Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/30821
Title: THE RENAL EPIGENETIC CLOCK IS A BETTER SURROGATE FOR KIDNEY AGE THAN TELOMERE ATTRITION
Authors: HEYLEN, Line 
Katrien, De Vusser
Bernard, Thienpont
Sprangers, Ben
Kuypers, Dirk
NAWROT, Tim 
Lambrechts, Diether
Naesens, Maarten
Issue Date: 2019
Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Source: 56th Congress of the European-Renal-Association (ERA)-European-Dialysis-and-Transplant-Association (EDTA) - Burden, Access and Disparities in Kidney Disease, Budapest, HUNGARY, JUN 13-16, 2019
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Chronological age is a major risk factor for many common diseases including kidney diseases and renal transplantation. Aging has however proven difficult to dissect given the many alterations at the molecular, cellular and tissue level. One of the hallmarks of replicative aging (senescence) is telomere attrition. Recently, the concept of an epigenetic clock, that predicts chronological age based on DNA methylation, was defined. In this study, we aimed to describe the relations between renal telomere length and the renal epigenetic clock in two cohorts of kidney biopsies performed at the time of transplantation, and the association with renal histology. METHODS: DNA methylation was measured genome-wide at >450,000 CpGs using the Illumina EPIC and 450K arrays in two cohorts of renal transplant biopsies (n=95 at implantation, and n= 67 post-reperfusion). Donor age ranged from 16 to 79 years in both cohorts. The epigenetic clock was calculated using the Horvath formula. Telomere length was measured in the majority of biopsies (78% implantation cohort and 79% post-reperfusion cohort). Epigenetic age acceleration (older epigenetic age in comparison to chronological age) was defined by the residuals to the linear regression curve of donor age to the epigenetic clock. Renal biopsies were scored according to the Banff classification at baseline, and 3 months and 12 months after transplantation. RESULTS: As previously reported, telomere length correlated with donor age, but the correlation was relatively weak (implantation cohort: r=-0.37, p=0.001 and postreperfusion cohort: r=-0.25, p = 0.07). In contrast, the epigenetic clock correlated strongly with age, at r=0.93, r=0.94, respectively and p<10^-15 for both cohorts. Epigenetic age acceleration did not correlate with telomere length (p=0.90 and p=0.48), suggesting that epigenetic aging and replicative aging are seperate entities, ticking at different clocks. Interestingly, in both cohorts the epigenetic clock overestimated the age of young donors. The epigenetic clock behaved also as chronological age in its correlation to several histological hallmarks of renal aging, in contrast to telomere length, which was less correlated to aging-associated histopathological lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The renal epigenetic clock acts as a surrogate for chronological age with high accuracy, and also reflects renal histolopathological lesions. For the first time, we describe that accelerated epigenetic aging does not correlate with telomere length, suggesting that renal epigenetic aging and renal replicative aging are separate entities driven by different factors.
Document URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/30821
ISSN: 0931-0509
e-ISSN: 1460-2385
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfz106.FP334
ISI #: WOS:000495412900419
Category: C2
Type: Conference Material
Appears in Collections:Research publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Heylen_Line.pdf
  Restricted Access
Conference material78.49 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.