New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Nicotine-Chomping Bacteria Could Help Smokers Quit

Researchers isolated a bacterial enzyme that could break down nicotine before smokers get the buzz that keeps them coming back for more. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Quitting smoking is tough—so tough that only about 5 percent of smokers who try to quit in a given year actually succeed. Medications can double those odds—which still leaves a high failure rate. And a promising vaccine, meant to arouse an immune response to nicotine, could not beat a placebo in clinical trials. But researchers haven't given up on a vaccine yet. Instead of revving up the immune system, though, they've come up with a new idea: why not use an enzyme to break down nicotine—before it gives you a buzz?

"For almost 50 years there's been reports of bacteria that can actually use nicotine to thrive on." Kim Janda, a chemist and immunologist at The Scripps Research Institute. "The bacteria uses nicotine as its sole source of carbon and nitrogen."

It does the trick with a nicotine-chomping enzyme. So Janda and his colleagues added the enzyme to mouse serum, doped with a cigarette's worth of nicotine. The enzyme was stable at human body temperature—and was able to cut the half-life of nicotine from a couple hours to less than 15 minutes—that is, it greatly accelerated nicotine’s disappearance. The study is in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. [Song Xue et al, A New Strategy for Smoking Cessation: Characterization of a Bacterial Enzyme for the Degradation of Nicotine]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But Janda says the enzyme isn't ready for primetime yet. It's bacterial—so "you're going to get an immune response, immune surveillance from it." And right now, the other important half-life, that of the enzyme in serum, is only 3 days. So it won’t stick around long enough to be an effective vaccine. "A month would be great, a week or two would also be reasonable." While the researchers work out the kinks, smokers will have to rely on the tried-and-true methods of quitting: counseling, medication or good old cold turkey.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe