Epigenetic clocks and programmatic aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has seen remarkable progress in the characterization of methylation clocks that can serve as indicators of biological age in humans and many other mammalian species. While the biological processes of aging that underlie these clocks have remained unclear, several clues have pointed to a link to developmental mechanisms. These include the presence in the vicinity of clock CpG sites of genes that specify development, including those of the Hox (homeobox) and polycomb classes. Here we discuss how recent advances in programmatic theories of aging provide a framework within which methylation clocks can be understood as part of a developmental process of aging. This includes how such clocks evolve, how developmental mechanisms cause aging, and how they give rise to late-life disease. The combination of ideas from evolutionary biology, biogerontology and developmental biology open a path to a new discipline, that of developmental gerontology ( devo-gero ). Drawing on the properties of methylation clocks, we offer several new hypotheses that exemplify devo-gero thinking. We suggest that polycomb controls a trade-off between earlier developmental fidelity and later developmental plasticity. We also propose the existence of an evolutionarily-conserved developmental sequence spanning ontogenesis, adult development and aging, that both constrains and determines the evolution of aging. • Epigenetic clocks can be understood in terms of the programmatic theory of aging. • Onto-developmental and maturo-developmental processes should be distinguished. • Clock-linked polycomb function conferring plasticity may also promote aging • A conserved birth-to-death developmental sequence may underlie epigenetic clocks. • Combining the biology of development and aging ( devo-gero ) provides new insight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".