Reversal of epigenetic aging and immunosenescent trends in humans

Epigenetic “clocks” can now surpass chronological age in accuracy for estimating biological age. Here, we use four such age estimators to show that epigenetic aging can be reversed in humans. Using a protocol intended to regenerate the thymus, we observed protective immunological changes, improved r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAging cell Vol. 18; no. 6; pp. e13028 - n/a
Main Authors Fahy, Gregory M., Brooke, Robert T., Watson, James P., Good, Zinaida, Vasanawala, Shreyas S., Maecker, Holden, Leipold, Michael D., Lin, David T. S., Kobor, Michael S., Horvath, Steve
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.12.2019
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Epigenetic “clocks” can now surpass chronological age in accuracy for estimating biological age. Here, we use four such age estimators to show that epigenetic aging can be reversed in humans. Using a protocol intended to regenerate the thymus, we observed protective immunological changes, improved risk indices for many age‐related diseases, and a mean epigenetic age approximately 1.5 years less than baseline after 1 year of treatment (−2.5‐year change compared to no treatment at the end of the study). The rate of epigenetic aging reversal relative to chronological age accelerated from −1.6 year/year from 0–9 month to −6.5 year/year from 9–12 month. The GrimAge predictor of human morbidity and mortality showed a 2‐year decrease in epigenetic vs. chronological age that persisted six months after discontinuing treatment. This is to our knowledge the first report of an increase, based on an epigenetic age estimator, in predicted human lifespan by means of a currently accessible aging intervention. Epigenetic aging—an accurate measure of biological aging in humans—can run in reverse. A thymus regeneration protocol has enabled estimated biological age to decrease in healthy 51‐ to 65‐year‐old men by 1.5 years after 1 year of treatment (or by 2.5 years compared to chronological age). This significantly exceeds the heretofore theoretical concept of “longevity escape velocity,” wherein biological age is reduced by 1 year for every 1 year of chronological age.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1474-9718
1474-9726
DOI:10.1111/acel.13028