CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epigenetic clocks reveal a rejuvenation event during embryogenesis followed by aging

Kerepesi, Csaba, Zhang, Bohan, Lee, Sang-Goo, Trapp, Alexandre, Gladyshev, Vadim N.·2021·Science Advances
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abg6082PMC PMC8232908

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Epigenetic clocks reveal a rejuvenation event during embryogenesis followed by aging.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/sciadv.abg6082

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 A rejuvenation event during early embryogenesis revealed by aging clocks. (A) Overview of the model, which posits that germline cells age during development and adulthood and are rejuvenated in the offspring after conception. The model also suggests that there is a time point corresponding to the lowest biological age (ground zero). (B) Multi-tissue and blood rDNA clocks applied to five datasets spanning the first 8 days of mouse embryogenesis (Table 1, datasets 1 to 5). We rescaled epigenetic age of each dataset to the interval [0,1] for comparison (“relative rDNA age”). 0 represents the lowest epigenetic age, and 1 represents the highest epigenetic age of each dataset. Blue lines indicate the mean of each group; P values of two-sided t test comparing the means of the two groups (before and after E6) are displayed. (C) Application of four genome-wide epigenetic aging clocks to two available mouse RRBS datasets. (D) Epigenetic age of human ESCs and iPSCs as a function of passage number. The Horvath human multi-tissue clock was applied.
Fig. 1 A rejuvenation event during early embryogenesis revealed by aging clocks. (A) Overview of the model, which posits that germline cells age during development and adulthood and are rejuvenated in the offspring after conception. The model also suggests that there is a time point corresponding to the lowest biological age (ground zero). (B) Multi-tissue and blood rDNA clocks applied to five datasets spanning the first 8 days of mouse embryogenesis (Table 1, datasets 1 to 5). We rescaled epigenetic age of each dataset to the interval [0,1] for comparison (“relative rDNA age”). 0 represents the lowest epigenetic age, and 1 represents the highest epigenetic age of each dataset. Blue lines indicate the mean of each group; P values of two-sided t test comparing the means of the two groups (before and after E6) are displayed. (C) Application of four genome-wide epigenetic aging clocks to two available mouse RRBS datasets. (D) Epigenetic age of human ESCs and iPSCs as a function of passage number. The Horvath human multi-tissue clock was applied.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Organismal aging begins in mid-embryonic development in mice and humans. (A) Epigenetic age (multi-tissue and blood rDNA clocks) analysis of the dataset that contains both early and late mouse embryo samples (E13.5 samples are based on primordial germline cells). (B) Application of genome-wide epigenetic clocks to later stages of mouse embryogenesis (r, Pearson correlation coefficient; P, P value of the correlation). (C) The same data as above but separated by tissue. An increasing trend is observed for almost all tissues, with few nonsignificant exceptions. (D) Epigenetic age dynamics of four independent prenatal human 450K methylation array datasets based on the Horvath human multi-tissue clock. (E) The same data as above but separated by tissue (five significant increases, nine nonsignificant increases, four nonsignificant decreases, and zero significant decreases).
Fig. 2 Organismal aging begins in mid-embryonic development in mice and humans. (A) Epigenetic age (multi-tissue and blood rDNA clocks) analysis of the dataset that contains both early and late mouse embryo samples (E13.5 samples are based on primordial germline cells). (B) Application of genome-wide epigenetic clocks to later stages of mouse embryogenesis (r, Pearson correlation coefficient; P, P value of the correlation). (C) The same data as above but separated by tissue. An increasing trend is observed for almost all tissues, with few nonsignificant exceptions. (D) Epigenetic age dynamics of four independent prenatal human 450K methylation array datasets based on the Horvath human multi-tissue clock. (E) The same data as above but separated by tissue (five significant increases, nine nonsignificant increases, four nonsignificant decreases, and zero significant decreases).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Epigenetic age of mouse ESCs during early passaging under different culture conditions. (A) Epigenetic age (by rDNA clocks) of mouse ESCs after outgrowth (passage 0) and passage 5 under three different culture conditions (2i, both self-renewal supporting inhibitors used; PD, only one inhibitor; mES, no inhibitor). (B) Application of genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks to the same data. (C) Principal components analysis (PCA) of RRBS methylation profiles of embryo (circles) and ESC (crosses) sample groups after passage 0 (left) and passage 5 (right). Convex hull around the ESC samples in the same group (if n > 2) is displayed to help distinguish ESC samples from embryo samples.
Fig. 3 Epigenetic age of mouse ESCs during early passaging under different culture conditions. (A) Epigenetic age (by rDNA clocks) of mouse ESCs after outgrowth (passage 0) and passage 5 under three different culture conditions (2i, both self-renewal supporting inhibitors used; PD, only one inhibitor; mES, no inhibitor). (B) Application of genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks to the same data. (C) Principal components analysis (PCA) of RRBS methylation profiles of embryo (circles) and ESC (crosses) sample groups after passage 0 (left) and passage 5 (right). Convex hull around the ESC samples in the same group (if n > 2) is displayed to help distinguish ESC samples from embryo samples.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Localization of the epigenetic age minimum (ground zero) during mouse embryonic development. (A) We concatenated results for the entire period of embryogenesis by using the genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks indicated. (B) We concatenated results for the entire period of embryogenesis by using the indicated mouse rDNA epigenetic clocks. (C) Application of genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks to dataset 20 that contains mid-embryonic stages from E3.5 to E11.5. (D) Application of rDNA mouse epigenetic clocks to dataset 20.
Fig. 4 Localization of the epigenetic age minimum (ground zero) during mouse embryonic development. (A) We concatenated results for the entire period of embryogenesis by using the genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks indicated. (B) We concatenated results for the entire period of embryogenesis by using the indicated mouse rDNA epigenetic clocks. (C) Application of genome-wide mouse epigenetic clocks to dataset 20 that contains mid-embryonic stages from E3.5 to E11.5. (D) Application of rDNA mouse epigenetic clocks to dataset 20.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Role of TET enzymes in the rejuvenation event. (A) Application of rDNAm clocks to TET triple KO (TET KO) and wild-type (WT) E6.5 epiblast samples (dataset 17). (B) Application of our recently developed single-cell clock [scAge; (49)] to TET KO and WT ESCs at days 2 and 5 of differentiation (dataset 18). Specific lineages and stages (Mapped lineage and Mapped E-day) were assigned by mapping the RNA expression profiles of the in vitro cells to an in vivo gastrulation atlas. Two-sided t tests were calculated (ns, P > 0.05; *, 1 × 10−2 < P ≤ 5 × 10−2; **, 1 × 10−3 < P ≤ 1 × 10−2; ***, 1 × 10−4 < P ≤ 1 × 10−3; ****P ≤ 1 × 10−4).
Fig. 5 Role of TET enzymes in the rejuvenation event. (A) Application of rDNAm clocks to TET triple KO (TET KO) and wild-type (WT) E6.5 epiblast samples (dataset 17). (B) Application of our recently developed single-cell clock [scAge; (49)] to TET KO and WT ESCs at days 2 and 5 of differentiation (dataset 18). Specific lineages and stages (Mapped lineage and Mapped E-day) were assigned by mapping the RNA expression profiles of the in vitro cells to an in vivo gastrulation atlas. Two-sided t tests were calculated (ns, P > 0.05; *, 1 × 10−2 < P ≤ 5 × 10−2; **, 1 × 10−3 < P ≤ 1 × 10−2; ***, 1 × 10−4 < P ≤ 1 × 10−3; ****P ≤ 1 × 10−4).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Role of DNMTs in the rejuvenation event. (A) We applied rDNA clocks to single KO of DNMT1 (Dnmt1−/−), double KO of DNMT3A and DNMT3B (DKO), wild type (WT), and heterozygous control (3a−/+ and 3a−/+ 3b−/+) embryos at E8.5 (dataset 19). (B) Application of four genome-wide epigenetic aging clocks to the same dataset. Two-sided t tests were calculated (ns, P > 0.05; *, 1 × 10−2 < P ≤ 5 × 10−2; **, 1 × 10−3 < P ≤ 1 × 10−2; ***, 1 × 10−4 < P ≤ 1 × 10−3; ****P ≤ 1 × 10−4).
Fig. 6 Role of DNMTs in the rejuvenation event. (A) We applied rDNA clocks to single KO of DNMT1 (Dnmt1−/−), double KO of DNMT3A and DNMT3B (DKO), wild type (WT), and heterozygous control (3a−/+ and 3a−/+ 3b−/+) embryos at E8.5 (dataset 19). (B) Application of four genome-wide epigenetic aging clocks to the same dataset. Two-sided t tests were calculated (ns, P > 0.05; *, 1 × 10−2 < P ≤ 5 × 10−2; **, 1 × 10−3 < P ≤ 1 × 10−2; ***, 1 × 10−4 < P ≤ 1 × 10−3; ****P ≤ 1 × 10−4).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. 10.1159/000173977 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/s00018-015-1896-0 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/acel.12480 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.05.014 · DOI
  6. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004458 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/s12864-018-5153-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.08.012 · DOI
  9. 10.2174/1389202918666170412112130 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s10522-017-9683-y · DOI
  11. 10.1038/s41576-018-0004-3 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1186/gb-2014-15-2-r24 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.18632/aging.101414 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.016 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.18632/aging.100908 · DOI
  16. 10.1186/s13059-015-0584-6 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1093/ije/dyu277 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/s13148-016-0186-5 · DOI
  19. 10.18632/aging.100859 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/acel.12325 · DOI
  21. 10.18632/aging.101217 · DOI
  22. 10.1186/s13059-017-1203-5 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1186/s13059-017-1186-2 · DOI
  24. 10.7554/eLife.37462 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/acel.12877 · DOI · Paper page
  26. MAMMALIAN METHYLATION CONSORTIUM A. T. Lu Z. Fei A. Haghani T. R. Robeck J. A. Zoller C. Z. Li J. Zhang J. Ablaeva D. M. Adams J. Almunia R. Ardehali A. Arneson C. S. Baker K. Belov P. Black D. T. Blumstein E. K. Bors C. E. Breeze R. T. Brooke J. L. Brown A. Caulton J. M. Cavin I. Chatzistamou H. Chen P. Chiavellini O.-W. Choi S. Clarke J. DeYoung C. Dold C. K. Emmons S. Emmrich C. G. Faulkes S. H. Ferguson C. J. Finno J.-M. Gaillard E. Garde V. N. Gladyshev V. Gorbunova R. G. Goya M. J. Grant E. N. Hales M. B. Hanson M. Haulena A. N. Hogan C. J. Hogg T. A. Hore A. J. Jasinska G. Jones E. Jourdain O. Kashpur H. Katcher E. Katsumata V. Kaza H. Kiaris M. S. Kobor P. Kordowitzki W. R. Koski B. Larison S.-G. Lee Y. C. Lee M. Lehmann J.-F. Lemaitre A. J. Levine C. Li X. Li D. T. Lin N. Macoretta D. Maddox C. O. Matkin J. A. Mattison J. Mergl J. J. Meudt K. Mozhui A. Naderi M. Nagy P. Narayan P. W. Nathanielsz N. B. Nguyen C. Niehrs A. G. Ophir E. A. Ostrander P. O. Ginn K. M. Parsons K. C. Paul M. Pellegrini G. M. Pinho J. Plassais N. A. Prado B. Rey B. R. Ritz J. Robbins M. Rodriguez J. Russell E. Rydkina L. L. Sailer A. B. Salmon A. Sanghavi K. M. Schachtschneider D. Schmitt T. Schmitt L. Schomacher L. B. Schook K. E. Sears A. Seluanov D. Shanmuganayagam A. Shindyapina K. Singh I. Sinha R. G. Snell E. Soltanmaohammadi M. L. Spangler L. Staggs K. J. Steinman V. J. Sugrue B. Szladovits M. Takasugi E. C. Teeling M. J. Thompson B. Van Bonn S. C. Vernes D. Villar H. V. Vinters M. C. Wallingford N. Wang R. K. Wayne G. S. Wilkinson C. K. Williams R. W. Williams X. W. Yang B. G. Young B. Zhang Z. Zhang P. Zhao Y. Zhao J. Zimmermann W. Zhou J. Ernst K. Raj S. Horvath Universal DNA methylation age across mammalian tissues. bioRxiv 2021.01.18.426733 [ Preprint ]. 19 January 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.18.426733. · DOI
  27. 10.1038/s41598-019-39919-3 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1186/s13059-016-1068-z · DOI
  29. 10.1101/gr.180273.114 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1101/gad.283838.116 · DOI
  31. 10.1089/scd.2012.0256 · DOI
  32. 10.1186/s13059-014-0545-5 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/s41586-019-1825-8 · DOI
  34. A. Trapp C. Kerepesi V. N. Gladyshev Profiling epigenetic age in single cells. bioRxiv 2021.03.13.435247 [ Preprint ]. 15 March 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.13.435247. · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81656-6 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1038/s41467-020-16919-w · DOI
  37. 10.1038/ncb1664 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.017 · DOI
  39. 10.1126/science.1245316 · DOI · Paper page
  40. B. Zhang, V. N. Gladyshev, How can aging be reversed? Exploring rejuvenation from a damage-based perspective. Adv. Genet. 1, e10025 (2020). · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01356.x · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.06.010 · DOI
  43. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7481-8_33 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.091 · DOI
  45. 10.1186/s13148-017-0315-9 · DOI
  46. 10.1038/nature10960 · DOI
  47. 10.1038/s41556-018-0093-4 · DOI
  48. 10.1038/s41467-019-12664-x · DOI
  49. 10.1038/s41586-020-2119-x · DOI
  50. 10.1111/acel.12738 · DOI
  51. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr167 · DOI
  52. 10.1038/nature13581 · DOI
  53. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005583 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.02.013 · DOI
  55. 10.1186/s13072-016-0054-8 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.scr.2012.09.002 · DOI
  57. 10.1038/nmeth.2255 · DOI · Paper page
  58. L. Zimmerlin, T. S. Park, J. S. Huo, K. Verma, S. R. Pather, C. C. Talbot, J. Agarwal, D. Steppan, Y. W. Zhang, M. Considine, H. Guo, X. Zhong, C. Gutierrez, L. Cope, M. V. Canto-Soler, A. D. Friedman, S. B. Baylin, E. T. Zambidis, Tankyrase inhibition promotes a stable human naïve pluripotent state with improved functionality. Development 143, 4368–4380 (2016). · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.scr.2013.11.010 · DOI
  60. 10.1073/pnas.1413299111 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 130

Metadata

Authors
Kerepesi, C., Zhang, B., Lee, S.-G., Trapp, A., & Gladyshev, V. N.
Affiliations
Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
ORCID
Venue
Science Advances
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2021-06-25
Volume
7
Issue
26
ISSN
2375-2548
DOI
10.1126/sciadv.abg6082
PMC
PMC8232908
Cited by
130
References
18
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AG064223)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG067782, AG065403)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review