Aging Biomarkers in Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review of Molecular Mechanisms, Biological Aging, and Population Evidence.

IF 9.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Miaosen Liu, Su Yon Jung
{"title":"Aging Biomarkers in Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review of Molecular Mechanisms, Biological Aging, and Population Evidence.","authors":"Miaosen Liu, Su Yon Jung","doi":"10.14336/AD.2025.1653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While chronological age is an important risk factor for osteoporosis, biological aging measures may better capture nuances in systemic and bone-tissue aging among same-age individuals. This review aims to summarize the associations between DNA methylation/telomere dysfunction (mainly telomere shortening) and bone health. We searched for human epidemiological studies that examined the associations between blood-based epigenetic aging clocks or leukocyte telomere length (LTL) and osteoporosis-related outcomes on PubMed and Embase. Five epigenetic aging-related studies and 14 LTL-related studies were eventually included, from which data on study design, population, bone health-related outcomes, and statistically significant effect estimates were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Findings were summarized narratively due to heterogeneity in study design, biomarkers, and outcome definitions. This review concludes that while laboratory-based studies often provide evidence of aging biomarkers' association with bone outcomes, population-level epidemiological studies provide inconclusive evidence, highlighting limited studies on epigenetic aging clocks and bone health, and inconsistent findings regarding the association between LTL and bone health. Challenges many of the human studies faced include small sample sizes, inadequate study designs, non-diverse cohorts, and heterogeneity in epigenetic clock selection and/or bone health outcomes. Future research should focus on conducting prospective studies with larger, independent cohort sizes and comprehensive adjustment for intervening factors to paint a clearer picture of the biological aging markers' associations with osteoporosis and provide guidance on their potential clinical relevance in bone health.</p>","PeriodicalId":7434,"journal":{"name":"Aging and Disease","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2025.1653","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While chronological age is an important risk factor for osteoporosis, biological aging measures may better capture nuances in systemic and bone-tissue aging among same-age individuals. This review aims to summarize the associations between DNA methylation/telomere dysfunction (mainly telomere shortening) and bone health. We searched for human epidemiological studies that examined the associations between blood-based epigenetic aging clocks or leukocyte telomere length (LTL) and osteoporosis-related outcomes on PubMed and Embase. Five epigenetic aging-related studies and 14 LTL-related studies were eventually included, from which data on study design, population, bone health-related outcomes, and statistically significant effect estimates were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Findings were summarized narratively due to heterogeneity in study design, biomarkers, and outcome definitions. This review concludes that while laboratory-based studies often provide evidence of aging biomarkers' association with bone outcomes, population-level epidemiological studies provide inconclusive evidence, highlighting limited studies on epigenetic aging clocks and bone health, and inconsistent findings regarding the association between LTL and bone health. Challenges many of the human studies faced include small sample sizes, inadequate study designs, non-diverse cohorts, and heterogeneity in epigenetic clock selection and/or bone health outcomes. Future research should focus on conducting prospective studies with larger, independent cohort sizes and comprehensive adjustment for intervening factors to paint a clearer picture of the biological aging markers' associations with osteoporosis and provide guidance on their potential clinical relevance in bone health.

骨质疏松症的衰老生物标志物:分子机制、生物衰老和人口证据的系统综述。
虽然实足年龄是骨质疏松症的重要危险因素,但生物衰老测量可能更好地捕捉到同年龄个体中系统和骨组织衰老的细微差别。本文旨在综述DNA甲基化/端粒功能障碍(主要是端粒缩短)与骨骼健康之间的关系。我们在PubMed和Embase上检索了人类流行病学研究,这些研究检查了基于血液的表观遗传衰老时钟或白细胞端粒长度(LTL)与骨质疏松相关结果之间的关系。最终纳入了5项表观遗传衰老相关研究和14项ltl相关研究,从中提取了研究设计、人群、骨骼健康相关结果和统计显著效应估计的数据。观察性研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估偏倚风险。由于研究设计、生物标志物和结果定义的异质性,研究结果进行了叙述性总结。这篇综述的结论是,虽然基于实验室的研究经常提供衰老生物标志物与骨骼结果相关的证据,但人群水平的流行病学研究提供的证据不确定,突出了表观遗传衰老时钟和骨骼健康的研究有限,以及关于LTL与骨骼健康之间关系的不一致的发现。许多人类研究面临的挑战包括样本量小、研究设计不充分、队列不多样化以及表观遗传时钟选择和/或骨骼健康结果的异质性。未来的研究应侧重于开展更大、独立队列的前瞻性研究,并对干预因素进行全面调整,以更清晰地描绘生物衰老标志物与骨质疏松症的关系,并为其在骨骼健康中的潜在临床意义提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Aging and Disease
Aging and Disease GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
138
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Aging & Disease (A&D) is an open-access online journal dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research on the biology of aging, the pathophysiology of age-related diseases, and innovative therapies for conditions affecting the elderly. The scope encompasses various diseases such as Stroke, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson’s disease, Epilepsy, Dementia, Depression, Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Arthritis, Cataract, Osteoporosis, Diabetes, and Hypertension. The journal welcomes studies involving animal models as well as human tissues or cells.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书