Abstract
Some humans age faster than others. Variation in biological aging can be measured in midlife, but the implications of this variation are poorly understood. We tested associations between midlife biological aging and indicators of future frailty risk in the Dunedin cohort of 1,037 infants born the same year and followed to age 45. Participants’ ‘Pace of Aging’ was quantified by tracking declining function in 19 biomarkers indexing the cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, immune, dental and pulmonary systems across ages 26, 32, 38 and 45 years. At age 45 in 2019, participants with faster Pace of Aging had more cognitive difficulties, signs of advanced brain aging, diminished sensory–motor functions, older appearances and more pessimistic perceptions of aging. People who are aging more rapidly than same-age peers in midlife may prematurely need supports to sustain independence that are usually reserved for older adults. Chronological age does not adequately identify need for such supports.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Data availability
The Dunedin Study datasets reported in the current Article are not publicly available due to a lack of informed consent and ethical approval for public data sharing. The Dunedin study datasets are available on request by qualified scientists. Requests require a concept paper describing the purpose of data access, ethical approval at the applicant’s university and provision for secure data access (https://moffittcaspi.trinity.duke.edu/research-topics/dunedin). We offer secure access on the Duke, Otago and King’s College campuses.
Code availability
Custom code that supports the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author on request.
References
Vos, T. et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2163–2196 (2012).
Crimmins, E. M. Lifespan and healthspan: past, present, and promise. Gerontologist 55, 901–911 (2015).
Kaeberlein, M. Longevity and aging. F1000Prime Rep. 5, 5 (2013).
Kirkwood, T. B. L. Understanding the odd science of aging. Cell 120, 437–447 (2005).
Gladyshev, V. N. Aging: progressive decline in fitness due to the rising deleteriome adjusted by genetic, environmental, and stochastic processes. Aging Cell 15, 594–602 (2016).
Kennedy, B. K. et al. Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell 159, 709–713 (2014).
Kaeberlein, M., Rabinovitch, P. S. & Martin, G. M. Healthy aging: the ultimate preventative medicine. Science 350, 1191–1193 (2015).
Ferrucci, L. & Fabbri, E. Inflammageing: chronic inflammation in ageing, cardiovascular disease, and frailty. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 15, 505–522 (2018).
Melzer, D., Pilling, L. C. & Ferrucci, L. The genetics of human ageing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 88–101 (2020).
Chen, B. H. et al. DNA methylation-based measures of biological age: meta-analysis predicting time to death. Aging 8, 1844–1865 (2016).
Parker, D. C. et al. Association of blood chemistry quantifications of biological aging with disability and mortality in older adults. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 16, 1671–1679 (2020).
Levine, M. E. Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 68, 667–674 (2013).
Belsky, D. W. et al. Eleven telomere, epigenetic clock, and biomarker-composite quantifications of biological aging: do they measure the same thing? Am. J. Epidemiol. 187, 1220–1230 (2018).
Li, Q. et al. Homeostatic dysregulation proceeds in parallel in multiple physiological systems. Aging Cell 14, 1103–1112 (2015).
Sebastiani, P. et al. Biomarker signatures of aging. Aging Cell 16, 329–338 (2017).
Levine, M. E. et al. An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging 10, 573–591 (2018).
Sierra, F. Geroscience and the challenges of aging societies. Aging Med. 2, 132–134 (2019).
Fahy, G. M. et al. Reversal of epigenetic aging and immunosenescent trends in humans. Aging Cell 18, e13028 (2019).
Belsky, D. W., Huffman, K. M., Pieper, C. F., Shalev, I. & Kraus, W. E. Change in the rate of biological aging in response to caloric restriction: CALERIE Biobank. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 73, 4–10 (2017).
Moffitt, T. E., Belsky, D. W., Danese, A., Poulton, R. & Caspi, A. The longitudinal study of aging in human young adults: knowledge gaps and research agenda. J. Gerontol. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 72, 210–215 (2017).
Poulton, R., Moffitt, T. E. & Silva, P. A. The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study: overview of the first 40 years, with an eye to the future. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 50, 679–693 (2015).
Belsky, D. W. et al. Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E4104–E4110 (2015).
Wilson, R. S., Leurgans, S. E., Boyle, P. A., Schneider, J. A. & Bennett, D. A. Neurodegenerative basis of age-related cognitive decline. Neurology 75, 1070–1078 (2010).
Feigin, V. L. et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 18, 459–480 (2019).
Elliott, M. L. MRI-Based biomarkers of accelerated aging and dementia risk in midlife: how close are we?. Ageing Res. Rev. 61, 101075 (2020).
Sperling, R., Mormino, E. & Johnson, K. The evolution of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: implications for prevention trials. Neuron 84, 608–622 (2014).
Rensma, S. P., van Sloten, T. T., Launer, L. J. & Stehouwer, C. D. A. Cerebral small vessel disease and risk of incident stroke, dementia and depression, and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 90, 164–173 (2018).
Franke, K. & Gaser, C. Longitudinal changes in individual BrainAGE in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease. GeroPsych (Bern) 25, 235–245 (2012).
Fjell, A. M. et al. Accelerating cortical thinning: unique to dementia or universal in aging? Cereb. Cortex 24, 919–934 (2014).
Glasser, M. F. et al. A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature 536, 171–178 (2016).
Nyberg, L. & Pudas, S. Successful memory aging. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 219–243 (2019).
Liem, F. et al. Predicting brain-age from multimodal imaging data captures cognitive impairment. Neuroimage 148, 179–188 (2017).
Tucker-Drob, E. M. Cognitive aging and dementia: a life-span. Perspect. Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 1, 177–196 (2019).
Whalley, L. J. et al. Childhood mental ability and dementia. Neurology 55, 1455–1459 (2000).
Knudtson, M. D., Klein, B. E. K. & Klein, R. Biomarkers of aging and falling: the beaver dam eye study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 22–26 (2009).
Studenski, S. et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305, 50–58 (2011).
Rantanen, T. et al. Midlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 281, 558–560 (1999).
Genther, D. J. et al. Association of hearing impairment and mortality in older adults. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 70, 85–90 (2015).
Lin, F. R. et al. Hearing loss and cognition in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Neuropsychology 25, 763–770 (2011).
Rippon, I. & Steptoe, A. Feeling old vs being old: associations between self-perceived age and mortality. JAMA Intern. Med. 175, 307–309 (2015).
Levy, B. R., Slade, M. D. & Kasl, S. V. Longitudinal benefit of positive self-perceptions of aging on functional health. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 57, 409–417 (2002).
Brown, R. T. & Covinsky, K. E. Moving prevention of functional impairment upstream: is middle age an ideal time for intervention? Women’s Midlife Heal. 6, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40695-020-00054-z (2020).
Brunner, E. J. et al. Midlife contributors to socioeconomic differences in frailty during later life: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal. 3, E313–E222 (2018).
Livingston, G. et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet 396, 413–446 (2020).
Barzilai, N., Crandall, J. P., Kritchevsky, S. B. & Espeland, M. A. Metformin as a tool to target aging. Cell Metab. 23, 1060–1065 (2016).
Justice, J. N. & Kritchevsky, S. B. Putting epigenetic biomarkers to the test for clinical trials. eLife 9, e54870 (2020).
Schaie, K. W. Age changes and age differences. Gerontologist 7, 128–132 (1967).
Belsky, D. W., Ma, J., Cohen, A. A., Griffith, L. E. & Raina, P. Comparing biological age estimates using domain-specific measures from the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 76, 187–194 (2021).
Feng, D., Silverstein, M., Giarrusso, R., McArdle, J. J. & Bengtson, V. L. Attrition of older adults in longitudinal surveys: detection and correction of sample selection bias using multigenerational data. J. Gerontol. B Psychol Sci. Soc. Sci. 61, S323–S328 (2006).
Goudy, W. J. Sample attrition and multivariate analysis in the retirement history study. J. Gerontol. 40, 358–367 (1985).
Belsky, D. W. et al. Quantification of the pace of biological aging in humans through a blood test, the DunedinPoAm DNA methylation algorithm. eLife 9, e54870 (2020).
Funder, D. C. & Ozer, D. J. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 156–168 (2019).
Hofer, S. M., Sliwinski, M. J. & Flaherty, B. P. Understanding ageing: further commentary on the limitations of cross-sectional designs for ageing research. Gerontology 48, 22–29 (2002).
Goldman, D. P. et al. Substantial health and economic returns from delayed aging may warrant a new focus for medical research. Health Aff. 32, 1698–1705 (2013).
Moffitt, T. E. Behavioral and social research to accelerate the geroscience translation agenda. Ageing Res. Rev. 63, 101146 (2020).
Sierra, F. et al. The role of multidisciplinary team science in overcoming barriers to moving geroscience from the bench to clinical care and health policy. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. (in the press).
Arias, E. United States Life Tables, 2017. National Vital Statistics Reports 68, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_07-508.pdf (2019).
Song, Z. Potential implications of lowering the medicare eligibility age to 60. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 323, 2472–2473 (2020).
Moffitt, R. A. & Ziliak, J. P. Entitlements: options for reforming the social safety net in the United States. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 686, 8–35 (2019).
Richmond-Rakerd, L. S. et al. Clustering of health, crime and social-welfare inequality in 4 million citizens from two nations. Nat. Hum. Behav. 44, 255–264 (2020).
Thomas, S. Telomeres as sentinels for environmental exposures, psychosocial stress, and disease susceptibility. In Workshop Summary. A Workshop Co-sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) (Rose Li and Associates, 2017).
Glasser, M. F. et al. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the human connectome project. Neuroimage 80, 105–124 (2013).
Greve, D. N. & Fischl, B. Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-based registration. Neuroimage 48, 63–72 (2009).
Robinson, E. C. et al. MSM: a new flexible framework for multimodal surface matching. Neuroimage 100, 414–426 (2014).
Elliott, M. L. et al. What is the test–retest reliability of common task-functional MRI measures? New empirical evidence and a meta-analysis. Psychol. Sci. 31, 792–806 (2020).
Jiang, J. et al. UBO detector – a cluster-based, fully automated pipeline for extracting white matter hyperintensities. Neuroimage 174, 539–549 (2018).
d’Arbeloff, T. et al. White matter hyperintensities are common in midlife and already associated with cognitive decline. Brain Commun. 1, fcz041 (2019).
Jahanshad, N. et al. Multi-site genetic analysis of diffusion images and voxelwise heritability analysis: a pilot project of the ENIGMA-DTI working group. Neuroimage 81, 455–469 (2013).
Smith, S. M. et al. Tract-based spatial statistics: Voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data. Neuroimage 31, 1487–1505 (2006).
Mori, S. et al. Stereotaxic white matter atlas based on diffusion tensor imaging in an ICBM template. Neuroimage 40, 570–582 (2008).
Elliott, M. L. et al. Brain-age in midlife is associated with accelerated biological aging and cognitive decline in a longitudinal birth cohort. Mol. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0626-7 (2019).
Liang, H., Zhang, F. & Niu, X. Investigating systematic bias in brain age estimation with application to post‐traumatic stress disorders. Hum. Brain Mapp. 40, 3143–3152 https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24588 (2019).
Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 4th edn (Pearson Assessment, 2008).
Wechsler, D. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (Psychological Corporation, 1974).
Tucker-Drob, E. M., Brandmaier, A. M. & Lindenberger, U. Coupled cognitive changes in adulthood: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 145, 273–301 (2019).
Lezak, D, Howieson, D, Loring, D, Hannay, H. & Fischer, J. Neuropsychological Assessment 4th edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2004).
Ganguli, M. Can the DSM-5 framework enhance the diagnosis of MCI? Neurology 81, 2045–2050 (2013).
Rasmussen, L. J. H. et al. Association of neurocognitive and physical function with gait speed in midlife. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e1913123 (2019).
Bohannon, R. W., Larkin, P. A., Cook, A. C., Gear, J. & Singer, J. Decrease in timed balance test scores with aging. Phys. Ther. 64, 1067–1070 (1984).
Vereeck, L., Wuyts, F., Truijen, S. & Van de Heyning, P. Clinical assessment of balance: normative data, and gender and age effects. Int. J. Audiol. 47, 67–75 (2008).
Springer, B. A., Marin, R., Cyhan, T., Roberts, H. & Gill, N. W. Normative values for the unipedal stance test with eyes open and closed. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 30, 8–15 (2007).
Jones, C. J., Rikli, R. E. & Beam, W. C. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 70, 113–119 (1999).
Jones, C. J. & Rikli, R. E. Measuring functional fitness of older adults. J. Act. Aging 2002, 24–30 (2002).
Rikli, R. E. & Jones, C. J. Functional fitness normative scores for community-residing older adults, ages 60–94. J. Aging Phys. Act. 7, 162–181 (1999).
Mathiowetz, V. et al. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 66, 69–74 (1985).
Cameron, S. & Dillon, H. Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear. 28, 196–211 (2007).
RAND 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36); https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html
DeBruine, L. debruine/webmorph: Beta release v.2 (Zenodo, 2018); https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.1162670
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) grant nos. R01AG032282 and R01AG049789, and the UK Medical Research Council grant no. MR/P005918/1. Additional support was provided by the Jacobs Foundation, grant nos. NIA P30 AG028716 and NIA P30 AG034424. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit was supported by the New Zealand Health Research Council (Project Grant nos. 15-265 and 16-604) and the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). M.L.E. is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (no. NSF DGE-1644868) and grant no. NIA F99 AG068432-01. We thank members of the Advisory Board for the Dunedin Neuroimaging Study, Dunedin Study members, Unit research staff, Pacific Radiology Group staff and study founder P. Silva.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.L.E., A.C., A.R.H., R.P. and T.E.M. designed the research. M.L.E., A.C., R.M.H, A.A., J.M.B., R.J.H., H.L.H., S.H., R.K., A.K., J.H.L., T.R.M., S.C.P., S.R., L.S.R.-R., A.R., K.S., W.M.T., P.R.T., B.S.W., G.W., A.R.H., R.P. and T.E.M. performed the research. M.L.E., R.M.H. and A.K. analyzed data. M.L.E., A.C., A.R.H. and T.E.M. wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Aging thanks William Jagust, Juulia Jylhava, Diana Kuh, John Rowe and Thomas Travison for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–7 and Tables 1–7.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elliott, M.L., Caspi, A., Houts, R.M. et al. Disparities in the pace of biological aging among midlife adults of the same chronological age have implications for future frailty risk and policy. Nat Aging 1, 295–308 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-021-00044-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-021-00044-4
This article is cited by
-
Human lifespan and sex-specific patterns of resilience to disease: a retrospective population-wide cohort study
BMC Medicine (2024)
-
Self-control is associated with health-relevant disparities in buccal DNA-methylation measures of biological aging in older adults
Clinical Epigenetics (2024)
-
Consequences of heterogeneity in aging: parental age at death predicts midlife all-cause mortality and hospitalization in a Swedish national birth cohort
BMC Geriatrics (2024)
-
A novel approach to quantifying individual's biological aging using Korea’s national health screening program toward precision public health
GeroScience (2024)
-
Posttraumatic stress disorder, trauma, and accelerated biological aging among post-9/11 veterans
Translational Psychiatry (2024)