Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine News Science Technology

Smoking Permanently Damages Your DNA, Study Finds (nbcnews.com) 177

Posted by BeauHD from the adverse-side-effects dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Smoking scars DNA in clear patterns, researchers reported Tuesday. Most of the damage fades over time, they found -- but not all of it. Their study of 16,000 people found that while most of the disease-causing genetic footprints left by smoking fade after five years if people quit, some appear to stay there forever. The marks are made in a process called methylation, which is an alteration of DNA that can inactivate a gene or change how it functions -- often causing cancer and other diseases. The team examined blood samples given by 16,000 people taking part in various studies going back to 1971. In all the studies, people have given blood samples and filled out questionnaires about smoking, diet, lifestyle and their health histories. They found smokers had a pattern of methylation changes affecting more than 7,000 genes, or one-third of known human genes. Many of the genes had known links to heart disease and cancers known to be caused by smoking. Among quitters, most of these changes reverted to the patterns seen in people who never smoked after about five years, the team reported in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics. But smoking-related changes in 19 genes, including the TIAM2 gene linked to lymphoma, lasted 30 years, the team found.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smoking Permanently Damages Your DNA, Study Finds More

Smoking Permanently Damages Your DNA, Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Pollution? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @11:36PM (#52936087)

    Would the same be true of people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods

      Or, better yet, second-hand smoking?
      There are several locations (my office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location) where you cannot pass by without getting a nice dose of second-hand smoke.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by antdude ( 79039 )

        And people's breathes after they smoke. Argh!!!

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by markdavis ( 642305 )

        >" Or, better yet, second-hand smoking? There are several locations (my office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location) where you cannot pass by without getting a nice dose of second-hand smoke."

        That is just called annoyance, not health risk. The brief few seconds outdoor smell exposure you are talking about is probably something unmeasurably small, like 0.00000000001% the exposure of actual smoking. Once you walk into the building, you probably are breathing a zillion times more

        • Re:Pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @08:39AM (#52937767) Homepage Journal

          That is just called annoyance, not health risk.

          Right, those people are not risking your life, they're just stinking on you (and activating any applicable allergies.) They're just fuckheads, not murderers.

        • Re:Pollution? (Score:5, Informative)

          by dcollins117 ( 1267462 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:35AM (#52938105)

          That is just called annoyance, not health risk. The brief few seconds outdoor smell exposure you are talking about is probably something unmeasurably small, like 0.00000000001% the exposure of actual smoking. Once you walk into the building, you probably are breathing a zillion times more contaminates from paints, perfumes, plastics, carpets, wood preservatives, cleaning products, etc., continuously for many hours, day after day.

          It's just an annoyance to you, perhaps, but a life-threatening health issue to me and a subset of people with serious respiratory illnesses like athsma and COPD. My airways constrict when exposed to smoke. Paints, perfumes, plastics, etc. are just fine - I have no problem with them. Smoke for some reason is a trigger and people like me are the reason smokers are exiled to the great outdoors. You're welcome.

          • Any number of groups with allergies could make a similar claim though. While your condition is unfortunate, it shouldn't prevent others from for example grilling or barbecuing in a public park.

        • During my obligatory service in the army I've spent a half the time working in the office with chain smokers.
          It took me months to stop wheezing and coughing when I came out of the uniform.
          Basically, I was smoking a pack or two a day just sitting there.

          A close neighbor (as in close family friends) died from cancer recently. Never quit smoking though.
          He'd call me up often to do tech support and being eager to know but lacking tech skills (or knowledge of English) he'd have a lot of questions.
          So I'd often spen

          • >"During my obligatory service in the army I've spent a half the time working in the office with chain smokers."

            We were talking about OUTDOORS walking past smokers for a few seconds. That is a NOT a measurable health risk. We were not talking about working inside a confined space for hours with smokers. That is a different story.

            Your subject title sounds like it is arguing with me... yet your last two sentences agree with me. Just pointing that out.

            My posting was in reaction to whiny people who want

            • My posting was in reaction to whiny people who want to try to get us believe there is any health risk to people smoking outdoors.

              No. Your post was about representing "office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location" as "outside".

              Which may very well be so - or it may be the only place one is allowed to step out to in order to get a breath of if not fresh than at least not stale air.
              Or to reset one's focus from half a meter in front of one's face onto something a bit more distant.
              A place where one can see a sky without looking at a pane of glass.

              If one goes there to catch some air and everyone else goes there

    • Likely yes.

      Smoke is basically bad for you.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Would the same be true of people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods?

      No. Coal is good for you. Almost as good as diesel and oil. mmmm naptha fresh with the fragrant tang of powdered tire rubber - it's Good!

  • Tobacco can't be any worse for my DNA than the 1970s were.

  • They don't answer the only question we care about. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @12:02AM (#52936213)

    They don't answer the only question we care about.

    Heritability.

    If it doesn't damage your kids genes ...and by extension, pollute the human genome ...then I don't care if you are dumb enough to damage your own health.

    Unless you are a close relative, or smoke around me, it's no skin off my nose, if you want to commit suicide by cigarette or a Kevorkian death machine.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Man, you reek of smuggery. Hopefully that's not heritable, because future generations will be fucked.

    • Re:They don't answer the only question we care abo (Score:5, Informative)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @12:49AM (#52936417)
      The cytosine methylation signal along a strand of DNA is theoretically heritable, even though it has nothing to do with the actual sequence of bases.

      There are vast stretches of junk DNA in the genome, some with old genes for ancient viruses or parasitic sequences like transposons, and the way the cell keeps those parts of DNA away from cell machinery is by methylating the cytosine residues. The methyl groups prevent RNA polymerase from transcribing the DNA and therefore it gets silenced.

      When a cell divides, the methyl groups are only on the original strand; the new complimentary strand doesn't have any. The methylation signal has to be actively transcribed from one strand to another; an enzyme runs up the DNA feeling for methylated cytosine residues. When it finds some, it starts methylating any cytosine residues that might be nearby on the opposite strand, to make sure the troublesome regions all stay commented out. That's why it's heritable.

      • Big question probably is: but does it affect gamets?

      • Re:They don't answer the only question we care abo (Score:5, Informative)

        by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @05:20AM (#52937161)

        When a cell divides, the methyl groups are only on the original strand; the new complimentary strand doesn't have any. The methylation signal has to be actively transcribed from one strand to another; an enzyme runs up the DNA feeling for methylated cytosine residues. When it finds some, it starts methylating any cytosine residues that might be nearby on the opposite strand, to make sure the troublesome regions all stay commented out. That's why it's heritable.

        The methylation inactivation is heritable. The issue, in this case, was erroneous activation or switching of cells to modify protein production.

        I suspect that the mechanism involved (they don't say) in the repair of the genes which end up going back to normal is related to the production of O6-methyl-transferase via the MGMT complex sites on the long arm of c21 -- the same thing that results in chemo-resistance to cancers, such as pancreatic cancer or glioblastoma, when combined with the appropriate mutation of the p53 gene on c17.

        I think as long as it doesn't involve a long term mutation of a cancer related gene, such that it effect the germ cells, it's not a problem. Since you tend to come pre-packed with all the germ cells you are ever going to have in your lifetime, then the issue will be smoking by pregnant women, and all other damage that results in disease will only be self-inflicted diseases, rather than heritable.

        Which still means they've failed to answer the question of whether or not it's heritable, because they've failed to discuss whether or not it impacts germ cells (arguably unlikely, but it'd be nice to have an answer, particularly when making decisions on how and when to regulate smoking, or minimally, smoking in public).

      • Your response doesn't exactly address the concern: are these changes heritable?

        There is evidence to suggest that they are transmitted to offspring, maternally and possibly paternally:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
        "These data suggest that prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with reproducible epigenetic changes that persist well into childhood."

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
        "Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether th

      • So the main effect of the smoking-related-methylation is to stop those genes getting replicated? I presume missing genes means missing proteins... but if neighbouring cells produce them, it won't cause much of a problem? What else can go wrong from missing genes in an individual cell?

        Also, what is transcribed instead of the methylated group, out of interest?

        Sorry, my biology education sucked.

    • They probably didn't address it because it's obviously heritable. Genetics 101. There's no mechanism by which those genetic changes could be prevented from potentially passing to offspring, except not having offspring (or making a custom gene drive to reverse the changes before spawning).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        because it's obviously heritable

        Far from it. Unless it is the sperm or the eggs that are affected, DNA changes won't propagate. TFA mentions 7k genes can be affected, but doesn't elaborate the genes of which cells. Even supposing smoke hits you straight in the sack or the ovaries (which it doesn't), that still means that less than a quarter of all DNA in some of the cells will be affected. Hardly a certainty, even under the largest possible exaggeration of the risk.

        Maybe you should take that Genetics 101 instead of talking about it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Fjandr ( 66656 )

          Indeed. My post was not well-considered.

        • The problem with ovaries is that women are born with all the eggs they're ever going to have, so you can rack up years or decades of exposure.

          • But, are the ovaries exposed to the carcinogens that are found in smoke? As far as I understood, the lungs are mostly what is affected, not the ovaries. How would the carcinogens even get to the ovaries?

            • You'd be wrong. If you thought about it, even nicotine manages to get into the bloodstream and through the blood-brain barrier. If the various toxins didn't get elsewhere in the body, it would be kind of hard for them to cause pancreas, bladder, kidney, cervix, and stomach cancer, and acute myeloid leukemia (bone marrow cancer), or to show up in the urine.
    • That's the only question you care about?
      How about; If I'm altering my DNA, what superpowers am I likely to develop?

      No that's an important question.

  • Everyone knows that toggling a switch is damage.

  • This study might explain the explosion of peanut allergies, adhd, and many other disorders.

    Smoking was really popular during the baby boom.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Erm... There are better explanations.

      1. There's no such thing as ADHD, it is a made-up "disorder" to dispense expensive medicine. Go look it up, it is really called "being a spoiled brat". Nothing cures it better than a good beating or two.

      2. Allergies, and many other auto-immune diseases are better explained with a too clean environment. Your immune system doesn't have much to do, so it attacks you instead.

      3. Many other disorders can be explained with too much industrial chemicals in your food, which bring

  • Many things cause Methylation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA, but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke? Or smog? Or eating sugar? Or getting vaccines?

    Could it be caused by the additives? The pesticides? The rolling paper? Is it the carbon monoxide? The nicotine? Or does the tobacco plant simply contain the perfect storm of noxious compounds?

    Ok, so what? Another article that says "smoking is bad." Not constructive-- it's just another excuse for people to dogpile onto the boogey man that is tobacco wi

    • What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA, but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke? Or smog?

      Probably nothing?

      But lots of people smoke cigarettes, and, well, I've never known anyone with a 20 a day weed habit or worse), unlike cigarettes.

      And smog does kill people, which is why the UK for example has had numerous clean air acts over the years. Though smog had some different properties with continuous but less concentrated exposure.

      Basically smoke is bad for your lungs.

    • Re:Many things cause Methylation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @08:43AM (#52937785) Homepage Journal

      What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA,

      Even breaking down nicotine produces free radicals. Almost everything about typical tobacco is carcinogenic.

      but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke?

      See ye olde UCLA study. Marijuana not only doesn't increase your cancer risk, it actually reduces it. That's probably both because it's less carcinogenic to begin with and because it contains cancer-fighting compounds like CBD.

    • Most likely it is the nitrosoamines which are quite abundant in tobacco smoke.

  • People have been imbibing tobacco products for hundreds of years. It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to its use.

    • People have been imbibing tobacco products for hundreds of years. It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to its use.

      No, it's not obvious, and [citation needed].

      Tobacco still raises your cancer risk, so obviously we're not that adapted.

    • It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to dying young and in agony.

      FTFY.

  • Lots of research related to how smoking affects you in many ways. And DNA "damages" is a scary thing. But what about eating processed food and drinking sodas on a daily base? What about sitting all day long watching TV? Smokers should have understood by now that the cigarette is bad for health, on many angles. But research about other behaviors likely detrimental to DNA would be also interesting.

  • Apparently it's perfectly safe...so vaping companies say AND there's been some studies to say that vaping is so much better for you than smoking...

    You should believe vaping is safe...except if you suspect that the lack of decades of data makes it difficult to determine AND if you suspect studies are influenced, falsified, wrong or completely malicious.

    Because respectable bodies of research were never going to lie for money and they never do:

    This -> https://www.statnews.com/2016/... [statnews.com]

    The eagle-eyed

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Obviously it's too early to say exactly how safe vaping is, however we know smoking tobacco is incredibly bad for you and we know most of the ingredients in e-liquids are (relatively) safe on their own.

      While there have been studies showing negative effects they tend to be rife with methodological flaws (running the e-cigs while dry, not replacing coils at the point they're burnt out, or using unrealistic dosages). I expect these studies get away with questionable methodology because we know how bad cigarett

  • What causes the DNA damage,
    The tobacco,
    or
    The compounds added to the tobacco to bind the user to a brand?

    When I bought smokes I thought I was buying tobacco, but it seems there was a little more.....

    • What causes the DNA damage, The tobacco, or The compounds added to the tobacco to bind the user to a brand?

      The polluted air that enters the cigarette?

  • If you read the original article, the simply state that they can document methlyation changes to DNA. For all we know, the body may be doing this methylation to help repair damage or neutralize toxins. The conclusion that "smoking damages DNA" is unfounded.
    • So you're proposing that the body is methylating the DNA in response to damage or to "neutralize toxins" (however that would work) and in the same breath denying that this would indicate that smoking damages DNA? You're not only mistaken, but your proposed alternative doesn't support your opinion.

  • Are such DNA changes hereditary? i.e. does a smoker pass damaged DNA on to their kids (at conception)?

    • If the germ line DNA gets methylation changes, yes. Methylation as an inherited change in gene expression also occurs in populations that have been through large scale starvation in the past few generations.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close