8 ms·
Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others
- JoeAltmaier 3mo agoIn mice
- baxtr 3mo agoMice smoke?
- theoreticalmal 3mo agoOnly the cool ones
- pasc1878 3mo agoWhen near the lab's Bunsen burner.
- kraquepype 3mo agoOnly if they grew up near a BBQ joint
- manarth 3mo ago> "Mice smoke?" The experiment summary: > "The team bred four strains of mice. > They then exposed the mice to a single dose of the liver carcinogen diethylnitrosamine (DEN). > DEN is found in tobacco smoke." They simulated the "consequences" of smoking in mice.
- htek 3mo agoMice are used for inhalation and skin studies because they're cheap, we know their genome, they have a short lifespan for whole lifecycle observation and they're ideal for mapping to human respiratory and skin responses.
- add-sub-mul-div 3mo agoThese comments are filled with people who believe that everyone else here is dumber than they are. Leaving shallow dismissive comments explaining something that doesn't need to be explained is like crack to them.
- manarth 3mo agoIt's a bit more than that. The migration from mouse models to human understanding is long and complex, and although it's a meme, "in mice" is a good shortcut for saying "This is a good start, but it's not ready to extrapolate into conclusions against the impact to human beings". https://www.in-mice.com/ https://www.in-mice.com/
- willy_k 3mo agoThat was a good example of their point, thank you!
- asdff 3mo agoSo sick of this fake "gotcha" qualifier in HN comment sections.
- aantix 3mo agoAnecdotally, whenever I go swimming with my kids in the summer, and I don't put sunscreen on right away, but let myself get some intense direct sun, I feel good and sleep really well that night. As long as I don't let myself get in a red, sunburn situation.
- ThrowawayTestr 3mo agoVitamin D deficiency
- GlickWick 3mo agoDefinitely not. Vitamin D takes a while to synthesize and build up. A quick fix like this isn't possible.
- pixel_popping 3mo agoIt's just that getting sun is healthy (in moderation) and our body reward us, we have this new anti-sun obsession which is likely to cause many health (and mental health) issues
- GlickWick 3mo agoI don't think it's that simple, and making it seem that way is counter-productive towards understanding what we should/shouldn't be doing. There's no anti-sun obsession, either. Sunscreen isn't anti-sun, and people are well aware that Vitamin D synthesis is an issue in farther northern/southern latitudes. There's definitely an increased recognition scientifically that excessive sun is extremely bad, though.
- pixel_popping 3mo agoI would assume that many are taking Vitamin D, but there is still a major difference, if I spend few days no-lifing and I suddenly go out in the hot sun and comeback home 30min later, I feel much better, something happens internally, could be from the light itself, unsure, but I'd say for example to fight off depression, getting under the sun is quite powerful and will definitely improve your chances of getting out of it. I let my 2-year old child (she is also taking Vit D - 300iu a day) under the sun in the garden quite a lot on/off (I'd say probably 1h a day in total) and I find that she sleeps much better and is more calm in the evening as well, I can't say the same if we do an outing to the mall, something is clearly different/rewarding.
- doctoboggan 3mo agoIsn't this sort of like asking "Why does getting shot kill some but not other?" It depends on which part of the body was shot, and which part of the DNA was damaged.
- Noaidi 3mo agoNo. Genetics and nutrition make a big difference here. It is like one person is wearing a bullet proof vest and both were shot in the same place.
- mr_mitm 3mo agoThe way I read the article was that cancer is caused by deficiencies in the body's repair mechanism. It appears as if some have a more robust mechanism than others, depending on genetics.
- dyauspitr 3mo agoMy mom had 14 siblings and only one of them got breast cancer (she was a nun and never breastfed which drastically increases a woman’s odds of breast cancer). But prior to that, her mother’s family, which was also large never had a case of cancer. My mom’s siblings also had around 30 kids between them some now in their 60s. There hasn’t been a single case of cancer amongst the kids either. So it’s something like 150 people with only one instance of cancer over the last 3 generations. There is definitely a strong genetic component to this.
- tartoran 3mo agoYes, genetics play a big part but my understanding that cancer is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. It's possible to have similar habits in the family with respect to sun exposure, alcohol consumtion, diets etc..
- dyauspitr 3mo agoOh definitely, there’s a huge environmental component as well but good genetics really helps.
- coolThingsFirst 3mo agoEven if smoking didnt cause cancer it would still be terrible. 6 months since i quit using nic gums.
- johanam 3mo agogood job!
- keeganpoppen 3mo agotrying to get off vaping, myself, and it is both "not that hard" and... a very sticky habit. good for you. was never a smoker, but that doesn't make it a good habit.
- willy_k 3mo agoThis might not work for your current lifestyle (if you need to be able to properly use your brain for any meaningful portion of the day), but an effective method, at least for people already using thc, is to replace the nicotine vape with a thc cartridge and essentially stupify yourself every time you think about vaping. And be cognizant of the anxiety etc, so that you continue despite it. Stick to that for a week or two and it works surprisingly well.
- firmretention 3mo agoI found the physical addiction much harder to kick. I switched to no-nicotine e-liquid and felt very little in the way of withdrawals. But months later I was still reaching for a phantom vape to puff on. It's been almost two years now and I never think about it anymore.
- Noaidi 3mo agoThis is why Zinc is needed to prevent cancer[1]. The gene they are focusing on in the study [2] is Methylated-DNA--protein-cysteine methyltransferase (MGMT) and it needs zinc as a cofactor [3]. Not enough zinc, lower MGMT, and less DNA protection and repair. Nutritional deficiencies and genetic differences increase the risk of cancer. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-023-03818-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-023-03818-6 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10821-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10821-z [3] https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P16455/entry https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P16455/entry
- SketchySeaBeast 3mo agoThat would imply that red meat eaters would be less likely to get cancer which doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not saying that zinc isn't a factor, but I think that saying a blanket "Zinc is needed to prevent cancer" is irresponsible. We should be so lucky that we can narrow it down to a single dietary element or be able to blame it simply upon nutrition.
- kelipso 3mo agoThat’s not how statistical implication works… Learn about sufficient condition vs required condition before you start criticizing people. Taking zinc and smoking cigarettes still increases your chances of cancer, for example.
- SketchySeaBeast 3mo agoI understand that entirely. I'm saying that the way that GP is presenting their information it sounds like a "one neat trick", which of course it isn't because nothing ever is, which you and I are in agreement upon.
- tombert 3mo agoI've only ever smoked like a quarter of one cigarette when I was eighteen and I thought it was fucking gross so I never picked up the habit (fortunately). That said, I'm a pretty pale dude and my sister has gotten skin cancer twice now [1], so I've started getting a bit worried that that's going to happen to me. I've started wearing a baseball cap every time I go outside to protect my scalp (since my body has decided I don't need nearly as much hair anymore), I almost never go outside without jeans and often now a hoodie even when it's relatively warm outside. If I think I'm going to be outside for more than ~30 minutes, I wear sunscreen on the exposed parts. I have to admit that I kind of hate it. I don't like the slimy feeling of sunscreen on my skin, I don't really like how hats feel on my head, and of course wearing a lot of clothes when it's warm outside isn't terribly comfortable. [1] Fortunately caught very early since she gets frequent checks, so she's fine.
- pilgrim0 3mo agoAlso share the icky for greasy sunscreen. But there are some with a matte dry texture that not only serves the purpose but also make your skin looks nicer, since it levels out those small color variations. It’s a big market, so they really do research on those things.
- itsmartapuntocm 3mo agoA fairly bad sunburn was the reality check I needed to start scheduling annual screenings. 30 minutes or so a year for peace of mind.
- Mezzie 3mo agoStrong recommend a UV umbrella. I also hate the feeling of sunscreen and will also fry the minute I so much as look at the sun. Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.
- tombert 3mo agoI've more or less gotten used to the jeans. Probably due to a combination of undiagnosed autism and some very mild bullying in middle school (due to me growing rapidly and people making fun of me for wearing "short shorts"), I have been almost exclusively wearing jeans for everywhere but the gym since eighth grade. The hoodies are a more recent thing and are more miserable. I'll check out linen clothing.
- aaron695 3mo ago[dead]
- crims0n 3mo agoAs a millennial growing up it was beaten into our head that smoking was a death sentence. I recently looked up what the actual cancer rate among smokers was... about 125k people in the US die of lung cancer annual. 25 million people smoke annually. That is a 0.5% chance for occasional smokers. Even if you smoke a pack a day your entire life, the cancer rate is less than 15%. I am in no way saying it is okay to smoke, there are obviously other health risks associated with it... but researching that made me feel much better about that one pack a year I buy for vacation.
- wpm 3mo agoAnd that 125k includes people who don't smoke and never have. Sometimes the DNA in a single cell just gets fucked up in just the right way to cause cancer. Smoking just increases the odds.
- pdntspa 3mo agoThe actual infection rates for some STIs are also similarly low, per-encounter. But they are high enough that if you are promiscuous and have a large number of at-risk encounters then you will eventually get a bad roll of the dice.
- dblohm7 3mo agoCancer is not the only complication...
- gdulli 3mo agoExactly. Hypertension, emphysema, people who don't smoke not wanting to be anywhere near you,
- volkl48 3mo agoCigarettes kill about 480,000 people in the US annually. Lung cancer isn't the only kind of cancer you get from smoking cigarettes, and cancer isn't the only way it can lead to your death, so it seems very strange to only pay attention to lung cancer here. You don't need lung cancer to have an absolutely miserable decline and death from COPD, for example. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/data_statistics/...
- TaupeRanger 3mo agoVery common press release/headline meme: the question in the title of the article is literally never answered (or the opposite of the headline's claim is true). This research plainly DOES NOT explain why certain mice got cancer and others didn't, let alone why smoking/UV rays cause cancer in some humans but not others. There was no control group for exposed mice that would've allowed them to look at which biological differences made one group get tumors and the others not (the study doesn't appear to actually be interested in that question). The language here is also pretty hyperbolic. We've known for decades that certain gene mutations cause increased cancer risk in the context of a certain genetic background (BRCA1/2, etc.). Using language like "for the first time" is just juvenile, or purposeful lying at worst.
- dsego 3mo agoF* cancer. On my mother's side, her mom and sister died of breast cancer, her other sister caught it early, her brother died of cancer (throat or lung, not sure). She removed her breast 20 years ago at almost 50, went through chemo and radiotherapy, she was a survivor, cured. Just a month ago got headaches and turns out new brain tumor. Neurosurgeons removed it, but against all odds nothing to do with the old cancer, not a metastasis, but a new primary wildtype glial grade 4 tumor. It's just not fair.
- SoftTalker 3mo agoWe all die eventually. All you can do is live your best life. Unfortunately we don't all get the same hand from the dealer.
- dsego 3mo agoA grade 4 glioma doesn't even give you a fighting chance, there is only survival from months to maybe over a year.
- bena 3mo agoIf incidences of cancer of any type are 1 in 100,000 for the population at large, then generally any slice of that population will have similar odds. Which includes people with cancer. So those who already have cancer, have a chance to develop a second cancer. It is very not fair.
- KellyCriterion 3mo agoGlad, so I can continue smoking :-))
- Aardwolf 3mo agoIs there any info for a way to check this on your SNPs from genome sequencing data?
- jeffreyrogers 3mo agoJim Simons (mathematician turned billionaire trader) was a chainsmoker and claimed that he had his genome analyzed and found he was unlikely to get cancer. I always wondered whether he'd really done that or whether it was just a flippant response to an interviewer's question about his smoking habits.
- TomMasz 3mo agoMy mother smoked from age 12 until she was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 45. But the lung cancer was the result of metastasis from an advanced uterine cancer. A friend's mother, another long-time smoker, developed bladder cancer. Smoking's damage can manifest itself in multiple ways.
- asdff 3mo agoAuthors seemed to have considered genetic implications of the driver mutation and downstream effects, but there are considerations to be made ahead of this point too. This sort of damage for example is typically detected and repaired. The fidelity of that repair mechanism is liable to vary among the population for many reasons.