Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Telomere length and epigenetic clocks as markers of cellular aging: a comparative study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Telomere length and epigenetic clocks as markers of cellular aging: a comparative study
Do you wish to request the book?
Telomere length and epigenetic clocks as markers of cellular aging: a comparative study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Telomere length and epigenetic clocks as markers of cellular aging: a comparative study
2022
Overview
Telomere length (TL) and DNA methylation–based epigenetic clocks are markers of biological age, but the relationship between the two is not fully understood. Here, we used multivariable regression models to evaluate the relationships between leukocyte TL (LTL; measured by qPCR [
n
= 635] or flow FISH [
n
= 144]) and five epigenetic clocks (Hannum, DNAmAge pan-tissue, PhenoAge, SkinBlood, or GrimAge clocks), or their epigenetic age acceleration measures in healthy adults (age 19–61 years). LTL showed statistically significant negative correlations with all clocks (qPCR:
r
= − 0.26 to − 0.32; flow FISH:
r
= − 0.34 to − 0.49;
p
< 0.001 for all). Yet, models adjusted for age, sex, and race revealed significant associations between three of five clocks (PhenoAge, GrimAge, and Hannum clocks) and LTL by flow FISH (
p
< 0.01 for all) or qPCR (
p
< 0.001 for all). Significant associations between age acceleration measures for the same three clocks and qPCR or flow FISH TL were also found (
p
< 0.01 for all). Additionally, LTL (by qPCR or flow FISH) showed significant associations with extrinsic epigenetic age acceleration (EEAA:
p
< 0.0001 for both), but not intrinsic epigenetic age acceleration (IEAA;
p
> 0.05 for both). In conclusion, the relationships between LTL and epigenetic clocks were limited to clocks reflecting phenotypic age. The observed association between LTL and EEAA reflects the ability of both measures to detect immunosenescence. The observed modest correlations between LTL and epigenetic clocks highlight a possible benefit from incorporating both measures in understanding disease etiology and prognosis.
