley rats. American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 5: 138-144.
26. Branton A, Jana S (2017) Effect of The biofield energy healing treatment on the pharmacokinetics of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3] in rats after a single oral dose of vitamin D3. American Journal of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy 2: 11-18.
27. Kinney JP, Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2017) Overall skin health potential of the biofield energy healing based herbomineral formulation using various skin parameters. American Journal of Life Sciences 5: 65-74.
28. Singh J, Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2017) Consciousness energy healing treatment based herbomineral formulation: A safe and effective approach for skin health. American Journal of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy 2: 1-10.
29. Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Plikerd WD, et al. (2017) A Systematic study of the biofield energy healing treatment on physicochemical, thermal, structural, and behavioral properties of magnesium gluconate. International Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry 2: 135-145.
30. Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Plikerd WD, et al. (2017) Chromatographic and spectroscopic characterization of the consciousness energy healing treated Withania somnifera (ashwagandha) root extract. European Journal of Biophysics 5: 38-47.
31. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Mondal SC, Jana S (2015) The potential impact of biofield treatment on human brain tumor cells: A time-lapse video microscopy. J Integr Oncol 4: 141.
32. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) In vitro evaluation of biofield treatment on cancer biomarkers involved in endometrial and prostate cancer cell lines. J Cancer Sci Ther 7: 253-257.
33. Anagnos D, Trivedi K, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2018) Influence of biofield treated vitamin D3 on proliferation, differentiation, and maturation of bone-related parameters in MG-63 cell-line. International Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Clinical Science 4: 6-14.
34. Lee AC, Trivedi K, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2018) The potential benefits of biofield energy treated vitamin d3 on bone mineralization in human bone osteosarcoma cells (MG-63). International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 7: 30-38.
35. Stutheit ME, Trivedi K, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, et al. (2018) Biofield energy treated vitamin D3: Therapeutic implication on bone health using osteoblasts cells. American Journal of Life Sciences 6: 13-21.
36. Czekanska EM, Stoddart MJ, Richards RG, Hayes JS (2012) In search of an osteoblast cell model for in vitro research. Eur Cells Mater 24: 1-17.
37. Lorraine MH, Mahendra KT, Alice B, Dahryn T, Gopal N, et al. (2008) Biofield energy enriched vitamin D3 versus vitamin D3 in preventing fractures and bone loss using MG-63 Cells. Ortho Res Online J 3(5): 1-7.
38. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5:2009).
39. Burmester GR, Stuhlmüller B, Keyszer G, Kinne RW (1997) Mononuclear phagocytes and rheumatoid synovitis. Mastermind or workhorse in arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 40: 5-18.
40. Miyazawa K, Mori A, Yamamoto K, Okudaira H (1998) Constitutive transcription of the human interleukin-6 gene by rheumatoid synoviocytes: Spontaneous activation of NF-kappa B and CBF1. Am J Pathol 152: 793- 803.
41. Tan PL, Farmiloe S, Yeoman S, Watson JD (1990) Expression of the interleukin 6 gene in rheumatoid synovial fibroblasts. J Rheumatol 17: 1608-1612.
42. Van den, Berg WB (1998) Joint inflammation and cartilage destruction may occur uncoupled. Springer Semin Immunopathol 20: 149-164.