8

England's department of health has launched a new, very graphic anti-smoking TV ad (see the BBC STORY). Aside from the graphic imagery it makes the specific claim that a smoker will suffer one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked.

Is this claim credible? And, perhaps more importantly, is it significant given the background level of mutagenic chemicals and radiation we are exposed to?

Sam I Am
  • 8,775
  • 7
  • 48
  • 71
matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • 1
    It might be mentioned that the mutations being talked about are mutations to individual DNA molecules that would lead to cancerous growth. They are not mutations to the organism that would track through to a new generation. – Tim Quinn Dec 28 '12 at 22:35
  • @TimQuinn If I read the paper correctly, they're actually mutations that are apparent *within* the cancerous cell line, not mutations taken from pre-cancerous tissue. – Larry OBrien Dec 29 '12 at 00:35
  • I guess what I suspect is that Matt thinks that cigarette smokers are more likely to have deformed children. They are not talking about mutations to the organism that would be inherited by an off spring but mutations to individual DNA molecules that will result in localized cancerous growth within the organism. This is only meant as a clarification to the questioner about what is going on. I might be totally wrong, but it would explain why Matt thinks it is extraordinary that so many mutations happen. – Tim Quinn Dec 29 '12 at 10:23
  • 1
    @TimQuinn To clarify: I was **not** assuming there would be germ-line mutations; I assumed the mutations would be in lung or airway cells. I asked the question because I wanted to see whether there was a clear scientific justification for the number in context. – matt_black Dec 29 '12 at 12:36
  • 3
    I see a new ad campaign: "Go ahead, kids! Fourteen won't kill you!" – Larry OBrien Dec 29 '12 at 18:37
  • Thanks for the clarification, Matt. I see your rep points, so I know you are not ignorant. I guess I thought the question might be misleading to a naive person. I should have been more clear. – Tim Quinn Dec 30 '12 at 17:05
  • @TimQuinn don't worry about asking the question: it was a good clarification.. – matt_black Dec 30 '12 at 17:12

2 Answers2

8

Yes, the number is derived from a study published in Nature:

If the majority of mutations derive from the mélange of mutagens present in tobacco smoke, the clone of cells that ultimately becomes cancerous would acquire, over its lifetime, an average of one mutation for every 15 cigarettes smoked. If this is the case in a localised cluster of cells, then the number of mutations acquired across the whole bronchial tree from even one cigarette must be substantial. The data presented here demonstrate the power of whole genome sequencing to disentangle the many complex mutational signatures found in cancers induced by tobacco smoke.

Pleasance et al., 2010

To my layman eyes, it appears that the finding is highly significant, but not so much because of the magnitude of mutations, but because there are specific cancer-related signature mutations:

Even in this single lung cancer genome, we can identify several distinctive point mutation patterns, reflecting the cocktail of carcinogens present in cigarette smoke, as well as signatures of the partially successful attempts of the cell's surveillance machinery to repair DNA damage.

Larry OBrien
  • 15,105
  • 2
  • 70
  • 97
  • 1
    this is a good answer. A *great* answer would also explain how the cell-line that was sequences was derived and provide some of the missing estimates of background mutation rates in normal cells. – matt_black Dec 31 '12 at 14:57
6

In 2010 the Wellcome Trust published One mutation per 15 cigarettes: genome maps reveal how cancer develops

"These are the two main cancers in the developed world for which we know the primary exposure," said Professor Mike Stratton, from the Cancer Genome Project at the Sanger Institute. "For lung cancer, it is cigarette smoke and for malignant melanoma it is exposure to sunlight. With these genome sequences, we have been able to explore deep into the past of each tumour, uncovering with remarkable clarity the imprints of these environmental mutagens on DNA, which occurred years before the tumour became apparent.

The same source was given in a 2009 article in The Daily Telegraph

They studied a lung-cancer victim who had built up about 23,000 DNA mutations in his lung cells that were linked with exposure to the toxins found in cigarette smoke and had accumulated over his lifetime.

(The newspaper doesn't state whether this is one example of a larger sample)

The study was also reported in 2009 by Nature and Medical News Today

I believe the above to be supportive of the credibility and significance (re causes) of the claim.

Update:

I haven't found information on rates of mutations attributable to other causes of cancer but many credible organisations say that smoking accounts for around 90% of lung cancers in the UK.

Cancer Research UK, BBC, MacMillan, BUPA.

Here's an infographic from Cancer Research UK - it has a lot of information.

Cancer causes

RedGrittyBrick
  • 24,895
  • 3
  • 100
  • 111
  • +1 good answer. But I'm still looking for the broader context about background rates as well. Otherwise I have no basis to judge the *significance*. – matt_black Dec 28 '12 at 18:15
  • The paper is available http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880489/ – Larry OBrien Dec 28 '12 at 20:13
  • And I *hate* the infographic it is a poor way to visualize that data whether or not the stats are correct (which is debatable for some, though not for tobacco.) – matt_black Dec 29 '12 at 00:53