4.7 Article

Cigarette smoking behaviors and the importance of ethnicity and genetic ancestry

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-021-01244-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging
  2. National Institute of Mental Health
  3. National Institute of Health Common Fund [RC2 AG036607]
  4. National Eye Institute [R01 EY027004]
  5. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01 DK116738]
  6. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA241623]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significant associations between genetic ancestry and smoking behaviors in different race/ethnicity groups.
Cigarette smoking contributes to numerous diseases and is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Smoking behaviors vary widely across race/ethnicity, but it is not clear why. Here, we examine the contribution of genetic ancestry to variation in two smoking-related traits in 43,485 individuals from four race/ethnicity groups (non-Hispanic white, Hispanic/Latino, East Asian, and African American) from a single U.S. healthcare plan. Smoking prevalence was the lowest among East Asians (22.7%) and the highest among non-Hispanic whites (38.5%). We observed significant associations between genetic ancestry and smoking-related traits. Within East Asians, we observed higher smoking prevalence with greater European (versus Asian) ancestry (P = 9.95 x 10(-12)). Within Hispanic/Latinos, higher cigarettes per day (CPD) was associated with greater European ancestry (P = 3.34 x 10(-25)). Within non-Hispanic whites, the lowest number of CPD was observed for individuals of southeastern European ancestry (P = 9.06 x 10(-5)). These associations remained after considering known smoking-associated loci, education, socioeconomic factors, and marital status. Our findings support the role of genetic ancestry and socioeconomic factors in cigarette smoking behaviors in non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic/Latinos, and East Asians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据