4.7 Article

Biomarkers of cellular senescence and risk of death in humans

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.14006

关键词

aging; cohort study; GDF15; inflammation; mortality; senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study found that the secretory phenotype of senescent cells is associated with mortality risk. GDF15, RAGE, VEGFA, PARC, and MMP2 are the senescence biomarkers most strongly associated with an increased risk of death. The combination of biomarkers with clinical and demographic covariates improves the accuracy of predicting mortality risk.
A robust and heterogenous secretory phenotype is a core feature of most senescent cells. In addition to mediators of age-related pathology, components of the senescence associated secretory phenotype (SASP) have been studied as biomarkers of senescent cell burden and, in turn, biological age. Therefore, we hypothesized that circulating concentrations of candidate senescence biomarkers, including chemokines, cytokines, matrix remodeling proteins, and growth factors, could predict mortality in older adults. We assessed associations between plasma levels of 28 SASP proteins and risk of mortality over a median follow-up of 6.3 years in 1923 patients 65 years of age or older with zero or one chronic condition at baseline. Overall, the five senescence biomarkers most strongly associated with an increased risk of death were GDF15, RAGE, VEGFA, PARC, and MMP2, after adjusting for age, sex, race, and the presence of one chronic condition. The combination of biomarkers and clinical and demographic covariates exhibited a significantly higher c-statistic for risk of death (0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.82) than the covariates alone (0.70, CI: 0.67-0.74) (p < 0.001). Collectively, these findings lend further support to biomarkers of cellular senescence as informative predictors of clinically important health outcomes in older adults, including death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据