Tag Archives: health

Smoking affects fertility

health and pregnancy, , , , , , , , , , , ,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cigarette#mediaviewer/File:Papierosa_1_ubt_0069.jpeg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cigarette#mediaviewer/File:Papierosa_1_ubt_0069.jpeg

A recent study shows that smoking during pregnancy and breastfeeding may impair sons’ fertility.

We all know that smoking affects our health causing primary respiratory and cardiovascular problems. In pregnant women cigarette smoke can affect not only mom’s health but also child’s health, causing premature birth, growth retardation, miscarriages, reduced birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome 1,2,3,4.

The team led by Professor Mc Laughlin at the University of Newcastle (New South Wales, Australia) published a study in Human Reproduction on the effect of maternal smoking using a mouse model 5. They exposed 27 female animals to cigarette smoking before, during, and after pregnancy and analyzed the the pups and the adult male mice. Smoking affected the viability of germ cells, the diameter of seminiferous tubules, and the morphology of neonatal testes in the pups. In the adult mice, germ cells showed DNA damage and Sertoli cell (cells that promote sperm cell development) showed aberrant function; these phenomena were accompanied by alteration in the expression of genes involved in several pathways, including spermatogenesis, oxidative stress, and Sertoli cell function. Furthermore mice from “smoking” mothers had fewer sperm with affected motility and fertilization ability (binding to the zona pellucida of the egg). This work is a comprehensive demonstration in a mouse model that maternal cigarette smoke compromises the fertility of the male offspring. Previous studies suggested the same effects but they were not conclusive.

When a woman gets pregnant, she receives many warnings on what she may or may not do. Some of these warnings are based off common sense, previous observational and epidemiological  studies or surveys, and the woman doesn’t really get an explanation of the precise consequences of her acts if she doesn’t follow the instructions—this is not always the case—but all she gets is a warning. In contrast, the consequences of cigarette smoke are known and are not short-term (miscarriage, reduced birth weight, etc.) but long-term consequences. The study described above is an accurate demonstration This study should really be a deterrent for pregnant women who are still smoking, that are around 13–20% in the United States(the reports are controversial) and 4–20% in Europe (depending on the country) 6. Further studies in the future may highlight other long-term damages and may focus on the damages of not only maternal smoke but also secondhand smoke.

 

1Perinatal complications associated with maternal tobacco use.Andres RL, Day MC. Semin Neonatol. 2000 Aug;5(3):231-41. Review.

2Revisiting the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy on offspring birthweight: a quasi-experimental sibling analysis in Sweden. Juárez SP, Merlo J. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 17;8(4):e61734.

3Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of spontaneous abortion. George L, Granath F, Johansson AL, Annerén G, Cnattingius S. Epidemiology. 2006 Sep;17(5):500-5.

4Prenatal smoking among adolescents and risk of fetal demise before and during labor.Aliyu MH, Salihu HM, Alio AP, Wilson RE, Chakrabarty S, Clayton HB.J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010 Jun;23(3):129-35Epidemiology. 2006 Sep;17(5):500-5.

5Damaging legacy: maternal cigarette smoking has long-term consequences for male offspring fertility.Sobinoff AP, Sutherland JM, Beckett EL, Stanger SJ, Johnson R, Jarnicki AG, McCluskey A, John JC, Hansbro PM, McLaughlin EA.Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep 30. pii: deu235.

6Characteristics of women who continue smoking during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of pregnant women and new mothers in 15 European countries.Smedberg J, Lupattelli A, Mårdby AC, Nordeng H.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014 Jun 25;14:213.

Resveratrol: just a fair-weather friend?

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JUne 2014Since its first mention in a Japansee article in 19391, over the years many beneficial effects have been attributed to the natural compound, resveratrol—anticancer, anti-inflammatory, anti-aging—which is even used in skincare cosmetic. Although a large number of studies suggest its health benefits, recently some reports have been questioning these potentials.

Resveratrol is a natural phenol and antioxidant compound found in various colored vegetables and fruit, especially in the skin of red grape. Its name comes probably from the combination if the term resorcinol (chemical compund) and Veratrum (the plant where resveratrol was first isolated). It is thought to influence inflammation, aging, neuronal degeneration, and metabolism through the serine deacetylase, sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1), the cAMP pathway, or AMP-activated protein kinase2. However the exact mechanism of action is not known. A new role for resveratrol as a partial agonist of the estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) has been recently described3. According to this study, resveratrol binds to the ERalpha that is recruited to the interleukin-6 (IL-6) promoter and alters the binding of coregulators, such as SIRT-1, and the activity of transcriptional activators, leading to reduced inflammation. Resveratrol was identified in a previous screening for ERalpha agonists that inhibit IL-6 transciption4; thus resveratrol may have a selective role on the ERalpha pathway, inhibiting inflammation without promoting cell proliferation.

The amount of resveratrol found in foods varies greatly. It is mainly found in the skin of red grapes, red wine, peanuts, berries, and in lower amount in cocoa powder and dark chocolate5. However, the amount of resveratrol in foods is thought to be not enough to justify and mediate its effects. To understand whether resveratrol levels present in the diet can influence inflammation, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in humans, a prospective cohort study has been conducted in the Chianti region in Italy (InCHIANTI—“Aging in the Chianti Region”), in a population-based sample of 783 community-dwelling men and women 65 years or older who consume a diet rich in resveratrol6. The group of researchers, who have been studying aging in this population for fifteen years, measured the concentration of resveratrol metabolites present in the urine and found that it was not associated with inflammatory markers, cardiovascular disease, or cancer. This study shows that the amount of resveratrol present in the diet is not responsible for beneficial health effects. It is possible that the health benefits that come from the diet consumed in that region are not due to resveratrol, but to other substances present in the food. On the other hand resveratrol is rapidly metabolized in sulfate and glucuronide conjugates and it has long been believed that this could limit its bioavailability. However, a study from the University of Leicester shows that resveratrol is not rendered ineffective after it is metabolized by the body: it can be generated by resveratrol sulfate and be even more effective than the un-metabolized compound7.

Supplements that contain high quantity of resveratrol are available in the market. However, people should be careful with them, because we still don’t know the repercussions of high amount of resveratrol on human health. A very recent study published on the June issue of The FASEB Journal shows that the use of resveratrol during pregnancy can have beneficial effects on the blood flow in the placenta and on the liver function (decreased placental inflammation and liver triglyceride deposition), but can increase fetal pancreatic mass and exocrine proliferation, leading to unknown consequences on the development of the fetus8.

To date, there are not definitive studies on the benefits of resveratrol. The literature is full of controversial or incomplete reports. Therefore, be careful in listening to advertisements that sell resveratrol as a health serum.

1Takaoka M, Resveratrol, a new phenolic compound, from Veratrum grandiflorum. M Takaoka, Journal of the Chemical Society of Japan, 193 (2012):1090-1100.

2Tennen RI, Michishita-Kioi E, Chua KF. “Finding a target for resveratrol”. Cell 2012,148 (3): 387–9.

3Nwachukwu J,Srinivasan S, Bruno NE, Parent AA, Hughes TS, Pollock JA, Gjyshi O, Cavett V, Nowak J, Garcia-Ordonez RD, Houtman R, Griffin PR, Kojetin DJ, Katzenellenbogen JA, Conkright MD, Nettles KW. Resveratrol modulates the inflammatory response via an estrogen receptor-signal integration network. eLife, (2014).

4Srinivasan S., Nwachukwu J.C., Parent AA, Cavett V, Nowak J, Hughes TS, Kojetin DJ, Katzenellenbogen JA, and Nettles KW. Ligand-binding dynamics rewire cellular signaling via estrogen receptor-alpha. Nat Chem Biol (2013) 9, 326-332.

5Hurst WJ, Glinski JA, Miller KB, Apgar J, Davey MH, Stuart DA. “Survey of the trans-resveratrol and trans-piceid content of cocoa-containing and chocolate products”. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2008) 56 (18): 8374–8.

6Semba RD, Luigi Ferrucci L, Bartali B, Urpí-Sarda M, Zamora-Ros R, Sun K, Cherubini A, Bandinelli S, Andres-Lacueva C. Resveratrol Levels and All-Cause Mortality in Older Community-Dwelling Adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, (2014) May 12.

7Patel KR, Andreadi C, Britton RG, Horner-Glister E, Karmokar A, Sale S, Brown VA, Brenner DE, Singh R, Steward WP, Gescher AJ and Brown K. Sulfate Metabolites Provide an Intracellular Pool for Resveratrol Generation and Induce Autophagy with Senescence. Science Translational Medicine, (2013) Oct 2;5(205).

8Roberts VHJ, Pound LD, Thorn SR, Gillingham MB, Thornburg KL, Friedman JE, Frias AE, and Grove KL. Beneficial and cautionary outcomes of resveratrol supplementation in pregnant nonhuman primates. FASEB J. (2014) June 28:2466-2477.

Fruit and vegetable consumption: a longer life

Nutrition, , , , , , , , ,

We all know that fruit and vegetables are healthy, but did you know that eating vegetables is more effective than eating fruit in reducing mortality?

May 2014A recent study published on Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health1 reports the association of fruit and vegetable consumption with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality in 65,226 English people included in the Health Survey for England from 2001 to 2013. Oyebode et al. found that people who consumed more vegetable and fruit were generally older, non-smokers, women, educated, and physically more active than the rest of the population. Fruit and vegetable consumption was inversely correlated with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, with a threshold of seven or more portions a day for all-cause and CVD mortality, five and less for cancer, and seven or more for CVD. When vegetable and fruit consumption were considered separately, vegetable were more beneficial than fruit on cancer and CVD survival. Specifically, fresh vegetables, salad, fresh fruit, and dried fruit were inversely correlated with mortality; instead canned/ frozen fruit consumption was directly correlated with increased mortality. This could be because some fresh vegetables and all fresh fruit are consumed raw, preserving all their nutrition facts; instead, canned fruit have a high content of sugar that can cause health problems if consumed in excess. As the authors discuss, usually frozen fruit is considered to be equivalent to raw fruit; therefore, the ambiguity of this study might be due to the way the survey was conducted with questions that didn’t distinguish between canned and frozen fruit.

”In 1990, the WHO issued recommendations for a minimum daily intake of 400 g of fruit and vegetables, based on evidence that higher levels were protective against [. . .] CVD and some cancers,”1 leading to various campaigns in Europe, the United States, and Australia for inducing people to consume more vegetables and fruits, not based on any valuable evidence. The present study provides this evidence. Although the study might be missing some information because of the self-report survey, this is the first analysis correlating fruit and vegetable consumption with mortality on a nationwide population.

This report shows that eating seven or more portions of vegetables a day decreases mortality. Unfortunately, vegetables and fruit are more expensive than the majority of unhealthy chips, sauces, or cookies that are sold on the aisles of the grocery stores, leading to a less consumption of vegetable and fruit in low-income houses2. Nutritional campaigns might not be effective in promoting a healthier diet, if the prices of healthy food remain high.

A more incisive policy should be carried out: it should be based on price cut and not only limited to surveys and statistics.

1. Oyebode O., Gordon-Dseagu V., Walker A., Mindell, JS. Fruit and vegetable consumption and all-cause, cancer and CVD mortality: analysis of Health Survey for England data. J Epidemiol Community Health, 31 March 2014

2. Thompson J. ‘Diet and healthy eating’. Chapter 5 In: Craig R, Shelton N, eds. Health Survey for England 2007. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. London: NHS Information Centre, 2008;107–48

 

 

Breast cancer survival: run, don’t walk,

Cancer, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A recent Untitled-1 study from Dr. Paul T. Williams on International Journal of Cancer describes the benefits of intense physical exercises on breast cancer survival 1.

Physical activity improves our health conditions reducing the risk of many diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancer. Previous studies linked regular physical exercises, even mild activity, with decreased breast cancer risk 2,3. Instead, the study reported here points out the importance of an intense physical activity over a mild activity.

Paul Williams from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory surveyed 986 breast cancer survivors, 272 runners and 714 walkers.  When the two groups where considered together, breast cancer mortality decreased proportionally to the hours of exercises (23.9% per metabolic equivalents-MET-hours/day). Instead, when the two groups were considered separately, breast cancer mortality was lower in runners than in walkers (66.5% difference), and in runners the mortality decreased proportionally to the hours of exercise (87.4% lower for 1.8 to 3.6 MET-hours/d). There was a correlation with age of death, suggesting that running was more effective in preventing mortality later than earlier in life. Although previous studies correlated BMI and adiposity with breast cancer mortality, in this report neither BMI, education, or diet influence the mortality. The incongruence might be due to the leaner cohort considered here, as pointed out by the same author. Physical activity alters metabolism, influencing blood concentration of different biomarkers used for breast cancer (estradiol, fasting insulin, and C-reactive protein), thus indicating a profound effect on its progression at the metabolic and molecular level.

As Williams discusses in the paper, this study presents some limitations, such as the small number of subjects. Moreover, although this study describes very accurately the information about women’s activity, it lacks some very useful information, such as data on the actual disease, receptor status, invasiveness, metastases or treatment. Given the low rate of mortality in this group, the women reported in this study seem to be a selected set of survivors with a less invasive disease.

Despite these limitations, the study presents for the first time the advantage of intense physical activity over mild activity, suggesting that exceeding the public health recommendations might be better for breast cancer survival, and probably for other health-related issues.

Therefore walking for 30 minutes for 5 days a week might not be enough!

 

  1. Paul T. Williams. Significantly greater reduction in breast cancer mortality from post-diagnosis running than walking. International Journal of Cancer, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28740
  2. Hildebrand JS, Gapstur SM, Campbell PT, Gaudet MM, Patel AV. Recreational physical activity and leisure-time sitting in relation to postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, October 2013
  3. Lauren E. McCullough, Sybil M. Eng, Patrick T. Bradshaw, Rebecca J. Cleveland, Susan L. Teitelbaum, Alfred I. Neugut, Marilie D. Gammon. Fat or fit: The joint effects of physical activity, weight gain, and body size on breast cancer risk.Cancer, 2012; DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27433