Genetics determine if your mom was right about brussel sprouts

Lab studies suggest that cruciferous vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli and brussel sprouts contain potent anti-cancer compounds known as isothiocyanates. But can eating these veggies really help you ward off the dreaded disease?

The answer, it seems, may depend on your own genes.

Previous research has found that isothiocyanates are eliminated from the body by specific enzymes produced by genes known as GSTM1 and GSTT1.

So, in theory at least, people with inactive forms of these genes should benefit the most from vegetables in the cabbage family because the isothiocyanates should linger in their bodies longer to fight off potentially cancerous cells.

Advertisements Register

Paul Brennan of the International Agency for Cancer Research and other scientists have just completed a lung-cancer study that appears to back up this theory. In particular, the team studied the diets and genes of more than 4,000 people in Eastern and Central Europe.

According to the results published today in the journal The Lancet, the researchers found that people with an inactive form of the GSTM1 gene were 33-per-cent less likely to get lung cancer if they ate cruciferous vegetables on a weekly basis.

Furthermore, "in people who had an inactive GSTT1, there was a 37-per-cent protective effect, while those with both genes inactivated had a 72-per-cent protective effect."

They found no protective effect in people with active forms of the genes.

This latest study adds to a growing body of evidence showing how slight genetic differences can have profound effects on health. And it helps explain why some people might respond well to a particular treatment while others don't.

Awake under the knife

In rare cases, patients wake up in the middle of their operations. Yet they are usually unable to alert doctors of their conscious state because they also receive a temporary paralyzing agent as part of the anesthetic. Most of these patients are left traumatized for life as a result of the horrifying and painful experience.

A few advocacy groups have been pushing doctors to embrace better methods to ensure that patients are indeed unconscious when the surgical knife makes its first and final cut.

But this week at its annual meeting in Atlanta, Ga., the American Society of Anesthesiologists failed to embrace the universal use of mechanical devices that can measure the level of consciousness by monitoring a patient's brain waves.

"The decision to use a brain-function monitor should be made on a case-by-case basis by the individual practitioner for selected patients," according to a report adopted by the group.

Orin Guidry, the newly installed president of the ASA, defended the decision. "The most important monitor in the operating room is the anesthesiologist who has 12 years of medical training and a wealth of experience to draw on when deciding what is appropriate for each individual patient," Dr. Guidry said in a prepared statement.

However, Carol Weihrer, a 54-year-old Virginia woman who woke up during surgery, isn't very happy with the ASA's direction. "It's nothing," the patient advocate told Associated Press.

Abortion, depression link?

A study in today's edition of the British Medical Journal concludes there is "no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts a woman at higher risk of subsequent depression."

In fact, the researchers, led by Nancy Russo of Arizona State University, suggest that having an abortion might actually reduce the risk of depression down the road. The team points out that, in general, the young women who chose to have abortions went on to higher education, higher-income jobs and smaller family sizes.

This latest research contradicts an earlier study by two U.S. researchers, D.C. Reardon and J.R. Cougle, who found that having an abortion boosts the risk of depression. Ironically, both teams used data from the same U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth for their studies.

So, how could two groups of scientists draw completely different conclusions when they analyzed the same basic information?

"Inconsistencies between our finding and those from the Reardon and Cougle study can primarily be explained by different coding of key variables and sample selection," writes Dr. Russo's team.

Simply put, the two groups included -- or excluded -- different parts of data. Dr. Russo's group maintains that its approach is the most accurate.