4.1 Article

Lower subcortical gray matter volume in both younger smokers and established smokers relative to non-smokers

Journal

ADDICTION BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 185-195

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/adb.12171

Keywords

Gray matter; nicotine; smoking; voxel-based morphometry

Funding

  1. GRAND [GA30523K]
  2. NICHD [K12HD055885, UL1 RR029882]
  3. [K01DA027756]
  4. [DA036085-03]
  5. [5R21DA026085-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although established adult smokers with long histories of nicotine dependence have lower neural tissue volume than non-smokers, it is not clear if lower regional brain volume is also observed in younger, less established smokers. The primary goal of this study was to investigate neural tissue volume in a large group of smokers and non-smokers, with a secondary goal of measuring the impact of age on these effects. We used voxel-based morphometry to compare regional gray matter volume in 118 individuals (59 smokers, 59 age- and gender-matched non-smokers). Younger smokers had significantly lower gray matter volume in the left thalamus and the left amygdala than their non-smoking peers (family-wise error-corrected clusters, P<0.05). There was no correlation between smoking use variables and tissue volume among younger smokers. Established smokers had significantly lower gray matter volume than age-matched non-smokers in the insula, parahippocampal gyrus and pallidum. Medial prefrontal cortex gray matter volume was negatively correlated with pack-years of smoking among the established smokers, but not the younger smokers. These data reveal that regional tissue volume differences are not limited exclusively to established smokers. Deficits in young adults indicate that cigarette smoking may either be deleterious to the thalamus and amygdala at an earlier age than previously reported, or that pre-existing differences in these areas may predispose individuals to the development of nicotine dependence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available