Smoking Mothers May Alter the DNA of Their Children 155
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Pregnant women who smoke don't just harm the health of their baby—they may actually impair their child's DNA, according to new research. A genetic analysis shows that the children of mothers who smoke harbor far more chemical modifications of their genome — known as epigenetic changes — than kids of non-smoking mothers. Many of these are on genes tied to addiction and fetal development. The finding may explain why the children of smokers continue to suffer health complications later in life.
What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about smokers who abstain from smoking during pregnancy but otherwise chain smoke through life?
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
While there are almost definitely some sort of lesser consequences than those who smoke during pregnancy, what will happen to them is they will be wrongfully blamed for all society's perinatal ills for the next month or so due to the fact that journalists cannot choose their language carefully.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
due to the fact that journalists cannot choose their language carefully
Respectfully, that is profoundly naive. The language used is carefully chosen to foster this ambiguity and instigate the blame you anticipate. Instilling hate in the hoi polloi necessitates rounding off corners that would otherwise need qualification.
Smoking == crime. Smokers == enemies of the people.
That's all you need to know.
Re: What about... (Score:2, Insightful)
An enemy of the people who also fund a Significant number of government programs via the taxes they pay on cigarettes. If every smoker up and quit tomorrow it would create a massive economic crisis.
The government doesn't want people to quit. they are just trying to figure out the max people will keep paying so that the coffers stay full. You can bet on the day tobacco tax revenue starts to drop we will see a halt in the taxes or something else will suddenly be in the crosshairs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It will harm the economy. Less tax revenue for starters. Later on, higher medical costs and more social security costs. Smokers tend to die before collecting a lot of social security and before they get expensive ongoing medical care.
Re: (Score:2)
Happy, contented people don't buy a lot of useless crap (like cigarettes for example).
That's right. But by "living longer and better-quality lives" I don't mean "Happy, contented" - I mean non-smoking. Non-smokers can still be materialistic, impulse buyers, and, because their life span and life quality are, in average, superior, they can buy more useless crap.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone allergic to some chemicals released in the burning of plants (from bonfires to cigars and everything in between)... Smokers are typically my enemy. Especially since smoking fosters special 'circles' where ever they work. I can't even claim my mandatory 15 minute breaks and the smokers get dozens of 'smoke breaks' every day because management tends to also be smokers. Also the cloud hanging around any entryway as the smokers are not allowed to smoke around the buildings is oh so fun for me to walk
Re: (Score:2)
Which Hebrew? the ancient language that was used in The Bible, or the language used in Israel today?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To that I'd add what about mothers who don't smoke themselves but are exposed to secondhand smoke* either because their partner/roommate smokes or there is smoking in places they hang out?
*Before anyone gets all huffy about secondhand smoke being a problem I have experience with it. I was a non-smoker who roomed for a couple of years at college with a pack a day smoker. When I moved out I found I'd become addicted and started smoking (stupid, I know).
Re:What about... (Score:5, Insightful)
*Before anyone gets all huffy about secondhand smoke being a problem I have experience with it. I was a non-smoker who roomed for a couple of years at college with a pack a day smoker. When I moved out I found I'd become addicted and started smoking (stupid, I know).
No you had another reason, you're just placing blame on those around you for smoking. Whether it was stress, it seemed like that was the likely cause, or something else. My father smoked a pack to two per-day, for close to 15 years. My grandparents(all three that were still alive) smoked upwards of 1-3 packs per day, until they died. I never became addicted, I had no desire to smoke. The only thing I missed was the smell of burning tobacco, and fresh picked. That's probably because as a teenager I used to pick the stuff(meaning I got all the crap oozing from the plants on me), but again I didn't start smoking because of it either.
Re: (Score:1)
Different people have different tolerances. You're dismissing the GP's model based on a sample size of one.
Re: (Score:2)
* Yes, I know this claim is based on the fact that there is carbon monoxide in second hand smoke [nih.gov], not from empirical evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
I really love the people who claim that second hand smoke is worse for you than first hand smoke.
I am not really sure how you would interpret the GP to "second hand smoke is worse for you than first hand smoke." I do not really see it from the post. What I am seeing is that how second hand smoke would affect the baby of a mother who is in her pregnancy and not a smoker. The question is related to the GP's parent post talking about a mother who is a smoker but stops smoking in her pregnancy.
Also to me, there is no level of danger between first and second hand smoker, but there is only harmful or not
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really claim he did say that, now did I? He merely reminded me of the Andrew Dice Clay scene, which is so funny I fell out of my chair when I first heard it, and continues to be hilarious to me to this day. I thought I'd share it with you all. I hope you enjoyed it before coming back here to attempt to put words in my mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm calling bullshit. Please link to any scientific evidence that it's possible to become addicted via second hand smoke.
Your anecdote, and mine which is quite the opposite (raised and lived, and worked with smokers), really don't mean much.
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't matter much anyway, with all the "as yet unknown" effects of any number of "medicines","vaccinations",cleaning chemicals, fluoride, meth labs down the block, plastics everywhere inducing hormonal effects, butt picking fingers of the cook @ Taco Bell, McDonalds food,cosmetics, soaps, and any of the other things your wallow in all day , every day, something else will fuck up your zygote even more. Have a cigar!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, just vape, like everyone else who wants to smoke in the grocery store.
I notice tobacco chewers aren't any worse off for all this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
except that isn't evidence, its a correlation at best. maybe smokers just have bad diets therefore their children get fat.
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
'Alter' is a neutral term. (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps there are people dumb enough to smoke while pregnant, but the alterations make their offspring less dumb. This is just a possibility. 'Alter' does not necessarily mean bad.
Smoking Mothers are Smoking! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Epigenetics (Score:5, Interesting)
Epigenetics also affected people in the Dutch famine of 1944 [wikipedia.org] (paper [doi], http link to paper [doi.org]). The children of mothers that were in the famine were smaller than average, and those children, too.
Re: (Score:2)
my mother quit when she was pregnant (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When "the rabbit died"
what does this mean.
I see pregnant women today smoking and just shake my head. Oh well, it's a free country...even if you aren't quite so smart.
it's a free country which means the government can't tell you what to do. doesn't stop you from rolling down your window and yelling, "stop smoking you stupid whores!"
Re: (Score:3)
what does this mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's barbaric.
Different times, and different ways of thinking. It's easy to judge in retrospect, and a little difficult to imagine a time when it was okay to skin those rabbits for a fur coat, and nobody would complain about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is just barbaric full stop. A human pregnancy test is not important enough to warrant killing and torturing a mammal.
Perhaps, but your drama llama response justifies animal torture on a scale that Frank Perdue couldn't dream of. Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
compared to the combined effect af all those, smoking is harmless. its effect is just more noticiable at very small scales. an easy target.
Re: (Score:2)
When "the rabbit died" she quit until after I stopped nursing.
Yeah, I got the same treatment. But all that means is that we "only" were at developmental risk due to smoking during the first, and most important phase of the pregnancy.
I see pregnant women today smoking and just shake my head. Oh well, it's a free country...even if you aren't quite so smart.
It is not and never has been a free country, the government was designed by a bunch of rich white men who wanted to retain control of it after all. That's why they left themselves various loopholes.
Re:Smokers (Score:5, Insightful)
They are one of those few groups who shouldn't get any healthcare at all. Even when their problem is seemingly unrelated to smoking.
same as car and motorcycle drivers, factory workers and owners, smartphone and computer users, meat and processed food consumers, etc., right?
Re: (Score:1)
And divers. All divers should be denied health care. I don't care if it is sky diving, scuba diving, cliff diving, muff diving, or high diving.
Well, four out of five of those anyway.
Re:Smokers (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Smokers (Score:1)
Let smokers excercise their free choice by smoking. Let them access healthcare, but tax the fuck out of tobacco products so those who smoke pay for the increased health cost burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tax on cigarettes already makes up the majority of the retail price. Meanwhile, since smokers tend to die before needing long term medical care, they are actually less expensive than non-smokers. Especially when you consider that they also spend less time eligible for social security.
Of course, those taxes are spent on just about anything but medical care for smokers but you can't blame the smokers for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Do any of those have effect nearby non-users like smoking and "second hand" smokers?
Re: (Score:2)
all of those impact the entire planet, so yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your style but I think we might have better luck starting small at first.
Re: (Score:2)
same as car and motorcycle drivers,
The argument is that it causes unforeseen health complications, not that it is dangerous. Since the great streetcar scandal, Americans have had literally two choices: own a car, or be left behind economically.
factory workers and owners,
Which provide substantial benefit to others.
smartphone and computer users,
What? You are no longer in left field. You have left the ballpark.
meat and processed food consumers, etc., right?
There is no evidence that eating meat is bad for you, and in fact eating only meat and vegetables has been shown to have immense benefits for some people. Now you've gone from standing outside
Re: (Score:2)
same as car and motorcycle drivers,
The argument is that it causes unforeseen health complications, not that it is dangerous. Since the great streetcar scandal, Americans have had literally two choices: own a car, or be left behind economically.
not at all, the argument is that it acounts for more than 50% of global pollution, including the production chain. the health consequences on the whole population are far worse than those derived of smoking.
factory workers and owners,
see above.
Which provide substantial benefit to others.
there you might have a point, citing yourelf: "literally two choices: own a car, or be left behind economically". great stuff!
smartphone and computer users,
What? You are no longer in left field. You have left the ballpark.
see above, dickhead.
meat and processed food consumers, etc., right?
There is no evidence that eating meat is bad for you, and in fact eating only meat and vegetables has been shown to have immense benefits for some people. Now you've gone from standing outside the ballpark to just being a fucking idiot.
Not all processed foods are evil, although that's the way to bet. But our government has told us to eat them, essentially, so they (we) are on the hook for that one. When it's had anything to say about it at all, the government has told us not to smoke.
there actually is evidence of several negative effects of meat but nevermind. processed food is shit, and it's produced mostly from meat grown to be
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't we be taxing processed food to oblivion, by the same argument?
Sure, sounds good. We used to have a 'snack tax' here in California, but retailers complained that it was complicated and it was eventually phased out.
Re: (Score:2)
They are one of those few groups who shouldn't get any healthcare at all. Even when their problem is seemingly unrelated to smoking.
You wouldn't want them to get vaccinated? Or have communicable diseases treated?
Did you work this out all by yourself or did you get help?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you even debating the point over smoking, when you (and I) have no idea what the other 'few groups' are? Maybe next on his list is all the Red-headed people because they all didn't even die when Batman knocked them all into that vat of chemicals. Until I hear who the other few groups are, I'm going to assume that mindless hatered and lack of understanding of basic medicine are not even among this niblick's top 10 biggest issues. Hell, the other "few groups" probably include Underweight Belgians, Man
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous Coward would rather we all die lying in our own urine at an arthritic 96 after having spent 40 years of pension contributions, than in our mid-60's from a smoking related disease. He's willing to pay for the former, but not the latter!
Re:Smokers (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been a smoker for a little over ten years. I've been paying into health insurance plans for roughly twenty. I haven't been to a doctor in seventeen years (and that was required for a tetanus shot so I could attend a public university), so I've paid my fucking dues.
There is a bit of a conumdrum here. As a smoker, you are supposed to die young, and suddenly from a massive heart attack or stroke. Stick with me here, I wish you good health.
Okay, so lets see what happens, the fate of the evil smoker, as compared to "healthy" people. I've told this story before, but here goes again. My mother in law who was a strict teetotaler, a non smoking person who did everything the healthy way, including drugs that kept all the "danger" readings in line, spent the last ten years of her life as a dementia patient, really hitting the Medicare trough. The last two years of her life ,which is when most healthy people really start racking up the bills, she cost around 600 thousand dollars in hospital bills. Pretty impressive.
Now let us take the example of my mother. She smoked, and on weekends, we'd enjoy a few beers. She did die of a massive heart attack, and it was over essentially immediately. So even though this is a sample of two, who cost the system more? My Mother in law, who was probably well over a million dollars during her dementia riddled last ten years, or my Mother who lived healthy up to the end of her days, then went out not costing that asshole anything (and she did die several years older than my mother in law anyway.
Smug people and their ideas on health care are probably the same people that buy high and sell low on the stock market. Using their logic, you would think they would encourage people to smoke. Nope, I've often thought that you could just exchange "smoker" with say the N-word, and see what they got. Just hate.
But we all do die, regardless of wht way too many people think.. I hope I go out the way my mother did, and my worst nightmare is my smart mother in law's protracted death.
I wish your mother hadn't been provided healthcare.
Much better if she was provided free birth control, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is different. My parents smoked 30+ years and they didn't die immediately from massive heart attacks as YOU would think. They developed quite a few health problems later in life which required many many meds and doctor visits over their last 10-15 years. Sure, insurance covered much of it but I gotta think the medical industry definitely makes out better if most of their patients are like my parents were.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you are saying, but your sample size of two does not gibe with the rates for a larger population size. My grandmother, a lifelong smoker, had cardiology bills up the ying-yang. My grandfather didn't smoke, but was subjected to a LOT of second-hand smoke from Grandma. He had a couple of cardiac bypasses. They both lived into their 80's which I was sure happy about, but the Medicare folks probably not so much! There is a large group of people like my grandparents and not so many that just up and die quickly without expensive treatment and lingering morbidity.
And I know a lot of other non-smokers who have a lot of problems also.
This isn't about defending smoking. In fact Using tobacco products in any form is the hallmark of an idiot. I quit in 1976. Haven't missed it a bit.
My point, if I have to hammer it in, is that we are all going to die, and no matter how much we think we are going to be immortal, smoking or not smoking is more in line with choosing the mode of our demise. There is more to this matter than concern for health.
The anti smoking zealots
Re: (Score:2)
Nice story, but most people who die from smoking die a horrible and slow death after many expensive medical treatments.
Citations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
my personal experience is they don't.. my grandfather smoked for 60 years.. he had slight emphysema (used an inhaler when it got bad) and died at 82.
my grandmother smoked 50 years (quit at the end), had dementia and died at 84, no cancer or emphysema.
so... what was the point again? oh yah right, personal experience is crap when it comes to making decisions that effect EVERYONE, so please tell them to your friends after dinner (or maybe not) but keep it out of discussions about public policy decisions.
ANY stress "alters the DNA" of a fetus. (Score:5, Informative)
Diabetes.
Obesity.
Starvation.
These all result in epigenetic changes to the DNA of a fetus.
What's REALLY interesting/scary is that these changes themselves can be inherited.
One of the best groups that has been followed and studied are survivors of starvation in the ghettos of WWII, polish ghetos IIRC.
We've seen that children who were born to mothers who were actively starving during pregnancy, are more prone to the "thrifty" phenotype, more prone to abnormal weight gain and obesity, than those who's gestation was before or after. Analysis of their genes has shown they had changes in the methylation of certain key genes compared to their parents or peers, altering their expression. In other words, the cells of the developing fetus adapted to the stress they were exposed to, resulting in LIFE LONG ALTERATIONS in the EXPRESSION of their DNA. The DNA itself, DID NOT CHANGE, yet they had different expressions of those same genes, for the rest of their life!
Crazy, right? Well, wait for this next bit, it'll really bake your noodle.
The GRANDCHILDREN of those women who were starving while pregnant *inherited* the changes to their parent's DNA (male AND female parents!), even if their mother did not undergo the same stress that their grandmothers did. The altered phenotype they express may be less severe then that of their parent, but they maintain those altered methylation patterns.
Another way we are finding this is children of women who are obese and/or hyperglycemic (gestational diabetes or poor diabetes control) are more prone to obesity or type 2 diabetes themselves, independent of post-gestational life. And if their mothers happen to have a gastric bypass and lose significant weight, then have another pregnancy? The children conceived after the weight loss seem to be no more likely to have weight issues or diabetes than children of non-obese women.
On the one hand, this is exciting, because a whole new field of study is blossoming as we watch!
On the other hand, even if we get the current obesity epidemic under control, or even reverse it, we're going to be feeling the effects for, literally, generations. Sins of the parents, indeed...
(PS: And, no, I don't mean that to mean the children are being divinely punished for their parents acts. Give me a break, poetic license in a crappy situation.)
Re: (Score:2)
In the wild, other mammals are completely capable of reabsorbing fetuses into their bodies during times of stress, giving evidence that the birth of a litter of young is predicated on environmental factors.
If a mammal uses resource surplus & hardship as a determining factor to give birth, it is not much of a stretch to imagine genetic predisposition is formulated by those factors as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So when a researcher arrives to study the genes, if he's a complete fucking moron, he will assume that somehow t
Re: (Score:2)
Great, and if you could provide the peer-reviewed articles of the studies then you would deserve the +5 Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, even if we get the current obesity epidemic under control, or even reverse it, we're going to be feeling the effects for, literally, generations. Sins of the parents, indeed...
That is not the "on the other hand" takeaway for me. The takeaway is that smoking or sucking second-hand smoke during pregnancy is child abuse. I got both; my mom smoked until she found out she was pregnant, while she was trying to get pregnant, and my father never stopped up until his fairly recent death, and supposedly regularly smoked around my pregnant mother (I wasn't there, and she lies to herself regularly, so I can't really trust what she says either.) In spite of there being no family history of it
Re: (Score:1)
Another way we are finding this is children of women who are obese and/or hyperglycemic (gestational diabetes or poor diabetes control) are more prone to obesity or type 2 diabetes themselves, independent of post-gestational life. And if their mothers happen to have a gastric bypass and lose significant weight, then have another pregnancy? The children conceived after the weight loss seem to be no more likely to have weight issues or di
"Alter" is probably a bad way to put it (Score:1)
them them stronger (Score:1)
Figures (Score:1)
Not surprised, I still smoke and feel way more physically and mentally addicted to that, then say alcohol which I gave up years ago.
Dangling participles anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Title got my attention and worried me a little bit.
So do you need to smoke the mother before or after she's given birth to alter her childrens' DNA?
Re: (Score:1)
If she were strickly smoking cock she wouldn't have been a mother at all
True for weed too? (Score:1)
Given that marijuana causes neural changes and alters distribution of grey matter, it would be interesting to learn how it affects the DNA of children born to mothers that smoke it recreationally.
Adopt (Score:2)
Adopt. That's what we did. My sons birth mother could hardly afford food, much less cigarettes. The 3rd world may suck for many things but they don't chain smoke and there sure as hell aren't any crack addicted parents.
Kidding aside, you should adopt. There are children in need, and I love my kid as much, if not more than any kid I could have gotten the old fashion way. We were very lucky he needed parents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've in an area of the world where they grow tobacco people smoke, third world or not. Same way third world countries with poppies often have some level of opium problems. Drugs are cheap if you can produce them yourself.
This study is effectively about mass-produced cigarettes, not about tobacco.
Re: (Score:2)
I love my kid as much, if not more than any kid I could have gotten the old fashion way.
That is not only sad, but really disturbing. Well, I guess if you would love an adopted child more than one you home-brewed, you did the right thing
Totally against smoking mothers (Score:5, Funny)
steaming, sauteing, or even poaching will keep them plump & juicy
I quit smoking many years ago... (Score:5, Funny)
Smoking mothers (Score:1)
For people who think smoking is a person's choice (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Having pretty much been through the same thing...raised by a smoking mom and grandparents, working with smokers until it was banned in our offices in the 80s, etc., etc....I can relate. That said, I'll never support a ban. Why? Because just like anything else you're told you can't have, it encourages people who want to rebel (typically teenagers). And, because I'm typically not in favor of telling someone what they can or cannot do, as long as they're not affecting someone else. Obviously, this would m
Not so bright. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The key word is "may". For the illiterate ... "may" = "I Don't Know". In other words, this is another Jenny McCarthy Fear Monger article.
So it's actually smoking women that cause autism?
That's just joking. I agree with you otherwise. This is like those creepy commercials that shows some dude that claims he lost his legs because of smoking.
Smoking is just plain bad, which is why I gave it up in 1976. All of this FUD is becoming cruel.
Nothing like suggesting to a pregnant woman that being around cigarette smoke is yet one more thing that she has to fear she'll harm her child with. She feels a tremendous weight of responsibility in the f
Odds of birth problems may not be that high... (Score:2)
I'm not saying that smoking/drinking isn't bad for the unborn child, but the odds may not be as loaded that way as you'd think. And my parents both smoked all the way to their deaths. I've never smoked.
And yes, I'm normal - why do you ask?
Re: (Score:2)
No drugs, I suspect - can't imagine my mother (she's been gone 30 years) doing that!. [...] And yes, I'm normal - why do you ask?
We know you're normal, you believe against all evidence that tobacco is not a drug.
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, I'm convinced that by my mom smoking, she inadvertantly immunized me from smoking-related cancer. That's an awesome DNA mod. Thanks, Mom! =p
Not just mothers... (Score:1)
My eldest brother has asthma.
My Dad smoked. He gave up before his second child was conceived. The rest of us don't have asthma.
Re: (Score:1)
You would figure someone on Slashdot would know better than implying that correlation proves causation. I have 2 cousins, 2 nephews, and 1 niece that all had or have asthma. None of their parents smoke, and smoking was not allowed in their houses. Both cousins were "cured" in time from their asthma, mostly by being treated for allergies (go figure that it was environmental and pet allergies and not tobacco right?). One of my 2 nephews smokes, with asthma, and he has less attacks than his brother and si
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading too much into his post. Where the fuck did he try to "prove" anything? He simply posted an observation. Nowhere did he claim that his observation was proof of causation. Don't you think most Slashdotters are intelligent enough to realize that?
I think that most Slashdotters would assume that he's implying the causation. Otherwise, there's no point in posting the anecdote...it's simply another data point.
Tulips.... (Score:2)
Many viruses affect tulips, causing streaked flowers, mottled leaves, distorted plants and stunted growth.
One evil virus is the tobacco mosaic virus and yes it impacts animals too.
For 50 years that I know many greenhouses for cut flowers have prohibited tobacco products
and sterilize their cutting knives.
Of interest a new virus has been found to infect the gut of many humans. It has only recently
been identified and the value it provides to the human gut is the hot new research topic.
The risks to humans from
erm... (Score:2)
So environmental factors result in DNA changes...is that new?
I thought that those of us not blinded by religion were already of the opinion that this is part of evolution, adaptation, survival of the fittest and all that good stuff....
I changed my parent's drinking habits... (Score:2)
Terrible title hides lack of news. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
On gun rights activists, obviously.
Re: (Score:1)
On the other white men who stole tobacco from the original inhabitants of these lands and forced these women to smoke through trickery and deceit.
Re: (Score:3)
ON smokers, and the industry that keeps paying money to prevent their cancer causing products to be regulated by the FDA so they can keep the chemicals they use under wraps.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's monday so it's Apple's fault.