Associations between five indicators of epigenetic age acceleration and all-cause and cause-specific mortality among US adults aged 50 years and older.
{"title":"Associations between five indicators of epigenetic age acceleration and all-cause and cause-specific mortality among US adults aged 50 years and older.","authors":"Yun Zou, Jing Huang, Xiaoli Tang, Jixiong Xu","doi":"10.1186/s13148-025-01872-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although DNA methylation age estimators (DNAmAges) are reliable tools for predicting aging, their effectiveness in predicting mortality risk has not been fully validated. This study compared the predictive utility of five different DNAmAges (HorvathAge, HannumAge, PhenoAgeAge, GrimAge and GrimAge2) for all-cause and cause-specific mortality among adults aged ≥ 50 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened 1966 participants adults aged ≥ 50 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2002) and linked them to the National Death Index to obtain cause and status of death. We used weighted Cox proportional hazards models to examine the associations between epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) measured by different DNAmAges and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population, adjusting for various covariates including age, smoking status and chronic diseases. We used restricted cubic splines to explore nonlinear associations. Finally, stratified analyses were performed to assess the relationship between DNA age estimators and stratification variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The multivariable adjustment model showed that EAA measured by HorvathAge (AAHorvathAge), HannumAge (AAHannumAge), PhenoAge (AAPhenoAge), GrimAge (AAGrimAge) and GrimAge2 (AAGrimAge) were significantly associated with the risk of death, among which AAGrimAge and AAGrimAge2 had stronger statistical correlation and the correlation pattern was positively correlated. Specifically, each 5-year increase in AAGrimAge was associated with a 44% increased risk of all-cause death, a 33% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 54% increased risk of non-cardiovascular death. And each 5-year increase in AAGrimAge2 was associated with a 40% increased risk of all-cause death, a 33% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 47% increased risk of non-cardiovascular death. In contrast, AAHorvathAge, AAHannumAge and AAPhenoAge showed a J-shaped correlation with the risk of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, with the inflection points of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality occurring at AAHorvathAge of 2.29 and 2.8, AAHannumAge of 3.07 and 2.97, and AAPhenoAge of - 7.65 and 7.04, respectively. No interaction was found between DNAmAges and stratification variables.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AAGrimAge and AAGrimAge2 outperformed AAHorvathAge, AAHannumAge and AAPhenoAge in predicting mortality risk, and the association pattern was positive.</p>","PeriodicalId":10366,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epigenetics","volume":"17 1","pages":"66"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12038942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epigenetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-025-01872-6","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: Although DNA methylation age estimators (DNAmAges) are reliable tools for predicting aging, their effectiveness in predicting mortality risk has not been fully validated. This study compared the predictive utility of five different DNAmAges (HorvathAge, HannumAge, PhenoAgeAge, GrimAge and GrimAge2) for all-cause and cause-specific mortality among adults aged ≥ 50 years.
Methods: We screened 1966 participants adults aged ≥ 50 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2002) and linked them to the National Death Index to obtain cause and status of death. We used weighted Cox proportional hazards models to examine the associations between epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) measured by different DNAmAges and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population, adjusting for various covariates including age, smoking status and chronic diseases. We used restricted cubic splines to explore nonlinear associations. Finally, stratified analyses were performed to assess the relationship between DNA age estimators and stratification variables.
Results: The multivariable adjustment model showed that EAA measured by HorvathAge (AAHorvathAge), HannumAge (AAHannumAge), PhenoAge (AAPhenoAge), GrimAge (AAGrimAge) and GrimAge2 (AAGrimAge) were significantly associated with the risk of death, among which AAGrimAge and AAGrimAge2 had stronger statistical correlation and the correlation pattern was positively correlated. Specifically, each 5-year increase in AAGrimAge was associated with a 44% increased risk of all-cause death, a 33% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 54% increased risk of non-cardiovascular death. And each 5-year increase in AAGrimAge2 was associated with a 40% increased risk of all-cause death, a 33% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 47% increased risk of non-cardiovascular death. In contrast, AAHorvathAge, AAHannumAge and AAPhenoAge showed a J-shaped correlation with the risk of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, with the inflection points of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality occurring at AAHorvathAge of 2.29 and 2.8, AAHannumAge of 3.07 and 2.97, and AAPhenoAge of - 7.65 and 7.04, respectively. No interaction was found between DNAmAges and stratification variables.
Conclusions: AAGrimAge and AAGrimAge2 outperformed AAHorvathAge, AAHannumAge and AAPhenoAge in predicting mortality risk, and the association pattern was positive.
背景:虽然DNA甲基化年龄估计器(DNAmAges)是预测衰老的可靠工具,但其预测死亡风险的有效性尚未得到充分验证。本研究比较了五种不同的dnamage (HorvathAge、HannumAge、PhenoAgeAge、GrimAge和GrimAge2)对≥50岁成人全因和病因特异性死亡率的预测效用。方法:我们从1999-2002年全国健康与营养调查(National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey)中筛选了1966名年龄≥50岁的参与者,并将他们与国家死亡指数(National Death Index)联系起来,以获得死亡原因和状态。我们使用加权Cox比例风险模型来检验由不同dnamage测量的表观遗传年龄加速(EAA)与普通人群的全因死亡率和病因特异性死亡率之间的关系,并调整了包括年龄、吸烟状况和慢性病在内的各种协变量。我们使用限制三次样条来探索非线性关联。最后,进行分层分析以评估DNA年龄估计值与分层变量之间的关系。结果:多变量调整模型显示,HorvathAge (AAHorvathAge)、HannumAge (AAHannumAge)、PhenoAge (AAPhenoAge)、GrimAge (AAGrimAge)、GrimAge2 (AAGrimAge)测定的EAA与死亡风险显著相关,其中AAGrimAge与AAGrimAge2具有较强的统计学相关性,且相关模式为正相关。具体来说,AAGrimAge每增加5年,全因死亡风险增加44%,心血管死亡风险增加33%,非心血管死亡风险增加54%。AAGrimAge2每增加5年,全因死亡风险增加40%,心血管死亡风险增加33%,非心血管死亡风险增加47%。AAHorvathAge、AAHannumAge和AAPhenoAge与全因死亡率和非心血管死亡率风险呈j型相关,全因死亡率和非心血管死亡率的拐点分别出现在AAHorvathAge的2.29和2.8、AAHannumAge的3.07和2.97、AAPhenoAge的- 7.65和7.04。DNAmAges与分层变量之间无交互作用。结论:AAGrimAge和AAGrimAge2在预测死亡风险方面优于AAHorvathAge、AAHannumAge和AAPhenoAge,且呈正相关模式。
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.