Diluted aqueous extract of heat-not-burn tobacco product smoke causes less oxidative damage in fibroblasts than conventional cigarette

7Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Smoke from conventional cigarettes (C-cigarettes) contains various reactive oxygen species and toxic chemicals, which potentially cause oxidative damage not only to airways but also to the whole body, leading eventually to diseases, including emphysema, advanced atherosclerosis, and cancer. Many heat-not-burn tobacco products (HTPs) have been commercialized recently in Japan to maintain the smoking population by advertising that HTPs are less toxic. However, there were few studies reported from neutral organizations whether HTPs are indeed less damaging. To evaluate the potential capacity of HTPs to induce oxidative stress, we here compared two different HTPs with two types of C-cigarettes, using human fibroblast IMR90SV cells and 5% aqueous extracts in 10-ml phosphate-buffered saline (50-ml smoke/10 s). HTPs exhibited significantly lower oxidative toxicity in comparison to C-cigarettes. Whereas C-cigarettes induced ferroptosis in fibroblasts, the effects of HTPs were significantly reduced by measuring the levels of peroxides, pro-inflammatory cytokine expression, autophagy, catalytic Fe(II) and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine. Notably, major portions of C-cigarettes-induced pathogenic responses were inhibited by catalase. However, HTPs still induced p62 autophagy-adaptor at 5%-dilution and caused lethal effects to fibroblasts with undiluted solution. In conclusion, HTPs smoke per se can be toxic despite less toxicity in comparison to C-cigarettes, which warrants further investigation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lyu, Q., Jiang, L., Zheng, H., Hayashi, S., Sato, K., & Toyokuni, S. (2022). Diluted aqueous extract of heat-not-burn tobacco product smoke causes less oxidative damage in fibroblasts than conventional cigarette. Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition, 71(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.3164/JCBN.21-134

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free