Cited by 156Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting

Age-related DNA methylation changes are sex-specific: a comprehensive assessment

Open access
Yusipov, Igor, Bacalini, Maria Giulia, Kalyakulina, Alena, Krivonosov, Mikhail, Pirazzini, Chiara, Gensous, Noémie, Ravaioli, Francesco, Milazzo, Maddalena +8 more·2020·Aging

Abstract

Abstract In humans, females live longer than males but experience a worse longevity, as genome-wide autosomal DNA methylation differences between males and females have been reported. So far, few studies have investigated if DNA methylation is differently affected by aging in males and females. We performed a meta-analysis of 4 large whole blood datasets, comparing 4 aspects of epigenetic age-dependent remodeling between the two sexes: differential methylation, variability, epimutations and entropy. We reported that a large fraction (43%) of sex-associated probes undergoes age-associated DNA methylation changes, and that a limited number of probes shows age-by-sex interaction. We experimentally validated 2 regions mapping in FIGN and PRR4 genes, and showed sex-specific deviations of their methylation patterns in models of decelerated (centenarians) and accelerated (Down syndrome) aging. While we did not find sex differences in the age-associated increase in epimutations and in entropy, we showed that the number of probes showing age-related increase in methylation variability is 15 times higher in males compared to females. Our results can offer new epigenetic tools to study the interaction between aging and sex and can pave the way to the identification of molecular triggers of sex differences in longevity and age-related diseases prevalence.

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 · 10.18632/aging.202251

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • No overlap was found between the AD-associated CpGs/DMRs in this study and the aging-associated autosomal CpGs identified by Yusipov et al. and McCartney et al.

    “As advanced aging is the strongest factor for AD, we also compared our results with those from Yusipov et al. [94] and McCartney et al. [35], which identified 8 and 52 autosomal CpGs differentially affected by aging, but we did not find any overlap with these previous studies.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yusipov, I., Bacalini, M. G., Kalyakulina, A., Krivonosov, M., Pirazzini, C., Gensous, N., Ravaioli, F., Milazzo, M., Giuliani, C., Vedunova, M., Fiorito, G., Gagliardi, A., Polidoro, S., Garagnani, P., Ivanchenko, M., & Franceschi, C.
Affiliations
  • N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod (RU)
  • Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna (IT)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Sassari (IT)
  • Italian institute for Genomic Medicine (IT)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Bacalini, Maria Giulia
Venue
Aging
Published
2020-12-03
Volume
12
Issue
23
Pages
24057-24080
ISSN
1945-4589 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3108393015
Cited by
148
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 11
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aging (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UnissResearch (Università degli Studi di Sassari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • EU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research
  • European Commission (H2020, 634821)
  • Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (075-15-2019-871)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (634821)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Keywords
DNA methylation, sex differences, epigenetics, centenarians, Down syndrome, epimutations, longevity, age-related diseases
MeSH terms
ATPases Associated with Diverse Cellular Activities, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Down Syndrome, Female, Humans, Longevity, Male, Microtubule-Associated Proteins, Middle Aged, Sex Factors, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, Databases, Genetic, Epigenesis, Genetic, Proline-Rich Protein Domains, Young Adult

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