Skip to content
Open access · OA via OpenAlex

Biological Age Predictors

Juulia Jylhävä, Nancy L. Pedersen, Sara Hägg

EBioMedicine · 2017 · ▲ 1,283 citations

Abstract

The search for reliable indicators of biological age, rather than chronological age, has been ongoing for over three decades, and until recently, largely without success. Advances in the fields of molecular biology have increased the variety of potential candidate biomarkers that may be considered as biological age predictors. In this review, we summarize current state-of-the-art findings considering six potential types of biological age predictors: epigenetic clocks, telomere(definition) length, transcriptomic predictors, proteomic predictors, metabolomics-based predictors, and composite biomarker predictors. Promising developments consider multiple combinations of these various types of predictors, which may shed light on the aging process and provide further understanding of what contributes to healthy aging. Thus far, the most promising, new biological age predictor is the epigenetic clock(definition); however its true value as a biomarker of aging requires longitudinal confirmation.

◌ CITATION ONLY
Full text is not openly licensed for redistribution here. Read it at the source:

Read at source →

Provenance

Source
OpenAlex
DOI
10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046
Canonical
link ↗
Fetched
2026-07-22 MST

Cite this

APA
Jylhävä, J., Pedersen, N.L., &amp; Hägg, S. (2017). Biological Age Predictors. <em>EBioMedicine</em>. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046
Vancouver
Jylhävä J, Pedersen NL, Hägg S. Biological Age Predictors. EBioMedicine. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046.
BibTeX
@article{juulia2017Biolog, title = {Biological Age Predictors}, author = {Juulia Jylhävä and Nancy L. Pedersen and Sara Hägg}, journal = {EBioMedicine}, year = {2017}, doi = {10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046}, }

Research neighborhood

References, citing works, and semantically nearest findings. Click a node to open it.

Related findings