An expert consensus statement on biomarkers of ageing for use in intervention studies.

Giorgia Perri, Chloe French, César Agostinis-Sobrinho, Atul Anand, Radiana Dhewayani Antarianto, Yasumichi Arai, Joseph A Baur, Omar Cauli, Morgane Clivaz-Duc, Giuseppe Colloca, Constantinos Demetriades, Chiara de Lucia, Giorgio Di Gessa, Breno S Diniz, Catherine L Dotchin, Gillian Eaglestone, Bradley T Elliott, Mark A Espeland, Luigi Ferrucci, James Fisher, Dimitris K Grammatopoulos, Novi S Hardiany, Zaki Hassan-Smith, Waylon J Hastings, Swati Jain, Peter K Joshi, Theodora Katsila, Graham J Kemp, Omid A Khaiyat, Dudley W Lamming, Jose Lara Gallegos, Frank Madeo, Andrea B Maier, Carmen Martin-Ruiz, Ian J Martins, John C Mathers, Lewis R Mattin, Reshma A Merchant, Alexey Moskalev, Ognian Neytchev, Mary Ni Lochlainn, Claire M Owen, Stuart M Phillips, Jedd Pratt, Konstantinos Prokopidis, Nicholas J W Rattray, María Rúa-Alonso, Lutz Schomburg, David Scott, Sangeetha Shyam, Elina Sillanpää, Michelle M C Tan, Ruth Teh, Stephanie W Tobin, Carolina J Vila-Chã, Luigi Vorluni, Daniela Weber, Ailsa Welch, Daisy Wilson, Thomas Wilson, Tongbiao Zhao, Elena Philippou, Viktor I Korolchuk, Oliver M Shannon

Human Nutrition & Exercise Research Centre, Centre for Healthier Lives, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.Human Nutrition & Exercise Research Centre, Centre for Healthier Lives, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. · pubmed

Paper

Abstract

Biomarkers of ageing serve as important outcome measures in longevity-promoting interventions. However, there is limited consensus on which specific biomarkers are most appropriate for human intervention studies. This work aimed to address this need by establishing an expert consensus on biomarkers of ageing for use in intervention studies via the Delphi method. A three-round Delphi study was conducted using an online platform. In Round 1, expert panel members provided suggestions for candidate biomarkers of ageing. In Rounds 2 and 3, they voted on 500 initial statements (yes/no) relating to 20 biomarkers of ageing. Panel members could abstain from voting on biomarkers outside their expertise. Consensus was reached when there was ≥70% agreement on a statement/biomarker. Of the 460 international panel members invited to participate, 116 completed Round 1, 87 completed Round 2, and 60 completed Round 3. Across the 3 rounds, 14 biomarkers met consensus that spanned physiological (e.g., insulin-like growth factor 1, growth-differentiating factor-15), inflammatory (e.g., high sensitivity c-reactive protein, interleukin-6), functional (e.g., muscle mass, muscle strength, hand grip strength, Timed-Up-and-Go, gait speed, standing balance test, frailty index, cognitive health, blood pressure), and epigenetic (e.g., DNA methylation/epigenetic clocks) domains. Expert consensus identified 14 potential biomarkers of ageing which may be used as outcome measures in intervention studies. Future ageing research should identify which combination of these biomarkers has the greatest utility.

The following analysis is generated by AI and may contain errors. It is separate from the authors’ abstract and is not peer review.

Research summary

The paper addresses the identification of biomarkers of aging, which is crucial for developing interventions aimed at promoting longevity and understanding the aging process. While the consensus on biomarkers is a solid contribution to the field, it is primarily a methodological advancement rather than a groundbreaking discovery. The findings may help guide future research, but they do not present significant new insights into the mechanisms of aging or direct interventions that could lead to lifespan extension.

Author of this paper? Send a correction.