This is where the second-generation clocks shine.
Most importantly, they are not significantly correlated with all-cause mortality, making them practically useless for estimating the efficacy of a therapy that is designed to extend lifespan and healthspan. This study has found that with these clocks, increases of epigenetic age over calendar age do not correlate with physical ability tests, cognitive tests, or the need for a patient to be prescribed multiple drugs (polypharmacy). Unfortunately, these two first-generation clocks are ill-suited for measuring the physical effects of age acceleration.
If such a clock is truly measuring the effects of aging, if a person is epigenetically older than the clock signifies, that person should be at greater risk for age-related diseases than a person who has not experienced such age acceleration. Ideally, it would be possible to use this kind of analysis to measure age acceleration effects. Horvath (who contributed to this paper) and Hannum are very good at guessing calendar age: it is possible to take a cell sample, analyze it using one of these clocks, and accurately guess how old the donor is. Did previous clocks use the wrong target?Īs the researchers explain, the first-generation epigenetic clocks of Drs.