The mechanism by which cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure synergistically increase the incidence of lung cancer is unknown. We hypothesized that cigarette smoke and asbestos might synergistically increase DNA damage. To test this hypothesis we exposed isolated bacteriophage PM2 DNA to cigarette smoke and/or asbestos, and assessed DNA strand breaks as an index of DNA damage. Our results supported our hypothesis. 78 +/- 12% of the DNA exposed to both cigarette smoke and asbestos developed strand breaks, while only 9.8 +/- 7.0 or 4.3 +/- 3.3% of the DNA exposed to cigarette smoke or asbestos, respectively, developed strand breaks under the conditions of the experiment. Our experimental evidence suggested that cigarette smoke and asbestos synergistically increased DNA damage by stimulating .OH formation. First, significant amounts of .OH were detected by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) in DNA mixtures containing both cigarette smoke and asbestos, but no .OH was detected in mixtures containing cigarette smoke alone or asbestos alone. Second, the .OH scavengers, dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), mannitol, or Na benzoate decreased both .OH detection by EPR and strand breaks in DNA mixtures exposed to cigarette smoke and asbestos. Third, the H2O2 scavenger, catalase, and the iron chelators, 1,10-phenanthroline and desferrithiocin, decreased both .OH detection and strand breaks in DNA mixtures exposed to cigarette smoke and asbestos. These latter findings suggest that iron contained in asbestos may catalyze the formation of .OH from H2O2 generated by cigarette smoke. In summary, our study indicates that cigarette smoke and asbestos synergistically increase DNA damage and suggests that this synergism may involve .OH production.
J H Jackson, I U Schraufstatter, P A Hyslop, K Vosbeck, R Sauerheber, S A Weitzman, C G Cochrane
Usage data is cumulative from February 2024 through February 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 99 | 1 |
46 | 26 | |
Scanned page | 156 | 13 |
Citation downloads | 47 | 0 |
Totals | 348 | 40 |
Total Views | 388 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.