Advertisement

Science Friday
Nicotine’s role in SIDS
New study in rats explains how smoke exposure may increase risk of sudden infant death syndrome
Web edition : Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009
font_down font_up Text Size

Exposure to cigarette smoke in the womb may dampen a baby’s fight-or-flight responses, leaving the newborn vulnerable to sudden infant death syndrome, a study in rats suggests. It has been known that babies exposed to the smoke have a higher risk of the syndrome, in which seemingly healthy infants inexplicably die. The new study, appearing June 3 in The Journal of Neuroscience, may explain why, the researchers report.

“SIDS is a complicated disease, and this is why you need these kinds of studies,” comments Ernest Cutz, a pediatric pathologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Researchers led by Colin Nurse, a neurobiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, studied chromaffin cells, which are located in the adrenal gland of both rats and humans. In alarming situations — like when a baby is, for any number of reasons, not getting enough oxygen — these cells flood the body with chemical signals called catecholamines. These signals, which include adrenaline, stimulate the fight-or-flight response. “Catecholamines are very important alarm mechanisms that wake a baby up,” Nurse says.

The chromaffin cells of newborn rats that were exposed to nicotine while in their mothers’ womb produced more of a protein that dampens the cells’ responses. This protein, called a potassium ATP channel, normally acts as a brake by preventing the cells from releasing the fight-or-flight signals in nonthreatening situations, Nurse says. For the rats that have been exposed to nicotine, he says, “the brake has become too strong.” Fetal nicotine exposure prevented the cells from later sounding the alarm and releasing catecholamines when the researchers deprived the rats of oxygen, Nurse and his colleagues found.

Not only did rats exposed to nicotine in the womb have abnormally high levels of potassium ATP channels, these rats were more likely to die in low-oxygen conditions than were young rats not exposed to nicotine in the womb.

Nurse says the process probably explains why fetuses exposed to cigarette smoke during development end up having a higher risk of SIDS. “With smoking mothers, the nicotine is getting to the fetus at a time the nervous system is developing,” Nurse says. “If systems are perturbed, you can’t respond appropriately.”

The higher death rate among the rats was reversed when the fetuses were treated with a drug called glibenclamide before nicotine exposure. Glibenclamide, commonly used to treat diabetes in adults, acts on the same potassium ATP channels that nicotine affects. “We were able to reverse the adverse effects of nicotine,” Nurse says.

“The paper adds to the knowledge in the field,” says Rosemary Horne of the Monash Institute of Medical Research in Clayton, Australia. But she cautions that it’s too early to say whether glibenclamide could reduce the risk of SIDS in people.


Found in: Body & Brain and Genes & Cells
Comments 11
  • The research itself seems to have been done well. However the reporting of it here is not. This article refers three times to fetuses and babies "being exposed" to tobacco smoke. In common parlance one would assume that the exposure being talked about had something to do with the "exposure to tobacco smoke" that has resulted in smoking bans and the closures of thousands of bars and pubs throughout the US and elsewhere.

    However, when one reads the study, or even just listens to the words of the lead researcher herself as quoted here, one finds that the "exposure" being talked about is at the level of exposure of a "smoking mother." Additionally, when those levels are examined (1mg/kg) one would find that the equivalent exposure would be a woman smoking three to four packs of cigarettes a day throughout her entire pregnancy, an exposure arguably 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than a pregnant woman would be exposed to in any normal daily life situation.

    By using the terminology of "exposure to cigarette smoke" however the public perception is created that a pregnant woman eating at a restaurant and seeing someone light a cigarette several tables away might do best to get up and leave... in order to "protect her baby." The happening exposure in a situation like that would likely be on the order of ONE TO TEN MILLION times less than in the experimental situation and yet this study is likely to be cited as evidence of the urgency for public policies banning smoking!

    As noted: the study seems well done. The real irresponsibility for misreporting studies like this lies just as often with the media than with the researchers. Although, to be fair to the reporter, even the researchers fell into the language trap when, in the very final line of their conclusion they use the phrase, "a result of maternal exposure to cigarette smoke."

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
    Michael McFadden Michael McFadden
    Jun. 4, 2009 at 6:22pm
  • Note: I left out a fairly important, although contextually implied, word in my comment: I was speaking of the exposure of a *nonsmoking* pregnant woman. Obviously a smoking pregnant woman might well smoke a significant portion of three or four packs a day and it would not be unreasonable to look at somewhat higher dosages in limited subject non-human experimental conditions.

    - MJM
    Michael McFadden Michael McFadden
    Jun. 4, 2009 at 6:40pm
  • Wow, must be an irate smoker. I'm not as experienced either, but Micheal, I would suggest reading a weee bit more. Maybe the numbers you got regarding nicotine levels was from the Nicotine companies that you so obviously back up.
    In a study by Moyer's et al 2002, and Rose et al (Nicotine and Tobacco), the concentrations used in this study are well within the range of moderate smokers. Secondly the concentrations utilized commonly in the nicotine patch, a common substitute for smoking mothers, also raise a worrisome question. Not only is smoking bad for you, but just swapping it for the patch is just as bad, if not worse.
    So I believe the authors did not go as far as they should have regarding how harmful nicotine (a naturally occurring pesticide utilized by plants) can be when consumed by humans. Especially those that are pregnant.
    Speaking of which, why do you have to smoke in a restaurant anyways? There's the great outdoors, or heck, maybe don't go to the restaurant. Sure you're going to say "it can work both ways", but majority rules....and the majority don't smoke.
    Jason Browning Jason Browning
    Jun. 4, 2009 at 8:41pm
  • Also "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" is a poor read. I suggest another occupation for you, as you are definitely not a scientist.
    Almost the same ilk as those that oppose evolution, or that the world is round. But not as bad.
    Jason Browning Jason Browning
    Jun. 4, 2009 at 8:44pm
  • Hello Jason. :)

    I think I've read a rather fair amount actually: the Surgeon Generals' Reports from 1964, several hundred medical studies, perhaps a thousand or so articles, and a few dozen books in the area. It is quite possible however that you have read more... particularly if you managed to read "Brains" and evaluate it in the three minutes between your first posting and your second. :>

    I am not familiar with Moyers, Rose 2002. Can you offer a more detailed citation on it? I was using Jarvis 1984 and Feyberbend 1982 and roughly estimating a correction for the better ventilation and lower smoker concentrations offered in a decent restaurant setting of today as opposed to clinic and home conditions of 25 years ago.

    Still, I will freely admit that my estimates could easily be off by an order of magnitude. I'd even be so generous as to say two orders of magnitude rather than fight over the details. That would still leave us with an eight hour a day worker being exposed to 1/100th to 1/1,000th the exposure used in this study, and our restaurant visitor in the described scenario being exposed to 1/10,000th to 1/100,000th the exposure. Even with such generous allowances my fundamental argument still stands fairly solid.

    I appreciate your rather rapid book review, but I'd return the occupational suggestion in light of several other reviews. See, e.g., this week's Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, p. 63, at:

    [Link was removed]

    or John Brignell's review of several years ago at Numberwatch:

    [Link was removed]

    and a number of others accessible through [Link was removed]

    I will freely admit that I have never been a "scientist" professionally, but being a scientist involves far more than a paycheck. I have full appreciation for the scientific method, the importance of rigorous evaluation and analysis of evidence, and my own fallibility. I've been wrong more than once in my writings and arguments and I've admitted such... unlike many of those I've opposed.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
    Michael McFadden Michael McFadden
    Jun. 4, 2009 at 9:23pm
  • I always find it laughable when people of you ilk use "science" to back their viewpoints. I thought you said you read research articles? However in the same breath you can't look up a citation? I also thought you said you were an expert on nicotine use. Then you should know the major flaws of those studies you cited. You can't measure nicotine levels in any organism. It is basic biology. Nicotine gets metabolized to cotinine, and thus you have to measure cotinine levels to get an accurate measure of nicotine levels. So using a study, that is 40 years old is not really a strong argument.
    I actually did read your book and still think the "science" was weak at best. Thank you for posting the link about how yor friend praises your book. Just because you have good friends doesn't mean you wrote a good book. Whereas a research paper gets analyzed by random peers (read real annonymous scientists). The reason I was forced to read your dribble was part of how people like to try to take science and make it conform to their view points. Also had to read creationist literature which is about as bad. There they try the same tactics that you use (selective science) to attempt to fool real scientists. Which you sir are not.
    Jason Browning Jason Browning
    Jun. 5, 2009 at 7:46am
  • Heh... Jason, people of my "ilk" are quite happy to look up citations if they are properly given. I assume now that of Jed Rose's many publications you're speaking of his nicotine patch paper in "Nicotine and Tobacco Research" 2006? The study has nothing to do with ETS exposure.

    As for your 2002 Marlow citation, please be more specific. I *am* familiar with a 2009 Marlow paper in the same issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons that ran my book review. I believe if you check that citation you'll find that nicotine exposure due to secondary smoke was estimated to be about 1mg every month or two... which I believe is well over a thousand times below the concentrations used in Dr. Nurse's study.

    I'm glad to hear that you've read my book, but sorry to hear that you found the science "weak." Would you care to share with others here a few of the weaknesses you found? What were your thoughts regarding the Bio-Physical Model for evaluating secondary smoke exposure that formed the basis for the ultimate modeling and conclusions in Appendix B? You'll note that the BPM was created specifically in an attempt to address the limitations of the studies I had cited... I was quite aware of those limitations.

    I was happy to post the links to UK's well-respected Numberwatch site and the Journal, but should note that neither of the writers were in any sense "friends" of mine before they read the book and wrote their reviews. You speak of having been "forced" to read my book.... was this for a course? I would enjoy corresponding with the professor about how he/she felt it was received and criticized.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
    Michael McFadden Michael McFadden
    Jun. 5, 2009 at 5:34pm
  • I can't believe that in one case you say that you have read a lot, yet in the same breath can't look up a citation? The problem with your book and your comments is that you lack basic knowledge of biology and have already pre-conceived notions of how nicotine works.
    I can also find studies, that are about a couple hundred years old that say the earth is flat. The thing about science is that, rarely, does a study have a long shelf life. Things change over time.
    Take your nicotine comment and supposed backup. Those are antiquated studies that don't take in one basic reality. Nicotine gets metabolized to cotinine. And that happens pretty fast. Thus after smoking, nicotine levels will be found to be very low, but cotinine levels are pretty high. So backing your comment up with OLD studies isn't really science.
    Yes I did read your book. Yes it was a poor read. The reason I had to read it was part of a project. I also had to read Flat earth society and Creationists. Your book attempts to use science (all be it weak) to try to show an alternate point. Which is why it is not credible to the vast majority of scientists out there.
    Thank you for posting those links as well. Must be nice to have friends say good things about your work. It would actually be more impressive if it was PEER REVIEWED by actual scientist, not drinking buddies. You good sir are not a scientist, and really should try a different occupation.
    Jason Browning Jason Browning
    Jun. 6, 2009 at 3:03pm
  • Which brings me to another point. I am assuming you are a smoker. Isn't this finding good for you in the first place? Now there's a drug to give to pregnant mothers after they were smoking, hence they don't have to stop smoking now....or would you condone such an action?
    Jason Browning Jason Browning
    Jun. 6, 2009 at 3:04pm
  • Well Jason, I think this "Flat Earther" has represented his arguments sufficiently here for anyone stopping in to reach their own conclusions. My "drinking buddies" somewhere in England and the Midwest? LOL!

    I actually *have* had some of my work peer-reviewed you know. The results were less than stellar in terms of their reflection on the peer-review process. You can read about them in the American Council on Science and Health's archives at:

    [Link was removed]

    where you'll become familiar with a study that was of a far lower quality than Dr. Nurse's.

    May I ask again for contact with your professor? I would think he or she would enjoy sharing the experience of their classroom with the author of one of the sources they used.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

    {Btw, I'm quite familiar with the metabolic relation of nicotine to cotinine. See pages 240 and following for a fuller discussion. The details are not really very relevant for the current argument although you seem to focus on them. If however you have any substantive criticisms of my discussion and modeling I invite you once again to share them. Unlike the authors of some antismoking studies, I *do* respond to reasonable questions and criticisms.}
    Michael McFadden Michael McFadden
    Jun. 6, 2009 at 7:01pm
  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    johns johnss johns johnss
    Jul. 18, 2009 at 11:08am
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Buttigieg, J., et al. 2009. Chronic nicotine blunts hypoxic sensitivity in perinatal rat adrenal chromaffin cells via upregulation of KATP channels: Role of _7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and hypoxia-inducible factor-2alpha. Journal of Neuroscience 29(June 3):7137-7147. DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0544-09.2009
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator