Advertisement

Cigarettes might be infectious
And, presumably, people wouldn't need to light up to risk getting sick.
Web edition : Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Text Size
access
Bacterial beaconsWhere the green light fluoresces, genes extracted from cigarettes match those for a different known bacterium.A. Sapkota

The tobacco in cigarettes hosts a bacterial bonanza — literally hundreds of different germs, including those responsible for many human illnesses, a new study finds.

“Nearly every paper that you pick up discussing the health effects of cigarettes starts out with something to the effect that smokers and people exposed to secondhand smoke experience high rates of respiratory infections,” notes Amy Sapkota of the University of Maryland, College Park. The presumption has been that smoking renders people vulnerable to disease by impairing lung function or immunity. And it may well do both.

“But nobody talks about cigarettes as a source of those infections,” she says. Her new data now suggest that’s distinctly possible.

If these germs are alive, something she has not yet confirmed, just handling cigarettes or putting an unlit one to the mouth could be enough to cause an infection.

The idea that tobacco might contain viable germs isn’t just idle conjecture. Several research teams have isolated bacteria from tobacco that they could grow out in petri dishes. Those earlier investigations tended to hunt for — and, when found, attempted to grow — only one or two species of interest, Sapkota says.

What’s novel in her study: She and her colleagues probed for genetic material from any and every bacterium in a cigarette’s tobacco. Under sterile conditions, the researchers opened up cigarettes and then performed a series of tests on the leafy bits. For instance, they isolated all of the ribosomal material and then homed in on its long, species-specific stretches known as 16S regions. These genetic segments were then compared to 16S patches characteristic of known bacterial species.

Sapkota’s team had 16S probes for close to 800 different bacteria and found matches to many hundreds in the four brands of cigarettes screened: Marlboro Red, Camel, Kool Filter Kings and Lucky Strike Original Red. These cigarettes are “among the most commonly smoked brands in Westernized countries and represent three major tobacco companies,” Sapkota notes. All were purchased in Lyon, France, where she was completing her postdoctoral studies.

Among the large number of germs whose DNA laced these cigarettes were: Campylobacter, which can cause food poisoning and Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Clostridium, which causes food poisoning and pneumonias; Corynebacterium, also associated with pneumonias and other diseases; E. coli; KlebsiellaPseudomonas aeruginosa and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, all of which are associated not only with pneumonia but also with urinary tract infections; and a number of Staphylococcus species that underlie the most common and serious hospital-associated infections.

Sapkota’s team lists many of these — including the most prevalent bacteria in the tobacco they studied — in a paper published early, online in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Some people have criticized the idea of infectious cigarettes, arguing that as tobacco burns, it would kill any germs present. But Sapkota is not so sure that's true. The tobacco farthest from the burning tip might be a balmy temperature, from a bacterial point of view. And here’s “a really wild idea,” she says: What if the smoke particles traveling through the still-unburned part of a cigarette pick up some germs and then ferry them deeply into the lung, where they’re unlikely to be cleared? Wouldn’t that be the prescription for disease?

Of course, there’s also plenty of chances for a smoker to become exposed prior to lighting up. And, of course, the potential for highest oral exposure would come from chewing tobacco — and nasal exposures from snuff.

Sapkota, an environmental health scientist, plans to follow up her preliminary data to see which types of tobacco are most likely to host viable germs, and whether those bacteria are transported into the body, either during smoking or by the insertion of unburned tobacco products (including chewing tobacco) into the mouth.

Several thousand potentially toxic chemicals have been isolated from cigarettes. Sapkota says that it’s not hard to imagine that the number of germs hosted by tobacco products could rival that of the carcinogens and other poisons residing in or produced by burning tobacco.

How so, when she's only found genetic material indicting hundreds of germs? Owing to the bacterial probes available when Sapkota began her tobacco work, she was only able to screen for 700-odd species. But newer probes on the market can now screen for the bacterial 16S genetic material of 5,000 or more germs. And if she used such huge batteries of probes now, she said she fully expects she could turn up at least 1,000 hitchhiking bacterial species in tobacco products.


Found in: Body & Brain, Genes & Cells and Science & Society

Comments 16

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • We get it, tobacco is the root of all mankind's ills. Move on.
    Ed Magowan Ed Magowan
    Jan. 27, 2010 at 12:15pm
  • Tired of hearing about how your cigarette is shortening your life expectancy every time you light up? Yes, I agree with you that there is an overabundance of anti-cigarette health information, but this is an article on genuine scientific research that deserves attention, if only for appraisal. Though it will fall on the deaf ears of every smoker who reads it, which is a shame, you cant dismiss something purely because it finds a new way to make us realize how fundamentally stupid smoking is.
    Andreas Palalas Andreas Palalas
    Jan. 28, 2010 at 8:28am
  • If some of the harm done by cigarettes turns out to be caused by microbes, it might be possible to kill them and make smoking safer. Then tobacco would be less of a root of mankind's ills, Ed.
    Ralph Dratman Ralph Dratman
    Jan. 28, 2010 at 9:58am
  • Tobacco is a plant, of course it will have microbes. Are these any different from the microbes on lettuce or cabbage? Before publishing, she should have at least done that comparison.

    The article states that they don't know whether or not the microbes are alive. Tobacco is heavily processed before being made into cigarettes, while foods are not, and I don't remember ever hearing of someone getting salmonella from smoking. I'm not a smoker, and think smoking is incredibly stupid, but this is really taking anti-tobacco research to an absurd level.

    Tom_R Tom_R
    Jan. 28, 2010 at 12:22pm
  • @ Tom_R: Any knowledge we can gain about the health effects of smoking isn't "absurd." Any education, even on a topic you may not be interested in personally, isn't "absurd." Comments like yours, however, might be. Did it ever occur to you that there's a slight difference between foods you eat (i.e. lettuce and cabbage) and tobacco products? For one, you don't smoke lettuce or cabbage -- so perhaps its the way the microbes enter the body. Second, perhaps foods you do eat are treated differently as a group (with herbicides and washing regimens) than products that are inhaled. I'm no expert, but the FDA seems to have different regulations depending on plant's intended use. Also, microbes have been evolving for millions of years. Perhaps they've evolved to lie dormant until they end up in an environment in which they thrive (the lungs, for instance) -- as opposed to the harsh environment of the gut.
    Emma Chure Emma Chure
    Jan. 28, 2010 at 9:47pm
  • Might be infectious?
    Stupid article-cigs kill.
    Get a Crown7 electric cig and save your life
    Ron MacDonald Ron MacDonald
    Jan. 29, 2010 at 4:06pm
  • What sloppy science, You would get the same results checking an ear of corn. Why don't people who chew tobacco all drop dead in a few days? Tobacco is harmful to your health,we don't need more time wasted on the subject.
    Potatoe Potatoe
    Jan. 29, 2010 at 10:05pm
  • "Science News" has changed so much over the past few years that I probably won't renew my subscription when it expires.
    Michael Greenberg Michael Greenberg
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 8:06am
  • Like all other commentators I find this research contaminated.
    Where is the baseline data?A good guess is that one can find
    genetic remnants of anything everywhere.
    In medicine the clinician is concerned with the microbe if and when it is cultured and to diagnose or treat with lesser evidence is malpractice.
    Mme.Sapkota,j'accusee of malpractice.
    Gabriel Mayer Gabriel Mayer
    Jan. 31, 2010 at 4:01am
  • @Emma Chure, Totally agree with you on research into this topic. If this is proven to be a legitimate concern, wouldn't doctors find this info crucial in developing treatment and prevention plans for their patients. This is not another attack on cigarette smokers, though strident anti-smoking groups may use it as such. Btw, I'm a nonsmoker, but can understand why smokers and nonsmokers may question this research. I would council them to see this as a scientific endeavour, not harassment by concerned scientists.
    Jon Hanford Jon Hanford
    Jan. 31, 2010 at 3:14pm
  • damn those cigarettes!!!....i guess its time for me to move on to marijuana.
    Cesar del Hierro Cesar del Hierro
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 8:22pm
  • I am not saying that ciggarettes contain a fungus which grows into the human body, but look at the simplicity of the science that is taking place here and you will see why the study is being done. i am dissapointed in the majority of the users here slamming science it needs to be done either way so why are u saying its pointless? you might learn something.. we are relearning things everyday we though we knew.
    anyways, Mold and tobacco. Mold loves to grow in warm dark moist envioronments IE>YOUR lungs mouth and throat. I grow Many many plants indoors and use hydroponic gardening in my job the production of specific algaes. Anyways if i smoke a cigarette and then come in and work without washing my hands the resin on my fingers will contaminate the water and the plants with a mold called TOBACCO BLIGHT which can annhiliate an entire room of plants of all species over night just by touching them with some resin. WHy is this?
    Becasue tobacco Blight mold can be carried though the smoke and the reisin it doesnt make a difference the temperature! Mushroom and mold spores can survive furnace tempuratures of 1000+ celcius not to mention the vaccum and frigid tempuratures of deep space! so i consider the possibility more than valid and i hope to learn something to benefit my farming techniques. I hope u critics out there respect scientists for what we are doing
    Jaren Hockert Jaren Hockert
    Feb. 3, 2010 at 1:09pm
  • Author Raloff, could you please get your e-mail address?
    ojmjlove11@hotmail.com
    Or the professor's e-mail address..please!
    I want to ask more questions concerning this issue..
    Minji  Jeong Minji Jeong
    Feb. 8, 2010 at 10:38pm
  • I am intrigued by this study and I think it points to an area of research that was postulated and dropped about twenty years ago. At that time , a research scientist,I wish i could remember his name,tried to get funding to pursue a link between chronic bacterial infection and the development of cancer in infected organs.Did he get his funding? If so what was the result? Enquiring minds want to know.
    Anne  Lawrence Anne Lawrence
    Feb. 12, 2010 at 7:48am
  • Apologies, my curt response was not meant to belittle the research or the results, nor was it intended to be rude or inconsiderate. Danger! - personal opinion follows! Tobacco is (unhealthy, dangerous - insert favorite descriptor). No one argues that. Yet people still smoke. Cheeseburgers with bacon are (again, insert favorite descriptor). Yet millions are sold and marketed to an obese nation. Alcohol kills. I don't defend either, but I do defend people having a right to the pursuit of their own happiness, even if it's killing them, so long as it isn't hurting someone else. At times in my past I've been subjected to restrictions on my personal activities because they were considered risky or dangerous, even though they endangered no one else. I chafed at it then and still feel strongly about personal freedom and responsibility. That was a contributing factor in my original response. I feel safer around second hand smoke than I do riding at rush hour. An accident on my motorcycle means a significant chance of serious injury, but it's a risk I'm willing to accept due to the pleasure it gives me. I wonder how many smokers continue their habit for the same reason. Those who wish to quit should be helped. Those who don't should be left alone. Those who don't smoke (especially children and teens) should be very strongly encouraged to never start. Your opinion may vary, we can be civil in our disagreement -- we're not congressmen.
    Ed Magowan Ed Magowan
    Feb. 12, 2010 at 12:49pm
  • I'm surprised that one very plausible idea wasn't considered by this research, one that I've thought was obvious for many years: that cigarette smoke particles probably pick up bacteria and viruses from the mouth and respiratory tract of the smoker, which are then exhaled with this potentially pathogenic payload, to be inhaled by others and directly infected.

    After all, weaponized anthrax works by milling the spores so finely that they resemble smoke and can very easily and widely spread in the air.
    Phil O Phil O
    Feb. 14, 2010 at 11:10pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Advertisement
Citations & References :
seperator
  • Sapkota, A.R., S. Berger, and T.M. Vogel. 2010. Human Pathogens Abundant in the Bacterial Metagenome of Cigarettes. Environmental Health Perspectives (in press). DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901201
  • Rubinstein, I. and G.W. Pedersen. 2002. Bacillus Species Are Present in Chewing Tobacco Sold in the United States and Evoke Plasma Exudation from the Oral Mucosa. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 9(September):1057.
  • Pauly, J.L., J.D. Waight and G.M. Paszkiewicz. 2008. Tobacco Flakes on Cigarette Filters Grow Bacteria: A Potential Health Risk to the Smoker? Tobacco Control 17(September):i49. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.022772
  • Rooney, A.P., et al. 2005. Bacterial Species Diversity in Cigarettes Linked to an Investigation of Severe Pneumonitis in U.S. Military Personnel Deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Current Microbiology(July):46. doi:10.1007/s00284-005-4491-z
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator