SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Systematic Review of Nicotine Exposure's Effects on Neural Stem and Progenitor Cells.

Brain Sci · 2021-01-29

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11020172PMID: 33573081

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

While various modalities of chronic nicotine use have been associated with numerous negative consequences to human health, one possible benefit of nicotine exposure has been uncovered. The discovery of an inverse correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease, and later Alzheimer's disease as well, motivated investigation of nicotine as a neuroprotective agent. Some studies have demonstrated that nicotine elicits improvements in cognitive function. The hippocampus, along with the subventricular zone (SVZ), is a distinct brain region that allow for ongoing postnatal neurogenesis throughout adulthood and plays a major role in certain cognitive behaviors like learning and memory. Therefore, one hypothesis underlying nicotine-induced neuroprotection is possible effects on neural stem cells and neural precursor cells. On the other hand, nicotine withdrawal frequently leads to cognitive impairments, particularly in hippocampal-dependent behaviors, possibly suggesting an impairment of hippocampal neurogenesis with nicotine exposure. This review discusses the current body of evidence on nicotine's effects on neural stem cells and neural progenitors. Changes in neural stem cell proliferation, survival, intracellular dynamics, and differentiation following acute and chronic nicotine exposure are examined.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.