Science exchange logo white
  • Solutions
      Buyers

      We are making R&D services readily available to every organization that seeks to make scientific impact. Learn More

      Providers

      We are changing the way providers access and engage customers to streamline the sale and delivery of R&D services. Learn More

      Industries Agriscience Animal Health Basic Research Biopharmaceutical Chemicals Consumer Health Food Science Medical Devices
      Reproducibility

      We believe that good experiments can and should be independently replicated and validated. Learn More

  • Resources
    Innovation Blog
    Customer Stories
    Events
    Industry Trends
    News
    Product Updates
    Help Center
  • About
    About
    Our Story
    Leadership
    Partners
    Join the Team
  • Contact
  • Log In Sign Up
  • Get a Demo
  • Genetic toxicology and toxicogenomic analysis of three cigarette smoke condensates in vitro reveals few differences among full-flavor, blonde, and light products.

    Environ Mol Mutagen. 53(4):281-96. doi: 10.1002/em.21689. May 2012. View on PubMed.
  • Authors

    Yauk CL, Williams A, Buick JK, Chen G, Maertens RM, Halappanavar S, and White PA
  • Abstract

    Cigarette smoking leads to various detrimental health outcomes. Tobacco companies produce different brands of cigarettes that are marketed as reduced harm tobacco products. Early examples included "light" cigarettes, which differ from regular cigarettes due to filter ventilation and/or differences in chemical constituents. In order to establish baseline similarities and differences among different tobacco brands available in Canada, the present study examined the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, clastogenicity, and gene expression profiles of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) from three tobacco products, encompassing a full-flavor, blonde, and "light" variety. Using the Salmonella mutagenicity assay, we confirmed that the three CSCs are mutagenic, and that the potency is related to the presence of aromatic amines. Using the Mutaâ„¢Mouse FE1 cell line we determined that the CSCs were clastogenic and cytotoxic, but nonmutagenic, and the results showed few differences in potencies among the three brands. There were no clear brand-specific changes in gene expression; each brand yielded highly similar expression profiles within a time point and concentration. The molecular pathways and biological functions affected by exposure included xenobiotic metabolism, oxidative stress, DNA damage response, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, as well as inflammation. Thus, there was no appreciable difference in toxicity or gene expression profiles between regular brands and products marketed as "light," and hence no evidence of reduced harm. The work establishes baseline CSC cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, and expression profiles that can be used as a point of reference for comparison with data generated for products marketed as reduced harm and/or modified risk tobacco products.

Science exchange logo white

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Solutions

  • Buyers
  • Providers
  • Reproducibility

Industries

  • Agriscience
  • Animal Health
  • Basic Research
  • Biopharmaceutical
  • Chemicals
  • Consumer Health
  • Food Science
  • Medical Devices

Resources

  • Innovation Blog
  • Customer Stories
  • Events
  • Industry Trends
  • News
  • Product Updates

About

  • Our Story
  • Leadership
  • Partners
  • Join the Team

Support

  • Contact Us
  • Help Center
  • Trust
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Science Exchange, Inc. All rights reserved.