4.0 Article

Association of exceptional parental longevity and physical function in aging

期刊

AGE
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11357-014-9677-5

关键词

Aging; Genetics; Longevity; Physical Function

资金

  1. NIH [P01AG021654, R01 AG 046949]
  2. Nathan Shock Center of Excellence for the Biology of Aging [P30AG038072]
  3. Glenn Center for the Biology of Human Aging Paul Glenn Foundation
  4. Ellison Medical Foundation/American Federation for Aging Research Postdoctoral Research in Aging Grant
  5. Paul Glenn Foundation
  6. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through CTSA [UL1TR000086, TL1RR000087, KL2TR000088]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Offspring of parents with exceptional longevity (OPEL), who are more likely to carry longevity-associated genotypes, may age more successfully than offspring of parents with usual survival (OPUS). Maintenance of physical function is a key attribute of successful aging. While many genetic and non-genetic factors interact to determine physical phenotype in aging, examination of the contribution of exceptional parental longevity to physical function in aging is limited. The LonGenity study recruited a relatively genetically homogenous cohort of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) adults age 65 and older, who were defined as either OPEL (having at least one parent who lived to age 95 or older) or OPUS (neither parent survived to age 95). Subjective and objective measures of physical function were compared between the two groups, accounting for potential confounders. Of the 893 LonGenity subjects, 365 were OPEL and 528 were OPUS. OPEL had better objective and subjective measures of physical function than OPUS, especially on unipedal stance (p=0.009) and gait speed (p=0.002). Results support the protective role of exceptional parental longevity in preventing decline in physical function, possibly via genetic mechanisms that should be further explored.

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

4.0
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