FoundMyFitness - #072 Morgan Levine, PhD, on PhenoAge and the Epigenetics of Age Acceleration — can we change the pace?

Episode Date: April 12, 2022

Morgan Levine, Ph.D., developed the phenotypic aging clock called PhenoAge and is a Founding Principal Investigator at Altos Labs, a biotech company that seeks to understand the mechanisms that drive the aging process and age-related diseases with the hope of identifying possible interventions. Additionally, Dr. Levine is an assistant professor of pathology at the Yale University School of Medicine, where her research focuses on the science of biological aging. Dr. Levine completed a postdoctoral fellowship with previous guest Dr. Steve Horvath, a pioneer in the field of epigenetic clocks.  In this episode, Dr. Levine and I discuss:  (00:00) Introduction to Dr. Morgan Levine (01:19) What is aging and why does it matter to scientists? (04:45) Hallmarks of aging (08:59) The advantage of epigenetic clocks in research (19:05) Epigenetic age acceleration (36:40) Are epigenetic changes in aging a cause or consequence? (42:15) Reversing epigenetic age with interrupted reprogramming techniques (49:27) Therapeutic plasma exchange in aging and pro-aging factors in blood  (56:01) Lifestyle factors that accelerate epigenetic age (01:03:23) Reliability of consumer epigenetic aging tests (01:06:12) Construct validity of epigenetic clocks (01:12:06) Thoughts on most exciting research in aging field  (01:13:44) Dr. Levine's lifestyle habits Get the show notes Looking for more? Join over 300,000 people and get the latest distilled information on sleep, depression, and fasting straight to your inbox weekly: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/newsletter Try thirty days of our FoundMyFitness premium member to get access to exclusive episodes, emails, a live Q+A with Rhonda and more: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/trial

Hello, my friends. The conversation you're about to listen to features Dr. Morgan Levine, a founding principal investigator at Altos Labs, a new biotechnology company focused on the development of cellular rejuvenation technology. Altos Labs has been in the press quite a bit recently for bringing together pioneers of epigenetics, epigenetic clocks and tissue reprogramming. Dr. Levine, as an expert in the field of epigenetics, brings much to the table here, which I suspect, should make this episode an enjoyable one for many. Dr. Levine's research background is in the study of epigenetic aging, with the goal of trying to understand the underlying mechanisms that cause aging. To paraphrase Dr. Levine, epigenetics in many ways is the operating system of the cell.

While all of our cells essentially have the same DNA, the epigenetic program is largely what imbues our cells with their identity, whether that's a skin cell or a neuron. This program, which gets rewritten as we age, also gives ourselves characteristics that differentiate them from those of a younger person, such as the ability to withstand stress and more. So it's important to recognize that our epigenetics respond at least to some degree to environmental inputs, in other words, to how we live. A word of advice. if avoiding unnecessary epigenetic age acceleration is your goal.

Avoid harmful habits like smoking in particular and prioritize keeping a healthy body weight. These two may be big smoking guns when it comes to accelerated epigenetic aging. In this episode, Dr. Levine and I discuss how aging is defined, what the hallmarks of aging are, and what Dr. Levine thinks may be the key drivers of aging. What epigenetic aging means, how it is measured by different types of epigenetic clocks, and how these different clocks can be used for different predictive purposes, such as identifying chronological age, biological age, and even time to death. Why some people age faster or slower than others.

How Levine's pheno-age epigenetic aging clock can quantify that, and how that compares to other clinical biomarkers used to measure biological aging. Whether epigenetic aging is a cause or an effect of aging or enticingly both. Whether the pace of epigenetic aging changes throughout life. How interrupted reprogramming techniques can reverse epigenetic aging and biomarkers of biological aging. What the reliability of consumer available epigenetic clock tests are and so much more. Dr. Levine also has a new book coming out. If you enjoy this episode, be sure to show Dr. Levine some love and set yourself up with the pre-order.

Her book is coming out on May 3, 2022, and it's entitled True Age, Cutting Edge Research to Help Turn Back the Clock. You can find it on Amazon. Before we dive deep into epigenetic aging, I want to mention a couple more things relevant to this episode. If you find yourself deeply intrigued with today's discussion, I would encourage you to go back a few episodes and listen to the chat I had with Morgan's colleague and former postdoctoral advisor, Dr. Steve Horvath, also a founding principal investigator at Altos Labs. In episode 62, you'll find some overlap with this discussion, but some surprises too, like a brief discussion of the potential forensic value of epigenetic clocks. Also, if you're interested in learning more about epigenetic clocks, please check out the

topic article available on my website. You can find this quickly by going to foundmyfitness.com forward slash topics or simply searching on Google, found my fitness epigenetic aging clocks. And now let's dive into the phenomenal episode with Dr. Morgan Levine. Lastly, if you want to get notified when we release great overview topic articles like the one we did on epigenetic agent clocks, then you should be on my email newsletter. You will also get emails with great show notes and clickable timelines to each episode, including this one. You can find that at foundmyfitness.com forward slash newsletter or just Google Rhonda Patrick

newsletter. Separately, in order to keep the show going, some frequent listeners elect to become premium members of Found My Fitness. If you follow me on social media and you like the science studies I frequently post, then you should sign up for our Science News Digest. You'll get a summary and extra information about a few key studies I think you should know about twice a month. Try it for free for 30 days and get access to my next live Q&A, which happens monthly. We also produce special short episodes that often build on material taken from these interviews.

These special curated segments are called Aliquots. We release multiple every single month, which means you could be getting an almost weekly dose of Found My Fitness in Aliquot form in your podcast player. You can find that at Found My Fitness.com. com forward slash trial or just Google Rhonda Patrick Premium. Welcome back, everyone. I'm really excited to be sitting here with Dr. Morgan Levine, who is an assisted professor at Yale. Her research focuses on understanding the science of aging.

She uses bioinformatics to quantify the aging process using something called epigenetic aging clocks, which we are going to talk about in great detail today. Her research really aims to understand the underlying mechanisms that drive the aging process with the hope of potentially testing interventions, whether they're lifestyle or pharmacologic, that can perturb the aging process. And when I say perturb, I mean, maybe slow. So she's also a principal investigator at Altos Labs, which is a new biotech company that also aims to understand the underlying mechanism. that drive the aging process, again, with the hope of possibly having interventions

that could slow aging. So again, I'm super excited to be here. It's really great to meet you in person. I've been following your research over the years. You did postdoctoral training in one of my favorite scientist, Dr. Steve Horbath, his lab, and we've had him on the podcast talking about epigenetic aging clocks before. So I was thinking to start this off, we could start We start talking about aging more as a concept.

And maybe you can explain to people how to differentiate between age as a number, so chronological aging, versus biological aging, phenotypic aging, and functional aging. Yeah. So I think even in the field of aging, there isn't a good definition for what we're actually talking about when we're saying we're working on aging. I think most people in the public think of aging in terms of just chronological time, so whatever age your driver's license says or your passport, but really what we care about is this thing that we would call biological aging

or even phenotypic or functional aging, and that is all the changes that your body undergo as a function of this time usually. So aging in our society is kind of a negative connotation, but it's not the years you've been alive that's actually the problem. It's kind of how your body has changed over that time. And not everyone's body changes in the same degree or at the same pace. So that's the really important thing is can we figure out what's changed, how that's going to affect your risk of disease, your functioning ability, or any of these things.

So as you mentioned, we can talk about this in terms of biological age. So we can measure it in terms of molecules and cells, how those have changed in your body. We talk about maybe phenotypic or functional, which I think is kind of how the kind of the stuff you can feel and see in your body. Are you able to, you know, run a mile as quickly as you used to or get up a flight of stairs? And these are the things that people actually worry about losing over their life course. And it's really important to try and quantify these so we can understand what drives these changes and potentially how you would slow that or hopefully like some people are interested in even reverse it. As you mentioned, people do think about chronological age often. For me, when I think about aging, I often will think about functional aging.

I think, I mean, it's more personal for me. I'm worried about becoming demented or losing my cognitive function. Or as you said, I'm not able to walk as well. I'm not, you know, I'm just physically declining. But as a scientist, biological aging is much more interesting because it's more fun. fundamental, would you agree? Yeah, and it's really where we think it all starts. So we kind of take a perspective of what we would consider these biological levels of organization.

So you have all the kind of molecules and atoms in your body that kind of feed into, you know, cells that make up tissues, that make up whole organ systems and then the whole organism. And we think the aging process, all these changes are starting at these lower levels. So you have changes in molecules and cells. But we don't see that until you feel it at these higher levels, until you feel you have weaker muscles or you're not thinking as well as you used to. And that's really once it's reached a certain level. But if we talk about understanding what's driving these and where to intervene,

you have to do it at the lower levels if you want to affect all those things that we see and feel every day. So there's some pretty well-defined hallmarks of aging. And as you know, these are things like genomic instability, telomere, you know, shortening cellular senescence, mitochondrial dysfunction, epigenetic alterations, nutrient sensing problems or dysfunction, stem cell depletion. So there's quite a few of these hallmarks that are sort of accepted within most, you know, of the scientific community as the drive, they together seem to drive the aging process in a way, right?

As you mentioned at the molecular level, cellular level. I'm sort of curious what your thoughts are on what some of the major, what you think some of the major drivers of aging are, caveats included, or why it's important to really understand what those drivers of aging are. Yeah, I think, you know, there's a big push in the field to figure out what's causal in aging.

Like, what are the things that are changing, that are really pushing this aging process and driving all the other changes. And I don't think we have a good idea about that. You know, what's actually causal versus just correlative. It's just an outcome of aging that we can observe. In my lab, we're really interested in epigenetics, and that's mostly because I think of the epigenetics

as the operating system of a cell. So most of the cells in your body have essentially the same DNA, but what makes something a neuron or, you know, a brain cell, cell or a skin cell is the epigenetic program. So it gives the cells the ability to respond to stress. It gives them almost their kind of physical form and all of the things that they are supposed to do. The problem is that this program gets completely rewritten with aging and we don't know exactly

why, whether it's errors or whether it's just the program kind of having glitches along the way. But we think that this then produces cells that are not adapting correctly to the their environment or maybe doing things they shouldn't be doing. And potentially this is something we think might cause aging, although there's still some debate on whether it's truly causal in the aging process. And I would say no one really knows yet what the true causes are. Can you, since your research really does focus on the epigenetic alterations, can you

explain to people what epigenetic aging clocks are generally speaking? And then maybe we can get into some of the differences. between the first generation epigenetic aging clocks, Horibeth clock, and then second generation, Levine, or pheno age that's also called and grim age. Yep, absolutely. So there are a bunch of different types of epigenetic modifications, but the type that these clocks are based on

is something called CPG methylation or DNA methylation. And really what that means is you can look across, you know, one strand of DNA, and we know we have A, C, G, and T. But you have these regions, which we call CPG sites and that's where you basically just have a C right next to a G. And these tend to be located in specific regulatory regions of the genome. But what happens is the CPGs can become methylated. Some of them are supposed to be methylated from the beginning.

But what we find with aging is that the ones that we expect to have methylation lose methylation with aging and the ones that shouldn't have methylation, gain methylation with aging. And the methylation in this is basically turning on or off different parts of your genome. So when you have methylation, we can essentially assume that part is repressed. So that wherever it is in the genome is not accessible, you're not expressing the genes in that region. Vers when you remove the methylation, we consider this more an active region. So epigenetic clocks look across either hundreds or hundreds of thousands of these sites

and just say, does the pattern of whether you have methamphetamine? or not resemble someone of a given age typically. So he would say, oh, your pattern looks like someone who is 40 years old, even though maybe you're 50 years old chronologically. And what we find is that that kind of difference is biologically meaningful. What do you think the major advantages of using these epigenetic aging clocks are in terms of, you know, their use? Yeah.

Yeah. interested in this idea of quantifying biological aging or estimating biological aging, because again, chronological age is just an imperfect proxy of this process that we actually that we actually care about, that is why people get diseases when they get older, why people die when they get older. So if you can actually quantify the process as best as possible, it's better than chronological age. But there's been some disagreement on the types of data or the types markers that you could use to do that. Some people think we should look at just, you know, clinical markers and those are useful. But for me, the exciting thing about epigenetic clocks

and measuring DNA methylation for this is that you can use the exact same clock across almost any tissue type and almost any cell types. So I can compare aging in, again, skin to aging in brain using the exact same measure. And I don't think there's any other type of body. biomarker that you could do that with. What about the differences in these clocks with respect to the original Horveth clock you hear about versus the one that you developed with your mentor, Steve Horbath, with respect to phenotypic aging, the tick of age clock, grim age, what are some of the major differences in those clocks in terms of their predictive power?

Yep. So the original clocks were used. So when you develop these clocks or trained as clocks, we use machine learning, so we're usually trying to predict something. So you take all your methylation data and you say, how can I predict whatever this is? And the original clocks use chronological age. So the idea is, can I look at methylation and predict someone's chronological age? And so again, that's kind of this idea of you have the pattern of someone who's this age.

But we know, again, chronological age is an imperfect proxy of this process. We're actually trying to quantify. So what the second generation clocks did, the one that we published in 2018 was the first example, is we said, oh, can we come up with a better thing to try and kind of tune these measures too? So in that case, we used kind of normal lab tests that we combined into a measure that was predictive of mortality, and then we trained a predictor of those lab tests. And similar thing was done with the Grimmage clock where they took these different proteins

and they train predictors of that, and then train the predictor of mortality. So we think that something that captures mortality or health span or kind of physiological decline is going to be a better thing to tune these clocks to than just chronological age. How do these epigenetic age in clocks, I think more specifically the second generation,

one's the pheno age one that you mentioned, or the grim age, compare to measuring biological age to like be some of these clinical biomarkers, so HBA1C or cholesterol, you know, lung function, like the classical things that people are measuring to measure biological age. And of course, I think a similar question would be also mortality risk as well.

How do they compare in terms of their predictive power as a biomarker? So if you're measuring the epigenic clock in blood, I would actually say that they're on par with not the individual clinical lab test. So they're going to be more predicted than, if I just look at HBA1C or just look at cholesterol. But we can also combine these clinical tests into a single kind of risk measure, which is

what we do with pheno age. And then I would say they're actually on par with that. The advantage of epigenetic clocks is, again, you can get a different measure for different tissues or cells in your body. So the blood test, these clinical tests, you'll get one measure, one biological age measure out of them. But for the epigenic clocks, we can measure your skin's age or, you know, if you had a biopsy, you can measure different organs age. So even though people usually just use them in blood, they have a lot more potential just to compare kind of how different organ systems are aging.

I kind of, that was kind of my next question a bit is that, you know, as you know, people age at different rates, but even within an individual, their organs can be aging at different rates as well. I know there's been work from Dr. Mike Snyder who we had on the podcast not too long ago who, I know you're familiar with his work, showing that some people are metabolic agers, so their liver and their, you know, kidneys and they may age quicker. Some people are cardiac agers where they seem to be more at risk for having heart problems, or there could be immune agers, so their immune system is in, they're more susceptible to pathogens

and stuff with age. So if you were to measure like a blood sample from a person using, you know, you know, Would the epigenetic clocks pick up that? Or is it measuring more of the systems level type of aging? So the current ones are not going to capture more of this multidimensionality in aging. And I'm a huge fan of Mike Snyder's work and actually is kind of influencing some of the work that we're doing now. So what we're actually trying to do now is to build clocks that are proxying aging in different organ systems. So these aren't out yet.

But the idea is that if you can build a clock that's going to essentially try and proxy what your brain aging is or your liver aging, your kidney aging, then you can have multiple kind of epigenetic age estimates and really understand more of the profile of a person. And so, yeah, it's kind of getting back to this idea of ageotypes. We both age at a different rate from each other, but also in a different way, right? So I might diverge more down this way and be more of a metabolic age or whatever it is, and someone else might be more of an immune ageer. And understanding that is going to give people both potentially insight into what interventions might be the most helpful for them and also what they might be most at risk for.

Right. Mortality risk is a big one that you see with grim age and even, I think, pheno age as well. how does that, like how well do they predict mortality risk and even disease, you know, specific mortality, like your cancer mortality risk for your, and how do they compare to like a frailty risk or a frailty index measurement or something like that where, you know, you can also measure mortality risk? Yeah, so they're actually pretty powerful when it comes to mortality risk. And I would say right now Grimage is the best in terms of predicting what we would consider

all-cause mortality, so basically any mortality risk. all combined together. Grimmage is particularly good at cardiovascular risk mortality, which is why it does well at all cause mortality, because that's the biggest killer of people, at least in the United States. But I think in terms of predicting more specific types of mortality that someone might be more or less at risk for,

I think this is where you need more of these systems measures. But they are pretty powerful at predicting kind of remaining life expectancy are all cause mortality. Of course they can't predict who is going to get hit by a bus or whatever. But in terms of kind of population averages, are you more or less likely than someone else with the same chronological age to have early mortality? They're actually pretty good at that. What about in young people?

So it's really fascinating because, you know, like when I think about mortality risk, I think of like an older person going in, doing a battery of tests, getting all their blood work done, and trying to do their grip strength and breathing to do that, you know, and I think about, so I think about more of like things that are being measured and aggregated together to come up with this frailty index. But for someone who's younger, like in their 30s, like, and they go and do all this stuff, like, I don't know that it's really going to be a good predictor of their mortality. They're young. You know, they've got pretty good lung function. You know, you know what I mean? So is this where grim age may shot? Like, if you have a third,

30-year-old or 25-year-old and they do their grim age, does it like accurately predict mortality of this? Yeah, so we don't have these really, really long follow-up studies, but at least the preliminary data seems that it's going to be much better for young people. Because exactly, as you said, these functional things are going to have what we consider either a floor or ceiling effect. So for most people below some certain age, they're all going to perform well on it. They're not at a level where they're seeing dysfunctional decline yet, which goes back to

this idea of biological age versus functional age, whereas the epigenetic clock are meant to capture more this biological, molecular, aging that we think will eventually feed into that. So if you can say, oh, you're aging faster at a molecular level than we'd expect, we'll also expect you down the road probably to have these functional manifestations earlier, even if we can't see them yet. So I totally agree. In younger people, when these things haven't really emerged,

this is kind of the only way to kind of proxy who might be heading in that direction. Totally. I mean, you can't look in the mirror and go, I've got more DNA damage today. Like, you know, like, you're not. Like, but you could be. And lifestyle factors do play a role. And you could have someone who is in their, you know, 30s and they're sort of just living a hard life.

And perhaps they wouldn't pick up on those sort of functional declines yet. But this is where something that is more measuring something biological, you know, at the molecular level that is, that's going to kind of open their eyes. So, but I kind of want to shift gears and talk a little bit about this epigenetic age acceleration. I mean, we've been sort of talking about how people age at different rates. I think you were a co-author on one of the studies, like a few years back that was one of the big ones that came out where it was like, people are.

age at different rates and there was like 18 biomarkers that were looked at and I think it was P&AS or something. Oh yeah, the Belski paper. Yes, yes. And it was like, look at people are aging at different rates and you can even look at their faces and it correlates with their biological age more than their chronological age. So to me, clearly there's lifestyle factors, environmental factors that play a role in the way you age.

Can you explain to people what epigenetic age acceleration is? is and what some of the most robust, biological, environmental, perhaps social causes of epigenetic age acceleration are? Yeah. So we usually use this term age acceleration to just mean kind of the discordance between your chronological age, so the age you know that you are,

and your predicted age based on whether it's grim age, or if you know age, or any of these epigenetic clocks. And that, again, is we think it's biologically meaningful. So someone who's predicted much older than they are chronologically are people who are higher risk for disease or mortality. And so, you know, the next question is why are some people predicted older and other people are predicted younger? And a lot of people think, oh, it's just genetic.

You know, maybe my family is just high risk. But actually, it seems to have very little impact on your epidemi. So I think they estimate like 10, maybe at the uppermost 20% impact, your genes have that kind of impact on your epigenic aging rate. And actually, probably the majority of it is environment and lifestyle. And when we look, again, these are not clinical trials, it's looking at epidemiological data. So just saying in the population, the people who are predicted to be older versus people who are predicted to be younger, what are their characteristics? We find things that are not surprising. So socioeconomic status is a big thing in terms of differences in epigenic age, but also

behaviors. So smoking really accelerates your epigenic age. Generally, exercise will tend to decrease epigenic age. Eating, we think probably plant-based diet is going to decrease epigenetic age. And then, yeah, a lot of the things don't drink heavily, get good, you know, good, you quality, sleep, minimize stress, all the things that everyone's mother and grandmother told them to do in life. How does the male, being a male, affect epigenetic age?

Because males live on average, what, four years? Like their life spans like four or so years shorter than females, right? Is that reflected in epigenetic? Yeah, it is reflected in epigenetic. So on average, not, again, not across the board, but if you look at the distributions, females on average will love slower or lower epigenic age than same age, same chronological age. Similar question. Females undergo menopause when they reach like 50s or something like that, plus or

minus, I don't know how many years, but how does menopause affect epigenetic aging? Yeah, so this is actually a study I did while I was in C-Phorvath lab. So we looked at women who undergone menopause and how long since they'd gone undergone menopause And it seems to be that menopause is actually an epigenic aging accelerated event. So before menopause, women are doing pretty well. And then when they go through menopause, it seems to accelerate their epigenic age. And we didn't have the kind of data you would want where we'd have the same women preimposed, but we can even look at surgical menopause, and that seems to also show this kind of accelerated

epigenic aging kind of manifestation. That kind of leads me into another question. which is, does the change, do the changes in these methylation patterns that you and others are measuring, does it, is it pretty stable over the lifespan or are they like, you know, like once you hit midlife, you know, because like there's functional aging that really starts to hit you, you know, you start to get like, you know, mid, mid, late to midlife and then it starts to go down, right? So does the epigenetic clock mirror that or is it pretty stable?

So it's not stable, but it actually doesn't mirror what we think of in terms of functional aging. So if you think of a frailty index or even mortality risk, it increases exponentially after, let's say, age 30. The epigenic clock show a totally different pattern. It's still not linear, but actually most of the changes happen during development. So you have this huge increase in epigenic age between, we can even measure it in fetal samples. and then it kind of starts becoming more linear and steady around age 20. And then interestingly actually slows down again in, you know, very late. So after, let's say, age 80.

We don't know why these patterns look this way. But yeah, it's not perfectly stable across the life course. Okay, this leads to a couple of other questions that, you know, sort of came in my mind. One is then what about when people get, you know, disease states? So like they do get tattooed diabetes or cardiovascular disease, you know, does that then, being in that disease state in that functional decline like state, does that accelerate the aging clock? So I don't know if we actually know that because we don't have very good, the problem with

epigenic data right now is we don't have good kind of time course data. We're not following people longitudinally. There are very few studies that do this. There are more studies that are starting to, but I don't think we've reached the point to say I can look at someone's epigenic aging pre-disease state and then see what happens after they've developed some disease. But I would imagine that it would probably kind of snowball and accelerate. And we do know not looking at epigenetics that once you get a disease, it's actually a shorter

time to each subsequent disease. So there does seem to be this kind of accelerating event in aging that occurs. Biobank data might be a good source. They do a lot of, you know, it's like they've got just tons and tons of samples that are, you know, because they have people come in for like routine. Yep. Yeah, so we've talked to them. The problem is that the epigenic data is not super cheap.

So, you know, to do that many people that many times, yeah, you have to come up with quite a bit of funding to be able to be. It would be interesting. Yeah, no. I'm all for this. The more data samples we can get, I think the, the, you know, the, you have to come up. better we'll be able to figure this all out. You also mentioned that most of the changes are happening during development and this is

also really interesting. Mostly Steve, when Dr. Steve Horbath was on the podcast last time and this kind of gets into the next section which is like underlying mechanisms causing these changes and in the epigenetic patterns. But he had mentioned that like he's, he had developed at least, you know, back, and maybe there's something new now, but back then a few years ago. So there was a few clocks that he had used that could really beautifully measure gestational age. Which was interesting because measuring the aging process during gestation where you've got

this really coordinated program that has very little background noise, right? You're not, inflammatory processes aren't going off and all this damage and you know this stuff. I mean, it's just a very clean place to like... Yeah. You know, measure aging. So, and then he's also, I think there's a preprint I saw pretty recently where he had developed a universal aging clock.

Oh, mammalian. Yeah, like there was like, I don't know how many different mammalian samples that were, you know, used to generate the clock and I don't understand everything that goes into generating but I just looked at, you know, skimmed it and it was really talking about this universal clock was also really coordinated with development. And so when you're mentioning development, it kind of makes me, it poses the question. Do you think that the epigenetic aging could be a sort of developed, like a program, like a program that's regulating aging?

Like is that a possibility? Yeah, I don't think it was a program designed, you know, some people would argue that it is, you know, a program designed to drive aging. because they think, you know, for species selection, you need things to age and die so that the species can rain. I think it's a developmental program that just doesn't really get turned off and maybe goes a little bit awry as all these other changes start to accumulate in our bodies.

But yes, the epigenic clocks are really tracking something very central to development because most of these changes we can see during development and a lot of the genes that seem to be involved are these developments. developmental genes. We're still, again, not sure what this means or what this program actually is, but it definitely is tied to development. But people would also argue that aging is very tied to development. So you can, there are beautiful experiments in flies where if you can extend kind of the developmental period, it extends the lifespan of these animals. And so development and aging aren't kind of two dichotomous things that we use.

usually think of right that you're going through development, you hit age 20 and, okay, maybe age 20 or 30s when you're aging starts. But there's a lot of great work, even one of my colleagues at Harvard of Adim Gladyshev showing kind of when he thinks this ground zero when aging starts, which is according to him day eight of gestation. So there's... In humans? In humans, yes.

When you said in flies, in fruit flies, justopula probably, you know, there. Yep. When they extend the development, can you explain that? What do you mean by that? Yeah, so I think in this case, actually the study I'm thinking of, they extended kind of the reproductive kind of age of the flies so they can push flies to what we would consider like a late fecundity so they can continue, they can develop a little bit longer and don't reproduce till slightly later.

And how do they do that? It was more like selection. So they're selecting for flies over generations that are going to be these later fecundity flies and they show that they also live longer in the end. Do they do genetic? Like, is it a genetic? Yeah, yeah, exactly. The genes that are controlling it?

Yeah. So a couple of things here then. Back to this, it's very interesting, the development thing. And another thing came to mind from the conversation I had with Steve was he had mentioned, like if you take a cell that has not been immoralized in tissue culture. Yep. And then you immortalize it with a component of telomerase turf. Yeah.

And you essentially overcome. cellular senescence, which is one of the hallmarks of aging, right? When a cell undergoes senescence, I mean, it's pretty much not, I mean, it's still metabolically active, but it's considered sort of the end, right? And these cells, if you continue culture in them, tissue culture, and they just, their epigenetic age just keeps going, going, and going. Yeah, we're actually doing this exact thing in my lab right now where we, we use H-Turt to immortalize cells, and we are just seeing how long, like, there has to be some saturate.

Like, eventually, can it just continue to change forever? I think two people haven't looked at things like heli cells, which have just been changing. You know, they've been evolving for decades. And, like, at what point does the epigenic age kind of reach a saturation point? And, again, I don't think we know. But, yeah, definitely with these immortalized cells, with every time you pass it to them, their epigenic age keeps, at least it seems to continue. to increase over time.

It's interesting. And sort of on the flip side of that would be, like you mentioned, like is the epigenetic aging clocks biomarking something, like something else that's causing aging. And a study that you were a co-author on, I was kind of, as I was preparing for this podcast, I was thinking about it. And I was like, you know, well, in my mind,

I was like, how could you like cause something like that would be massive damage? to accelerate aging. And so I googled cancer chemotherapy, epigenetic clock, and like your paper you're a co-author came up on. I was like, oh, this is in Morgan's on it. Okay. So I was reading the paper. And these patients that had head and neck cancer and they were getting treated for it,

radiotherapy, chemotherapy, they were treated, you know, which causes massive damage, inflammation. These patients, their epigenetic age was measured before the treatment, after the treatment, the treatment and then six months later and a year later. And it was so interesting to me because they had aged, like their epigenetic age had accelerated by 4.9 years right after the treatment. But then six months later and a year later, like their epigenetic age had like normalized back to baseline. And a sub-analysis then showed actually not only did the epigenetic age acceleration of almost

five years correlate with inflammatory biomarkers. But people that were, that had extremely high inflammatory biomarkers one year later did still experience the age acceleration. So I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on what that means. Like does that to me, I mean to me I look at that and I go, wow, inflammation is causing epigenetic age acceleration. Because you see this like graph, right? Yeah.

Yeah. I think definitely when we measure aging in blood, we had to think. you know, what is, you know, probably driving these signals that we see. And I would guess that epigenic age acceleration blood is mostly reflective of inflammation, unless, again, you're developing a clock that's specifically tuned to some other thing, although inflammation seems so, you know, vast and systemic, it affects so many different things. But I don't think everything that epigenic clocks are capturing is inflammation, because, again, when you look at immortalized cells, it's not because they're becoming more inflammatory

every time you're passaging them, per se. But definitely, I think abjic aging measured in blood is very much tied to inflammation, which, again, is probably why it's highly predictive of a number of diseases, which we know inflammation can be a major driver of. Is that where the extrinsic and intrinsic aging clock, or, I don't know exactly. One of them considers the external factors in blood and one dozen or something. Does inflammation calculated in that or not really?

Is it sort of... Yeah, so these are two of the first generation clocks. So I think, you know, Steve kind of called them intrinsic extrinsic aging. I think he called the original Horvath pan tissue clock was the intrinsic aging. It wasn't that tuned to differences in kind of cell turnover or inflammation. As a clock he, that was developed by Hanam at all, he kind of added these different kind of cell composition measures that actually ended up picking up inflammation a little bit better. But this was before these second generation clocks came into being.

And then I think once they came into being, they're probably picking up inflammation a lot more than even the first generation clocks. And again, we can make these kind of systems clocks. And one of our systems is inflammation and it is, we can show that it's highly, it's highly predictive of outcomes. It's definitely capturing things related to inflammation. Preliminarily, I can say we have data from individuals with COVID and we can look at the inflammation measure and we find that people with severe symptoms have much more accelerated inflammation

epigenic clock than people with basically asymptomatic or mild symptoms. It'd be interesting to see when those symptoms resolve and how long it takes a person to go back to more of their baseline ever, hopefully. Yeah. But so that's definitely, are you guys going to continue looking at that? Yeah, I mean, we don't have the ability to track the same people over time, but I think this is an important thing. And I think this is important when people start to look at applications of the clocks for

intervention testing because you can do an intervention that's going to change. kind of your blood cell composition and it might be reflective of inflammation, but, you know, it could be this acute event, right? And whether that really means you change your aging, I think is still needs to be kind of considered. Yeah, and that was the big, I think that was the big eye-opener for me when I read this study, you know, it wasn't a new study, but, you know, it was like, oh, well, this changed really dramatically, but then it wasn't like a permanent thing. Yeah. I mean, it was, it went back. And so, yeah, it's almost like you're saying with interventions, it's like,

well, I mean, make sure you didn't get sick or like, you know, you weren't sick like too early before, you know, measuring. And we can talk about that in a little bit, a little bit later, but I kind of, to get sort of just back into the cause and effect of aging and if the epigenetic clock changes are really causal, I mean, of course, you're obviously trying to figure that out. But even, like, even if it was, let's say, downstream of something, if it was biomarking aging, What, like the epigenetic changes that are happening with aging, you kind of mentioned this early in the podcast about how they're clustering in gene regulatory regions and so they're changing the way genes are turned on or turned off.

Like is there like a feed forward loop in aging where it's like, okay, now these epigenetic changes are turning off genes that we want on to repair damage and they're turning on genes that are cellular senesces, you know, so it's like accelerating this like feed forward loop. Yeah. I mean, it's definitely possible. I think it's really hard to figure out causality here, right? Like, and it could be that, you know, I mean, my perspective is not there's a cause of aging, right? And, you know, it's this thing. And once you fix that, everything else will go away. I mean, so many things go wrong. And your system can change. It can divergent. Going back to kind of Mike Snyder saying, even if you bring that down to the molecular level, there's so many different ways that someone's system can kind of change. over time and I don't think it's like you just need to it's just this one thing that's

going to then drive all of aging and yeah it this you know our systems are responsive right so one thing changes something else is going to respond and that can be maladaptive which would you know snowball things so yeah I think it's going to be hard to figure out like what's causal what's correlative but I would say even if If it's not what some people might consider the central driver, as long as it's picking up things that are critical to aging and you can use that to track aging or understand it a little bit better, I think it still has utility. I don't know if it needs to be kind of the central cause of aging for it to be useful.

Right. Exactly. If you can track it and or use it for basic science to understand the processes better. But with some of these genes, like I'm just curious, do they know, like, has research shown, your research and others shown that like, you know, we are seeing as the epigenetic clock ages, we are seeing more genes that are regulating like NFCAPAB turn on, you know, like causing more inflammation. So it's not necessarily the cause of aging, but it's helping accelerate it when you start

to, as you start to accumulate these epigenetic changes as they start to shift. Yeah. Yeah. The hard thing has actually been looking at the genes that these CPGs are assigned to or that they co-locate with. And actually, that's been a little bit less clear because the methylation patterns are not, as we might expect, correlating with the expression patterns. And there's a number of reasons that could be.

It's because we're looking at lots of cells in a population. You need to look within an individual cell to actually be able to see this. could be, you know, there are other epigenetic modifiers that could also be important in this, so it's not a one-to-one. But we can just look at general gene expression that epigenic clocks are associated with, and you can kind of find certain pathways that seem to be important, and some of these are inflammatory or other aging pathways that we'd kind of expect. But yeah, we still don't know exactly what the CPGs that are in these kinds of, we still don't

in these clocks are functionally doing. Even though we say, oh, I actually said it in the beginning of this talk. When you have methylation, it's repressive. When you don't, it's active. But it seems like it's actually a lot more complicated. And one thing that I always come back to is, I can make a clock out of a few hundred CPGs that are in specific genes.

I can remove all of those genes and remake a new clock. And I can get the same clock from a totally different set genes. I don't know what that means in terms of understanding the functionality of what we're trying to capture, but I think it just suggests it's not as simple as, you know, these 20 genes are turned on and these 20 genes are turned off. Right. Right. A lot more to learn. Epigenetic age reversal. That's a big interest, of course. And there's been, I'm sort of curious about your your recent, like some of your thoughts on some of the, there's been some recent studies.

So we were talking about programming, right? We were talking about, in a way, right? With the developmental program and the epigenic clock sort of really tracking that well, being part of that in some way connected. We don't really, I don't exactly understand why or if it's known. I don't think anyone knows. Okay, so some of this work with interrupted cellular reprogramming or the partial reprogramming as it's called, a lot of that works come from one Carlos Belmante's group, where they can,

they can, maybe you can explain, like, what this is to people and how that affects epigenetic aging or what's known or not known. Yeah. So this really came out of work originally from Shinya Yamanaka, who discovered what we call these Yamanaka factors, which are four transcription factors. We just call them OSKM, which when expressed, you can. actually take a somatic, so an adult cell, and convert it back into what looks like an embryonic stem cells. So we call these induced pluripotent stem cells. And then you can use

those to make a number of different types of cells. But the interesting thing and why aging researchers got really invested in the science is that not only are you making it embryonic like in terms of its stem cell properties, but the epigenetic clocks seem to be almost completely reverse. And we've actually shown recently they're not completely reversed, but you can take a skin cell that has an epigenic age of 40 and do this. It takes, you know, a few weeks to do and basically get back to an epigenic age of zero in those cells. And you keep it the skin cell? It doesn't lose its identity. No, so it loses its identity.

Yeah, so this full, this is considered kind of this full epigenic reprogramming and then And what Juan Carlos Belmante and others have done is look at this idea of partial reprogramming. So can we push the cell back a little bit because actually what we find is that this age reversal happens first prior to the cell losing its identity. So can you do that part without pushing it all the way back or we consider up or down the landscape to this pluripotent stem cell? So can I just make an old skin cell a young skin cell, but it's still a skin cell? So that's the goal.

Right. And with some of the recent work, at least out of his lab, they're using a premature aging mass model, a perjari model and have shown, I know there's a new publication I haven't read, just came out. Yeah. The older one, the first one, 2016 or something, cell paper I remember, they showed in multiple different organs. It seemed to reverse some of the hallmarks of aging, you know, and the organs were performing

functionally a little bit, you know, younger. than you would imagine, and at least in this premature aging mouse model, and I think even health span of this mouse model that's prematurely aging, it seemed to be improved. I mean, what that means for humans that are not mice with prematureing aging syndrome was to be determined, but the epigenetic clock also was also reversed as well, right? Yeah, and I think the new publication, which is done in more of a wild type, not a perjeroid mice, mouse does show kind of some reversal of the epigenic clock. And you can do this just cells in a dish.

We can partially reprogram them and show reversal of epigenic clock and other functional improvements in the cells. So to you, what does that mean, like, that you can do that? Yeah. No, I mean, I think this is the most fascinating thing. Again, I don't know in terms of translation, like actually making this a therapeutic. And I don't even think people were at the point where we're speculating. But yeah, I just think it's so amazing.

I mean, even the original thing that you can take a, you know, a skin cell and turn it into an embryonic stem cell and just we always think of, you know, this time, like this is one direction. Cells are going to only move, you know, what we consider this landscape in terms of their states. And they can only go from this state to that state. The idea that it can go back, I think, is amazing. And I think just understanding how that process works. And then the other thing we're really interested in is what are the features of this programmed cell? Like, does it truly look like a young cell or is it a totally different type of cell that

in nature maybe we haven't even seen? And what does that mean for how it's going to function and respond? The questions I have in my mind are, okay, well, you take this, you know, 40-year-old skin cell as you mentioned and let's say you're going to completely reprogram it to a stem cell and your epigenetic age goes back. But like, what happens to all the damaged mitochondria? Are they still there? Like, what about the pieces of DNA that, you know?

Is that stuff still there? Like, where does it go? I mean, how does it go away if it does? The exciting thing is actually the mitochondria seems to also be kind of rejuvenated. I mean, I don't really like that term rejuvenated. But it seems to be kind of set back to a better functioning state. Oh, really? Yeah, again, it's not clear how all these things are linked to each other.

I think the other question, though, is, you know, cells also build up kind of these aggregates and other, you know, nasty kind of buy projects and accumulate. what happens to them. I don't think we know that. But it's an important thing, I think, to figure out. So, I mean, if the epigenetic clock, let's, you know, because it's, you know, controlling gene expression, you know, it's like, well, maybe the nuclear and coded mitochondrial proteins, maybe everything's just bouncing back to how it was. And so you're making, you know, you're building better mitochondria out, right? I mean. Yeah, I have some, I have some colleague to argue that it starts with the mitochondria getting rejuvenated, and then

And that's how everything else. But yeah, I think, yeah, it's back to that hallmarks of aging, you know, mitochondrial dysfunction is one. What's first, yeah. I mean, or as you mentioned, it's probably not just one thing. It's a combination of all these factors together combined where your proteins are misfolding and your mitochondria dysfunctioning and your, you know, your DNA damage is accumulating. And so, yeah, I mean, it's a fascinating area.

And the programming part, like, it's just, I was just curious what your thoughts are in terms of the basic science. What does that mean? To me, it's kind of, it goes back to, again, that program. Like, there's something going on. We don't quite understand, but it's something. Yeah, this comes back to this whole idea that I don't think what we see with aging is just random stochastic damage or errors.

I think we've always thought of aging. It's just the accumulation of errors. But it really might just be a program that kind of goes wrong. And there's nothing evolutionarily. that needs to prevent it from doing that because it doesn't benefit fitness to prevent that program from going wrong. But the idea that it can be reprogram, again,

using the operating system kind of analogy, that you can just take an operating system that's not doing well and do an update and take it back to this better state. And again, we need to figure out exactly what that means. But I think it's really exciting. It is. And it's certainly, like there's no doubt. There's no doubt that accumulation of damage does play a role in aging, but like maybe it's

not the cause or the only thing. It's maybe it's just the feed forward loop accelerating it. Yeah, right? Exactly. I mean, it's also interesting. Another really interesting area is the plasma exchange. I'd love, like, you know, for you to kind of explain to people what the, what some of this interesting research is in the aging field, plasma exchange, you can start back to, you know,

the original paribiosis studies maybe. Yeah. Well, and actually I think this relates exactly to what you just said is there is accumulation of damage and there are, you know, these things that are accumulating in our systems and it could just be the program responding to that damage in a way that, you know, it was set up to do. So this idea of paribiosis, I mean, this is, what, century, really old, like people are doing this in like the early 20th century.

Or basically you can take two mice and connect their circulatory systems. not a pleasant procedure if you're one of the mice. But they'll do what's called heterochronic, where they take one young mouse and one old mouse and connect them and then just say what happens to the aging. The young mouse is now having some influence from the old mouse and vice versa.

And what we find is that the young mice has accelerated aging compared to one that's paired with another young mouse. And the old mouse is somewhat rejuvenated compared to an old mouse compared to an old mouse. And then more recently people said, okay, well, maybe you don't have to connect them. You can just do this whole plasma exchange method where you can put young plasma into an old mouse and it seems to in some ways again rejuvenate them, not to use that kind of snake

oily term, but that's the best we have. And actually we've been doing this with cells in a dish. So we can, we actually buy old, or serum from older individuals versus younger individuals and we can grow our cells in these two different conditions. And we, again, can age even fetal cells using old serum versus the young serum seems to be not as problematic. Very interesting. Yeah.

I know some of the recent work out of Rina Convoys Lab at UC Berkeley. What was interesting to me about her research or her recent research was that they were able to take this plasma and, you know, basically it was just, they, they, saline and albumin, right? And then they took old mice and like, it was essentially diluting out their old plasma. Yeah. And it rejuvenated these mice, whereas they did it with the young mice, there's really no effect. Yeah. So it really indicates like, like there is, as you mentioned, there's something accumulating,

at least in the bloodstream with age that may in some way be accelerating the aging process. So what do you think the epigenesis? genetic age would do, like if that was measured? Yeah. Is that going to be measured? Yeah. So actually, this is what we're doing in the cells. So actually the convoids were the first ones who did this in vitro experiment as well.

So that's how we knew that it would work. And now we're looking at the abigenetics of those cells and else of the Arneseek. And people have started to do this too in terms of the mice. I don't know if they've done it in terms of the just saline albumin exchange, but in the But in the normal kind of paribiosis context, it does change the epigenetic clock. And so the question, again, is the methylation patterns that we're capturing the clock's just a response to the accumulation of these kind of problematic factors? Because people always wondered, oh, is there something magical in young blood that's rejuvenating versus is it just that's problematic things that accumulate old blood? It seems to be more of that.

And yeah, the idea that you can just dilute it out and get the whole program kind of responds and rejuvenates itself, I think, is really amazing. So I guess the main questions would be, at least if I remember from the Conway study, like even the brain, like, I think it was the hypothalamus or something. It was sort of, I don't know how significant it was

in terms of like they were measuring whatever home, whatever biomarkers they were measuring for marking aging, it seemed be better even in the brain. The question would be for the epigenetics is like, well, is it again one of those things where like with the cancer chemotherapy experiment where there's just inflammation, there's something causing damage and it's a transient thing, like then you have to keep getting these plasma exchanges, you know, which is sustainable really.

I don't know, at least I think it is. I don't think. But you know, or is there something that does like, does it long-term affect the other organs and stuff? Like, is it something that's going to be a permanent thing? I mean, I think we don't know. Actually, I'm stealing this from my husband, so I'll give him credit for it. He talks about it's kind of climate change in the body, right? So the cells are in a problematic climate, and they're going to not behave the way that they should be.

And then if you remove that, you know, everything kind of gets better, but if it's not sustained, how quickly is it going to return? And I think we don't know that. My guess is it would be about as transient as kind of the effect in, you know, if you could dilute in that's maintained for a while, it would probably be maintained in terms of the cells kind of features and epigenetic measures. But yeah, if it returned really quickly, then I think it would be more transient. I'm sure people are trying to figure out, is there a factor in the old blood causing it?

Yeah, people are definitely looking for a factor. Or is it like, you know, you're only as good as the sensitivity of your assay. And, you know, like I always go back to this inflammation thing and it's, you know, because there's a lot of data out there with it, right? Oh, yeah. And we have biomarkers for inflammation. Like I've gotten my high-reactive, or high sensitivity to the protein done. It's like 0.2.

Like, does that mean I don't have inflammation going on? No. Like inflammation is happening, right? It's happening all the time. It's happening every day, every second. Yeah. It just means that assay is only as sensitive to pick up that much inflammation. And so maybe, like, we just haven't gotten the right tools yet to pick up, like, even

that, you know what I mean? So there's always the sensitivity question and the tools that you're, which is why you guys are developing these great tools to measure aging, quantify it. But to kind of shift into, you mentioned the exercise and we're talking about age reversal and kind of slowing. And like, so exercise is also associated with the slowing of epigenetic age. And then I think the other thing I kind of, you kind of alluded to for a moment was genetics. And I had a question here because you were saying genetics, it seems as though there's 10 to 20%

you mentioned. Yeah, it's not pretty small. Pretty small in terms of epigenetic aging. Yeah, but even in terms of lifespan, it seems to be on par with that. So only a small percentage of the way you age is controlled by you? genetics. Now, this is my caveat or my question. Unless, what if you are a super centenarian or a semi-supercentenarian? Like, there's obviously you're an outlier, right? Like, that's, that's an outlier. But it exists and it's thought to be under genetic control, I think. Yeah.

Yeah. So they're probably not just randomly making it to that. So for most of us, our aging is going to be less under genetic control. But if you're, yeah, you know, yeah. So, they're probably not just randomly making it to that. So, you, there are definitely people you might think win the genetic lottery, right? So they're very unique and they have the perfect combination. It's probably not one gene. They just have the perfect combination of different gene variants and that somehow enables them to live much longer than the rest of us. It seems even despite having bad health behaviors.

So these super centenarians don't necessarily smoke less or eat better or exercise more than people in the general public, but they're somehow able to overcome that and survive to extreme ages. And they probably are more, that's probably more under genetic control. But for most people, unless you have a string of grandparents that all survive to 100 to 110, you're probably not going to be able to rely on your genes to get you there.

And actually, my PhD dissertation was on long-lived smokers and thinking, smoking decreases people's life expectancy by about 10 years, but you have these people who survived to 100 or beyond still smoking. And what is it about their genetics that allows them to kind of overcome this? And what was it? I mean, the stuff that came up was major aging pathways like insulin IGF1 pathway, but again, we haven't proven this out causally. Yeah.

Did you read that Japanese or super centenarian study that came out a few years ago? I don't know if I... It was a study where they looked at... Was that the men or they looked at... Yes, men and they looked at elderly and then they looked at going from elderly to a centenarian, from centenarian to a semi-supercentennial which is 105 and then to a super centenary which is like 110. And they looked at all a battery of biomarkers.

I don't think epigenetic clocks is in there, but they looked at, you know, like telomere length, immunosiniscence, all the blood work stuff, the metabolic and, you know, you know, lipids and stuff. And then they looked at inflammatory biomarkers. And it was funny, it was interesting because the suppression, the suppression of inflammation was the only thing that could predict going to the next age group or, I don't know what it's called, but transitioning to surviving to next, right, was being able to, like, low inflammation basically.

Yeah. So that was sort of interesting as well. And also kind of goes back this, you mentioned the smoking. And of course, genetic control there, typical pathways. It kind of brings to mind we recently had Dr. Bill Harris on the podcast and he's a very, he's probably one of the world experts on omega-3 fatty acids. And we've just been doing decades, decades of research and he has all this interesting data. He does a lot of work using the omega-3 index, which he co-developed, where they measure omega-3

in red blood cells. It's a long-term marker of omega-3 rather than like what you have the night before, you know. He's looked, you know, he's done all sorts of studies using Framingham data and has found that, so the typical American diet is they have about a 4% omega-3 index. And that's kind of low, especially if you compare it to other countries like Japan, where their average omega-3 index is like 10% or 11% or something, much higher. Anyway, so these days with Framingham data and he stratified people based on their omega-3 index.

So low was like lower than 4%, and high was about 8%. And people with an 8% of omega-3 index had a five-year increased life expectancy compared to people with the 4% omega-3 index. Interesting. But what was also really interesting from this data was he looked at smokers. And smokers, as you would imagine, had a much lower life expectancy. But smokers that had high omega-3 indexes did not have that same level. low life expectancy.

But here's the really interesting thing, is that the smokers that took high omega-3 had the same life expectancy as the non-smokers with low omega-3. Oh, well. Yeah. So in a way, low omega-3 was like smoking for your life expectancy, right? I mean, it's kind of, to me it was very interesting data. You should pair up with him and I would be so interested to know the epigenetic age. as it correlates with the OMA-3 index.

I mean, yeah, depending on which samples in Framingham, they do have methylation already measured. Okay. There was also really interesting study and this kind of gets into interventions as well. I kind of wanted to, you touched on that for a moment and there was an interesting study and I don't know if I really have a question, but I also just like to seed ideas, you know? The study was like women that were genetically predisposed to breast cancer, they were given And five grams a day of fish oil, so it was EPA, DHA, omega-3, the marine omega-3 fatty acids. And this was like six months treatment.

And they had done some sort of methylation profiling, not Fetna clock, but profiling of their PBMCs, their peripheral blood mononuclear cells. And there was like hypomethalation in, I think it was like TNF alpha or TNF alpha or some like, of the major controllers of inflammation where it was like decreasing inflammation. It was like decreasing a lot of the pro-inflammatory pathways. So at the level of methylation, I thought that was so interesting. Not sure what's going on there because there's lots of ways omega-3 regulate inflammation, they suppress it, they resolve it, you know, and so it was like, wow, they're changing

methylation patterns, like how is it happening? So just sort of interesting, you know, potential research. ideas there? Yeah, no, I think there's a ton of things to start connecting and, you know, all these environmental things and just physiologically, how are these things connected when you go up and this, how does that affect these other things downstream? And yeah, I think as more and more data gets collected and we actually have good measures of all these different things, we can start doing that.

But yeah. What do you think about some of the, so there's consumer available epigenetic, you know, know, aging clocks out there. Like, what are your thought? Like, are they accurate? I mean, what's, and of course, I know your advisor for, for Elysium, which makes one of them. Yeah, no, this is an important question. And I think, you know, the hard thing with epigenetic age is, again, this is something

people can't, you don't know the answer, right? So you can take one of these tests and you get a number back and there's no way for the consumer to verify whether that's, number one, correct. I mean, if there is a correct answer, or if it's even meaningful. And I think basically there are two things that I think are really important when you're talking about epigenic tests being used by individuals or even clinically comes back to the reliability of these tests. So what I mean by that is if I were to take the exact same tests twice on the same day,

will I get the same answer? And unfortunately, what we found is actually if you use the original epigenic clocks, you do not get the same. You get wildly different answers. They're actually highly unreliable and very noisy. So we've taken blood samples. You can split them, like the same sample, run it twice, and you can get upwards of eight years difference in your epigenic age using traditional clocks.

So actually a few years earlier, and this actually came out from... my work with Elysium because they saw this in their data first and then we went back and looked at it more because I thought, oh, this is the end of that VGN clock. So this is what actually happening. They can't be useful for anything unless you have thousands of people. And so we actually developed a statistical method that completely removes all this technical noise and I won't go into the math for people on the podcast. But basically we can get this down to, you can split the sample and now you can you can, you

you're getting only about one year difference at max. Most people are predicted exactly the same age on their two tests. And so what I would say, so Elysium, as you mentioned, I'm no longer an advisor for them because I'm doing other stuff with Altos, but I was an advisor for them. And they actually did care a lot about this reliability thing. This is why I was helping them to try and sort this out. So at least for their tests, they felt like if someone took it twice, they would get the same answer, you know, assuming you're taking it twice within a shift.

short period of time. But most tests, I would say, on the market are using the old methods that are highly unreliable. And I don't know that, but I would suggest to consumers to say, find out if there is data on the reliability of tests. The second thing that's really important for epigenic tests is something that statisticians call construct validity, which is just this idea of biological age is what we call latent. You can't see it. You can't truly measure. You can't measure it, it's not CRP, where I can actually, I know I'm trying to measure something very specific. So it's, can we try and approximate something that's not really measurable? And then the way we evaluate how, if we did that well, is does it predict or track with

things we would expect? So again, with epigenetic tests, it should predict things like mortality risk after you adjust out the chronological age. So being higher or lower than your chronological age should be very predictive of mortality risk or disease risk. And people who are using these first generation clocks, the ones trained to predict chronological age, are not as good at that. So, yes, there's a lot of tests on the market, but I think it's really important to make sure you're using ones trained more like the second generation clocks, so things like grim age or pheno age, but again, using these methods that

make them more kind of reliable and take up the noise. Are there that many epigenetic clocks that are consumer available now? I think, I mean, I actually, I don't know the number, but I constantly see different companies launching epigenic age test. There's at least, I would say, probably close to 10 on the market. Wow. Yeah. Is the one that was developed by Elysium when you were advising for them?

That was more for biological age. That was the- Yeah. So it was similar to the pheno-age one, but with this additional statistical method that removes the technical noise. So that one is, we've shown as predictive of mortality above and beyond chronological age. And actually, Elysium, I is licensing these systems measures. So I think they'll be putting those out to where you can get kind of approximation of aging in different systems and get your kind of a geotype.

Yeah. There was, my question's kind of got many layers to hit and it has to do with like if a person is, you know, trying to measure their epigenetic age and they want to do a lifestyle intervention and then measure it again. So there was a very, very small study. A small study was published by a gal that reached out to me. Her name is Kara Fitzgerald. And she and her colleagues had taken a small sample of people.

And they underwent like an extreme dietary change where they were eating a lot of leafy greens, cruciferous vegetables, blueberries, but they also were eating animal meat, liver, like organ meat, and eggs, no refined sugar. meditation, exercise, probiotics, I mean, it was just a kitchen sink. Yeah. It was a lot. And this was like a, I think it was pretty short treatment. Like it wasn't like six months or anything.

I can't remember off the top of my head maybe two months or something like that or three months. I don't know. But their epigenetic age, according to the clock they used, I think it was maybe the original. I think it was the original. So I guess you kind of answered the question, but it had reversed by like three years or something. Yeah. So I guess the question is, you know, like can you really, can you track interventions

accurately? Can you make assumptions based on it or what are your thoughts? Yeah. And I'm not saying this to speak badly about any study, but I mean the great thing about that study is they made their data public and we were actually able to go back in and show that the entire effect was noise. So actually, once you do the statistical method that removes the noise, there was actually no effect of the intervention.

And of course, you know, these methods weren't available originally and they were using an original clock like they thought they should. But I think this shows us that we need to be a little bit careful how we interpret the results from these things. And the EBITAN clocks are powerful tools to kind of, I think they are good at giving you an idea of your health status, same as if I go into my doctor's office for, you know, a kind of lab test and do a metabolic panel or whatever, they can give you a good idea of your status.

But when we think of how they're applied to interventions, I think we need to be careful that we don't take any change as at just face value. We need to really think about, if I measure it again, was that sustained, like things we talked about earlier, because I would argue that we haven't proven that a change in the epigenic clock is a change, truly in your biological aging process.

And like we said, you can have changes in kind of inflammatory markers that are acute and not truly capturing the aging process, but that'll change what you see in terms of your clock. So I think epigenic clocks are really powerful for like a wake-up call. So if you, you know, a lot of young people are kind of going about their life. We don't know, like we said, until you see these functional things start happening, if we're doing well or not. And I think they can be used to kind of inform.

And as we move forward and develop better, more sophisticated ones, and we look at actually linking changes in epigenetic aging to changes in other kind of health parameters, they will be good for kind of people testing interventions, either personally or in clinical studies. But I think right now we're in the really early days. And we need to, these are really high. high potential tools, but we're not at the point yet where you can just take it and believe

everything that you get back. Right. So you're better off also doing all the classical biomarker test too and measure lots of things. It's always good to have more data. Before we wrap this up, what are you most excited about, two questions. What are you most excited about with respect to the aging field in general, like what's being researched right now, what's coming out of the pipeline? And then what are you most excited about coming out of your lab?

Or I guess they could be the same answer. Yeah, no. They're related. So the thing in the aging field, again, is this kind of transient or partial reprogramming thing. And just, again, not necessarily for an intervention, but just figuring out what it is. To me, it's just so magical that you can change the state of a cell. And what does that mean for the cell?

and does it now function better and do populations of cells work better together? And how does that happen? Can you figure out even better ways to do this? You know, we've used kind of the Yamanaka factors, but there could be tons of other ways that you could actually change this and just now knowing that that's possible. So that kind of basic science I'm the most excited about, and then in my lab, I'm just really excited to figure out what the epigenic clocks are.

We have no idea. we apply these measures to a bunch of different things, we have no idea what drives these changes or functionally what they even mean. So why is your epigenic clock related to your mortality risk? Like, what is the pathway that links those two things? And I think that'll keep us busy for a really long time, but something I'm excited to kind of start working on. Awesome. I like to ask this last question to a lot of podcast guests and that is, you know, what do, what lifestyle changes, like do you incorporate the most, you know, into your life based on science? Yeah. I mean, for me, there's kind of two things, diet and exercise. I try to pay a lot of attention to. So

exercise, I think, is such a simple thing that's so few people, you know, everyone's waiting for the magic pill. I mean, if they could bottle the effects of exercise, it would be the biggest thing in aging research that exists. It's probably the most powerful tool we have to actually intervene in our aging process, or at least to slow it. Or they've even shown you can reverse diabetes through exercise or any of these things.

Better than metformin. Yeah, I know. So again, exercise is amazing. It makes you feel good. So for me, trying to maintain an active lifestyle as much as possible, I have a, you know, I sit at a desk a lot. What's your favorite kind of exercise that you do?

I mean, I like to do things that just are fun, so hiking or anything like that or any of these classes. But probably if I were thinking the most beneficial, probably things like hit is try to do that as much as I can. And then the other thing is just diet. I eat, I would say, 90 to 95 percent plant base. I do eat some fish. Try to keep kind of like a Japanese type diet. And then I do intermittent fasting where I don't eat until usually like one o'clock. Again, that I think we don't know for sure whether that's beneficial, but for now, just sticking to it seeing kind of what happens.

Yeah. We had Mark Mattson on the podcast a long ago, and he definitely convinced me that there are some benefits for sure in intermittent fasting with respect to being in ketosis and the metabolic switch. So did you see that paper that came out of? of Yale from Visha Vichwa-Bitschitz-lap? Yeah. That was so, I didn't read the whole, like I didn't in depth read it.

I just sort of glanced at it. But he, like there was a two-year caloric restriction study. Yeah, that's from the calorie study. Okay, so, and thymic aging was like slowed, which was kind of... Yeah. Yeah, I think, you know, calorie restrictions been selling around for quite a while. I think the issue is most people can't actually sustain. Right.

Yeah. But there's, you bring up a really good point and like there's been a lot, it's like the classical intervention that's been done in rodents, it's been done in non-human primates. And it's been shown to, you know, it does improve health span of those animals and not humans. And in some cases they really restrict it like 30% like the eat 30% less calories or fewer calories. Whereas I think this study, the calorie restriction was like 15 or 14%. Yes, I think it's like 12 or, yeah.

I don't know what that translates. Like we don't know if caloric restriction actually is how beneficial it is for humans. And it always comes back to again that like, well, overeating is not good. Yeah. You know, overeating is not good. We know that. And you know, there's many ways that you can affect calories and calories out and one of them is exercise too.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, so there's a lot of ways that you can sort of get to a similar, you know, and point where you're not just eating as many calories, right? Yeah. It doesn't have to be like your, and you certainly don't want to starve yourself. And that also can be like calorie restriction. Like you can, you know, there's a problem with muscle wasting and frailty with age.

Yeah. Especially if you're getting older. Right. Exactly. And getting enough protein. So again, yeah, all these little nuances, especially when you start to translate the research. But epigenetic age was, if I remember correctly shown to be slowed in the rodent in monkey studies. In mice, epigenic age is affected by calorie restriction and substantially slowed and the

longer the animals are on it, the kind of slower the increase in epigenic age over time becomes. But again, I think, you know, how much of this is the absence of excess food? And there are studies in rodents showing that different genetic backgrounds have different responses. Some actually do worse with caloric restriction. So that amount of restriction, I think, is probably going to be, you know, depend on you personally, not just preference, but some of your genetics. And the other thing that the reason I don't do caloric restriction personally is because there's studies, even in mice, that if you stop it, you lose the benefit.

And I can't imagine spending my entire life on chloric restriction to continue to get this benefit. So I always say to people, do whatever you can stick to, right? You don't have to be perfect in your diet or exercise, but as long as I think you have to, the knowledge of how things are affecting, you can make, you know, an informed decision on this part's worth like an extra, you know, potentially an extra four years of healthy life or maybe something else isn't worth it to you. And just having that kind of information and feedback, I think it's going to be critical. Right.

Yeah. And there's also the aspect of confounding it with time-restricted feeding in mice. I know with Sachin Pina has talked about this many times on our podcast, but like, Like how the people, like postdocs and graduate students that are feeding these mice, they come, like they're there for like eight hours. Like they're not, you know, so there's a component of these calorie restriction diets are actually like- That is the time restricted. How much, yeah, how much is it that they're just not eating for 16 hours?

Yeah, that's when they did all at once and then that's it. Right, yeah. So anyways. Awesome, Morgan. Well, really, that was a really interesting information. I know people are going to love it. I certainly was super excited to talk about, you know, all eight, three. things aging with you and I'll continue to follow your research.

I'm excited that you'll be close to me so we can hang out at some times. Exactly. Go exercise. Yeah, totally. Go hiking. I love hiking. I'll show you all the great trails. So people that want to learn more about your research, follow you.

You're very active on Twitter. I follow you on Twitter. Your Twitter handle is Dr. Morgan Levine. Sounds right. Yeah. And your Instagram, you're also on Instagram, Dr. Morgan Levine. Yep.

You have a new book coming out. It's available for pre-order right now. It'll be out in May. Yeah, I think May 3rd. May 3rd? Okay, and it's called True Age. Yes. So it's basically about all the stuff we talked about,

about measuring what biological age is, how can we approximate it and potentially use that information to inform our lifestyle decisions. Awesome. Well, I look forward. I'm going to pre-order it. Anything else? Any other?

No, just thank you for having me. This is really fun discussion. Well, thanks so much more. again. I'm excited. Yeah, perfect. Bye. Thank you so much to Dr. Levine for having this discussion with me. And thank you all for listening.

Make sure if you enjoy this podcast to get Dr. Levine's book called True Age on Amazon. Dig into Epigenetic Clocks on my website on the topic section of Found My Fitness. And also listen to the interview I had with Dr. Steve Horvath, a colleague of Dr. Levine's and a pioneer of Epigenetic Aging Clocks. You'll find that conversation in episode 62. Before we go, I want to talk about some exciting things going on with Found My Fitness. This year, we've silently and somewhat secretly embraced a New Year's resolution of sorts. One is to put out more great interviews more frequently.

The other resolution is to expand our public access to important scientific overviews, such as the article on epigenetic aging clocks. In the last three months alone, I'm happy to report, we've already covered an immense number of new topics and expect to have dozens of new deep dives, plural by mid-year. You can find out the bottom line on topics like the science of leaky gut, also known as intestinal permeability, the effect of dietary polyphenols. Why I think aerobic exercise may be one of the best anti-aging forms of exercise and

the specific advantages of heart rate training, what cellular senescence is and how butyrate affects gut health, or why beta-hydroxybutyrate, a chemical cousin of sorts, is an utterly fascinating molecule that influences our epigenetics through histone deacetylase activity. So please, if you're listening to this, I implore that you go to my website, check out the new topic articles, which you can again find at foundmyfitness.com forward slash topics. This deep dive article effort, and indeed this podcast and our videos on YouTube, are all supported by fans like you. It helps us put out the most accurate and highest quality science and health information in the form of audio, video, and written articles.

But we also give something special back to our supporters. It's called the Found My Fitness Premium membership. It gives members access to a monthly Q&A with me, special edition science news digests, members-only short podcast episode called Aliquots, a T-shirt and more. You can think of the Found My Fitness Premium as an energetic flywheel that helps me and my team release all of the free content that we externalize to the wider world, such as the topic articles and my interviews, while also giving members really great perks several times a month. Found My Fitness Premium is a really good deal for listeners, but also for the world. Sign up at foundmyfitness.com forward slash premium.

Once again, that's foundmyfitness.com forward slash premium, P-R-E-M-I-U-M.