ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Cross-Tissue Comparison of Epigenetic Aging Clocks in Humans.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epigenetic clocks are a common group of tools used to measure biological aging - the progressive deterioration of cells, tissues and organs. Epigenetic clocks have been trained almost exclusively using blood-based tissues but there is growing interest in estimating epigenetic age using less-invasive oral-based tissues (i.e., buccal or saliva) in both research and commercial settings. However, differentiated cell types across body tissues exhibit unique DNA methylation landscapes and age-related alterations to the DNA methylome. Applying epigenetic clocks derived from blood-based tissues to estimate epigenetic age of oral-based tissues may introduce biases. We tested the within-person comparability of common epigenetic clocks across five tissue types: buccal epithelial, saliva, dry blood spots, buffy coat (i.e., leukocytes), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. We tested 284 distinct tissue samples from 83 individuals aged 9-70 years. Overall, there were significant within-person differences in epigenetic clock estimates from oral-based versus blood-based tissues, with average differences of almost 30 years observed in some age clocks. In addition, most epigenetic clock estimates of blood-based tissues exhibited low correlation with estimates from oral-based tissues despite controlling for cellular proportions and other technical factors. Our findings indicate that application of blood-derived epigenetic clocks in oral-based tissues may not yield comparable estimates of epigenetic age, highlighting the need for careful consideration of tissue type when estimating epigenetic age.
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.