Relationship between smoking and obesity:a cross-sectional study of 499,504 middle-aged adults in the UK general population

Background: There is a general perception that smoking protects against weight gain and this may influence commencement and continuation of smoking, especially among young women.<p></p> Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using baseline data from UK Biobank. Logistic regression analyses were used to explore the association between smoking and obesity; defined as body mass index (BMI) >30kg/m2. Smoking was examined in terms of smoking status, amount smoked, duration of smoking and time since quitting and we adjusted for the potential confounding effects of age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, physical activity, alcohol consumption, hypertension and diabetes.<p></p> Results: The study comprised 499,504 adults aged 31 to 69 years. Overall, current smokers were less likely to be obese than never smokers (adjusted OR 0.83 95% CI 0.81-0.86). However, there was no significant association in the youngest sub-group (≤40 years). Former smokers were more likely to be obese than both current smokers (adjusted OR 1.33 95% CI 1.30-1.37) and never smokers (adjusted OR 1.14 95% CI 1.12-1.15). Among smokers, the risk of obesity increased with the amount smoked and former heavy smokers were more likely to be obese than former light smokers (adjusted OR 1.60, 95% 1.56-1.64, p<0.001). Risk of obesity fell with time from quitting. After 30 years, former smokers still had higher risk of obesity than current smokers but the same risk as never smokers.<p></p> Conclusion: Beliefs that smoking protects against obesity may be over-simplistic; especially among younger and heavier smokers. Quitting smoking may be associated with temporary weight gain. Therefore, smoking cessation interventions should include weight management support.<p></p&gt

Nicotinic Receptor Gene CHRNA4 Interacts with Processing Load in Attention

Background: Pharmacological studies suggest that cholinergic neurotransmission mediates increases in attentional effort in response to high processing load during attention demanding tasks [1]. Methodology/Principal Findings: In the present study we tested whether individual variation in CHRNA4, a gene coding for a subcomponent in a4b2 nicotinic receptors in the human brain, interacted with processing load in multiple-object tracking (MOT) and visual search (VS). We hypothesized that the impact of genotype would increase with greater processing load in the MOT task. Similarly, we predicted that genotype would influence performance under high but not low load in the VS task. Two hundred and two healthy persons (age range = 39–77, Mean = 57.5, SD = 9.4) performed the MOT task in which twelve identical circular objects moved about the display in an independent and unpredictable manner. Two to six objects were designated as targets and the remaining objects were distracters. The same observers also performed a visual search for a target letter (i.e. X or Z) presented together with five non-targets while ignoring centrally presented distracters (i.e. X, Z, or L). Targets differed from non-targets by a unique feature in the low load condition, whereas they shared features in the high load condition. CHRNA4 genotype interacted with processing load in both tasks. Homozygotes for the T allele (N = 62) had better tracking capacity in the MOT task and identified targets faster in the high load trials of the VS task. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that the cholinergic system modulates attentional effort, and that commo

Enzymatic Activities and DNA Substrate Specificity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA Helicase XPB

XPB, also known as ERCC3 and RAD25, is a 3′→5′ DNA repair helicase belonging to the superfamily 2 of helicases. XPB is an essential core subunit of the eukaryotic basal transcription factor complex TFIIH. It has two well-established functions: in the context of damaged DNA, XPB facilitates nucleotide excision repair by unwinding double stranded DNA (dsDNA) surrounding a DNA lesion; while in the context of actively transcribing genes, XPB facilitates initiation of RNA polymerase II transcription at gene promoters. Human and other eukaryotic XPB homologs are relatively well characterized compared to conserved homologs found in mycobacteria and archaea. However, more insight into the function of bacterial helicases is central to understanding the mechanism of DNA metabolism and pathogenesis in general. Here, we characterized Mycobacterium tuberculosis XPB (Mtb XPB), a 3′→5′ DNA helicase with DNA-dependent ATPase activity. Mtb XPB efficiently catalyzed DNA unwinding in the presence of significant excess of enzyme. The unwinding activity was fueled by ATP or dATP in the presence of Mg2+/Mn2+. Consistent with the 3′→5′ polarity of this bacterial XPB helicase, the enzyme required a DNA substrate with a 3′ overhang of 15 nucleotides or more. Although Mtb XPB efficiently unwound DNA model substrates with a 3′ DNA tail, it was not active on substrates containing a 3′ RNA tail. We also found that Mtb XPB efficiently catalyzed ATP-independent annealing of complementary DNA strands. These observations significantly enhance our understanding of the biological roles of Mtb XPB

The Mayo Clinic-Canadian Cooperative trial of sulfasalazine in active multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sulfasalazine is better than placebo in slowing disability progression in MS. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 199 patients with active relapsing-remitting (n = 151) or progressive (n = 48) MS were evaluated at 3-month intervals for a minimum of 3 years (94% completed 3 years of follow-up; mean follow-up, 3.7 years). MRI studies were performed at 6-month intervals on a subset of 89 patients. RESULTS: Sulfasalazine failed to slow or prevent disability progression as measured by the primary outcome (confirmed worsening of the Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score by at least 1.0 point on two consecutive 3-month visits). Sulfasalazine influenced favorably a number of secondary outcomes during the first 18 months of the trial (e.g., annualized relapse rate, proportion of relapse-free patients; progressive subgroup only: rate of EDSS progression at 1 and 2 years, median time to EDSS progression) but these positive findings were not sustained into the second half of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine does not prevent EDSS score progression in the subset of MS patients studied by this protocol. Treatments may improve relapse-related outcomes in MS, at least temporarily, without providing sustained slowing of EDSS progression. Phase III MS trials should be of sufficient length to determine a meaningful impact on disease course