ArticleRespiratory research2023
Transcriptomic responses in the blood and sputum of cigarette smokers compared to e-cigarette vapers.
Article in Respiratory research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Ligands Drive Pancreatic Cancer Initiation and Progression through Protumorigenic T-cell Polarization.Cancer discovery · 2026Article
- Multidimensional exposure architecture shapes vaping-associated transcriptomic dysregulation in oral epithelium.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Construction and application of a risk prediction model for sputum viscosity in patients with laryngeal malignant tumors after operation.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- The paradox of the safer cigarette: understanding the pulmonary effects of electronic cigarettes.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
- Comprehensive time-course gene expression evaluation of high-risk beef cattle to establish immunological characteristics associated with undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleElectronic (e)-cigarettes are popular among youth and cigarette smokers attempting to quit. Studies to date have focused on the utility of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool, but the biological effects are largely unknown.
objectivesTo identify transcriptomic differences in the blood and sputum of e-cigarette users compared to conventional cigarettes smokers and healthy controls and describe biological pathways affected by these tobacco products.
methodsCross-sectional analysis of whole blood and sputum RNA-sequencing data from 8 smokers, 9 e-cigarette users (e-cigs) and 4 controls. Weighted gene co-network analysis (WGCNA) identified gene module associations. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) identified canonical pathways associated with tobacco products. MAIN
resultsIn blood, a three-group comparison showed 16 differentially expressed genes (DEGs); pair-wise comparison showed 7 DEGs between e-cigs and controls, 35 DEGs between smokers and controls, and 13 DEGs between smokers and e-cigs. In sputum, 438 DEGs were in the three-group comparison. In pair-wise comparisons, there were 2 DEGs between e-cigs and controls, 270 DEGs between smokers and controls, and 468 DEGs between smokers and e-cigs. Only 2 genes in the smokers vs. control comparison overlapped between blood and sputum. Most gene modules identified through WGCNA associated with tobacco product exposures also were associated with cotinine and exhaled CO levels. IPA showed more canonical pathways altered by conventional cigarette smoking than by e-cigarette use.
conclusionCigarette smoking and e-cigarette use led to transcriptomic changes in both blood and sputum. However, conventional cigarettes induced much stronger transcriptomic responses in both compartments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.