Back

Cost-effective epigenetic age profiling in shallow methylation sequencing data

Trapp, A.; Gladyshev, V. N.

2021-10-28 genomics
10.1101/2021.10.25.465778 bioRxiv
Show abstract

There is a critical need for robust, high-throughput assays of biological aging trajectories. Among various approaches, epigenetic aging clocks emerged as reliable molecular trackers of the aging process. However, current methods for epigenetic age profiling are inherently costly and lack throughput. Here, we leverage the scAge framework for accurate prediction of biological age from very few bisulfite sequencing reads in bulk samples, thereby enabling drastic (100-1,000-fold) reduction in sequencing costs per sample. Our approach permits age assessment based on distinct assortments of CpG sites in different samples, without the need for targeted site enrichment or specialized reagents. We demonstrate the efficacy of this method to quantify the age of mouse blood samples across independent cohorts, identify the effect of calorie restriction as an attenuator of the aging process, and discern rejuvenation upon cellular reprogramming. We propose that this framework may be used for epigenetic age prediction in extremely high-throughput applications, enabling robust, large-scale and inexpensive interventions testing and age profiling.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Aging
○ 60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Methods
○ 385 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
10.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.4%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.3%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Cell Genomics
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
7
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.6%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 23%
2.2%
9
Genome Medicine
○ 183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.0%
11
Nature Biotechnology
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
Cell Reports Methods
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Nature
○ 645 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.8%
15
Nature Machine Intelligence
○ 70 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
16
Aging Cell
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
17
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.6%
18
Nature Genetics
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
20
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
21
Nature Cancer
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
22
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.2%
23
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.9%
24
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.9%
25
Cell Reports Medicine
○ 153 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
26
Molecular Systems Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
Epigenetics
○ 50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
28
Science
● 477 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
29
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
30
Molecular Cell
○ 350 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.