Circulating Proteomic Signatures of Chronological Age
Menni C, Kiddle SJ, Mangino M, Viñuela A, Psatha M, Steves C, Sattlecker M, Buil A et al.. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2014-08-14
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
To elucidate the proteomic features of aging in plasma, the subproteome targeted by the SOMAscan assay was profiled in blood samples from 202 females from the TwinsUK cohort. Findings were replicated in 677 independent individuals from the AddNeuroMed, Alzheimer's Research UK, and Dementia Case Registry cohorts. Results were further validated using RNAseq data from whole blood in TwinsUK and the most significant proteins were tested for association with aging-related phenotypes after adjustment for age. Eleven proteins were associated with chronological age and were replicated at protein level in an independent population. These were further investigated at gene expression level in 384 females from the TwinsUK cohort. The two most strongly associated proteins were chordin-like protein 1 (meta-analysis β [SE] = 0.013 [0.001], p = 3.66 × 10(-46)) and pleiotrophin (0.012 [0.005], p = 3.88 × 10(-41)). Chordin-like protein 1 was also significantly correlated with birthweight (0.06 [0.02], p = 0.005) and with the individual Framingham 10-years cardiovascular risk scores in TwinsUK (0.71 [0.18], p = 9.9 × 10(-5)). Pleiotrophin is a secreted growth factor with a plethora of functions in multiple tissues and known to be a marker for cardiovascular risk and osteoporosis. Our study highlights the importance of proteomics to identify some molecular mechanisms involved in human health and aging.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Menni, C., Kiddle, S. J., Mangino, M., Viñuela, A., Psatha, M., Steves, C., et al. (2015). Circulating Proteomic Signatures of Chronological Age. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu121
Vancouver
Menni C, Kiddle SJ, Mangino M, Viñuela A, Psatha M, Steves C, et al. Circulating Proteomic Signatures of Chronological Age. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2015. doi:10.1093/gerona/glu121. PMID: 25123647.
BibTeX
@article{menni2015-25123647,
author = {Menni, C. and Kiddle, S. J. and Mangino, M. and Viñuela, A. and Psatha, M. and Steves, C. and Sattlecker, M. and Buil, A. and others},
title = {{Circulating Proteomic Signatures of Chronological Age}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1093/gerona/glu121},
pmid = {25123647},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu121}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results were further validated using RNAseq data from whole blood in TwinsUK and the most significant proteins were tested for association with aging-related phenotypes after adjustment for age.
- Eleven proteins were associated with chronological age and were replicated at protein level in an independent population.
- Chordin-like protein 1 was also significantly correlated with birthweight (0.06 [0.02], p = 0.005) and with the individual Framingham 10-years cardiovascular risk scores in TwinsUK (0.71 [0.18], p = 9.9 × 10(-5)).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25123647) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Genetics
Also tagged “proteomic-signatures”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “proteomic-signatures”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.