Are E-Cigarettes Worse than Regular Cigarettes?

Haley Kessler

Biology 1610

Dr. Michaela A. Gazdik Stofer

January 25, 2017

     Everyone knows that smoking is bad for the human body.  We’ve all learned about lung cancer, oral cancer, throat cancer, dental problems, and the systemic effects of smoking.  As a dental hygienist, I get to see tobacco stains, black hairy tongues, and nicotine stomatitis up close, everyday.  I get to smell the infected, dying tissues of deep periodontal pockets which were caused by years of smoking.  I try to educate my patients on the oral and systemic effects of tobacco use whenever I can.  When discussing tobacco cessation with my patients, one of the most common questions I encounter is, “Well, what about e-cigarettes?”

     What about e-cigarettes?  What do they do to the body?  What are the long term effects?  Are they as bad as normal cigarettes?  E-Cigarettes were introduced in 2006, and in recent years they have become increasingly popular.  Being so new to the market, there is relatively little research available on e-cigarettes.  I decided to focus my blog post on an article that helps explain how the use of e-cigarettes, or “vaping”, can alter gene expression in epithelial cells. 

     The article follows a study that was conducted by the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.  The study examined the effects of e-cigarettes on gene expression in the epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract.  These epithelial cells are responsible for trapping harmful substances and initiating the immune response. The genes expressed in these cells give rise to specific proteins that are needed for the cells to function properly.  When gene expression is disturbed, cells do not produce proteins properly. They are then less effective at warding off infections.  Past studies have shown that smokers are more susceptible to upper respiratory infections or problems than non-smokers.  This study was conducted to compare changes in gene expression between smokers and e-cigarette users. 

     Thirteen smokers, fourteen non-smokers, and twelve e-cigarette users participated in the study.  They each kept a record of their cigarette or e-cigarette use.  Urine and blood samples were also collected from the participants and were tested for nicotine levels and biomarkers related to tobacco use.  Three weeks into the study, samples of epithelial cells were collected from each of the participants’ nasal passages.  The cells were then examined for changes in gene expression.  

     The data collected from the group of smokers was used as a baseline for comparison.  Smokers were found to have decreased gene expression in 53 of the genes that were important to immune defense.   E-cigarette users were found to have decreased gene expression in 358 of the genes that were important to immune defense.  The results also showed that every single gene damaged by smoking, was also damaged by e-cigarette use.

     Such drastic results were profound and shocking even to the researchers who conducted the study. After carefully analyzing their results, they concluded that e-cigarette use was just as harmful, if not more harmful than traditional cigarette use.  Moreover, they advised that e-cigarette use should be examined as an entirely separate threat to human health.  The vaporized liquid inhaled from e-cigarettes is very different than the burning smoke inhaled form cigarettes. The long term effects of e-cigarette use could include a whole new realm of health issues, as well as the issues already associated with smoking. 

     Right now, the mechanism of action of the damage done by e-cigarettes is not well understood.  There is no research on the long term effects of e-cigarette use.  The small amount of research that has been done suggests that they are just as harmful as cigarettes, if not more so.  Only time and additional research will help us understand the health problems that could be caused by e-cigarettes.  Hopefully research will be continue to be conducted, so people can be educated on this potentially dangerous activity before it gains any more popularity.  

Source: http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2016/06/20/ecigarette_use_can_alter_hundreds_of_genes_involved_in_airway_immune_defense.html

The Importance of Vaccines

Austin Theurer
Biology1610
January 21, 2017

I was having trouble finding an article that I was both interested in and could understand until I stumbled upon this article about vaccinations. I am planning on going into pharmaceuticals and am interested in how drugs and vaccinations can help our immune systems. I also like to look at the different risks and side effects that are associated with drugs and vaccines because I find it interesting.

The article "Fact or Fiction?: Vaccines Are Dangerous" started off by explaining why vaccines are important to us and why there are so many different vaccinations that are recommended for children. Vaccines are ultimately just a weakened/killed diseased-causing germ and it is injected into the body, so that the immune system may become familiar with the germ. The reason it is important for our bodies to become familiar with the specific type of germ is because it will help our bodies recognize the same germ/s in later encounters and become much more readily prepared to fight the germ/s. The reason why it is more important for infants and children to get vaccinated is because they have a weaker immune system than adults.

The side effects for vaccinations and for all drugs is dependent on the user. Our bodies are all different and therefore are going to react differently to the same substances. The article went onto explain that environmental exposure, genes, and immune deficiencies are all reasons why a person's body reacts to the vaccine in the way that it does.

Children are being recommended many vaccinations at a time—the article mentions 16— and because they have a weaker immune system, I was curious to know if there was any danger for the children that were getting the vaccinations and if they could get more than one at a time. The article explained that the vaccines have to be heavily tested before being allowed to be distributed to the public and this includes the testing with the other vaccinations that are currently available to make sure that the vaccinations won't interfere with one another. I also learned that children's immune system are more than prepared to handle all the vaccinations than the average person might think... in the article it states:"Children’s immune systems respond to several hundred foreign substances that trigger an immune response every day. In contrast, the complete schedule of recommended childhood vaccinations includes under 200 antigens."

In conclusion, I learned that vaccines are just weakened diseased-causing germs and our bodies are more than prepared to take on more than one vaccine at a time. Our bodies are amazing at fighting diseases, but the risks of not getting vaccinations are too great to just rely on our bodies immune system alone. Disease travels fast and it is important for us—children and infants especially—to be injected with the recommended vaccinations.

Sources: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-vaccines-are-dangerous/

Breastfeeding May Help Wheezy Babies Breath Easier

Sariah Saili 

BIOL 1610, Section 009

Dr. Michaela A. Gazdik Stofer

January 18^th 2017


As a Registered Nurse practicing in the Pediatrics, Mother Baby and Newborn Intensive Care areas, I'm always interested in things pertaining to the health and wellness of women and children. Caring for hospitalized asthmatic children and postpartum women beginning to breastfeed are two things I do on a regular basis, so finding this article was naturally of particular interest to me. 

Breastfeeding education is a big part of my job. There's a big push in the medical community for choosing breastfeeding over formula feeding; and for very good reason. Besides the fact that it's cost-free and provides a great bonding experience for mom and babe, there are wellness benefits for both parties involved. It's been cited to me many times through my job that women who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer, have less postpartum depression and are able to return to their pre-pregnancy weight more quickly and therefore feel healthier sooner. Babies who are breastfed have the added benefit of mom's antibodies protecting them through infancy, contract fewer viruses in childhood, and are less likely to develop diabetes later in life. 

Well, here's yet another reason to endorse "Breast is Best!" Babies with a genetic predisposition for asthma may have fewer respiratory episodes and symptoms if they are breastfed. 

A genome analysis was done on 368 Swiss babies. They underwent a weekly assessment of the occurrence and severity of respiratory symptoms and breastfeeding status for the entire first year of life. 

Researchers found that the infants who carried genes placing them at risk for asthma had a 27% decrease in symptoms if they were breastfed. The same infants' symptoms came back on the weeks they were not being breastfed. The researchers do state that the study should be repeated in another group of infants to see if the results hold constant but that it could be a good way to protect asthmatic infants. 

I thought it was interesting that the improvement of respiratory status was only seen on the weeks that the infant was breastfed--and that the symptoms returned when the infant was not. Although it seems a child who turns 12 months old and stops breastfeeding may experience a worsening of symptoms; this is still valuable data, as the greatest risk of serious complications in asthma patients is during infancy when their airways are so small. 

Breastfeeding is usually a lot more difficult than primagravidas in our society anticipate, and although most women leave the hospital at postpartum day two with an "exclusively breastfeeding" status on their medical chart, only a small percentage keep that status until their infant is 12 months of age as recommended. This is just another reason for moms to keep at it and get the lactation assistance they need to push through for a whole year. 

Article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/breast-feeding-benefits-babies-with-genetic-asthma-risk/

Study Abstract: http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/48/suppl_60/PA1215

Zika Virus May Respond to Antiviral Medication

Katia L’Ecuyer

BIOL 1610, Section 009

Dr. Michaela A. Gazdik Stofer

January 16^th 2017

As a midwife with over ten years of experience caring for women and their families, I have witnessed the devastation families are subjected to, when they get the news that they are expecting a baby with a congenital malformation or a genetic disorder. Of course, we all wish we had a magic potion that made all diseases go away, especially when they are affecting innocent little ones. Therefore, it should come to no surprise that a recent research revealing a potentially effective medication for the Zika virus, and a greater understanding of how the virus may be causing microcephaly, is of utmost interest to me.

On August 24^th 2016, a team of Yale scientist published an article in the journal Cell Reports explaining how the Zika virus interferes with the production of fetal brain cells. The virus diverts a form of the protein TBK1, which has for primary function to organize cell division to the mitochondria, hence preventing neural stem cell division and resulting in microcephaly.

Researchers are optimistic that the Zika virus might respond to antiviral medication. Sofosbuvir is already approved by the FDA to treat Hepatitis B and C, and laboratory results suggest the medication may be effective to prevent the Zika virus from infecting neural stem cells, therefore enabling the protein TBK1 to function properly. According to Yale’s scientists, more research is required to demonstrate the efficacy of the medication before treatment can be implemented.     

It’s worth noting that Zika is not the only viral infection to cause congenital microcephaly. By gaining a greater understanding of how it interacts with neural stem cells, and how it may be counteracted; we may also shed the light on other common congenital viral infection, like cytomegalovirus and rubella, which are also known to cause congenital microcephaly.

Source: http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2016/08/24/yale_team_discovers_how_zika_virus_causes_fetal_brain_damage.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+biologynews%2Fheadlines+%28Biology+News+Net%29

Debbie downer is here to report on the recent discovery of a SUPERBUG!

It’s so amazing to scroll through scientific news and see all the incredible discoveries happening every day! I love it when I read titles like, “New antibody found to reduce plaques in Alzheimers disease” or “Oncolytic vaccines for cancer immunotherapy”. Instead of posting on one of these amazing topics, I’d like to make a tribute to my friend Debbie Downer from one of my favorite SNL skits. That’s right, I’m going to post about something much more depressing! On January 12, 2017 Helen Branswell published an article touting the recent discovery of a SUPERBUG that is resistant to every available antibiotic!! You heard me, it’s time to retreat into the bomb shelter and break into that food storage, because the apocalypse is here! Okay, maybe I’m being a little dramatic but the idea of antibiotic resistance is definitely not a topic to take lightly.

This article presents a case about a woman from Nevada who died in September 2016 shortly after returning home from India. It was reported that the woman had become infected with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE). CRE’s are harmful because of their high level of antibiotic resistance. After a sample was sent for testing, reports showed that the “Superbug” was resistant to 26 different antibiotics and nothing that doctors could have done would have cured the infection. The article goes on to warn that bugs are developing resistance faster than we are able to create newer antibiotics.  While it may be true that CRE infections are more likely to develop in people who are being assisted with ventilators, urinary catheters, or taking certain antibiotics for long amounts of time, antibiotic resistance is still an alarming topic.

I chose this article because in today’s day and age I think antibiotic resistance is a real concern. Working near the pharmaceutical industry I hear of parents who are at the pharmacy dropping off a new prescription for their child’s antibiotics every two weeks. Antibiotics can save lives, but is reaching for the pill bottle at the first sign of a cough always the best decision? 

So next time you’re out a dinner party or eating breakfast in Disney World make sure you let everyone know about the new superbug that is going to destroy the universe!

Aging Is Reversible...

 

         The fountain of youth, the elixir of life and the power of immortality were once only things of science fiction but are now a reality.  Well, maybe not quite yet but in an article from The Scientific American, researchers are claiming to be three steps closer.  Researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences have completed a study where they were able to reverse aging, extend life and prevent a middle-age injury.  The reverse aging was done only in vitro, outside a living organism and in a controlled environment, however it was successful in mice and human cells.  The life extended was in that of a mouse only and also that mouse had Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome where children age at an increased rate.  Finally, in a mouse only, injury to the pancreas and muscles were treated.  It is also important to note that in their study the subjects were treated for seven days and in the end, developed fatal tumors.  However, the treatment was cut down to two days and the tumors ceased to be an issue.  

It is important to know that there is an ongoing argument that aging is caused greatly by “epigenetic changes” which make genes either more or less active.  The argument states that the genes that regulate the activity or, lack of, come from our environment while we age such as diet, air quality or recreational activities.  The Yamanaka factors, four genes that reverse changes made to these gene regulators, were activated in this study and therefore one additional result from their study is adding some proof to this argument on the cause of aging.  Many other research partners and academics familiar with the study expressed their interest in the study and it showing the epigenetic shift being in part responsible for aging.

            This study was very interesting to me for its medical advances in the health sciences and also the possibility of changing something we once saw as a fact of life.  Although this study doesn’t make the science fiction stories come true, it very well could be that successful step in the right direction that sets the pace or inspires others to come closer to that point.  The most exciting thing about this study, and perhaps the angle they should have taken, was they have come very close to finding a treatment for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome.  With more research, perhaps a treatment plan for age related damage to muscles and the pancreas.  I think the developed tumors are part of the scientific process of trial and error and an example of why we run non-human trials and have a legal approving system for drugs.  The study was interesting and I believe shows breakthroughs and success on many levels.