Epigenetic and Metabolomic Biomarkers for Biological Age: A Comparative Analysis of Mortality and Frailty Risk

Lieke M Kuiper,Harmke A Polinder-Bos,Daniele Bizzarri,Dina Vojinovic,Costanza L Vallerga,Marian Beekman,Martijn E T Dollé,Mohsen Ghanbari,Trudy Voortman,Marcel J T Reinders,W M Monique Verschuren,P Eline Slagboom,Erik B van den Akker,Joyce B J van Meurs
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glad137
2023-06-12
Abstract:Abstract Biological age captures a person’s age-related risk of unfavorable outcomes using biophysiological information. Multivariate biological age measures include frailty scores and molecular biomarkers. These measures are often studied in isolation, but here we present a large-scale study comparing them. In two prospective cohorts (n=3,222), we compared epigenetic (DNAm Horvath, DNAm Hannum, DNAm Lin, DNAm epiTOC, DNAm PhenoAge, DNAm DunedinPoAm, DNAm GrimAge, and DNAm Zhang) and metabolomic-based (MetaboAge, MetaboHealth) biomarkers in reflection of biological age, as represented by five frailty measures and overall mortality. Biomarkers trained on outcomes with biophysiological and/or mortality information outperformed age-trained biomarkers in frailty reflection and mortality prediction. DNAm GrimAge and MetaboHealth, trained on mortality, showed the strongest association with these outcomes. The associations of DNAm GrimAge and MetaboHealth with frailty and mortality were independent of each other and of the frailty score mimicking clinical geriatric assessment. Epigenetic, metabolomic, and clinical biological age markers seem to capture different aspects of aging. These findings suggest that mortality-trained molecular markers may provide novel phenotype reflecting biological age and strengthen current clinical geriatric health and well-being assessment.
geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?