Variations in Biological Age Across Organs in Younger Individuals
Systems of measuring biological age are multiplying rapidly. There are many ways of going about this, from epigenetic clocks to weighted combinations of simple measures such as grip strength. Researchers here build their own assessments for the purpose of looking at aging in younger adults, 20s to 40s, a part of aging that is not well studied at all. The interesting outcome is that there appears to be a significant variation in assessed biological age between different organs and systems in the body. It is a little early to talk about why this arises, whether an artifact of the tools used, or reflects some underlying truth about the nature of aging.
Investigators recruited 4,066 volunteers to supply blood and stool samples and facial skin images and to undergo physical fitness examinations. The volunteers were between the ages of 20 and 45 years; 52% were female and 48% were male. "Most human aging studies have been conducted on older populations and in cohorts with a high incidence of chronic diseases. Because the aging process in young healthy adults is largely unknown and some studies have suggested that age-related changes could be detected in people as young as their 20s, we decided to focus on this age range."
In total, 403 features were measured, including 74 metabolomic features, 34 clinical biochemistry features, 36 immune repertoire features, 15 body composition features, 8 physical fitness features, 10 electroencephalography features, 16 facial skin features, and 210 gut microbiome features. These features were then classified into nine categories, including cardiovascular-related, renal-related, liver-related, sex hormone, facial skin, nutrition/metabolism, immune-related, physical fitness-related, and gut microbiome features.
Because of the difference in sex-specific effects, the groups were divided into male and female. The investigators then developed an aging-rate index that could be used to correlate different bodily systems with each other. Based on their findings, they classified the volunteers either as aging faster or aging slower than their chronological age. Overall, they discovered that biological ages of different organs and systems had diverse correlations, and not all were expected. Although healthy weight and high physical fitness levels were expected to have a positive impact, the investigators were surprised by other findings. For example, having a more diverse gut microbiota indicated a younger gut while at the same time having a negative impact on the aging of the kidneys, possibly because the diversity of species causes the kidneys to do more work.
Zeal to measure one bioage could be a scientifically totally wrong footed and financially wasted approach at all. And we need funds for more intelligently designed approaches.
So many studies meanwhile have demonstrated there is no ONE bioage, but there are probably as many bioages as cells, organs, tissues in a body which should, however, have a certain.
interdependency not even systems biology can yet grasp. More important are interventions as early as possible on the basis of scientifically based evidence once "aging signs" are relatively easily visible/detectable or, more difficult, but even more useful, preventive measures.
Why do funds not flow there ? Anything else more useful in order to " f i g h t aging" and not only to try to "diagnose aging" via expensive tools ?