Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jun 20;9(1):8862.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45197-w.

Evaluation of six blood-based age prediction models using DNA methylation analysis by pyrosequencing

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of six blood-based age prediction models using DNA methylation analysis by pyrosequencing

Antoine Daunay et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

DNA methylation has been identified as the most promising molecular biomarker for the prediction of age. Several DNA methylation-based models have been proposed for age prediction based on blood samples, using mainly pyrosequencing. These methods present different performances for age prediction and have rarely, if ever, been evaluated and intercompared in an independent validation study. Here, for the first time, we evaluate and compare six blood-based age prediction models (Bekaert1, Park2, Thong3, Weidner4, and the Zbiec-Piekarska 15 and Zbiec-Piekarska 26), using DNA methylation analysis by pyrosequencing on 100 blood samples from French individuals aged between 19-65 years. For each model, we perform correlation analysis and evaluate age-prediction performance (mean absolute deviation (MAD) and standard error of the estimate (SEE)). The best age-prediction performances were found with the Bekaert and Thong models (MAD of 4.5-5.2, SEE of 6.8-7.2), followed by the Zbiec-Piekarska 1 model (MAD of 6.8 and SEE of 9.2), while the Park, Weidner and Zbiec-Piekarska 2 models presented lower performances (MAD of 7.2-8.7 and SEE of 9.2-10.3). Given these results, we recommend performing systematic, independent evaluation of all age prediction models on a same cohort to validate the different models and compare their performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of the CpGs included in the six blood-based age prediction models using DNA methylation analysis by pyrosequencing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the predicted ages obtained with the six age-prediction models. (A) Scatterplot of predicted age and chronological age obtained with the six age-prediction models. (B) Differences between chronological age and predicted age plotted against chronological age.

References

    1. Lopez-Otin C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. The hallmarks of aging. Cell. 2013;153:1194–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez-Rodero S, et al. Aging genetics and aging. Aging and disease. 2011;2:186–195. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zapico SC, Ubelaker DH. Applications of physiological bases of ageing to forensic sciences. Estimation of age-at-death. Ageing research reviews. 2013;12:605–617. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2013.02.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jylhava J, Pedersen NL, Hagg S. Biological Age Predictors. EBioMedicine. 2017;21:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bekaert S, De Meyer T, Van Oostveldt P. Telomere attrition as ageing biomarker. Anticancer Res. 2005;25:3011–3021. - PubMed

Publication types