ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024
Epigenetic age acceleration in follicular fluid and markers of ovarian response among women undergoing IVF.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNMT/TET Imbalance and Network-Level DNA Methylation Remodeling in Ovarian Aging: Mechanistic Perspectives.Biology · 2026Review
- Advances in multi-omics and aging clock research for female reproductive health and aging.MedScience · 2026Review
- Age-related changes in mitochondrial markers and telomere dynamics during initial growth of human preantral follicles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Assessment indicators of ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation: influencing factors and clinical value.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
study questionAre markers of epigenetic age acceleration in follicular fluid associated with outcomes of ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Increased epigenetic age acceleration of follicular fluid using the Horvath clock, but not other epigenetic clocks (GrimAge and Granulosa Cell), was associated with lower peak estradiol levels and decreased number of total and mature oocytes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In granulosa cells, there are inconsistent findings between epigenetic age acceleration and ovarian response outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Our study included 61 women undergoing IVF at an academic fertility clinic in the New England area who were part of the Environment and Reproductive Health Study (2006-2016). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsParticipants provided a follicular fluid sample during oocyte retrieval. DNA methylation of follicular fluid was assessed using a genome-wide methylation screening tool. Three established epigenetic clocks (Horvath, GrimAge, and Granulosa Cell) were used to predict DNA-methylation-based epigenetic age. To calculate the age acceleration, we regressed epigenetic age on chronological age and extracted the residuals. The association between epigenetic age acceleration and ovarian response outcomes (peak estradiol levels, follicle stimulation hormone, number of total, and mature oocytes) was assessed using linear and Poisson regression adjusted for chronological age, three surrogate variables (to account for cellular heterogeneity), race, smoking status, initial infertility diagnosis, and stimulation protocol. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to the median chronological age of our participants (34 years), the Horvath clock predicted, on an average, a younger epigenetic age (median: 24.2 years) while the GrimAge (median: 38.6 years) and Granulosa Cell (median: 39.0 years) clocks predicted, on an average, an older epigenetic age. Age acceleration based on the Horvath clock was associated with lower peak estradiol levels (-819.4 unit decrease in peak estradiol levels per standard deviation increase; 95% CI: -1265.7, -373.1) and fewer total (% change in total oocytes retrieved per standard deviation increase: -21.8%; 95% CI: -37.1%, -2.8%) and mature oocytes retrieved (% change in mature oocytes retrieved per standard deviation increase: -23.8%; 95% CI: -39.9%, -3.4%). The age acceleration based on the two other epigenetic clocks was not associated with markers of ovarian response. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our sample size was small and we did not specifically isolate granulosa cells from follicular fluid samples so our samples could have included mixed cell types. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsOur results highlight that certain epigenetic clocks may be predictive of ovarian stimulation outcomes when applied to follicular fluid; however, the inconsistent findings for specific clocks across studies indicate a need for further research to better understand the clinical utility of epigenetic clocks to improve IVF treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by grants ES009718, ES022955, ES000002, and ES026648 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and a pilot grant from the NIEHS-funded HERCULES Center at Emory University (P30 ES019776). RBH was supported by the Emory University NIH Training Grant (T32-ES012870). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.