{"title":"Epigenetic Age Signatures in Postmortem Rib Samples.","authors":"Siqi Chen, Changquan Zhang, Dan Wen, Chudong Wang, Xuan Tang, Xue Li, Xiaoyi Fu, Jienan Li, Xin Jin, Haibo Luo, Feng Song, Ying Liu, Lagabaiyila Zha","doi":"10.1002/elps.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Skeletal remains, often partially or completely decomposed, are among the most common biological forensic samples found at crime scenes. Analyzing these incomplete specimens to estimate the age of the deceased is crucial. Previous studies on DNA methylation-based age prediction in bones have not evaluated differences across skeletal elements or clarified how bone type influences prediction accuracy. This study focuses on postmortem rib samples-a common forensic specimen-to develop a DNA methylation-based age prediction model specific to ribs. DNA methylation levels at eight CpG sites within the ELOVL2, FHL2, KLF14, and FAM123C genes were analyzed using pyrosequencing in 81 postmortem rib samples and 112 postmortem blood samples, with 50 individuals providing both sample types simultaneously. The rib-derived age prediction model exhibited an R<sup>2</sup> value of 0.908, whereas the blood model achieved an R<sup>2</sup> value of 0.927. For the rib model, the mean absolute deviation (MAD) of the training set was 4.813 years, and the MAD of the testing set was 5.084 years. The blood model showed slightly higher accuracy in predicting the age of the same individuals. Notably, cross-tissue application of models led to significant prediction bias, emphasizing the necessity of tissue-specific calibration for methylation-based age estimation. Exploratory analysis of postmortem sternum, rib, and frontal bone samples from 12 individuals revealed no statistically significant differences in methylation levels or age estimates across bone types. However, broader generalizability of the rib model to these skeletal elements requires validation in larger, independent cohorts. This work establishes a robust age prediction framework for rib samples, highlights the critical role of tissue specificity in epigenetic forensic models, and provides preliminary evidence for potential cross-bone applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11596,"journal":{"name":"ELECTROPHORESIS","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ELECTROPHORESIS","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.70014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Skeletal remains, often partially or completely decomposed, are among the most common biological forensic samples found at crime scenes. Analyzing these incomplete specimens to estimate the age of the deceased is crucial. Previous studies on DNA methylation-based age prediction in bones have not evaluated differences across skeletal elements or clarified how bone type influences prediction accuracy. This study focuses on postmortem rib samples-a common forensic specimen-to develop a DNA methylation-based age prediction model specific to ribs. DNA methylation levels at eight CpG sites within the ELOVL2, FHL2, KLF14, and FAM123C genes were analyzed using pyrosequencing in 81 postmortem rib samples and 112 postmortem blood samples, with 50 individuals providing both sample types simultaneously. The rib-derived age prediction model exhibited an R2 value of 0.908, whereas the blood model achieved an R2 value of 0.927. For the rib model, the mean absolute deviation (MAD) of the training set was 4.813 years, and the MAD of the testing set was 5.084 years. The blood model showed slightly higher accuracy in predicting the age of the same individuals. Notably, cross-tissue application of models led to significant prediction bias, emphasizing the necessity of tissue-specific calibration for methylation-based age estimation. Exploratory analysis of postmortem sternum, rib, and frontal bone samples from 12 individuals revealed no statistically significant differences in methylation levels or age estimates across bone types. However, broader generalizability of the rib model to these skeletal elements requires validation in larger, independent cohorts. This work establishes a robust age prediction framework for rib samples, highlights the critical role of tissue specificity in epigenetic forensic models, and provides preliminary evidence for potential cross-bone applicability.
期刊介绍:
ELECTROPHORESIS is an international journal that publishes original manuscripts on all aspects of electrophoresis, and liquid phase separations (e.g., HPLC, micro- and nano-LC, UHPLC, micro- and nano-fluidics, liquid-phase micro-extractions, etc.).
Topics include new or improved analytical and preparative methods, sample preparation, development of theory, and innovative applications of electrophoretic and liquid phase separations methods in the study of nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates natural products, pharmaceuticals, food analysis, environmental species and other compounds of importance to the life sciences.
Papers in the areas of microfluidics and proteomics, which are not limited to electrophoresis-based methods, will also be accepted for publication. Contributions focused on hyphenated and omics techniques are also of interest. Proteomics is within the scope, if related to its fundamentals and new technical approaches. Proteomics applications are only considered in particular cases.
Papers describing the application of standard electrophoretic methods will not be considered.
Papers on nanoanalysis intended for publication in ELECTROPHORESIS should focus on one or more of the following topics:
• Nanoscale electrokinetics and phenomena related to electric double layer and/or confinement in nano-sized geometry
• Single cell and subcellular analysis
• Nanosensors and ultrasensitive detection aspects (e.g., involving quantum dots, "nanoelectrodes" or nanospray MS)
• Nanoscale/nanopore DNA sequencing (next generation sequencing)
• Micro- and nanoscale sample preparation
• Nanoparticles and cells analyses by dielectrophoresis
• Separation-based analysis using nanoparticles, nanotubes and nanowires.