BACKGROUND: Age is one of the strongest predictors of cancer, chronic disease, and mortality, but biological responses to aging differ among people. Epigenetic DNA modifications have been used to estimate "biological age," which may be a useful predictor of disease risk. We tested this hypothesis for breast cancer. METHODS: Using a case-cohort approach, we measured baseline blood DNA methylation of 2764 women enrolled in the Sister Study, 1566 of whom subsequently developed breast cancer after an average of 6 years. Using three previously established methylation-based "clocks" (Hannum, Horvath, and Levine), we defined biological age acceleration for each woman by comparing her estimated biological age with her chronological age. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for breast cancer risk were estimated using Cox regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Each of the three clocks showed that biological age acceleration was statistically significantly associated with increased risk of developing breast cancer (5-year age acceleration, Hannum's clock: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.21, P = .04; Horvath's clock: HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.17, P = .04; Levine's clock: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.23, P < .001). For Levine's clock, each 5-year acceleration in biological age corresponded with a 15% increase in breast cancer risk. Although biological age may accelerate with menopausal transition, age acceleration in premenopausal women independently predicted breast cancer. Case-only analysis suggested that, among women who develop breast cancer, increased age acceleration is associated with invasive cancer (odds ratio for invasive = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.22, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: DNA methylation-based measures of biological age may be important predictors of breast cancer risk. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Age is one of the strongest predictors of cancer, chronic disease, and mortality, but biological responses to aging differ among people. Epigenetic DNA modifications have been used to estimate "biological age," which may be a useful predictor of disease risk. We tested this hypothesis for breast cancer. METHODS: Using a case-cohort approach, we measured baseline blood DNA methylation of 2764 women enrolled in the Sister Study, 1566 of whom subsequently developed breast cancer after an average of 6 years. Using three previously established methylation-based "clocks" (Hannum, Horvath, and Levine), we defined biological age acceleration for each woman by comparing her estimated biological age with her chronological age. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for breast cancer risk were estimated using Cox regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Each of the three clocks showed that biological age acceleration was statistically significantly associated with increased risk of developing breast cancer (5-year age acceleration, Hannum's clock: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.21, P = .04; Horvath's clock: HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.17, P = .04; Levine's clock: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.23, P < .001). For Levine's clock, each 5-year acceleration in biological age corresponded with a 15% increase in breast cancer risk. Although biological age may accelerate with menopausal transition, age acceleration in premenopausal women independently predicted breast cancer. Case-only analysis suggested that, among women who develop breast cancer, increased age acceleration is associated with invasive cancer (odds ratio for invasive = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.22, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: DNA methylation-based measures of biological age may be important predictors of breast cancer risk. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Steve Horvath; Wiebke Erhart; Mario Brosch; Ole Ammerpohl; Witigo von Schönfels; Markus Ahrens; Nils Heits; Jordana T Bell; Pei-Chien Tsai; Tim D Spector; Panos Deloukas; Reiner Siebert; Bence Sipos; Thomas Becker; Christoph Röcken; Clemens Schafmayer; Jochen Hampe Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Andrew E Teschendorff; Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Susan J Ramus; Daniel J Weisenberger; Hui Shen; Mihaela Campan; Houtan Noushmehr; Christopher G Bell; A Peter Maxwell; David A Savage; Elisabeth Mueller-Holzner; Christian Marth; Gabrijela Kocjan; Simon A Gayther; Allison Jones; Stephan Beck; Wolfgang Wagner; Peter W Laird; Ian J Jacobs; Martin Widschwendter Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 9.043
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: Eugene Andres Houseman; William P Accomando; Devin C Koestler; Brock C Christensen; Carmen J Marsit; Heather H Nelson; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Lene Christiansen; Adam Lenart; Qihua Tan; James W Vaupel; Abraham Aviv; Matt McGue; Kaare Christensen Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Sarah W Curtis; Dawayland O Cobb; Varun Kilaru; Metrecia L Terrell; M Elizabeth Marder; Dana Boyd Barr; Carmen J Marsit; Michele Marcus; Karen N Conneely; Alicia K Smith Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Jacob K Kresovich; Quaker E Harmon; Zongli Xu; Hazel B Nichols; Dale P Sandler; Jack A Taylor Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Jennifer L Guida; Tim A Ahles; Daniel Belsky; Judith Campisi; Harvey Jay Cohen; James DeGregori; Rebecca Fuldner; Luigi Ferrucci; Lisa Gallicchio; Leonid Gavrilov; Natalia Gavrilova; Paige A Green; Chamelli Jhappan; Ronald Kohanski; Kevin Krull; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Kirsten K Ness; Ann O'Mara; Nathan Price; Jennifer Schrack; Stephanie Studenski; Olga Theou; Russell P Tracy; Arti Hurria Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Jacob K Kresovich; Christine G Parks; Dale P Sandler; Clarice R Weinberg; Jack A Taylor Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Alexa C O Medica; Brian W Whitcomb; Ksenya Shliakhsitsava; Andrew C Dietz; Kelsey Pinson; Christina Lam; Sally A D Romero; Patrick Sluss; Mary D Sammel; H Irene Su Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Maeve Kiely; Lap Ah Tse; Hela Koka; Difei Wang; Priscilla Lee; Feng Wang; Cherry Wu; Koon Ho Tsang; Wing-Cheong Chan; Sze Hong Law; Han Zhang; Eric Karlins; Bin Zhu; Amy Hutchinson; Belynda Hicks; Bin Zhu; Xiaohong R Yang Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Lucas A Salas; Sara N Lundgren; Eva P Browne; Elizabeth C Punska; Douglas L Anderton; Margaret R Karagas; Kathleen F Arcaro; Brock C Christensen Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 6.150