A comparison of blood and brain‐derived ageing and inflammation‐related DNA methylation signatures and their association with microglial burdens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inflammation and ageing‐related DNA methylation patterns in the blood have been linked to a variety of morbidities, including cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disease. However, it is unclear how these blood‐based patterns relate to patterns within the brain and how each associates with central cellular profiles. In this study, we profiled DNA methylation in both the blood and in five post mortem brain regions (BA17, BA20/21, BA24, BA46 and hippocampus) in 14 individuals from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936. Microglial burdens were additionally quantified in the same brain regions. DNA methylation signatures of five epigenetic ageing biomarkers (‘epigenetic clocks’), and two inflammatory biomarkers (methylation proxies for C‐reactive protein and interleukin‐6) were compared across tissues and regions. Divergent associations between the inflammation and ageing signatures in the blood and brain were identified, depending on region assessed. Four out of the five assessed epigenetic age acceleration measures were found to be highest in the hippocampus (β range = 0.83–1.14, p ≤ 0.02). The inflammation‐related DNA methylation signatures showed no clear variation across brain regions. Reactive microglial burdens were found to be highest in the hippocampus (β = 1.32, p = 5 × 10 −4 ); however, the only association identified between the blood‐ and brain‐based methylation signatures and microglia was a significant positive association with acceleration of one epigenetic clock (termed DNAm PhenoAge) averaged over all five brain regions (β = 0.40, p = 0.002). This work highlights a potential vulnerability of the hippocampus to epigenetic ageing and provides preliminary evidence of a relationship between DNA methylation signatures in the brain and differences in microglial burdens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".