Joanne M Murabito1,2, Qiang Zhao3, Martin G Larson1,3, Jian Rong3, Honghuang Lin1,4, Emelia J Benjamin1,5,6, Daniel Levy1,7, Kathryn L Lunetta1,3. 1. Framingham Heart Study, Massachusetts. 2. Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts. 4. Section of Computational Biomedicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts. 7. The Population Sciences Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
Background: We tested the association of biologic age (BA) measures constructed from different types of biomarkers with mortality and disease in a community-based sample. Methods: In Framingham Offspring participants at Exams 7 (1998-2001, mean age 62 ± 10) and 8 (2005-2008, mean age 67 ± 9), we used the Klemera-Doubal method to estimate clinical BA and inflammatory BA and computed the difference (∆age) between BA and CA. Clinical ∆age was computed at Exam 2 (1979-1983, mean age 45 ± 10). At Exam 8, we computed measures of intrinsic and extrinsic epigenetic age. Participants were followed through 2014 for outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models tested the association of each BA estimate with each outcome adjusting for covariates. Results: Sample sizes ranged from 2532 to 3417 participants. In multivariable models, each 1-year increase in clinical ∆age at Exam 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04-1.06, p < 2 × 10-16) and clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age at Exam 7 significantly increased the hazards of mortality and incident cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.01-1.05, p < 2 × 10-7), whereas inflammatory ∆age increased the hazards of cancer (HR = 1.01, p < .05). At Exam 8, increased clinical ∆age, inflammatory ∆age, and extrinsic epigenetic age all significantly increased the hazard of mortality (HR = 1.03-1.05, all p < .05); clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age increased cardiovascular disease risk (HR = 1.04-1.05, all p < .01); and clinical ∆age increased cancer risk (HR = 1.03, p < .01) when all three BA measures were included in the model. Intrinsic epigenetic age was not significantly associated with any outcome. Conclusions: Our findings suggest BA measures may be complementary in predicting risk for mortality and age-related disease.
Background: We tested the association of biologic age (BA) measures constructed from different types of biomarkers with mortality and disease in a community-based sample. Methods: In Framingham Offspring participants at Exams 7 (1998-2001, mean age 62 ± 10) and 8 (2005-2008, mean age 67 ± 9), we used the Klemera-Doubal method to estimate clinical BA and inflammatory BA and computed the difference (∆age) between BA and CA. Clinical ∆age was computed at Exam 2 (1979-1983, mean age 45 ± 10). At Exam 8, we computed measures of intrinsic and extrinsic epigenetic age. Participants were followed through 2014 for outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models tested the association of each BA estimate with each outcome adjusting for covariates. Results: Sample sizes ranged from 2532 to 3417 participants. In multivariable models, each 1-year increase in clinical ∆age at Exam 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04-1.06, p < 2 × 10-16) and clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age at Exam 7 significantly increased the hazards of mortality and incident cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.01-1.05, p < 2 × 10-7), whereas inflammatory ∆age increased the hazards of cancer (HR = 1.01, p < .05). At Exam 8, increased clinical ∆age, inflammatory ∆age, and extrinsic epigenetic age all significantly increased the hazard of mortality (HR = 1.03-1.05, all p < .05); clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age increased cardiovascular disease risk (HR = 1.04-1.05, all p < .01); and clinical ∆age increased cancer risk (HR = 1.03, p < .01) when all three BA measures were included in the model. Intrinsic epigenetic age was not significantly associated with any outcome. Conclusions: Our findings suggest BA measures may be complementary in predicting risk for mortality and age-related disease.
Authors: Daniel W Belsky; Avshalom Caspi; Renate Houts; Harvey J Cohen; David L Corcoran; Andrea Danese; HonaLee Harrington; Salomon Israel; Morgan E Levine; Jonathan D Schaefer; Karen Sugden; Ben Williams; Anatoli I Yashin; Richie Poulton; Terrie E Moffitt Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anne B Newman; Robert M Boudreau; Barbara L Naydeck; Linda F Fried; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: William R Swindell; Kristine E Ensrud; Peggy M Cawthon; Jane A Cauley; Steve R Cummings; Richard A Miller Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Morgan E Levine; H Dean Hosgood; Brian Chen; Devin Absher; Themistocles Assimes; Steve Horvath Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Steve Horvath; Michael Gurven; Morgan E Levine; Benjamin C Trumble; Hillard Kaplan; Hooman Allayee; Beate R Ritz; Brian Chen; Ake T Lu; Tammy M Rickabaugh; Beth D Jamieson; Dianjianyi Sun; Shengxu Li; Wei Chen; Lluis Quintana-Murci; Maud Fagny; Michael S Kobor; Philip S Tsao; Alexander P Reiner; Kerstin L Edlefsen; Devin Absher; Themistocles L Assimes Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Honghuang Lin; Kathryn L Lunetta; Qiang Zhao; Pooja R Mandaviya; Jian Rong; Emelia J Benjamin; Roby Joehanes; Daniel Levy; Joyce B J van Meurs; Martin G Larson; Joanne M Murabito Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: John C Earls; Noa Rappaport; Laura Heath; Tomasz Wilmanski; Andrew T Magis; Nicholas J Schork; Gilbert S Omenn; Jennifer Lovejoy; Leroy Hood; Nathan D Price Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Daniel C Parker; Bryce N Bartlett; Harvey J Cohen; Gerda Fillenbaum; Janet L Huebner; Virginia Byers Kraus; Carl Pieper; Daniel W Belsky Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mei Chung; Mengyuan Ruan; Naisi Zhao; Devin C Koestler; Immaculata De Vivo; Karl T Kelsey; Dominique S Michaud Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Lifang Hou; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Brian T Joyce; Tao Gao; Yinan Zheng; Jiantao Ma; Shih-Jen Hwang; Lei Liu; Drew Nannini; Steve Horvath; Ake T Lu; Norrina Bai Allen; David R Jacobs; Myron Gross; Amy Krefman; Hongyan Ning; Kiang Liu; Cora E Lewis; Pamela J Schreiner; Stephen Sidney; James M Shikany; Daniel Levy; Philip Greenland Journal: Circ Res Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 23.213
Authors: Laura K M Han; Hugo G Schnack; Rachel M Brouwer; Dick J Veltman; Nic J A van der Wee; Marie-José van Tol; Moji Aghajani; Brenda W J H Penninx Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 6.222