Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAging has always been considered as a risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, but there are individual differences and its mechanism is not yet clear. Epigenetics may unveil the relationship between aging and neurodegenerative diseases.MethodsOur study employed a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) design to assess the potential causal association between epigenetic aging and neurodegenerative diseases. We utilized publicly available summary datasets from several genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Our investigation focused on multiple measures of epigenetic age as potential exposures and outcomes, while the occurrence of neurodegenerative diseases served as potential exposures and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the accuracy of the results.ResultsThe results show a significant decrease in risk of Parkinson's disease with GrimAge (OR = 0.8862, 95% CI 0.7914-0.9924, p = 0.03638). Additionally, we identified that HannumAge was linked to an increased risk of Multiple Sclerosis (OR = 1.0707, 95% CI 1.0056-1.1401, p = 0.03295). Furthermore, we also found that estimated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1(PAI-1) levels demonstrated an increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (OR = 1.0001, 95% CI 1.0000-1.0002, p = 0.04425). Beyond that, we did not observe any causal associations between epigenetic age and neurodegenerative diseases risk.ConclusionThe findings firstly provide evidence for causal association of epigenetic aging and neurodegenerative diseases. Exploring neurodegenerative diseases from an epigenetic perspective may contribute to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.