The analysis of more than 50,000 people showed favourable mutations in people's DNA-enhanced lung function and masked the deadly impact of smoking. The Medical Research Council scientists say the findings could lead to new drugs to improve lung function. But not smoking will always be the best option, they say.
Many, but not all, smokers will develop lung disease. But so too will some who have never touched a cigarette in their lives. The researchers analysed the huge amount amount of health and genetic data from volunteers to the UK's Biobank project.
They looked at Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) which leads to breathlessness, coughing and repeat chest infections. The condition is thought to affect three million people in the UK and includes diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema. By comparing smokers and non-smokers as well as those with the disease and without they discovered sections of our DNA that reduce the risk of COPD. So smokers with "good genes" had a lower risk of COPD than those with "bad genes".
More after the break...
Prof Martin Tobin, one of the researchers at the University of Leicester, said the genes seemed to affect the way the lungs grow and respond to injury. But he told the BBC News website: "There doesn't appear to be any kind of magic bullet that would give anyone guaranteed protection against tobacco smoke - they would still have lungs that were unhealthier than they would be had they been a non-smoker. The strongest thing that people can do to affect their future health in terms of COPD and also smoking-related disease like cancer and heart disease is to stop smoking."
The habit also increases the risk of heart disease and cancers, which are not considered in this study. The scientists also uncovered parts of the genetic code which were more common in smokers than non-smokers. They seem to alter the brain's function and how easily someone can become addicted to nicotine, although that still needs to be confirmed.
Prof Tobin said the findings offered "fantastic new clues about how the body works that we really had little idea about before and it's those things that are likely to lead to some really exciting breakthroughs for drug development." Their findings were presented at a meeting of the European Respiratory Society and published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal.
Ian Jarrold, the head of research at the British Lung Foundation, said: "These findings represent a significant step forward in helping us achieve a clearer picture about the fascinating and intricate reality of lung health. "Understanding genetic predisposition is essential in not only helping us develop new treatments for people with lung disease but also in teaching otherwise healthy people how to better take care of their lungs."
Related Stories
Huge trove of British biodata is unlocking secrets of depression, sexual orientation, and more
When the Manchester-based [UK Biobank (UKB), a huge research project probing the health and genetics of 500,000 British people,] enrolled its first volunteer 13 years ago, some critics wondered whether it would be a waste of time and money. But by now, any skepticism is long gone. "It's now clear that it has been a massive success—largely because the big data they have are being made widely available," says Oxford developmental neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop, a participant. Other biobanks are bigger or collect equally detailed health data. But the UKB has both large numbers of participants and high-quality clinical information. It "allows us to do research on a scale that we've never been able to do before," says Peter Visscher, a quantitative geneticist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.
The crucial ingredient, however, may be open access. Researchers around the world can freely delve into the UKB data and rapidly build on one another's work, resulting in unexpected dividends in diverse fields, such as human evolution. In a crowdsourcing spirit rare in the hypercompetitive world of biomedical research, groups even post tools for using the data without first seeking credit by publishing in a journal.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2015, @09:38AM
I always hear that it really boosts your health if you stop smoking. I really think I should try it.
However I have a problem: I don't smoke. So to stop smoking I have to first start smoking. But if I just smoke one cigarette, I'll not really stop smoking, rather I'd not really start smoking, so I guess to get the health benefits of stopping smoking, I first have to smoke for a while.
So for how long do I need to smoke to get the health benefits of stopping afterwards?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2015, @09:41AM
I really wish we had a "wat" moderation.
(Score: 5, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 29 2015, @10:39AM
There are lots of little health secrets like this: For example, did you know that you can enjoy greatly extended life expectancy by getting out of the water in the middle of a shark attack, compared to if you stay in the sea with the shark.
Therefore you should go and find a shark to start eating you.
There's a similar one involving a pack of enraged rabid mongooses in a minefield, but I found that infecting all those mongooses with rabies was just too much effort.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday September 29 2015, @04:10PM
But I never go swimming in the ocean. So how long do I need to stay in the ocean before waiting for a shark attack...
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 29 2015, @01:55PM
Don't smoke. I did. Wish I never had. LLAP -- Leonard Nimoy, 1931 - 2015
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 29 2015, @11:00PM
He was 84, well above average longevity. He was a cool guy, but not a great poster child for that.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 30 2015, @03:20AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 01 2015, @12:19AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday September 29 2015, @11:24AM
Would not be entirely surprised if at some point, somewhere on the planet, firefighters and industrial workers are hired based on this genetic result.
Its interesting the article is statistic-free. Usually that implies awful results, like the correlation coeff is 0.00001 which is technically a stronger correlation than 0 but begins to smell like social science made up results. There might be a reason why it takes millions of samples and computer analysis to measure as opposed to genealogical research (the easily detectable famous blue blood unable to clot people in euro aristocracy, etc)
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday September 29 2015, @06:03PM
This -> "the article is statistic-free" an infinity times....
Did the tobacco industry fund this "study"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2015, @06:31PM
No, Volkswagen did.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2015, @12:30PM
They just found some possible correlation. Let's be anal when it comes to science news, particularly medicine - there are too much crap reporting on the subject, and SN could and should do better.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 29 2015, @09:12PM
Barney was my grandmother's older brother. Started smoking at age 12, quit when he was 82 and died ten years later. Grandma never smoked, but back then it really didn't matter because the air outside was horribly polluted, and air inside was full of tobacco smoke because it was okay to smoke almost anywhere. Plus she heated with wood or coal until she was over sixty. She lived eight years longer than Barney.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org