Measuring healthy ageing: current and future tools
-
Published:2023-07-13
Issue:6
Volume:24
Page:845-866
-
ISSN:1389-5729
-
Container-title:Biogerontology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Biogerontology
Author:
Silva NádiaORCID, Rajado Ana TeresaORCID, Esteves FilipaORCID, Brito DavidORCID, Apolónio JoanaORCID, Roberto Vânia PalmaORCID, Binnie AlexandraORCID, Araújo InêsORCID, Nóbrega ClévioORCID, Bragança JoséORCID, Castelo-Branco PedroORCID, Andrade Raquel P., Calado Sofia, Faleiro Maria Leonor, Matos Carlos, Marques Nuno, Marreiros Ana, Nzwalo Hipólito, Pais Sandra, Palmeirim Isabel, Simão Sónia, Joaquim Natércia, Miranda Rui, Pêgas António, Sardo Ana,
Abstract
AbstractHuman ageing is a complex, multifactorial process characterised by physiological damage, increased risk of age-related diseases and inevitable functional deterioration. As the population of the world grows older, placing significant strain on social and healthcare resources, there is a growing need to identify reliable and easy-to-employ markers of healthy ageing for early detection of ageing trajectories and disease risk. Such markers would allow for the targeted implementation of strategies or treatments that can lessen suffering, disability, and dependence in old age. In this review, we summarise the healthy ageing scores reported in the literature, with a focus on the past 5 years, and compare and contrast the variables employed. The use of approaches to determine biological age, molecular biomarkers, ageing trajectories, and multi-omics ageing scores are reviewed. We conclude that the ideal healthy ageing score is multisystemic and able to encompass all of the potential alterations associated with ageing. It should also be longitudinal and able to accurately predict ageing complications at an early stage in order to maximize the chances of successful early intervention.
Funder
CRESC Algarve 2020 Universidade do Algarve
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geriatrics and Gerontology,Gerontology,Aging
Reference128 articles.
1. Adak A, Khan MR (2019) An insight into gut microbiota and its functionalities. Cell Mol Life Sci 76:473–493 2. Ahadi S, Zhou W, Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose SM, Sailani MR, Contrepois K, Avina M, Ashland M, Brunet A, Snyder M (2020) Personal aging markers and ageotypes revealed by deep longitudinal profiling. Nat Med 26:83–90 3. Bell CG, Lowe R, Adams PD, Baccarelli AA, Beck S, Bell JT, Christensen BC, Gladyshev VN, Heijmans BT, Horvath S, Ideker T, Issa JPJ, Kelsey KT, Marioni RE, Reik W, Relton CL, Schalkwyk LC, Teschendorff AE, Wagner W, Zhang K, Rakyan VK (2019) DNA methylation aging clocks: challenges and recommendations. Genome Biol 20:1–24 4. Belsky DW, Moffitt TE, Cohen AA, Corcoran DL, Levine ME, Prinz JA, Schaefer J, Sugden K, Williams B, Poulton R, Caspi A (2018) Eleven telomere, epigenetic clock, and biomarker-composite quantifications of biological aging: do they measure the same thing? Am J Epidemiol 187:1220–1230 5. Belsky DW, Caspi A, Arseneault L, Baccarelli A, Corcoran D, Gao X, Hannon E, Harrington HL, Rasmussen LJH, Houts R, Huffman K, Kraus WE, Kwon D, Mill J, Pieper CF, Prinz J, Poulton R, Schwartz J, Sugden K, Vokonas P, Williams BS, Moffitt TE (2020) Quantification of the pace of biological aging in humans through a blood test, the DunedinPoAm DNA methylation algorithm. Elife 9:1–56
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|