Epigenetic clocks and programmatic aging

David Gems*, Roop Singh Virk, João Pedro de Magalhães

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The last decade has seen remarkable progress in the characterization of methylation clocks that can serve as indicators of biological age in humans and many other mammalian species. While the biological processes of aging that underlie these clocks have remained unclear, several clues have pointed to a link to developmental mechanisms. These include the presence in the vicinity of clock CpG sites of genes that specify development, including those of the Hox (homeobox) and polycomb classes. Here we discuss how recent advances in programmatic theories of aging provide a framework within which methylation clocks can be understood as part of a developmental process of aging. This includes how such clocks evolve, how developmental mechanisms cause aging, and how they give rise to late-life disease. The combination of ideas from evolutionary biology, biogerontology and developmental biology open a path to a new discipline, that of developmental gerontology (devo-gero). Drawing on the properties of methylation clocks, we offer several new hypotheses that exemplify devo-gero thinking. We suggest that polycomb controls a trade-off between earlier developmental fidelity and later developmental plasticity. We also propose the existence of an evolutionarily-conserved developmental sequence spanning ontogenesis, adult development and aging, that both constrains and determines the evolution of aging.
Original languageEnglish
Article number102546
Number of pages9
JournalAgeing Research Reviews
Volume101
Early online date15 Oct 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2024

Keywords

  • Aging
  • Development
  • Epigenetics
  • Hyperfunction
  • Methylation clocks
  • Programmatic theory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Epigenetic clocks and programmatic aging'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this