Validation of biomarkers of aging

Mahdi Moqri,Chiara Herzog,Jesse R. Poganik,Kejun Ying,Jamie N. Justice,Daniel W. Belsky,Albert T. Higgins-Chen,Brian H. Chen,Alan A. Cohen,Georg Fuellen,Sara Hägg,Riccardo E. Marioni,Martin Widschwendter,Kristen Fortney,Peter O. Fedichev,Alex Zhavoronkov,Nir Barzilai,Jessica Lasky-Su,Douglas P. Kiel,Brian K. Kennedy,Steven Cummings,P. Eline Slagboom,Eric Verdin,Andrea B. Maier,Vittorio Sebastiano,Michael P. Snyder,Vadim N. Gladyshev,Steve Horvath,Luigi Ferrucci
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02784-9
IF: 82.9
2024-02-15
Nature Medicine
Abstract:The search for biomarkers that quantify biological aging (particularly 'omic'-based biomarkers) has intensified in recent years. Such biomarkers could predict aging-related outcomes and could serve as surrogate endpoints for the evaluation of interventions promoting healthy aging and longevity. However, no consensus exists on how biomarkers of aging should be validated before their translation to the clinic. Here, we review current efforts to evaluate the predictive validity of omic biomarkers of aging in population studies, discuss challenges in comparability and generalizability and provide recommendations to facilitate future validation of biomarkers of aging. Finally, we discuss how systematic validation can accelerate clinical translation of biomarkers of aging and their use in gerotherapeutic clinical trials.
biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper attempts to address the issues of validation and standardization of biomarkers in aging research. Specifically: 1. **Predictive Validity of Biomarkers**: The paper explores how to assess the predictive validity of "omics" biomarkers for aging-related outcomes in population studies. These biomarkers can predict health conditions related to aging and may serve as surrogate endpoints for evaluating interventions that promote healthy aging and extend lifespan. 2. **Challenges in the Validation Process**: The paper discusses the challenges of comparability and generalizability encountered when validating biomarkers in different population studies. For example, different study populations, sample collection methods, data preprocessing, and analysis methods can all lead to inconsistent results. 3. **Importance of Systematic Validation**: The paper emphasizes the importance of systematic validation in accelerating the clinical translation of biomarkers, particularly in geriatric clinical trials. Through systematic validation, the reliability and accuracy of biomarkers in different populations can be ensured, thereby enhancing their clinical application value. 4. **Current Status of Validation Efforts**: The paper reviews current efforts to validate the predictive ability of biomarkers in cohort studies, especially for all-cause mortality, a common endpoint. Despite some successful cases, systematic cross-population validation remains relatively limited overall. 5. **Recommendations for Future Validation**: The paper provides guidelines on standardizing and harmonizing biomarkers across different populations and suggests metrics that should be used to report their predictive performance. These recommendations aim to improve the rigor and comparability of biomarker validation, promoting further development in the field. In summary, the paper aims to enhance the reliability and utility of biomarkers in aging research through a systematic validation process, thereby providing scientific evidence for clinical applications.