Exposome (pronounced eks-poh-sohm)
(1) A
concept describing (1) the environmental exposures an individual encounters
throughout life and (2) how these factors impact an individual's biology and
health.
(2) The
collection of environmental factors (stress, diet, climate, health-care etc) to
which an individual is exposed and which can have an effect on health outcomes.
2005: The
construct was expos(e) + -ome,
the word coined by cancer epidemiologist Dr Christopher Wild, then director of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC). Expose
(in the sense of “to lay open to danger, attack, harm etc”; “to lay open to
something specified”) dates from the mid-fifteenth century and was from the late
Middle English exposen, from the Middle
French exposer (to lay open, set
forth), from the Latin expōnō (set
forth), with contamination from poser (to
lay, place). The –ome suffix was an
alteration of -oma, from the Ancient
Greek -ωμα (-ōma). It was only partially cognate to -some (body), from σῶμα (soma)
(body), in that both share the case ending -μα
(-ma), but the ω was unrelated. The
sense was of “a mass of something” and use is familiar in forms such as genome
(in genetics the complete genetic information (DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or RNA
(ribonucleic acid)) and phenome (the whole set of phenotypic entities in a
cell, tissue, organ, organisms, and species). Exposome is a noun and exposomic is an adjective; the
noun plural is exposomes.
The study
and assessment of external and internal factors (chemical, physical,
biological, social, climatic etc) factors that may influence human health is
not new and evidence of interest in the topic(s) exist in the literature of
physicians and philosophers (there was sometimes overlap) from the ancient
civilizations of Greece, Rome, China, Persia and India. One of the paradoxes of modernity in medicine
was that simultaneously there developed an interest in (1) interdisciplinary and
holistic approaches while (2) specialization become increasingly entrenched,
the latter leading sometimes to a “siloing” in research and data
accumulation. What makes exposome a
useful tool is it is a way of expressing the interplay between genetics and
environmental factors in the development of diseases with a particular focus on
chronic conditions and widely the concept has been applied in many fields of
medicine beyond public health. What it
does is calculate the cumulative effect of multiple exposures, allowing
researchers to “scope-down” to specific or general gene-environment
interactions, producing data to permit a more accurate assessment of disease
risk and thus the identification of useful modes of intervention.
Dr Wild’s
coining of exposome came about because some word or phrase was needed to
describe his innovation which was the application of a systematic approach to
measuring environmental exposures to what was coming to be known about the human
genome; in a sense it was an exercise in cause and effect, the three components
being (1) the external exposome, (2) the internal exposome and (3) the
biological response. The external
exposome included factors such as air pollution, diet and socioeconomic factors
as well as specific external factors like chemicals and radiation. The internal exposome included endogenous
factors, such as hormones, inflammation, oxidative stress, and gut microbiota. The biological response described the complex
interactions between the external and internal exposome factors and their
influence on an individual's physiology and health.
At its most
comprehensive (and complex), the exposome is a cumulative measure of all
environmental exposures to which an individual has been subject throughout
their entire life. While that’s
something that can be modelled for an “imagined person”, in a real-world
instance it will probably always be only partially complete, not least because
in some cases critical environmental exposures may not be known for long after
their effect has been exerted; indeed, some may be revealed only by an autopsy
(post mortem). Conceptually however, the
process can be illustrated by example and one illustrative of the approach is
to contrast the factors affecting the same individual living in three different
places. What that approach does is
emphasize certain obvious differences between places but variations in an exposome
don’t depend on the sample being taken in locations thousands of miles
apart. For a variety of reasons, the
same individual might record a radically different outcome if (in theory)
living their entire life in one suburb compared with one adjacent or even in
one room in one dwelling compared with another perhaps only a few feet
away. Conditions can be similar across a
wide geographical spread or different despite close proximity (even between
people sitting within speaking distance), the phenomenon of “micro-climates” in
open-plan offices well documented. The
number of variables which can be used usefully to calculate (estimate might be
a better word) an individual’s (or a group’s) exposome is probably at least in
the dozens but could easily be expanded well into three figures were one to
itemize influences (such as chemicals or specifics types of pollutant matter)
and such is the complexity of the process that the mere existence of some
factors might be detrimental to some individuals yet neutral or even beneficial
to others. At this stage, although the
implications of applying AI (artificial intelligence) to the interaction of
large data sets with a individual’s genetic mix have intrigued some, the
exposome remains an indicative conceptual model rather than a defined process.
As an
example, consider the same individual living variously in New York City, Dubai
or Los Angeles. In each of those places,
some factors will be universal within the locality while others will vary
according to which part of place one inhabits and even at what elevation at the
same address; the physical environment in a building’s ground floor greatly can
vary from that which prevails on the 44th floor:
(1) Air
Quality and Pollution: Moderate to high levels of air pollution, especially
from traffic (NO₂, PM2.5). Seasonal heating (oil and gas) contributes in
winter. Subway air has unique
particulate matter exposure.
(2) Climate
and UV Radiation: Humid continental climate—cold winters and hot summers.
Seasonal variability affects respiratory and cardiovascular stressors.
(3) Diet
and Food Environment: Diverse food options—high availability of ultra-processed
foods but also global cuisines. Food deserts in poorer boroughs can reduce
fresh produce access.
(4) Built
Environment and Urban Design: Dense, walkable, vertical urban environment. High
reliance on public transport; more noise pollution and crowding stress. Lower car ownership can reduce personal
emissions exposure.
(5) Cultural
and Psychosocial Stressors: High-paced lifestyle, long working hours. High
density increases social stress, noise, and mental health challenges. Diversity can be enriching or alienating,
depending on context.
(6) Economic
and Occupational Exposures: Highly competitive job market. Occupational
exposures vary widely—white-collar vs service industries. Union protections
exist in some sectors.
(7) Healthcare
Access and Public Policy: Robust healthcare infrastructure, but disparities
remain by borough and income. Medicaid and public hospitals provide some safety
net.
(1) Air
Quality and Pollution: Frequently exposed to dust storms (fine desert dust),
high PM10 levels, and air conditioning pollutants. Limited greenery means less
natural air filtration. Desalination
plants and industrial expansion add further exposure.
(2) Climate
and UV Radiation: Extreme desert heat (45°C+), intense UV exposure, little
rain. Heat stress and dehydration risks are chronic, especially for outdoor
workers.
(3) Diet
and Food Environment: High import dependency. Abundant processed and fast
foods, especially in malls. Dietary pattern skewed toward high sugar and fat
content. Cultural fasting (eg Ramadan)
introduces cyclical dietary stressors.
(4) Built
Environment and Urban Design: Car-centric city. Pedestrian-unfriendly in many
areas due to heat and design. Heavy air conditioning use is a major indoor
exposure pathway.
(5) Cultural
and Psychosocial Stressors: Strict social codes and legal restrictions
influence behavioral exposures. Expat life often means social disconnection and
job insecurity for migrant workers.
(6) Economic
and Occupational Exposures: Large migrant workforce faces occupational health
risks, including long hours in extreme heat. Labor protections are
inconsistent.
(7) Healthcare
Access and Public Policy: Healthcare access stratified—good for citizens and
wealthy expats, less so for low-wage migrants. Private sector dominates.
(1) Air
Quality and Pollution: Known for smog due to vehicle emissions and topography
(valley trap). Ozone levels high, especially in summer. Wildfire smoke
increasingly common.
(2) Climate
and UV Radiation: Mediterranean climate with mild, dry summers. High UV
exposure, though moderated by coastal influence. Drought conditions affect
water quality and stress.
(3) Diet
and Food Environment: Strong health-food culture, organic and plant-based diets
more common. Yet fast food and food deserts remain in less affluent areas. Hispanic and Asian dietary influences
prominent.
(4) Built
Environment and Urban Design: Sprawling, suburban in many parts. High car
dependence means more exposure to vehicle exhaust. Outdoor activities more common in certain
demographics (eg, beach culture).
(5) Cultural
and Psychosocial Stressors: Cultural emphasis on appearance, wealth, and
entertainment may increase psychosocial pressure. Homelessness crisis also creates variable
community stress exposures.
(6) Economic
and Occupational Exposures: Gig economy widespread, leading to precarious
employment. Hollywood and tech industries also introduce unique workplace
stress patterns.
(7) Healthcare
Access and Public Policy: California’s public health programs are progressive,
but uninsured rates still high. Proximity to cutting-edge research centers can
boost care quality for some.
So one's
exposome is a product of what one wants or gets from life, mapped onto a risk
analysis table. In New York City, one
copes with urban pollution and persistent subway dust in an increasingly
variable climate marked by periods of high humidity, a dietary range determined
by one's wealth, the advantage of a good (if not always pleasant) mass transit
system and the possibility of a “walking distance” lifestyle, albeit it in
usually crowded, fast-paced surroundings.
Employment conditions are mixed and access to quality health care is a
product of one's insurance status or wealth.
In Dubai,
one lives with frequent dust storms, months of intense heat and UV exposure, a
dependence on food imports, the constant temptation of fast food (FSS; fat,
salt, sugar). The car-centric lifestyle has
created a built environment described as “pedestrian-hostile” and there are
sometimes severe legal limits on the personal freedom especially for migrant
workers who are subject to heat exposure and limited labor rights (even those which
exist often not enforced). The health
system distinctly is tiered (based on wealth) and almost exclusively
privatized.
The air
quality in Los Angeles greatly has improved since the 1970s but climate change
has resulted in the more frequent intrusion of smoke from wildfires and the prevailing
UV exposure tends to be high; the climate is not as “mild” as once it was
rated. While there are pockets in which
walkability is good, Los Angeles mostly is a car-dependent culture and the
coverage and frequency of mass-transit has in recent decades declined. Although this is not unique to the city,
there's heightened awareness of a sensitivity to specific cultural pressures
based on appearances and perceptions of lifestyle while housing stress is
increasing. Economic pressures are being
exacerbated by the growth of the gig economy and traditionally secure forms of
employment are being displaced by AI (bots, robots and hybrids). Although California's healthcare system is
sometimes described as "progressive", on the ground, outcomes are
patchy.
So each
location shapes the exposome in distinctive ways and the potential exists for
the process better to be modelled so public health interventions and policies
can be adjusted. Of course, some risks
are global: anywhere on the planet there’s always the chance one might be
murdered by the Freemasons but some things which might seem unlikely to be
affected by location turn out also to be an exposome variable. Because planet
Earth is (1) roughly spherical, (2) and travels through space (where concepts
like up & down don’t apply) and (3) constantly is exposed to meteoroids
(every day Earth receives tons of “space dust”), it would be reasonable to
assume one is equally likely to be struck by a meteoroid wherever one may
be. However, according to NASA (the US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration), strikes are not equally likely
everywhere, some latitudes (and regions) being more prone, due to several
factors:
(1) Because
Earth’s rotation and orbital motion create a bias, meteoroids tend more often
to approach from the direction of Earth’s orbital motion (the “apex
direction”), meaning the leading hemisphere (the side facing Earth's motion,
near the dawn terminator) sees more meteoroid entries than the trailing
hemisphere. On a global scale, the
effect is small but is measurable with the risk increasing as one approaches
the equatorial regions where rotational velocity is greatest.
(2) Because
most meteoroids approach from near the plane of the Solar System (the ecliptic
plane), there’s what NASA calls a “latitude distribution bias”: Earth’s equator
being tilted only some 23.5° from the ecliptic, meteoroids are more likely to
intersect Earth’s atmosphere near lower latitudes (the tropical & sub-tropical
zones) than near the poles. So, those
wishing to lower their risk should try to live in the Arctic or Antarctic
although those suffering chronic kosmikophobia (fear of cosmic phenomena) are
likely already residents.
(3) Some
70% of the Earth’s surface area being the seas and oceans, statistically, most
meteoroids land in the water rather than in land so the lesson is clear: avoid
living at sea. The calculated
probability is of course just math; because sparsely populated deserts accumulate
meteorites better because erosion is low, a large number have been found in
places like the Sahara and outback Australia but those numbers reflect a preservation
bias and don’t necessarily confirm a higher strike rate. The lesson from the statisticians is: Don’t
dismiss the notion of living in a desert because of a fear of being struck by a meteoroid.
(4) Gravitational focusing, although it does increase Earth’s meteoroid capture rates (disproportionately so for objects travelling more slowly), is a global effect so there is no known locational bias. While there is at least one documented case of a person being struck by a meteoroid, the evidence does suggest the risk is too low to be statistically significant and should thus not be factored into the calculation of one’s exposome because one is anywhere at greater risk of being murdered by the Freemasons.
Ms Ann Hodges with bruise, Alabama, September. 1952. Painful though it would have been, she did get her “15 minutes of fame” and eventually sold the fragment for US$25 so there was that.
In the narrow technical sense, many people have been struck by objects from space (as estimated 40+ tons of the stuff arrives every day) but most fragments are dust particles, too small to be noticed. The only scientifically verified injury a person has suffered was an impressively large bruise a meteorite (the part of a meteoroid that survives its fiery passage through the atmosphere to land on Earth’s surface) on 10 September 1954 inflicted on Ms Ann Hodges (1920-1972) of Sylacauga, Alabama in the US. Weighing 7.9 lb (3.6 kg), the intruder crashed through the roof of her house and bounced off a radio, striking her while enjoying a nap on the sofa. The meteoroid was called Sylacauga and, just as appropriately, the offending meteorite was named the Hodges Fragment. Anatomically modern humans (AMH) have been walking the planet for perhaps 300,000 years and we’ve been (more or less) behaviorally modern (BMH) for maybe a quarter of that so it’s possible many more of us have been struck, In the absence of records, while it’s impossible to be definitive, it’s likely more have been murdered by the Freemasons that have ever been killed by stuff falling from space although, as the history of species extinction illustrates, a direct hit on someone is not a prerequisite for dire consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment