Measures and markers of biological aging: ‘a great clamoring … of fleeting significance’: An answer to W. Dean and R.F. Morgan, this volume, pp. 191–210

https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4943(88)90003-9Get rights and content

Abstract

In response to Dean and Morgan (1988), we review our position on approaches to functional or biological aging. Researchers have attempted to assess an hypothesized underlying ‘rate of aging’ by combining information from the functioning of several different physical or psychological systems. None of these attempts has yet demonstrated success; because many different processes contribute to what we call ‘aging’, the concept of a single biological age is itself probably fundamentally flawed. We advocate more sophisticated interdisciplinary and longitudinal research as the best hope for understanding and ameliorating the effects of aging processes.

References (16)

  • R.C. Adelman

    Editorial: Biomarkers of aging

    Exp. Gerontol.

    (1987)
  • W. Dean et al.

    In defense of the concept of biological aging measurement — current status

    Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr.

    (1988)
  • D. Arenberg

    Differences and changes with age in the Benton Visual Retention Test

    J. Gerontol.

    (1978)
  • G.A. Borkan

    The assessment of biological age during adulthood

  • G.A. Borkan et al.

    Assessment of biological age using a profile of physical parameters

    J. Gerontol.

    (1980)
  • P.T. Costa et al.
  • Ingram, D.K.: Key questions in developing biomarkers of aging. Exp. Gerontol., in...
  • D.K. Ingram et al.

    Assessing the predictive validity of psychomotor tests as measures of biological age in mice

    Exp. Aging Res.

    (1986)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (17)

  • Untangling Aging Using Dynamic, Organism-Level Phenotypic Networks

    2019, Cell Systems
    Citation Excerpt :

    This approach provides an accessible conceptual framework and has been applied to a number of data modalities, from DNA methylation to physiological parameters (Borkan and Norris, 1980; Horvath, 2013; Levine, 2013; Nakamura and Miyao, 2007), but it reduces the comparison of complex biological states to the comparison of single numbers, which destroys information. Because it assumes that most, or even all, relevant age-dependent differences between individuals can be captured by a single dimension, the concept of a single biological age is itself probably fundamentally flawed (Costa and McCrae, 1988). Fortunately, reducing a network of phenotypes to a single biological age is unnecessary given modern analytics; fully utilizing this type of network model requires departing from reductionism, embracing complexity and the idea of emergent phenomena, and navigating high-dimensional analysis (Cohen, 2016), but the reward is a far more accurate picture of reality.

  • Epigenetic Biomarkers for Biological Age

    2018, Epigenetics of Aging and Longevity: Translational Epigenetics vol 4
  • Basic results for assessment of human ageing

    1991, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
  • Recent Advances in the Systems Biology of Aging

    2018, Antioxidants and Redox Signaling
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text