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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScientific reports Vol. 9; no. 1; pp. 8862 - 10
Main Authors Daunay, Antoine, Baudrin, Laura G, Deleuze, Jean-François, How-Kit, Alexandre
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Nature Publishing Group 20.06.2019
Nature Publishing Group UK
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary: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 (Bekaert , Park , Thong , Weidner , and the Zbiec-Piekarska 1 and Zbiec-Piekarska 2 ), 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Undefined-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-45197-w