Well actually if a bacteria or a virus wiped out the host, being a single species, wouldn't be considered so successful as it won't have a host anymore to reproduce

Actually there might be a biological factor to it as well. Females have stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than males, which means faster clearance of pathogens and greater vaccine efficacy in females than in males. And there is a different process in the aging between males and females, many age-related diseases show sex-specific patterns, and although women live longer they are frailer and have worse health at the end of life. However to my knowledge, the data is not enough to draw any solid conclusion

Your question can be taken from several prospective, are you talking about second hand/passive effect of smoking on children? Are you talking about effect of smoking while pregnant or breast feeding? Or are you talking about transgenration inheritance?

Will assume you are talking about transgenration inheritance since you mention epigenetic. We actually have very few data, from what we have on paternal contributions to the offspring’s health, is that paternal exposures to smoking of cigarettes prepuberty to be associated with increased risk of asthma and reduced lung function as well as of increased fat mass in the offsprin.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-04504-0

https://academic.oup.com/biolreprod/article/105/3/667/6355554

The authors in the second study do suggest epigenetic mechanism involved through small sperm RNA. Is that what you are referring to??

Yeah okay, didn't understand your question. The problem with proteomics is you need alot of starting material in order to get data, specially when talking about discovery highthrouput data which sometimes is not available in case of patients in clinial trials. In cases of clinical practice you do not need that much, as different techniques are being used such as flow cytometry, which works for few biomarkers but not for highthrouput discovery data. However that limitation is being approached now from several directions including spatial proteomics.

On the other hand, transcriptomic analysis can be done with very small amount of starting material, and with much cheaper price. Simply as this amount will be amplified during the procedure, which cannot be achieved for proteomics.

Did that answer your question??

Well in clinical practice, for example in hematological malignancies, they usually do different type of sequencing called targeted Sequencing for specific genes which they know would be of interest for that class of blood disease. Same with other types of solid cancers looking for biomarkers to classify the patients, in order to know which treatment protocol would be most suitable.

In clinical trial however, this is still learning process. So they would want to collect as much data as possible from the patients to categorize them into which patient group had the most robust effect when using the drug and what kind of side effect you would expect with these category of people. That's why the whole transcriptomic analysis and possibly other highthrouput data as well. Saying so, before admission to clinical trials and based on previous pre-clinical data, some companies might place requirement for certain biomarker in the group of patient to be admitted to the clinical trial.