Cargando…
The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age
The measurement of biological age as opposed to chronological age is important to allow the study of factors that are responsible for the heterogeneity in the decline in health and function ability among individuals during aging. Various measures of biological aging have been proposed. Frailty indic...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28299637 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11357-017-9960-3 |
_version_ | 1782514984332296192 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Sangkyu Myers, Leann Wyckoff, Jennifer Cherry, Katie E. Jazwinski, S. Michal |
author_facet | Kim, Sangkyu Myers, Leann Wyckoff, Jennifer Cherry, Katie E. Jazwinski, S. Michal |
author_sort | Kim, Sangkyu |
collection | PubMed |
description | The measurement of biological age as opposed to chronological age is important to allow the study of factors that are responsible for the heterogeneity in the decline in health and function ability among individuals during aging. Various measures of biological aging have been proposed. Frailty indices based on health deficits in diverse body systems have been well studied, and we have documented the use of a frailty index (FI(34)) composed of 34 health items, for measuring biological age. A different approach is based on leukocyte DNA methylation. It has been termed DNA methylation age, and derivatives of this metric called age acceleration difference and age acceleration residual have also been employed. Any useful measure of biological age must predict survival better than chronological age does. Meta-analyses indicate that age acceleration difference and age acceleration residual are significant predictors of mortality, qualifying them as indicators of biological age. In this article, we compared the measures based on DNA methylation with FI(34). Using a well-studied cohort, we assessed the efficiency of these measures side by side in predicting mortality. In the presence of chronological age as a covariate, FI(34) was a significant predictor of mortality, whereas none of the DNA methylation age-based metrics were. The outperformance of FI(34) over DNA methylation age measures was apparent when FI(34) and each of the DNA methylation age measures were used together as explanatory variables, along with chronological age: FI(34) remained significant but the DNA methylation measures did not. These results indicate that FI(34) is a robust predictor of biological age, while these DNA methylation measures are largely a statistical reflection of the passage of chronological time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5352589 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53525892017-03-17 The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age Kim, Sangkyu Myers, Leann Wyckoff, Jennifer Cherry, Katie E. Jazwinski, S. Michal GeroScience Original Article The measurement of biological age as opposed to chronological age is important to allow the study of factors that are responsible for the heterogeneity in the decline in health and function ability among individuals during aging. Various measures of biological aging have been proposed. Frailty indices based on health deficits in diverse body systems have been well studied, and we have documented the use of a frailty index (FI(34)) composed of 34 health items, for measuring biological age. A different approach is based on leukocyte DNA methylation. It has been termed DNA methylation age, and derivatives of this metric called age acceleration difference and age acceleration residual have also been employed. Any useful measure of biological age must predict survival better than chronological age does. Meta-analyses indicate that age acceleration difference and age acceleration residual are significant predictors of mortality, qualifying them as indicators of biological age. In this article, we compared the measures based on DNA methylation with FI(34). Using a well-studied cohort, we assessed the efficiency of these measures side by side in predicting mortality. In the presence of chronological age as a covariate, FI(34) was a significant predictor of mortality, whereas none of the DNA methylation age-based metrics were. The outperformance of FI(34) over DNA methylation age measures was apparent when FI(34) and each of the DNA methylation age measures were used together as explanatory variables, along with chronological age: FI(34) remained significant but the DNA methylation measures did not. These results indicate that FI(34) is a robust predictor of biological age, while these DNA methylation measures are largely a statistical reflection of the passage of chronological time. Springer International Publishing 2017-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5352589/ /pubmed/28299637 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11357-017-9960-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kim, Sangkyu Myers, Leann Wyckoff, Jennifer Cherry, Katie E. Jazwinski, S. Michal The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title | The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title_full | The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title_fullStr | The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title_full_unstemmed | The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title_short | The frailty index outperforms DNA methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
title_sort | frailty index outperforms dna methylation age and its derivatives as an indicator of biological age |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28299637 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11357-017-9960-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimsangkyu thefrailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT myersleann thefrailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT wyckoffjennifer thefrailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT cherrykatiee thefrailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT jazwinskismichal thefrailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT kimsangkyu frailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT myersleann frailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT wyckoffjennifer frailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT cherrykatiee frailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage AT jazwinskismichal frailtyindexoutperformsdnamethylationageanditsderivativesasanindicatorofbiologicalage |