Epigenetic age acceleration and clinical outcomes in gliomas

Chunlei Zheng; Nathan A. Berger; Li Li; Rong Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236045

Abstract

Epigenetic age acceleration—the difference between an individual’s DNA methylation age and chronological age—is associated with many diseases including cancer. This study aims to evaluate epigenetic age acceleration as a prognostic biomarker for gliomas. DNA methylation data of gliomas patients (516 low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas and 140 glioblastoma) were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and patient epigenetic ages were computed using Horvath’s age prediction model. We used multivariate linear regression to assess the association of epigenetic age acceleration with tumor molecular subtypes, including Codel, Classic-like, G-CIMP-high, G-CIMP-low, Mesenchymal-like and PA-like. Compared with Codel subtype, epigenetic ages in other molecular subtypes show deceleration after controlling age and race. Age deceleration for Classic-like, G-CIMP-high, G-CIMP-low, Mesenchymal-like and PA-like were 15.42 years (CI: 7.98–22.86, p = 5.38E-05), 25.00 years (CI: 20.79–29.22, p = 4.06E-28), 28.56 years (CI: 14.37–42.74, p = 8.75E-05), 45.34 years (CI: 38.80–51.88, p = 2.15E-36), and 53.58 years (CI: 44.90–62.26, p = 4.81E-30), respectively. Then, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival. Our results show epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient overall survival (per 10-year age acceleration, HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.82–0.97; p = 9.04E-03) in multivariate analysis. When stratified by molecular subtypes, epigenetic age acceleration remains positively associated with patient survival after adjusting age and tumor grade. In conclusion, epigenetic age acceleration is significantly associated with molecular subtypes and patient overall survival in gliomas, indication that epigenetic age acceleration has potential as a quantitative prognostic biomarker for gliomas.

Citation: Zheng C, Berger NA, Li L, Xu R (2020) Epigenetic age acceleration and clinical outcomes in gliomas. PLoS ONE 15(7): e0236045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045

Editor: Hiromu Suzuki, Sapporo Ika Daigaku, JAPAN

Received: March 6, 2020; Accepted: June 27, 2020; Published: July 21, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All DNA methylation data are available from GDC data portal (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov).

Funding: Funding for our research projects was provided by NIH (nih.gov) grants to RX, including DP2HD084068, R01 AG057557-01, R01 AG061388-01 and R56 AG062272-01, and American Cancer Society (cancer.org) grant (RSG-16-049-01-MPC to R. Xu). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Age is a strong predictor for many diseases including cancer. Aging is accompanied by cellular and molecular changes, including genetic and epigenetic alterations of genome. Several DNA methylation-based clocks have been developed and shown to be powerful predictors of age [1–5]. In particular, Horvath’s clock, a multiple tissue age predictor based on methylation of 353 CpG loci, is robustly correlated with chronological age [4]. Epigenetic age acceleration–the difference between epigenetic age and chronological age—has been shown associated with many diseases, including Parkinson's disease [6], Down syndrome [7], obesity [8], Alzheimer's disease [9], and others. In addition, epigenetic age acceleration shows predictive power for morbidity and mortality [10–13]. Though epigenetic age acceleration was observed in many cancers [4], it remains unclear whether epigenetic age can be used as biomarkers for cancer prognosis.

Gliomas are the most prevalent primary brain tumors, among which diffuse low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas (LGG) and grade IV glioblastomas (GBM) are the major groups [14]. The five-year survival rate for LGG is high (more than 75%), while the overall survival for GBM is only 15 months [14, 15]. A number of molecular biomarkers for gliomas have been identified. For example, mutations in IDH1 is associated with better survival in younger patients of GBM [16]; 1p/19q deletion is strongly associated with oligodendroglia differentiation and better response to chemical therapies in oligodendroglioma patients [17]. These molecular biomarkers have a significant impact on the diagnosis and management of gliomas [18–20]. However, these single gene-based biomarkers are qualitative and often only present in a subset of specific types of cancer patients. For example, mutations in IDH1 only occur in 12% of GBM patients [16] and 1p/19q deletion are mostly found in oigodendrogliomas, but not GBM [18]. Therefore, there is a need to develop quantitative biomarkers that are also applicable in multiple types of gliomas. Here we evaluate the potential of epigenetic age acceleration as quantitative prognostic biomarkers for broad types of gliomas, including both GBM and LGG.

A recent study suggested that epigenetic aging can serve as a potential prognostic biomarker for gliomas and showed that epigenetic age was correlated with molecular subtype of gliomas and significantly associated with patient survival [21]. Since epigenetic age is highly correlated with chronological age, which is a strong predictor for cancer patient survival, the previous study of the role of epigenetic age in predicting patient survival in glioma patients has the inherent limitation in separating the contributions of chronological age from that of epigenetic aging for patient outcome. In this study, we aim to evaluate the potential of epigenetic age acceleration (epigenetic aging after controlling the effects of biological aging) as a prognostic biomarker for gliomas.

The association of epigenetic age acceleration with cancer patient outcomes has been investigated in several studies. A pan-cancer study using DNA methylation data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) reported that the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival varies with cancer types [22]. Positive association was observed for esophageal carcinoma while negative association was observed for both thyroid carcinoma and renal clear cell carcinoma. No significant association was observed for lung adenocarcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma and GBM. One limitation of this pan-cancer study is that the models only adjusted chronological age. A recent study of breast cancer reported that clinical and molecular features such as molecular subtypes and tumor grade, are associated with both patient survival and epigenetic age acceleration [23], suggesting molecular and clinical features in addition to chronological age should be considered in the analysis of associations between epigenetic age acceleration and patient survival. Another study using data nested in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study assessed the associations of epigenetic age acceleration with cancer risk and survival for seven common cancers [24] and found no association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival after adjusting sociodemographic and lifestyle variables. This previous study was based on epigenetic age data from blood samples of cancer patients due to the unavailability of the tumor tissue samples, however epigenetic age acceleration in tumor tissue samples are often different from that in blood samples. In this study, we examined the association of epigenetic age acceleration and clinical outcomes of gliomas using tumor tissue samples.

We recently reported that epigenetic age acceleration is significantly associated with consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) of colorectal cancer in the TCGA patients [25]. Compared with CMS2, epigenetic age acceleration for CMS1, CMS3, and CMS4 was 23.90 years, 9.16 years, and 6.05 years, respectively. Furthermore, epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with total mortality (HR = 1.97; 95%CI: 1.14–3.39; P = 0.014). Our previous study demonstrated the importance of incorporating molecular subtype in the analysis of the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival. Leveraging multiple robust molecular subtyping platforms and extensive DNA methylation data for gliomas available in TCGA, we here evaluated epigenetic age acceleration as a potential biomarker for glioma patient survival, with an emphasis on its association with molecular subtypes and tumor grade. We found that accelerated epigenetic age is significantly associated with better patient survival of gliomas, which is opposite to that observed in colorectal cancer [25].

Materials and methods

Study population

A total of 516 LGG and 140 GBM patients from TCGA were included in this study. DNA methylation data (Illumina 450K platform) of brain tissue and clinic information of these patients were downloaded from TCGA. Patient characteristics was shown in S1 Table. We exclude 41 patients from this original data, including 4 patients who don’t have age information, 9 patients from minorities (one is Native and 8 are Asian) due to small sample size in these two groups and 28 patients who don’t have molecular subtype information, which led to 615 patients for analyses. There are multiple molecular subtype classification platforms available in TCGA. In this study, we used the Supervised DNA methylation (SDM) system based on its better clinical relevance [26, 27], which classified brain tumors patients into six types: Codel (IDH mutant-codel LGGs), G-CIMP-high (IDH mutant-non-codel glioma with higher global levels of DNA methylation), G-CIMP-low (IDH mutant-non-codel glioma with relatively low genome-wide DNA methylation), Classic-like (IDH wild type with classical gene expression signature) and Mesenchymal-like and PA-like (pilocytic astrocytoma).

In addition, we compiled a validation dataset from three published studies under Gene Expression Omnibus resources (GSE36278, GSE61160 and GSE44684) [28–30]. These GEO series including 136, 32 and 61 glioma patients respectively. We’d like to mention another dataset GSE30338 that includes 81 glioma patients and was used in another study [21]. However, DNA methylation data in that dataset were unreversed transformed and the raw β values are not available, which is required for computing epigenetic age. Hence, we didn’t include this dataset in our study. The SDM subtypes were obtained from a supervised random forest model [31]. Patient statistics was shown in S2 Table.

DNA methylation age and epigenetic age acceleration

We used Horvath’s model to calculate DNA methylation age [4]. The Horvath’s model uses beta values of 353 CpG loci to calculate DNA methylation age as following: where F is a function for transformation of age and b₀,b₁…b₃₅₃ are coefficients obtained from the elastic net regression model. Epigenetic age acceleration is then estimated as the residual of regression of DNA methylation age on chronological age [24, 25].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R (Version: 3.5.2). Multivariable linear regression model was used to assess the association of epigenetic age acceleration with tumor molecular subtype and tumor grade. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival rates of patients with different molecular subtypes and tumor grades, and log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival in both stratified and un-stratified analyses.

Results

Epigenetic age acceleration is associated with DNA methylation-based subtypes [SDM]

This study analyzes existing individual patient data from TCGA, which overrepresents white patients compared with the US population and underrepresents primarily Asian and Hispanic patients [32]. The glioma patients in TCGA for this study were mostly white (90.4%). Tumor histology and gender were evenly distributed. Over one hundred patients were included in each tumor grade. All six molecular subtypes of gliomas, including Codel (IDH mutant-codel LGGs), G-CIMP-high (IDH mutant-non-codel glioma with higher global levels of DNA methylation), G-CIMP-low (IDH mutant-non-codel glioma with relatively low genome-wide DNA methylation), Classic-like (IDH wild type with classical gene expression signature) and Mesenchymal-like and PA-like (pilocytic astrocytoma), were represented in this dataset (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Patient characteristics and the associations of epigenetic age acceleration with clinical variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.t001

Based on univariate analysis, epigenetic age acceleration was significantly associated with race, histology type, tumor grade and SDM subtypes, but not with gender (Table 1). In addition, epigenetic age acceleration shows suggestive, but not significant association with two chronological age groups (< 60 years and > 60 years with p = 0.068). We used multivariate linear regression to assess whether epigenetic age acceleration is independently associated with SDM. Due to high correlation of histology and tumor grade, histology was not included in the covariates. After adjusting age group, race and tumor grade, epigenetic age acceleration remains significantly associated with molecular subtypes. Compared to Codel subtype, the other molecular subtypes show age deceleration ranging from 15.42 (CI: -22.86 - -7.98, p = 5.38E-05) for Classic-like to 53.58 (CI: -62.26 - -44.90, p = 4.81E-30) for PA-like (Table 2).

Download:

Table 2. The associations of epigenetic age acceleration with clinical variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.t002

We then validated this association in the compiled validation dataset including 229 glioma patients. Both in univariate and multivariate regression analysis, we see the significant association of epigenetic age acceleration with molecular subtype (S2 and S3 Tables). Consistent with the results from discovery dataset, epigenetic age shows deceleration in other molecular subtypes compared to Codel subtype. Furthermore, the age deceleration showed bigger in the order of Class-like, G-CIMP-high, G-CIMP-low, Mesenchymal-like and PA-like, which is also concordant with that in the discovery dataset. In summary, the association of epigenetic age acceleration with molecular subtype is independently validated.

Epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient overall survival in univariate analysis

We used two methods to investigate the relationship of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival in gliomas: Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards regression. We divided epigenetic age acceleration into two groups: age deceleration and age acceleration, to facilitate analyses using Kaplan-Meier estimator and investigate the overall association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival. Kaplan-Meier curves show that epigenetic age acceleration group has significantly better survival than age deceleration group (Fig 1). Since other clinical factors, such as tumor grade and histology type, are shown significant association with glioma patient survival (S1 Fig), we stratified patients according to their tumor grade and histology type and performed survival analysis in stratified patient population. We show that patients with epigenetic age acceleration have improved survival for both Grade 2 (S2 Fig) and oligoastrocytoma (S3 Fig).

Download:

Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival between epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.g001

Next, we used univariate Cox proportional hazards regression to compare the patient overall survival in each clinic groups (Table 3). Compared to Grade 2 patients, Grade 3 and 4 patients have worse survival with hazard ratios of 2.95 (95% CI: 1.92–4.53, p = 7.48E-7) and 14.7 (95% CI: 9.4–22.99, p = 4.61E-32) respectively. Using Codel subtype as the reference, other molecular subtypes show worse survival, especially for Classic-like (HR:14.71, CI: 8.69–24.87, p = 1.20E-23), mesenchymal-like (HR: 23.35, CI: 13.71–39.78, p = 4.60E-31) and G-CIMP-low (HR: 8.07, CI: 3.21–20.25, p = 8.75E-06). Since epigenetic age acceleration in glioma patients has large range (min: -53.4, max: 89.1, median: -2.6), we scaled down epigenetic age acceleration by a factor of 10 and investigated the relationship of 10-year epigenetic age change with patient survival as in previous studies (23, 24, 25). We show that epigenetic age acceleration is significantly associated with patient survival (per 10-year age acceleration, HR = 0.86, CI: 0.80–0.91, p = 1.20E-06).

Download:

Table 3. Overall survival of gliomas patients in univariate analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.t003

Epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient overall survival in multivariate analysis

To assess whether epigenetic age acceleration can provide independently prognostic information besides survival predictors mentioned above, such as age, tumor grade, histology and molecular subtype, we performed survival analysis using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Due to high correlation of histology and tumor grade, histology was not included in the covariates. Our analysis shows that epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient survival (per 10-year age acceleration, HR = 0.89, CI: 0.82–0.97, p = 9.04E-03) after adjusting age, race, tumor grade and SDM molecular subtype (Table 4), indicating that epigenetic age acceleration is an independent prognostic factor for glioma patients.

Download:

Table 4. Overall survival of gliomas patients in multivariate analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.t004

Epigenetic age acceleration is variably associated with patient overall survival in SDM subtypes

To investigate how epigenetic age acceleration is associated with overall survival in patient population-specific ways, we stratified patients by age, tumor grade and molecular subtype and assessed the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival in each group. The epigenetic age acceleration shows similar positive associations with patient survival both in younger and older groups (Fig 2A). The epigenetic age acceleration shows similar but distinctive positive associations in each tumor grade group (Fig 2B).

Download:

Fig 2.

Forest plot shows associations of age acceleration with patient overall survival in stratified patient groups: (A) Age group; (B) Tumor grade.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.g002

When patients were stratified by SDM subtype, epigenetic age acceleration shows positive association with patient survival in Classic-like and Mesenchymal-like subtypes, but negative association with patient survival in Codel subtype. The associations in G-CIMP-high and G-CIMP-low are not significant (Fig 3A). Since age and tumor grade are two key predictors for patient survival, we evaluated the epigenetic age acceleration with glioma patient survival after adjusting age and tumor grade. We can see a left shift of hazard ratio in each molecular subtype (Fig 3B). Suggestive positive associations of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival were observed in G-CIMP-high and G-CIMP-low subtypes.

Download:

Fig 3. Forest plot shows the association of age acceleration with patient overall survival in SDM molecular subtype.

(A) No adjusting. (B) Adjusting for age and tumor grade.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.g003

Validation of the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival.

We attempted to perform similar survival analyses in the validation dataset. Since limited survival information is available, a total of 105 of 229 glioma patients are eligible for survival analysis. After adjusting age, grade and molecular subtypes, we didn’t see the significant association of age acceleration with patient overall survival (S4 Table). Unable to validate the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival is likely due to limitation of validation data. First, the compiled validation data were from multiple studies, which may lead to its bias for particularly population or more heterogenous. For example, validation dataset has higher percentage of younger patient (93.4%). Heterogeneity of the population from multiple studies makes it difficult to control the confounders. Second, the sample size is small. The validation dataset has just 105 samples, which will have limited power to detect difference. In fact, we see large variation of hazard ratios for each variable (S4 Table). Hence, we hypothesize that the heterogeneous population with small sample size may account for the failure to replicate the survival results.

We then performed survival analyses in stratified patients according to age, tumor grade and molecular subtype. Interestingly, we observed the trends that epigenetic age acceleration has benefit for glioma patients similar to the findings in the discover dataset. In the younger patients, the hazard ratio is 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84–1.03, p = 0.152). Similarly, the hazard ratios in G2, G3 and G4 are 0.77 (95% CI: 0.47–1.28, p = 0.317), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.71–1.11, p = 0.299) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85–1.10, p = 0.640) respectively For the hazard ratios in different molecular subtypes, epigenetic age acceleration shows marginally positive association with patient survival in Mesenchymal-like subtype (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70–1.13, p = 0.094) (S5 Table and Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Forest plot shows the association of age acceleration with patient overall survival in each subgroup.

(A) Age group. (B) Tumor grade. (C) Molecular subtype without adjusting. (D) Molecular subtype adjusting for age and tumor grade.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.g004

In summary, although we are unable to completely validate the positive association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival due to heterogeneity and small sample size of validation data, we observed consistent results in both discovery and validation data in the stratified analyses.

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the associations of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival in gliomas. Our results show that epigenetic age acceleration is significantly associated with DNA methylation-based molecular subtypes in gliomas. By incorporation of molecular subtype in our survival analysis, epigenetic age acceleration was shown to be significantly associated with patient overall survival. When we stratified patients based on molecular subtypes, this significant association still exists in 4 of 6 molecular subtypes after adjusting age and tumor grade. Taken together, the evidence suggests that epigenetic age acceleration has potential as promising prognostic biomarker for glioma patients. However, our findings, though statistically significant, should be interpreted cautiously because of small sample size (516 low-grade and intermediate-grade gliomas and 140 glioblastoma).

Several molecular biomarkers for gliomas have been identified in recent decades, including IDH1 mutation [16], 1p/19q deletion [17], MGCT promoter methylation [33] and EGFRvIII [34], among others. These molecular biomarkers have made great contributions in diagnosis, therapeutic decision and prognosis of gliomas. However, these single gene-based biomarkers are often present in a subset of specific types of cancer patients. In this study, we show that epigenetic age acceleration is significantly associated with patient overall survival in gliomas. Compared to traditional single gene-based molecular biomarkers for a subset of cancer patients, epigenetic age acceleration is computed based on methylation of 353 CpG sites as a summary measurement for DNA methylation, therefore biomarkers based on epigenetic age acceleration have potential as a more comprehensive predictors of clinical outcomes in a larger population of patients. In addition, biomarkers based on epigenetic age acceleration is quantitative, which can provide precise and fine-grained prediction for patient survival. As shown in our study, the risk of death is 19.5% lower for every 10-year age acceleration in Grade IV glioma patients, and 8.5% in Grade III patients (Fig 2B).

The association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival in gliomas is strong and independent (per 10-year age acceleration, HR = 0.89; 95%CI: 0.82–0.97; p = 9.04E-03), further supporting its potential as a prognostic biomarker in clinical settings. However, the strength of the association is cancer-specific. In our previous study, we showed a weak association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival in colorectal cancer, where the association is only observed when categorizing patients into epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration groups [25]. The mechanisms underlying this observed cancer-type specific association between epigenetic age acceleration and patient survival remains unknown and warrant further investigation. One explanation is that epigenetic age in specific cancer types is correlated with cancer-specific gene mutations. Thus, in gliomas, the epigenetic age may be associated with gene mutations that have strong predictive power for patient survival.

The direction of the association between epigenetic age acceleration and cancer patient survival is also cancer-type specific. In this study, we showed that epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient survival in gliomas, suggesting cancer patients with older epigenetic age have better survival. On the other hand, negative associations of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival were observed in other cancers, including colorectal cancer in our previous study [25] and thyroid carcinoma [22]. It remains unclear what causes this intriguing cancer-type specific relationship between epigenetic age acceleration and patient survival. Compared to normal tissues where epigenetic age is highly correlated with chronological age, cancer tissue often has disrupted epigenetic age clock that does not necessarily reflect chronological age. Age-related CpGs, especially hypermethylated CpGs, are coordinately regulated in cancer [22] and strongly enriched in CpG islands and enhancer-related loci [34–38]. Therefore, age-related CpGs likely interact with promoters to regulate target gene expression or alter genome stability to introduce gene mutations. Horvath and Lin observed that epigenetic age is often associated with mutation patterns in cancer [4, 22]. For example, mutations in TP53 have higher incidence with younger epigenetic age [22]. High prevalence of TP53 mutations was found in gliomas [39] and correlated with worse prognosis [40], which may partially explain younger epigenetic age is detrimental to glioma patients. Overall, the observed cancer-type specific association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient survival is likely related to underlying disease mechanisms in cancer-specific ways.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival in different clinical groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival between epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration in different tumor grades.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival between epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration in different histology subtypes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s003

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Patient characteristics of original data from TCGA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s004

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Patient characteristics of validation data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s005

(DOCX)

S3 Table. The associations of epigenetic age acceleration with clinical variables in validation data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s006

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Overall survival of gliomas patients in validation dataset using multivariate analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s007

(DOCX)

S5 Table. The association of age acceleration with patient overall survival in stratified analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236045.s008

(DOCX)

References

1. Bocklandt S, Lin W, Sehl ME, Sanchez FJ, Sinsheimer JS, Horvath S, et al. Epigenetic predictor of age. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14821. pmid:21731603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Koch CM, Wagner W. Epigenetic-aging-signature to determine age in different tissues. Aging (Albany NY). 2011;3:1018–27.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Hannum G, Guinney J, Zhao L, Zhang L, Hughes G, Sadda S, et al. Genome-wide methylation profiles reveal quantitative views of human aging rates. Mol Cell. 2013;49:359–67. pmid:23177740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R115. pmid:24138928
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Weidner CI, Lin Q, Koch CM, Eisele L, Beier F, Ziegler P, et al. Aging of blood can be tracked by DNA methylation changes at just three CpG sites. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R24. pmid:24490752
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Horvath S, Ritz BR. Increased epigenetic age and granulocyte counts in the blood of Parkinson's disease patients. Aging (Albany NY). 2015;7(12):1130–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Horvath S, Garagnani P, Bacalini MG, Pirazzini C, Salvioli S, Gentilini D, et al. Accelerated epigenetic aging in Down syndrome. Aging Cell. 2015;14(3):491–5. pmid:25678027
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Nevalainen T, Kananen L, Marttila S, Jylhävä J, Mononen N, Kähönen M, et al. Obesity accelerates epigenetic aging in middle-aged but not in elderly individuals. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:20. pmid:28289477
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Levine ME, Lu AT, Bennett DA, Horvath S. Epigenetic age of the pre-frontal cortex is associated with neuritic plaques, amyloid load, and Alzheimer's disease related cognitive functioning. Aging (Albany NY). 2015;7(12):1198–211.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Marioni RE, Shah S, McRae AF, Chen BH, Colicino E, Harris SE, et al. DNA methylation age of blood predicts all-cause mortality in later life. Genome Biol. 2015;16:25. pmid:25633388
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Chen BH, Marioni RE, Colicino E, Peters MJ, Ward-Caviness CK, Tsai PC, et al. DNA methylation-based measures of biological age: meta-analysis predicting time to death. Aging (Albany NY). 2016;8:1844–65.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Christiansen L, Lenart A, Tan Q, Vaupel JW, Aviv A, McGue M, et al. DNA methylation age is associated with mortality in a longitudinal Danish twin study. Aging Cell. 2016;15:149–54. pmid:26594032
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Perna L, Zhang Y, Mons U, Holleczek B, Saum K-U, Brenner H. Epigenetic age acceleration predicts cancer, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality in a German case cohort. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8:64. pmid:27274774
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Murphy ES, Leyrer CM, Parsons M, Suh JH, Chao ST, Yu JS, et al. Risk Factors for Malignant Transformation of Low-Grade Glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Mar 15;100(4):965–971. pmid:29485076
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C, Ostrom QT, Lightner DD, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, et al. Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Oct;23(10):1985–96 pmid:25053711
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, Lin JC, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 2008; 321(5897): 1807–1812 pmid:18772396
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, Lisle DK, Finkelstein DM, Hammond RR, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1473–9 pmid:9776413
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Zhang C, Bao Z, Zhang W, Jiang T. Progress on molecular biomarkers and classification of malignant gliomas. Front Med. 2013 Jun;7(2):150–6. pmid:23681890
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Lapointe S, Perry A, Butowski NA. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):432–446 pmid:30060998
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Chen R, Smith-Cohn M, Cohen AL, Colman H. Glioma Subclassifications and Their Clinical Significance. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Apr;14(2):284–297 pmid:28281173
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Liao P, Ostrom QT, Stetson L, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Models of epigenetic age capture patterns of DNA methylation in glioma associated with molecular subtype, survival, and recurrence. Neuro Oncol. 2018 Jun 18;20(7):942–953 pmid:29432558
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Lin Q, Wagner W. Epigenetic Aging Signatures Are Coherently Modified in Cancer. PLoS Genet. 2015;11(6):e1005334 pmid:26110659
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Ren JT, Wang MX, Su Y, Tang LY, Ren ZF. Decelerated DNA methylation age predicts poor prognosis of breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):989 pmid:30333003
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Dugué PA, Bassett JK, Joo JE, Jung CH, Ming Wong E, et al. DNA methylation-based biological aging and cancer risk and survival: Pooled analysis of seven prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(8):1611–1619 pmid:29197076
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Zheng C, Li L, Xu R. Association of Epigenetic Clock with Consensus Molecular Subtypes and Overall Survival of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Oct;28(10):1720–1724. pmid:31375479
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, Sabedot TS, Salama SR, Murray BA, etc. Molecular Profiling Reveals Biologically Discrete Subsets and Pathways of Progression in Diffuse Glioma. Cell. 2016 Jan 28;164(3):550–63 pmid:26824661
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Gusyatiner O, Hegi ME. Glioma epigenetics: From subclassification to novel treatment options. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Aug;51:50–58. pmid:29170066
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Sturm D, Witt H, Hovestadt V, Khuong-Quang DA, Jones DT, Konermann C, et al. Hotspot mutations in H3F3A and IDH1 define distinct epigenetic and biological subgroups of glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2012 Oct 16;22(4):425–37. pmid:23079654
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Mur P, Mollejo M, Ruano Y, de Lope ÁR, Fiaño C, García JF, et al. Codeletion of 1p and 19q determines distinct gene methylation and expression profiles in IDH-mutated oligodendroglial tumors. Acta Neuropathol. 2013 Aug;126(2):277–89. pmid:23689617
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Lambert SR, Witt H, Hovestadt V, Zucknick M, Kool M, Pearson DM, et al. Differential expression and methylation of brain developmental genes define location-specific subsets of pilocytic astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2013 Aug;126(2):291–301. pmid:23660940
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, Sabedot TS, Salama SR, Murray BA, et al. Molecular Profiling Reveals Biologically Discrete Subsets and Pathways of Progression in Diffuse Glioma. Cell. 2016 Jan 28;164(3):550–63. pmid:26824661
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Spratt DE, Chan T, Waldron L, Speers C, Feng FY, Ogunwobi OO, et al. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Genomic Sequencing. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(8):1070–4. pmid:27366979
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Olson RA, Brastianos PK, Palma DA. Prognostic and predictive value of epigenetic silencing of MGMT in patients with high grade gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurooncol 2011;105:325–35 pmid:21523485
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Shinojima N, Tada K, Shiraishi S, Kamiryo T, Kochi M, Nakamura H, et al. Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res 2003;63:6962–70. pmid:14583498
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Latorre E, Harries LW. Splicing regulatory factors, ageing and age-related disease. Ageing Res Rev. 2017 Jul;36:165–170. pmid:28456680
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Fernandez AF, Assenov Y, Martin-Subero JI, Balint B, Siebert R, Taniguchi H, et al. A DNA methylation fingerprint of 1628 human samples. Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):407–19. pmid:21613409
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Christensen BC, Houseman EA, Marsit CJ, Zheng S, Wrensch MR, Wiemels JL, et al. Aging and environmental exposures alter tissue-specific DNA methylation dependent upon CpG island context. PLoS Genet. 2009 Aug;5(8):e1000602. pmid:19680444
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. McClay JL, Aberg KA, Clark SL, Nerella S, Kumar G, Xie LY, et al. A methylome-wide study of aging using massively parallel sequencing of the methyl-CpG-enriched genomic fraction from blood in over 700 subjects. Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Mar 1;23(5):1175–85 pmid:24135035
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. AACR Project GENIE Consortium. AACR Project GENIE: Powering Precision Medicine through an International Consortium. Cancer Discov. 2017 Aug;7(8):818–831 pmid:28572459
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Zhang Y, Dube C, Gibert M Jr, Cruickshanks N, Wang B, Coughlan M, et al. The p53 Pathway in Glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel). 2018 Sep 1;10(9)
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Bocklandt S, Lin W, Sehl ME, Sanchez FJ, Sinsheimer JS, Horvath S, et al. Epigenetic predictor of age. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14821. pmid:21731603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Koch CM, Wagner W. Epigenetic-aging-signature to determine age in different tissues. Aging (Albany NY). 2011;3:1018–27.
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Hannum G, Guinney J, Zhao L, Zhang L, Hughes G, Sadda S, et al. Genome-wide methylation profiles reveal quantitative views of human aging rates. Mol Cell. 2013;49:359–67. pmid:23177740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[9] View Article

[10] PubMed/NCBI

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R115. pmid:24138928
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Weidner CI, Lin Q, Koch CM, Eisele L, Beier F, Ziegler P, et al. Aging of blood can be tracked by DNA methylation changes at just three CpG sites. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R24. pmid:24490752
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Horvath S, Ritz BR. Increased epigenetic age and granulocyte counts in the blood of Parkinson's disease patients. Aging (Albany NY). 2015;7(12):1130–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Horvath S, Garagnani P, Bacalini MG, Pirazzini C, Salvioli S, Gentilini D, et al. Accelerated epigenetic aging in Down syndrome. Aging Cell. 2015;14(3):491–5. pmid:25678027
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Nevalainen T, Kananen L, Marttila S, Jylhävä J, Mononen N, Kähönen M, et al. Obesity accelerates epigenetic aging in middle-aged but not in elderly individuals. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:20. pmid:28289477
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Levine ME, Lu AT, Bennett DA, Horvath S. Epigenetic age of the pre-frontal cortex is associated with neuritic plaques, amyloid load, and Alzheimer's disease related cognitive functioning. Aging (Albany NY). 2015;7(12):1198–211.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Marioni RE, Shah S, McRae AF, Chen BH, Colicino E, Harris SE, et al. DNA methylation age of blood predicts all-cause mortality in later life. Genome Biol. 2015;16:25. pmid:25633388
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Chen BH, Marioni RE, Colicino E, Peters MJ, Ward-Caviness CK, Tsai PC, et al. DNA methylation-based measures of biological age: meta-analysis predicting time to death. Aging (Albany NY). 2016;8:1844–65.
View Article
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Christiansen L, Lenart A, Tan Q, Vaupel JW, Aviv A, McGue M, et al. DNA methylation age is associated with mortality in a longitudinal Danish twin study. Aging Cell. 2016;15:149–54. pmid:26594032
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Perna L, Zhang Y, Mons U, Holleczek B, Saum K-U, Brenner H. Epigenetic age acceleration predicts cancer, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality in a German case cohort. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8:64. pmid:27274774
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Murphy ES, Leyrer CM, Parsons M, Suh JH, Chao ST, Yu JS, et al. Risk Factors for Malignant Transformation of Low-Grade Glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Mar 15;100(4):965–971. pmid:29485076
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Thakkar JP, Dolecek TA, Horbinski C, Ostrom QT, Lightner DD, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, et al. Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Oct;23(10):1985–96 pmid:25053711
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, Lin JC, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 2008; 321(5897): 1807–1812 pmid:18772396
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, Lisle DK, Finkelstein DM, Hammond RR, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1473–9 pmid:9776413
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Zhang C, Bao Z, Zhang W, Jiang T. Progress on molecular biomarkers and classification of malignant gliomas. Front Med. 2013 Jun;7(2):150–6. pmid:23681890
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Lapointe S, Perry A, Butowski NA. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):432–446 pmid:30060998
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Chen R, Smith-Cohn M, Cohen AL, Colman H. Glioma Subclassifications and Their Clinical Significance. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Apr;14(2):284–297 pmid:28281173
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Liao P, Ostrom QT, Stetson L, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Models of epigenetic age capture patterns of DNA methylation in glioma associated with molecular subtype, survival, and recurrence. Neuro Oncol. 2018 Jun 18;20(7):942–953 pmid:29432558
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Lin Q, Wagner W. Epigenetic Aging Signatures Are Coherently Modified in Cancer. PLoS Genet. 2015;11(6):e1005334 pmid:26110659
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Ren JT, Wang MX, Su Y, Tang LY, Ren ZF. Decelerated DNA methylation age predicts poor prognosis of breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):989 pmid:30333003
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Dugué PA, Bassett JK, Joo JE, Jung CH, Ming Wong E, et al. DNA methylation-based biological aging and cancer risk and survival: Pooled analysis of seven prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(8):1611–1619 pmid:29197076
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Zheng C, Li L, Xu R. Association of Epigenetic Clock with Consensus Molecular Subtypes and Overall Survival of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Oct;28(10):1720–1724. pmid:31375479
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, Sabedot TS, Salama SR, Murray BA, etc. Molecular Profiling Reveals Biologically Discrete Subsets and Pathways of Progression in Diffuse Glioma. Cell. 2016 Jan 28;164(3):550–63 pmid:26824661
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Gusyatiner O, Hegi ME. Glioma epigenetics: From subclassification to novel treatment options. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Aug;51:50–58. pmid:29170066
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Sturm D, Witt H, Hovestadt V, Khuong-Quang DA, Jones DT, Konermann C, et al. Hotspot mutations in H3F3A and IDH1 define distinct epigenetic and biological subgroups of glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2012 Oct 16;22(4):425–37. pmid:23079654
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Mur P, Mollejo M, Ruano Y, de Lope ÁR, Fiaño C, García JF, et al. Codeletion of 1p and 19q determines distinct gene methylation and expression profiles in IDH-mutated oligodendroglial tumors. Acta Neuropathol. 2013 Aug;126(2):277–89. pmid:23689617
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Lambert SR, Witt H, Hovestadt V, Zucknick M, Kool M, Pearson DM, et al. Differential expression and methylation of brain developmental genes define location-specific subsets of pilocytic astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2013 Aug;126(2):291–301. pmid:23660940
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, Sabedot TS, Salama SR, Murray BA, et al. Molecular Profiling Reveals Biologically Discrete Subsets and Pathways of Progression in Diffuse Glioma. Cell. 2016 Jan 28;164(3):550–63. pmid:26824661
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Spratt DE, Chan T, Waldron L, Speers C, Feng FY, Ogunwobi OO, et al. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Genomic Sequencing. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(8):1070–4. pmid:27366979
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Olson RA, Brastianos PK, Palma DA. Prognostic and predictive value of epigenetic silencing of MGMT in patients with high grade gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurooncol 2011;105:325–35 pmid:21523485
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Shinojima N, Tada K, Shiraishi S, Kamiryo T, Kochi M, Nakamura H, et al. Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res 2003;63:6962–70. pmid:14583498
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Latorre E, Harries LW. Splicing regulatory factors, ageing and age-related disease. Ageing Res Rev. 2017 Jul;36:165–170. pmid:28456680
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Fernandez AF, Assenov Y, Martin-Subero JI, Balint B, Siebert R, Taniguchi H, et al. A DNA methylation fingerprint of 1628 human samples. Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):407–19. pmid:21613409
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Christensen BC, Houseman EA, Marsit CJ, Zheng S, Wrensch MR, Wiemels JL, et al. Aging and environmental exposures alter tissue-specific DNA methylation dependent upon CpG island context. PLoS Genet. 2009 Aug;5(8):e1000602. pmid:19680444
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. McClay JL, Aberg KA, Clark SL, Nerella S, Kumar G, Xie LY, et al. A methylome-wide study of aging using massively parallel sequencing of the methyl-CpG-enriched genomic fraction from blood in over 700 subjects. Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Mar 1;23(5):1175–85 pmid:24135035
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] PubMed/NCBI

[148] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. AACR Project GENIE Consortium. AACR Project GENIE: Powering Precision Medicine through an International Consortium. Cancer Discov. 2017 Aug;7(8):818–831 pmid:28572459
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Zhang Y, Dube C, Gibert M Jr, Cruickshanks N, Wang B, Coughlan M, et al. The p53 Pathway in Glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel). 2018 Sep 1;10(9)
View Article
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study population

DNA methylation age and epigenetic age acceleration

Statistical analysis

Results

Epigenetic age acceleration is associated with DNA methylation-based subtypes [SDM]

Epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient overall survival in univariate analysis

Epigenetic age acceleration is positively associated with patient overall survival in multivariate analysis

Epigenetic age acceleration is variably associated with patient overall survival in SDM subtypes

Validation of the association of epigenetic age acceleration with patient overall survival.

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival in different clinical groups.

S2 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival between epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration in different tumor grades.

S3 Fig. Kaplan-Meier curves for patient overall survival between epigenetic age acceleration and epigenetic age deceleration in different histology subtypes.

S1 Table. Patient characteristics of original data from TCGA.

S2 Table. Patient characteristics of validation data.

S3 Table. The associations of epigenetic age acceleration with clinical variables in validation data.

S4 Table. Overall survival of gliomas patients in validation dataset using multivariate analysis.

S5 Table. The association of age acceleration with patient overall survival in stratified analyses.

References