| Literature DB >> 30021623 |
Anna Suarez1,2, Jari Lahti1, Darina Czamara3, Marius Lahti-Pulkkinen1, Polina Girchenko1, Sture Andersson4, Timo E Strandberg5, Rebecca M Reynolds6, Eero Kajantie7,4, Elisabeth B Binder3,8, Katri Raikkonen9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular aging biomarkers, such as epigenetic age predictors, predict risk factors of premature aging, and morbidity/mortality more accurately than chronological age in middle-aged and elderly populations. Yet, it remains elusive if such biomarkers are associated with aging-related outcomes earlier in life when individuals begin to diverge in aging trajectories. We tested if the Horvath epigenetic age predictor is associated with pubertal, neuroendocrine, psychiatric, and cognitive aging-related outcomes in a sample of 239 adolescents, 11.0-13.2 years-old.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30021623 PMCID: PMC6052515 DOI: 10.1186/s13148-018-0528-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epigenetics ISSN: 1868-7075 Impact factor: 6.551
Characteristics of the sample
| Child characteristics at birth: |
| Mean/ | SD/% | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (boys) | 239 | 116 | 48.5 | |
| Length of gestation (weeks) | 239 | 40.0 | 1.3 | 35.6–42.4 |
| Birth weight (g) | 239 | 3571 | 472 | 1890–4995 |
| Birth length (cm) | 239 | 50.3 | 1.9 | 43.0–55.0 |
| Birth order | 239 | |||
| First | 136 | 56.9 | ||
| Second or later | 103 | 43.1 | ||
| Child characteristics in adolescence: | ||||
| Chronological age (years) | 239 | 12.4 | 0.5 | 11.1–13.2 |
| DNA methylation age (years) | 239 | 12.1 | 3.1 | 5.4–22.5 |
| Weight (kg) | 238 | 48.7 | 10.8 | 23.2–91.1 |
| Weight-for-age (SD) | 238 | 0.3 | 1.0 | − 3.6 – 3.0 |
| Height (cm) | 238 | 156.2 | 7.5 | 134.5–177.0 |
| Height-for-age (SD) | 238 | 0.2 | 1.0 | − 2.7 – 2.5 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 238 | 19.8 | 3.44 | 12.8–34.5 |
| Body-mass-index-for-age (SD) | 238 | 0.3 | 1.0 | − 3.1 – 2.7 |
| Target height (SD) | 238 | 173.4 | 7.6 | 153.9–191.7 |
| Mid-parental target height (SD) minus height-for-age (SD) | 238 | 0.5 | 1.0 | − 1.9 – 3.5 |
| Tanner Staging Questionnaire | ||||
| Pubic hair development | 233 | |||
| I | 50 | 21.5 | ||
| II | 83 | 35.6 | ||
| III | 71 | 30.5 | ||
| IV | 29 | 12.4 | ||
| Breast/genitalia development | 234 | |||
| I | 18 | 7.7 | ||
| II | 81 | 34.6 | ||
| III | 83 | 35.5 | ||
| IV | 52 | 22.2 | ||
| Pubertal development scale | 236 | |||
| No development | 139 | 58.9 | ||
| Development barely begun | 74 | 31.4 | ||
| Development definitely under way | 23 | 9.7 | ||
| Diurnal salivary cortisol | ||||
| ln(upon awakening) | 218 | 1.7 | 0.6 | − 1.7 – 3.6 |
| ln(awakening response) | 218 | 0.4 | 0.7 | − 0.9 – 6.3 |
| ln(Nadir) | 218 | − 0.9 | 0.9 | − 2.3 – 1.8 |
| ln(response to dexamethasone suppression test) | 213 | 0.4 | 0.8 | −v5.2 – 3.0 |
| Psychiatric problems (> 82nd percentile borderline clinically significant problems) | 222 | |||
| Total behavior problems | 38 | 17.1 | ||
| Internalizing problems | 18 | 8.1 | ||
| Externalizing problems | 25 | 11.3 | ||
| Intelligence quotient, estimated ( | ||||
| General | 235 | 105.8 | 14.8 | 57–140 |
| Verbal | 236 | 111.4 | 17.2 | 57–153 |
| Performance | 237 | 100.9 | 19.7 | 42–141 |
| Maternal characteristics: | ||||
| Age at delivery (years) | 239 | 30.4 | 4.4 | 20.0–43.0 |
| Weight at delivery (kg) | 237 | 63.4 | 9.9 | 45.0–98.0 |
| Height (cm) | 239 | 166.8 | 5.5 | 151.0–180.0 |
| Body mass index at delivery (kg/m2) | 237 | 22.8 | 3.5 | 16.5–36.0 |
| Mode of delivery | 239 | |||
| Vaginal | 214 | 89.5 | ||
| Cesarean | 25 | 10.5 | ||
| Alcohol consumption during pregnancy | 239 | |||
| No | 199 | 83.3 | ||
| Yes | 40 | 16.7 | ||
| Smoking during pregnancy | 239 | |||
| No | 217 | 90.8 | ||
| Yes | 22 | 9.2 | ||
| Consumption of glycyrrhizin in licorice during pregnancy | 239 | |||
| Low (0–249 mg/week) | 174 | 72.8 | ||
| Medium (250–499 mg/week) | 33 | 13.8 | ||
| High (≥ 500 mg/week) | 32 | 13.4 | ||
| Age at menarche (years) | 228 | |||
| Mothers of girls | 120 | 12.69 | 1.39 | 9.0–16.0 |
| Mothers of boys | 108 | 12.70 | 1.19 | 10.0–16.0 |
| Paternal/parental characteristics: | ||||
| Paternal height (cm) | 236 | 180.07 | 6.38 | 157.00–200.00 |
| Highest educational level of either parent at child’s adolescence follow-up | 239 | |||
| Secondary or less | 25 | 10.5 | ||
| Vocational | 59 | 24.7 | ||
| University degree | 155 | 64.9 | ||
Note: *3, 3, and 7 children had estimated general, verbal, and performance intelligence quotient below 70 because of difficulties in visual processing
Fig. 1A scatterplot with a regression line and 95% confidence intervals showing associations between DNA methylation age and chronological age in 11.0–13.2-year-old adolescents
Associations between epigenetic age acceleration and growth and physical development and in 11.0–13.2-year-old adolescents
| Outcome: | Epigenetic age acceleration (years) (unstandardized residual regressing DNA methylation age on chronological age and blood cell count types) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| B/OR | 95% CI |
| B/OR | 95% CI |
| |
| Anthropometry | ||||||
| Weight-for-age (SD) | 0.06 | 0.01; 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.00; 0.10 | 0.051 |
| Height-for-age (SD) | 0.08 | 0.03; 0.13 | 0.003 | 0.07 | 0.02; 0.12 | 0.01 |
| Body-mass-index-for-age (SD) | − 0.04 | − 0.01; 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.02 | − 0.02; 0.07 | 0.31 |
| Mid-parental target height (SD) minus height-for-age (SD) | − 0.09 | − 0.14; − 0.04 | 0.001 | − 0.09 | − 0.14; − 0.03 | 0.001 |
| Tanner Staging Questionnaire | ||||||
| Pubic hair development (I–IV) | 1.09 | 0.98; 1.21 | 0.12 | 1.15 | 0.99; 1.25 | 0.07 |
| Breast/genitals development (I–IV) | 1.13 | 1.02; 1.25 | 0.018 | 1.15 | 1.03; 1.29 | 0.014 |
| Pubertal development scale | ||||||
| Stage (I–III) | 1.16 | 1.02; 1.32 | 0.015 | 1.19 | 1.05; 1.34 | 0.008 |
Note: B refers to unstandardized regression coefficient from generalized model with Gaussian reference distribution; OR refers to odds ratio from generalized linear model with ordinal logistic reference distribution; 95% CI refers to 95% confidence interval
Model 1 is adjusted for adolescent sex and the first three multidimensional scaling components based on genome-wide data; model 2 is adjusted for model 1 covariates plus birth weight, gestational age, parity, delivery mode, maternal age and body mass index at delivery, maternal smoking, alcohol and glycyrrhizin in licorice use during pregnancy, and highest achieved education of either parent in adolescence follow-up
Fig. 2A scatterplot with a regression line and 95% confidence intervals showing associations between epigenetic age acceleration and salivary cortisol upon awakening in 11.0–13.2-year-old adolescents. Epigenetic age acceleration is calculated as the residual from a linear regression where DNA methylation age is regressed on chronological age and adjusted for six cell types. Numbers showing percent increase in salivary cortisol upon awakening per 1 year increase in epigenetic age acceleration and 95% confidence intervals are derived from generalized linear models with Gaussian reference distribution and adjusted for three multidimensional scaling components from genome-wide data, adolescent’s sex, and time upon awakening (model 1); and model 1 plus birth weight, gestational age, parity, delivery mode, maternal age and body mass index at delivery, maternal smoking, alcohol and glycyrrhizin in licorice use during pregnancy, and highest achieved education of either parent in adolescence follow-up (model 2); and model 2 plus body-mass-index-for-age SD score in adolescence (model 3)
Fig. 3Predicted probability of having borderline clinically significant psychiatric problems (panel a: internalizing problems, panel b: anxius/depressed problems, panel c: withdrawn problems, panel d: thought problems, panel e: affective problems, panel f: anxiety problems) according to epigenetic age acceleration in 11.0–13.2-year-old adolescents. Epigenetic age acceleration is calculated as the residual from a linear regression where DNA methylation age is regressed on chronological age and adjusted for 6 cell types. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals are derived from generalized linear models with binary logistic reference distribution and adjusted for three multidimensional scaling components from genome-wide data, and adolescent’s sex (model 1); and model 1 plus birth weight, gestational age, parity, delivery mode, maternal age and body mass index at delivery, maternal smoking, alcohol and glycyrrhizin in licorice use during pregnancy and highest achieved education of either parent in adolescence follow-up (model 2)