Effects of tobacco smoke on PC12 cell neurodifferentiation are distinct from those of nicotine or benzo[a]pyrene
Open accessAbstract
Although nicotine accounts for a great deal of the neurodevelopmental damage associated with maternal smoking or second-hand exposure, tobacco smoke contains thousands of potentially neurotoxic compounds. We used PC12 cells, a standard in vitro model of neurodifferentiation, to compare tobacco smoke extract (TSE) to nicotine, matching TSE exposure (with its inherent nicotine content) to parallel concentrations of nicotine, or to benzo[a]pyrene, a tobacco combustion product. TSE promoted the transition from cell replication to differentiation, resulting in fewer, but larger cells with greater neurite extension. TSE also biased differentiation into the dopaminergic versus the cholinergic phenotype, evidenced by an increase in tyrosine hydroxylase activity but not choline acetyltransferase. Nicotine likewise promoted differentiation at the expense of cell numbers, but its effect on growth and neurite extension was smaller than that of TSE; furthermore, nicotine did not promote the dopaminergic phenotype. Benzo[a]pyrene had effects opposite to those of TSE, retarding neurodifferentiation, which resulted in higher cell numbers, smaller cells, reduced neurite information, and impaired emergence of both dopaminergic and cholinergic phenotypes. Our studies show that the complex mixture of compounds in tobacco smoke exerts direct effects on neural cell replication and differentiation that resemble those of nicotine in some ways but not others, and most importantly, that are greater in magnitude than can be accounted for from just the nicotine content of TSE. Thus, fetal tobacco smoke exposure, including lower levels associated with second-hand smoke, could be more injurious than would be anticipated from measured levels of nicotine or its metabolites.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Even low nicotine exposure from secondhand smoke harms fetal brain development and cognition.
“and that even the low levels of nicotine exposure associated with secondhand smoke are injurious to fetal brain development and cognitive function.(79, 321, 322)”
From Developmental toxicity of nicotine: A transdisciplinary synthesis and implications for emerging tobacco products (2017) · cites this paper as [321]
Components of tobacco smoke besides nicotine worsen nicotine's harmful effects.
“several recent studies indicate that other tobacco smoke components amplify the adverse effects of nicotine,”
From Developmental toxicity of nicotine: A transdisciplinary synthesis and implications for emerging tobacco products (2017) · cites this paper as [321]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Slotkin, T. A. (2004) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2003.06.001 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Self-citationLuck, W., Nau, H., Hansen, R., & Steldinger, R. (2017) · Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.1159/000457063 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
England, L. J., Aagaard, K., Bloch, M., Conway, K., Cosgrove, K., Grana, R., Gould, T. J., Hatsukami, D., Jensen, F., Kandel, D., et al. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.11.013 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Self-citationHall, B. J., Cauley, M., Burke, D. A., Kiany, A., Slotkin, T. A., & Levin, E. D. (2016) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfw042 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Slotkin, T. A., Card, J., Stadler, A., Levin, E. D., & Seidler, F. J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Duke Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Slotkin, Theodore A.
- Venue
- Neurotoxicology and Teratology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-05
- Volume
- 43
- Pages
- 19-24
- ISSN
- 0892-0362 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4043937
- OpenAlex
- W2012087352
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neurotoxicology and Teratology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES022831, P01ES022831)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Keywords
- tobacco smoke, nicotine, benzo[a]pyrene, PC12 cells, neuronal differentiation, neurite outgrowth, cholinergic phenotype, tyrosine hydroxylase, choline acetyltransferase, passive smoking, developmental neurotoxicity, cell replication
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cell Differentiation, Choline O-Acetyltransferase, DNA, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Membrane Proteins, Nicotine, Tyrosine 3-Monooxygenase, PC12 Cells, Rats, Tobacco Products
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review