Anna Großbach, Matthew J Suderman, Anke Hüls, Alexandre A Lussier, Andrew D A C Smith, Esther Walton, Erin C Dunn, Andrew J Simpkin
{"title":"Maximizing insights from longitudinal epigenetic age data: simulations, applications, and practical guidance.","authors":"Anna Großbach, Matthew J Suderman, Anke Hüls, Alexandre A Lussier, Andrew D A C Smith, Esther Walton, Erin C Dunn, Andrew J Simpkin","doi":"10.1186/s13148-024-01784-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Epigenetic age (EA) is an age estimate, developed using DNA methylation (DNAm) states of selected CpG sites across the genome. Although EA and chronological age are highly correlated, EA may not increase uniformly with time. Departures, known as epigenetic age acceleration (EAA), are common and have been linked to various traits and future disease risk. Limited by available data, most studies investigating these relationships have been cross-sectional, using a single EA measurement. However, the recent growth in longitudinal DNAm studies has led to analyses of associations with EA over time. These studies differ in (1) their choice of model; (2) the primary outcome (EA vs. EAA); and (3) in their use of chronological age or age-independent time variables to account for the temporal dynamic. We evaluated the robustness of each approach using simulations and tested our results in two real-world examples, using biological sex and birthweight as predictors of longitudinal EA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our simulations showed most accurate effect sizes in a linear mixed model or generalized estimating equation, using chronological age as the time variable. The use of EA versus EAA as an outcome did not strongly impact estimates. Applying the optimal model in real-world data uncovered advanced GrimAge in individuals assigned male at birth that decelerates over time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results can serve as a guide for forthcoming longitudinal EA studies, aiding in methodological decisions that may determine whether an association is accurately estimated, overestimated, or potentially overlooked.</p>","PeriodicalId":10366,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epigenetics","volume":"16 1","pages":"187"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epigenetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-024-01784-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Epigenetic age (EA) is an age estimate, developed using DNA methylation (DNAm) states of selected CpG sites across the genome. Although EA and chronological age are highly correlated, EA may not increase uniformly with time. Departures, known as epigenetic age acceleration (EAA), are common and have been linked to various traits and future disease risk. Limited by available data, most studies investigating these relationships have been cross-sectional, using a single EA measurement. However, the recent growth in longitudinal DNAm studies has led to analyses of associations with EA over time. These studies differ in (1) their choice of model; (2) the primary outcome (EA vs. EAA); and (3) in their use of chronological age or age-independent time variables to account for the temporal dynamic. We evaluated the robustness of each approach using simulations and tested our results in two real-world examples, using biological sex and birthweight as predictors of longitudinal EA.
Results: Our simulations showed most accurate effect sizes in a linear mixed model or generalized estimating equation, using chronological age as the time variable. The use of EA versus EAA as an outcome did not strongly impact estimates. Applying the optimal model in real-world data uncovered advanced GrimAge in individuals assigned male at birth that decelerates over time.
Conclusion: Our results can serve as a guide for forthcoming longitudinal EA studies, aiding in methodological decisions that may determine whether an association is accurately estimated, overestimated, or potentially overlooked.
背景:表观遗传年龄(EA)是一种年龄估计,使用基因组中选定CpG位点的DNA甲基化(DNAm)状态来开发。虽然EA和实足年龄高度相关,但EA可能不会随时间均匀增加。这种变异被称为表观遗传年龄加速(EAA),很常见,并且与各种特征和未来的疾病风险有关。受现有数据的限制,大多数调查这些关系的研究都是横断面的,使用单一的EA测量。然而,最近在纵向DNAm研究的增长导致分析与EA随时间的关系。这些研究的不同之处在于:(1)模型的选择;(2)主要结局(EA vs. EAA);(3)使用实足年龄或与年龄无关的时间变量来解释时间动态。我们通过模拟评估了每种方法的稳健性,并在两个现实世界的例子中测试了我们的结果,使用生物性别和出生体重作为纵向ea的预测因子。结果:我们的模拟显示了线性混合模型或广义估计方程中最准确的效应大小,使用实足年龄作为时间变量。使用EA和EAA作为结果并没有强烈影响评估。将最优模型应用到现实世界的数据中,发现在出生时被指定为男性的个体中,随着时间的推移,GrimAge的发展速度会减慢。结论:我们的结果可以作为即将到来的EA纵向研究的指南,有助于确定关联是否被准确估计、高估或潜在忽视的方法学决策。
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epigenetics, the official journal of the Clinical Epigenetics Society, is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of epigenetic principles and mechanisms in relation to human disease, diagnosis and therapy. Clinical trials and research in disease model organisms are particularly welcome.