4.6 Article

DNA methylation age of blood predicts future onset of lung cancer in the women's health initiative

期刊

AGING-US
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 690-700

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.100809

关键词

epigenetic clock; biological age; lung cancer

资金

  1. NIH/NHLBI [60442456 BAA23]
  2. National Institutes of Health NIH/NIA [5R01AG042511-02]
  3. NIH/NINDS [T32NS048004]
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, HHSN271201100004C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer is considered an age-associated disease, whose progression is in part due to accumulation of genomic instability as well as age-related decline in system integrity and function. Thus even among individuals exposed to high levels of genotoxic carcinogens, such as those found in cigarette smoke, lung cancer susceptibility may vary as a function of individual differences in the rate of biological aging. We recently developed a highly accurate candidate biomarker of aging based on DNA methylation (DNAm) levels, which may prove useful in assessing risk of aging-related diseases, such as lung cancer. Using data on 2,029 females from the Women's Health Initiative, we examined whether baseline measures of intrinsic epigenetic age acceleration (IEAA) predicted subsequent lung cancer incidence. We observed 43 lung cancer cases over the nearly twenty years of follow-up. Results showed that standardized measures of IEAA were significantly associated with lung cancer incidence (HR: 1.50, P= 3.4x10(-3)). Furthermore, stratified Cox proportional hazard models suggested that the association may be even stronger among older individuals (70 years or above) or those who are current smokers. Overall, our results suggest that IEAA may be a useful biomarker for evaluating lung cancer susceptibility from a biological aging perspective.

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

4.6
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