ArticleClinical epigenetics2026
Unraveling the complexity of skin's biological aging utilizing epigenetic clocks.
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in skin aging: integrating epigenetic, cellular, and immune mechanisms for targeted therapy.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA methylation (DNAm) plays a pivotal role in regulating gene expression and tissue function in the skin, which exhibits a high degree of responsiveness to environmental and lifestyle factors. These factors are believed to contribute to epigenetic drift, a hallmark of aging marked by increased methylation variability and changes in regulatory regions. While epigenetic clocks have advanced our understanding of skin aging, the effects of many modifiable factors on the skin methylome remain largely unknown.
methodsWe analyzed DNAm data from 851 participants in a population-based cohort and comprehensive phenotyping of 326 lifestyle, physiological, and pharmacological factors. The DNAm age was estimated using a published skin-specific epigenetic clock, and associations with individual factors were tested using regression models. Epigenome-wide association studies have identified differentially methylated positions linked to significant factors, with further analyses examining their genomic context. The broader relevance of these findings was assessed using other established non-skin-specific epigenetic clocks and phenotypic skin aging measures.
resultsOur analysis identified 20 factors associated with decelerated and 17 with accelerated DNAm age in human skin, reflecting both positive and negative associations with epigenetic aging. We observed that factors associated with DNAm age acceleration tended to coincide with reduced methylome variance, a feature of epigenetic drift, while factors associated with DNAm age deceleration were mapped to methylation differences in transcription elongation regions, supporting transcriptional integrity. Intervention analyses showed that compounds, such as dihydromyricetin and aspirin, are associated with methylation patterns consistent with decelerated epigenetic aging. Several associations were validated in an independent cohort and were consistent across both skin-specific and general epigenetic clocks, suggesting broader relevance of these findings.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that both environmental exposures and certain interventions are associated with variations in the epigenetic trajectory of skin aging. The identified modifiable factors associated with DNAm age and skin phenotypes generate testable hypotheses regarding potential determinants of skin longevity. Longitudinal studies and interventional study designs will be needed to evaluate causality.
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.