Slashdot Mirror
Smoking Mothers May Alter the DNA of Their Children
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 smokers who abstain from smoking during pregnancy but otherwise chain smoke through life?
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.
On gun rights activists, obviously.
Probably why they are Mothers in the first place.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Epigenetics also affected people in the Dutch famine of 1944 (paper, http link to paper). The children of mothers that were in the famine were smaller than average, and those children, too.
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.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was born in the 1950's, LONG before the surgeon general came out saying smoking was bad for you. Heck, the commercials of that era, had doctors advertising cigarettes! When my mother became pregnant with me, she was 25. When "the rabbit died" she quit until after I stopped nursing. Same thing for my younger sister 2 years later. Both of my parents quit for good in the early 70's after repeated nagging from myself, my younger sister & my older sister. Both are alive & well in their 80's now. Even before the facts were really known about smoking, a lot of my parents friends wives quit smoking when they were pregnant. 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.
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.)
I am sure there will be moms who want to make their kids the next X-man by smoking now
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?
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?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The changes probably make the child more tolerant to environmental pollution, so there!
Not surprised, I still smoke and feel way more physically and mentally addicted to that, then say alcohol which I gave up years ago.
Get up!
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?
@Whee
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. 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.
steaming, sauteing, or even poaching will keep them plump & juicy
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
But being a man, I was always smart about which cigarettes I bought. I never bought the ones that caused cancer and all that other scary shit. I only smoked the ones that caused low birth weight and pregnancy complications. I figured since I would never be pregnant, those were the ones to go with. I could never figure out why the brands would keep switching though. ;-)
I grew up in a haze of tobacco smoke with two heavy smoking parents. In the home, in the car, basically any time I spent with them I was exposed. As an adult living in a apartment building I regularly experience coughing and teary eyes from smoke that comes through from the hallway. It'll probably never happen but I'd be utterly thrilled is tobacco was entirely banned.
The key word is "may". For the illiterate ... "may" = "I Don't Know". In other words, this is another Jenny McCarthy Fear Monger article.
I'm one of many slashdotters (I'm sure) who's mother smoked while pregnant, drank (no doubt) as this behaviour wasn't seen as bad in the times (I was born in '59). No drugs, I suspect - can't imagine my mother (she's been gone 30 years) doing that!.
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?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
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, Manx Cat Fanciers and Left Handed Whittlers.
Who is John Cabal?
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?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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 sister.
Now if every child of smoking parents (or fuck, even a father) became asthmatic, you may have a point. As is, your correlation is worth less than a roach turd and proves even less.
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.
Well, it's monday so it's Apple's fault.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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 the the tobacco mosaic virus seem to be ignored in much
of the tobacco cancer research.... I think that is a blunder. I also want to make sure the
Colorado grower associations take precautions to keep the tobacco mosaic virus out
of their herb patches.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
^ There we have it ladies and gentlemen. This is the logical consequence of socialised healthcare.
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!
Muff Divers are at higher risk of throat cancer. Ban Muff Diving, yes.
they already do.
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Do any of those have effect nearby non-users like smoking and "second hand" smokers?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
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.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
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....
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
all of those impact the entire planet, so yes.
I like your style but I think we might have better luck starting small at first.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Don't feed the troll.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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 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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nice story, but most people who die from smoking die a horrible and slow death after many expensive medical treatments.
Citations?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's true. Cunnilingus can give you throat cancer. http://healthland.time.com/201...
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 mean that they'd need to be responsible for all the added expense of places to smoke away from everyone else, added insurance expenses, etc.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
Just another day in Paradise
Not the GP, but personal experience. Smokers cost a lot. They have higher incidence of heart disease (bypasses and stents are not cheap), emphysema (home oxygen, doctors appointments, ER visits galore), cancer (don't even get me started on the cost of cancer treatment).
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
When I was born, my father stopped drinking and my mother started drinking. No one ever told me why.
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.
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 processed. this whole industrial process is an environmental disgrace and a sanitary hazard your government is not willing to protect you from. in fact healthcare services are flooded with direct victims of this. now tell me something funny about smoking! :D
shouldn't we be taxing processed food to oblivion, by the same argument?
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.
Epigenitic changes are not changes in DNA, pretty much by definition. They are the differences in gene expression caused by the chemistry of the surrounding environment. It is a fairly new field with the goal of finding the causes of differences between genetically identical subjects. The title should read, smoking expectant mothers adjust their body chemistry, possibly with long term impacts on their children's development.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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 are the same as the mothers against drunk driving zealots, who both by the way, have been pretty successful in meeting their goals. The number of people that smke toady has fallen drastically, and there has been a real dent in dui. Those "random" stops are yielding less arrests now, and in my area (college football and student town) the "random" stops were a real cash cow for a while. Now they might stop a few hundred people and net one or two.
But now we see weird stuff like "third hand smoke" or "impairment starts with the first drink". There is outrage over vaping, which you would think the zealots would embrace, because now the evil tobacco users aren't using tobacco, and not inhaling all that nasty stuff into their lungs - just nicotine. But people trying to quit with nicotine patches is okay? And one drink will turn you into a careening drunken killer on the highway.
Yet nicotine is not carcinogenic, and ethanol in proper amounts keeps the CV system clean and healthy. Note that either in large amounts is nasty bad for you.
More like a lot of people just need a target to bestow their hatred upon. They need something to hate. And there is a weird streak of puritanism in the ultimate goals of both parties - prohibition take 2.
In the end, my story is we are all gonna die, and just because we do what the "smart" people say you should do, doesn't meant you are going to live any longer than the stupid people who don't do as the smart ones demand.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.