Evidence Hub

Blood- and brain-based genome-wide association studies of smoking

A. Chybowska, E. Bernabeu, P. Yousefi, M. Suderman, R. Hillary, Louise Macgillivray, L. Murphy, S. E. Harris et al.

medRxiv, 2024

17,865 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Self-reported smoking is often incorporated into disease prediction tools but suffers from recall bias and does not capture passive exposure. Blood-based DNA methylation (DNAm) is an objective way to assess smoking. However, studies have not fully explored tissue-specificity or epigenome-wide coverage beyond array data. Here, we update the existing biomarkers of smoking and conduct a detailed analysis of the associations between blood DNAm and self-reported smoking.

Methods and Findings: A blood-based Bayesian epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) of smoking was carried out in 17,865 Generation Scotland individuals at ~850k CpG sites (Illumina EPIC array). For 24 pairs of smokers and non-smokers a high-resolution approach was implemented (~4 million sites, TWIST methylome panel). A DNAm-derived biomarker of smoking (mCigarette) was tested in the independent Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (n=882, Illumina 450k array) and in the ALSPAC parents and offspring at four time points (range n=496-1,207). To explore tissue specific signals, EWASs of smoking were run across five brain regions for 14 individuals using DNAm from the EPIC array. Lastly, genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of smoking pack years and an epigenetic score for smoking (GrimAge DNAm pack years) were conducted (n=17,105). The primary EWAS analyses identified two novel genome-wide significant loci, mapping to genes related to addiction and carcinogenesis. Associations with CpG sites which are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 17,865 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free