Background Previously, we reported that prenatal exposures to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and postnatal environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in combination were associated with respiratory symptoms at ages 1 and 2 years. Here, we hypothesized that children exposed to both prenatal PAH and ETS may be at greater risk of asthma and seroatopy at ages 5 to 6 years, after controlling for current pollution exposure. Methods Prenatal PAH exposure was measured by personal air monitoring over 48 hrs. ETS exposure, respiratory symptoms and asthma at ages 5–6 years were assessed through questionnaire. Immunoglobulin (Ig) E was measured by Immunocap. Results A significant interaction between prenatal PAH and prenatal (but not postnatal) ETS exposure on asthma (p<0.05), but not IgE, was detected. Among children exposed to prenatal ETS, a positive nonsignificant association was found between prenatal PAH exposure and asthma (OR 1.96, 95% CI [0.95–4.05]). Among children without exposure to prenatal ETS, a negative nonsignificant association was found between prenatal PAH exposure and asthma (OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.41–1.01]). Prenatal PAH exposure was not associated with asthma or IgE at age 5 to 6 years. Conclusions Combined prenatal exposure to PAH and ETS appears to be associated with asthma but not seroatopy at age 5–6. Exposure to PAH alone does not appear associated with either asthma or seroatopy at age 5 to 6 years. Discerning the differential effects between ETS exposed and ETS nonexposed children requires further study.

Humans are inextricably linked to each other and our natural world, and microorganisms lie at the nexus of those interactions. Microorganisms form genetically flexible, taxonomically diverse, and biochemically rich communities, i.e., microbiomes that are integral to the health and development of macroorganisms, societies, and ecosystems.

Despite a proclaimed shift from ‘nature versus nurture’ to ‘genes and environment’ paradigms within biomedical and genomic science, capturing the environment and identifying gene-environment interactions (GEIs) has remained a challenge. What does ‘the environment’ mean in the post-genomic age? In this paper, we present qualitative data from a study of 33 principal investigators funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to conduct etiological research on three complex diseases (cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes). We examine their research practices and perspectives on the environment through the concept of molecularization: the social processes and transformations through which phenomena (diseases, identities, pollution, food, racial/ethnic classifications) are re-defined in terms of their molecular components and described in the language of molecular biology. We show how GEI researchers’ expansive conceptualizations of the environment ultimately yield to the imperative to molecularize and personalize the environment. They seek to ‘go into the body’ and re-work the boundaries between bodies and environments. In the process, they create epistemic hinges to facilitate a turn from efforts to understand social and environmental exposures outside the body, to quantifying their effects inside the body. GEI researchers respond to these emergent imperatives with a mixture of excitement, ambivalence and frustration. We reflect on how GEI researchers struggle to make meaning of molecules in their work, and how they grapple with molecularization as a methodological and rhetorical imperative as well as a process transforming biomedical research practices.

In this article, we explore current thinking and practices around the logics of difference in gene–environment interaction research in the post-genomic era. We find that scientists conducting gene–environment interaction research continue to invoke well-worn notions of racial difference and diversity, but use them strategically to try to examine other kinds of etiologically significant differences among populations. Scientists do this by seeing populations not as inherently homogeneous or heterogeneous, but rather by actively working to produce homogeneity along some dimensions and heterogeneity along others in their study populations. Thus we argue that homogeneity and heterogeneity are situational properties – properties that scientists seek to achieve in their study populations, the available data, and other aspects of the research situation they are confronting, and then leverage to advance post-genomic science. Pointing to the situatedness of homogeneity and heterogeneity in gene–environment interaction research underscores the work that these properties do and the contingencies that shape decisions about research procedures. Through a focus on the situational production of homogeneity and heterogeneity more broadly, we find that gene–environment interaction research attempts to shift the logic of difference from solely racial terms as explanatory ends unto themselves, to racial and other dimensions of difference that may be important clues to the causes of complex diseases.