Abstract
Background
Advanced age is associated with cognitive and physical decline and is a major risk factor for a multitude of disorders. There is also a gap in life expectancy between males and females. DNA methylation differences have been shown to be associated with both age and sex. Here, we investigate age-by-sex differences in blood-based DNA methylation in an unrelated cohort of 2586 individuals between the ages of 18 and 87 years, with replication in a further 4450 individuals between the ages of 18 and 93 years.
Methods
Linear regression models were applied, with stringent genome-wide significance thresholds (p < 3.6 × 10−8) used in both the discovery and replication data. A second, highly conservative mixed linear model method that better controls the false-positive rate was also applied, using the same genome-wide significance thresholds.
Results
Using the linear regression method, 52 autosomal and 597 X-linked CpG sites, mapping to 251 unique genes, replicated with concordant effect size directions in the age-by-sex interaction analysis. The site with the greatest difference mapped to GAGE10, an X-linked gene. Here, DNA methylation levels remained stable across the male adult age range (DNA methylation by age r = 0.02) but decreased across female adult age range (DNA methylation by age r = − 0.61). One site (cg23722529) with a significant age-by-sex interaction also had a quantitative trait locus (rs17321482) that is a genome-wide significant variant for prostate cancer. The mixed linear model method identified 11 CpG sites associated with the age-by-sex interaction.
Conclusion
The majority of differences in age-associated DNA methylation trajectories between sexes are present on the X chromosome. Several of these differences occur within genes that have been implicated in sexually dimorphic traits.
Keywords: DNA methylation, Ageing, Sexual dimorphism, X chromosome, Generation Scotland
Background
Advanced age is associated with cognitive and physical decline and is a major risk factor for a multitude of disorders including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurodegenerative diseases. Furthermore, males and females, on average, exhibit disparate risk profiles for various disease states as well as different life expectancies [1, 2]. Indeed, the average life expectancy at birth in Scotland is 77.0 years for males and 81.1 years for females as reported by the Life Tables for Scotland 2015–2017 [3]. Thus, markers of ageing are merited, including those which can exploit sexual dimorphism for sex-specific prediction of ageing and disease risk. Biological hallmarks of ageing have been observed at the cellular and molecular level and include shortening of telomeres, genomic instability, and both global and local changes in DNA methylation (DNAm) levels [4–6]. DNAm is a common epigenetic mark, typically occurring in the context of a cytosine-guanine dinucleotide motif (CpG). It can be modulated by both environmental exposures and genetic variation and is sexually dimorphic [7].
Elastic net regression and best linear unbiased predictor models have been used to robustly predict chronological age by leveraging inter-individual variation in methylation profiles [8–10]. These methodologies capture global-level DNAm changes with respect to ageing but fail to inform the contribution of individual loci to the ageing process. These biological age predictors, also referred to as ‘epigenetic clocks’, correlate strongly with chronological age. Additionally, for a given chronological age, an advanced epigenetic age is associated with increased mortality risk and many age-related morbidities [11]. Importantly, males exhibit increased DNAm-based age acceleration relative to females (i.e. a ‘faster ticking’ epigenetic clock) supporting the role of epigenetic perturbations in sex-specific ageing trajectories [8, 9].
In 2013, Horvath proposed a pan-tissue epigenetic clock derived from the linear combination of 353 CpGs whereas Hannum et al. created a DNAm-based clock based on 71 CpGs in blood tissue [8, 9]. Following on from these seminal studies, Zhang et al. developed a highly precise DNAm-based predictor of chronological age (ZhangAge) limiting the value of such estimators as biomarkers of ageing [10]. Subsequently, a new generation of DNAm-based measures of ageing was proposed. Recently, Levine et al. proposed a powerful predictor of lifespan and health by developing a methylation-based predictor of an individual’s ‘phenotypic age’ (DNAm PhenoAge) [12]. Phenotypic age is informed by chronological age and physical and biochemical measures, such as albumin and mean cell volume. Finally, a novel clock, termed DNAm GrimAge, was trained using mortality as a reference and supplants predecessor clocks in predicting the risk of mortality and a number of age-related morbidities [13].
While global information relating to DNAm perturbations has been harnessed to measure biological ageing, little is known regarding the role of specific epigenetic loci in the ageing process. Presently, age-related hypermethylation at the ELOVL2 locus on chromosome 6 remains the strongest known site-specific DNAm alteration throughout the lifespan [14]. Methylation status at FHL2, KFL14, C1orf132, and TRIM59 has also been shown to exhibit linear associations with chronological age [15]. These data may highlight biologically important epigenetic substrates of the human ageing process. However, the loci which are differentially methylated between males and females, in the context of ageing, merit elucidation. Therefore, in the current study, we sought to identify sex differences in age-associated genome-wide DNAm changes, in the whole blood from a discovery sample of 2586 unrelated individuals. These were replicated in a further 4450 unrelated individuals. Both discovery and replication sets are derived from the same parent cohort: Generation Scotland [16]. The replication cohort was unrelated to the discovery cohort. Further understanding of the sex-specific effects on biological ageing, through the identification of differentially methylated loci, may assist in identifying novel risk factors for age- and sex-associated pathologies.
Methods
Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study
Data came from the family-based Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS). GS participants were recruited from GP practices in 5 regions across Scotland between the years 2006 and 2011 [16]. The probands were aged between 35 and 65 years and were asked to invite first-degree relatives to join the study, which had a final size of 24,090. A variety of cognitive, physical, and health data were collected at the study baseline along with the blood or saliva samples for DNA genotyping. Blood-based DNAm data were obtained on a subset of 5200 participants using the Illumina EPIC array [17]. Quality control details have been reported previously [17]. Briefly, probes were removed based on (i) outliers from visual inspection of the log median intensity of the methylated versus unmethylated signal per array, (ii) a bead count < 3 in more than 5% of samples, and (iii) ≥ 5% of samples having a detection p value > 0.05. Samples were removed (i) if there was a mismatch between their predicted sex and recorded sex and/or (ii) if ≥ 1% of CpGs had a detection p value > 0.05. For the present analyses, we considered unrelated individuals from the DNAm subset of GS. A genetic relationship matrix was built using GCTA-GRM, and a relatedness coefficient of < 0.025 was specified to exclude related individuals [18]. In cases where a couple was present, 1 individual was removed to minimise shared environment effects. This left an analysis sample of 2586 unrelated individuals ranging in age from 18 to 87 years and 807,857 probes.
The second set of blood-based DNA methylation from Generation Scotland was released in early 2019 and was treated as a replication sample. This comprised 4450 individuals who were unrelated (genetic relatedness < 0.05) to each other and to the 5200 participants from the first Generation Scotland methylation data set. Quality control steps have been reported previously [19] and were near identical to those reported above.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed in R version 3.5.3 [20].
Epigenome-wide association studies
Epigenome-wide association studies (EWASs) of chronological age, sex, and the interaction between age and sex were performed using two approaches.
First, we considered linear regression models adjusted for smoking status (smoking pack-years and status—current, gave up in the last year, gave up more than a year ago, never, or unknown), estimated white blood cell proportions (CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, natural killer cells, B cells, and granulocytes), methylation batch, and 20 methylation-based principal components to correct for unmeasured confounders. Age was centred by its mean, and sex was included as a factor. The models were run using the limma package in R (empirical Bayes moderated t-statistics) [21].
To remove the widespread effect of sex on X-linked methylation, we also ran sex-stratified age EWASs on the X chromosome. We compared this output with the results from the age-by-sex interaction model by plotting the –log10 p values from the interaction model against the –log10 p value from a heterogeneity test of the effects between the sex-stratified model: χ2hetero = (betamale − betafemale)2/(SEmale2 + SEfemale2).
Second, we considered the MOMENT method from the OmicS-data-based Complex trait Analysis software (OSCA) [22]. MOMENT is a mixed linear model-based method that can account for unobserved confounders and the correlation between distal probes which may be introduced by such confounders. Initially, a linear regression step is performed to obtain an association p value for each CpG site. The sites with p < 0.05/nprobes are included in the first component with the remainder feeding into a second component. These components are then fitted as random effects in the model to control for confounding. However, convergence issues can occur when a large number of CpGs are included in the first component, as is the case with EWASs of age and sex. To account for this, we implemented a stepwise selection procedure to avoid saturation of the first component (MOMENT2; http://cnsgenomics.com/software/osca/#EWAS). In the age EWAS models, we pre-adjusted the methylation data for sex and batch. Additional adjustment for cell counts and smoking resulted in genomic deflation due to collinearity between these covariates and age. In the sex EWAS models, we pre-adjusted the methylation data for age and batch. For the age-by-sex interaction EWAS models, the methylation data were pre-adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, smoking pack-year, cell types, and batch, and the age-by-sex interaction outcome was adjusted for age and sex. A default threshold (p < 0.05/nprobes) was used to select probes for the first component, prior to the stepwise analysis, for all models. The only exception was the sex EWAS in the replication cohort where this threshold was increased to p < 1 × 10−20 to enable model convergence. Probes with a p value less than 3.6 × 10−8 [23] were considered epigenome-wide significant associations.
Pathway analysis
Enrichment was assessed among the KEGG pathways and Gene Ontology (GO) terms using the gometh() function in the missMethyl package in R [24]. This function models the relationship between the number of probes per gene and the probability of being selected, accounting for the selection bias associated with probe-dense genes.
Results
Sample demographics
The genetically unrelated subset of Generation Scotland (discovery cohort) had a mean age of 50 years (SD = 12.5) and comprised 1587 females (61.4%) and 999 males (38.6%). Males ranged in age from 18.1 to 85.7 years (mean = 50.8 years, SD = 12.2) whereas females ranged from 18.0 to 86.9 years (mean = 49.5 years, SD = 12.7). The replication cohort had a mean age of 51.4 years (SD = 13.2) and comprised 2506 females (56.3%) and 1944 males (43.7%). Males ranged in age from 18.1 to 86.5 years (mean = 52.0 years, SD = 13.3) whereas females ranged from 18.1 years to 93.3 years (mean = 50.9 years, SD = 13.1).
DNAm and chronological age
Using a linear regression (LR) model approach that did not adjust for inter-probe correlations, there were 250,485 autosomal and 3096 X-linked CpGs associated with chronological age at the epigenome-wide significant level (p < 3.6 × 10−8) in the discovery cohort. 151,537 autosomal and 1668 X-linked sites were epigenome-wide significant with the effect sizes in the same direction in the replication cohort (Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Tables S1-S2); 68,038 of these CpGs showed increasing methylation with age. High genomic inflation was observed with lambda values ranging from 12.2 to 57.1 (Additional file 2: Figure. S1).
Fig. 1.
Age, sex, and age-by-sex effects in discovery and replication cohorts (linear regression method). Discovery cohort effect sizes (x-axis) are plotted against replication cohort effect sizes (y-axis) for the epigenome-wide analysis of age, sex, and age-by-sex. Autosomal and X-chromosome associations are presented separately
A mixed linear model (MLM) approach that adjusted for inter-probe correlations and unmeasured confounders showed much better control of genomic inflation (lambda values ranging from 0.96 to 1.03; Additional file 2: Figure. S2). It identified 6 autosomal and 5 X-linked sites that were epigenome-wide significant with the effect sizes in the same direction in both the discovery and replication cohorts (Table 1). All of these sites were included in the 153,205 sites reported in Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Tables S1-S2.
Table 1.
Age, sex, and age-by-sex associations common to discovery and replication cohorts using both linear regression and MOMENT methods. The results shown correspond to the MOMENT output
| Probe | Chr | BP | Gene | Orientation | Discovery b | Discovery se | Discovery p | Replication b | Replication se | Replication p | Phenotype |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cg08097417 | 7 | 130,419,133 | KLF14 | – | 4.26 | 0.40 | 5E−27 | 2.45 | 0.23 | 7E−27 | Age |
| cg16867657 | 6 | 11,044,877 | ELOVL2 | + | 5.05 | 0.40 | 4E−36 | 4.85 | 0.27 | 4E−71 | Age |
| cg10501210 | 1 | 207,997,020 | NA | + | − 1.90 | 0.19 | 3E−23 | − 1.20 | 0.12 | 4E−23 | Age |
| cg07553761 | 3 | 160,167,977 | TRIM59 | + | 1.91 | 0.33 | 4E−09 | 1.25 | 0.20 | 1E−10 | Age |
| cg23606718 | 2 | 131,513,927 | FAM123C | + | 2.45 | 0.32 | 1E−14 | 1.83 | 0.23 | 1E−15 | Age |
| cg02872546 | 2 | 109,741,578 | NA | – | − 3.63 | 0.51 | 6E−13 | − 1.94 | 0.33 | 2E−09 | Age |
| cg20351734 | X | 73,571,783 | NA | – | − 6.90 | 0.63 | 4E−28 | − 5.81 | 0.44 | 4E−39 | Age |
| cg15833111 | X | 49,166,019 | GAGE10 | + | − 3.60 | 0.46 | 3E−15 | − 2.41 | 0.26 | 3E−21 | Age |
| cg25140188 | X | 31,087,348 | NA | + | − 1.81 | 0.29 | 6E−10 | − 1.49 | 0.21 | 9E−13 | Age |
| cg13466600 | X | 77,587,444 | NA | + | − 6.10 | 0.71 | 8E−18 | − 3.63 | 0.46 | 5E−15 | Age |
| cg05517106 | X | 135,286,461 | FHL1 | + | − 2.97 | 0.49 | 1E−09 | − 2.43 | 0.36 | 2E−11 | Age |
| cg11643285 | 3 | 16,411,667 | RFTN1 | + | − 0.09 | 0.01 | 2E−19 | − 0.16 | 0.01 | 5E−122 | Sex |
| cg09516963 | 12 | 68,042,445 | DYRK2 | – | − 0.06 | 0.01 | 8E−22 | − 0.07 | 3.91E-3 | 2E−75 | Sex |
| cg05100634 | 18 | 45,457,604 | SMAD2 | – | − 0.06 | 0.01 | 2E−30 | − 0.03 | 4.46E-3 | 2E−11 | Sex |
| cg10334916 | 2 | 241,508,098 | RNPEPL1 | + | 0.03 | 0.01 | 2E−08 | 0.02 | 3.92E-3 | 2E−09 | Sex |
| cg16532938 | 2 | 164,584,635 | FIGN | – | − 0.12 | 0.02 | 1E−09 | − 0.15 | 0.01 | 3E−22 | Age-by-sex |
| cg06072257 | 1 | 11,434,636 | NA | + | − 0.27 | 0.04 | 1E−11 | − 0.33 | 0.04 | 3E−18 | Age-by-sex |
| cg00531806 | 4 | 190,938,709 | NA | – | − 0.12 | 0.02 | 4E−11 | − 0.14 | 0.02 | 3E−16 | Age-by-sex |
| cg15833111 | X | 49,166,019 | GAGE10 | + | 0.22 | 0.02 | 1E−23 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 6E−27 | Age-by-sex |
| cg05548968 | X | 30,928,416 | NA | – | 0.14 | 0.02 | 4E−14 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 5E−09 | Age-by-sex |
| cg15475625 | X | 9,042,463 | NA | – | 0.21 | 0.03 | 1E−12 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 3E−14 | Age-by-sex |
| cg20202246 | X | 118,407,296 | NA | – | 0.21 | 0.03 | 7E−13 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 1E−15 | Age-by-sex |
| cg08814148 | X | 118,407,645 | NA | + | 0.12 | 0.02 | 5E−10 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 8E−18 | Age-by-sex |
| cg24541420 | X | 135,691,028 | NA | – | − 0.16 | 0.02 | 1E−15 | − 0.12 | 0.01 | 4E−16 | Age-by-sex |
DNAm and sex differences on the autosomes
There were 134,649 autosomal CpGs associated with sex at the epigenome-wide significant level (p < 3.6 × 10−8) in the discovery cohort; 69,384 were epigenome-wide significant with the effect sizes in the same direction in the replication cohort (Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Table S3). As with age, high genomic inflation was observed with lambda values ranging from 14.4 to 16.4 (Additional file 2: Figure. S3). The MLM approach that adjusted for inter-probe correlations and unmeasured confounders again showed much better control of genomic inflation (lambda values of 1.00 and 1.05; Additional file 2: Figure. S4). It identified 4 autosomal sites that were epigenome-wide significant with the effect sizes in the same direction in both the discovery and replication cohorts (Table 1). All of these sites were included in the 69,384 sites reported in Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Table S3.
DNAm and the interaction between chronological age and sex
The LR model that did not adjust for inter-probe correlations identified 85 autosomal and 635 X-linked CpGs that showed different ageing trajectories by sex (Additional file 1: Tables S4-S5; p < 3.6 × 10−8) in the discovery cohort. Fifty-two autosomal and 597 X-linked sites replicated (same direction and p < 3.6 × 10−8) in the replication cohort (Fig. 1). These mapped to 251 unique genes. Genomic inflation ranged from lambdas of 1.11 and 6.29 (Additional file 2: Figure. S5). A heterogeneity test between age EWAS outputs from sex-stratified models gave –log10 p values that were highly correlated with the –log10 p values from the interaction model (Additional file 2: Figure. S6).
The more conservative MLM approach (lambda range 0.94–1.00; Additional file 2: Figure. S7) identified four autosomal and seven X-linked sites that were epigenome-wide significant with the effect sizes in the same direction in both the discovery and replication cohorts (Additional file 1: Table S6). Nine of these sites were included in the 649 sites reported in Fig. 1 and Tables S4-S5.
The probe with the greatest ageing-associated difference between males and females was cg15833111, mapping to GAGE10 on the X chromosome (Fig. 2; interaction p < 1.41 × 10−23 in all LR and MLM models). In the discovery cohort, hypomethylation of this probe was observed with increasing age in females (r = − 0.61), whereas methylation levels remained stable in males (r = 0.02). Four of the 9 CpG sites identified as significant in both cohorts and by both modelling approaches exhibited clear differences in mean DNAm levels between males and females across an adult age range (cg00531806, cg08814148, cg20202246, cg24541420). These differences ranged from 0.14 to 0.21 on the beta value scale. There were significant main effects for both age and sex for 239 of the 649 probes (13 autosomal and 226 X-linked).
Fig. 2.
Pseudo-trajectories of DNA methylation by sex for probes associated with the age-by-sex interaction term using linear regression and MOMENT methods. DNA methylation beta values (y-axis) are plotted against chronological age (x-axis) separately for male samples (purple points) and female samples (orange points). Red lines represent the regression slope for the univariate model DNAm ~ age. Grey contour lines indicate data density
To investigate whether X chromosome inactivation (XCI) affected the 217 genes mapping to the 597 X-linked CpGs identified in this analysis, the genes were queried against a list of 114 XCI-escaping genes [25]. Thirty-two age-by-sex-associated genes were present in the list of 114 XCI escapees. There was an enrichment of XCI escapee genes in the list of age-by-sex-associated genes (χ2 = 4.19; p = 0.04) with 14.7% of the 217 age-by-sex associated genes being XCI escapees versus 9.6% in the remaining 850 genes (based on the EPIC array annotation) on the X chromosome.
Genes mapping to the 649 probes identified and replicated in the LR analysis were queried against published GWAS results (GWAS catalog[26]) to determine whether there was an enrichment among specific traits. Considering SNPs located within 1 Mb of a given age-by-sex-associated CpG site yielded 98 genome-wide significant associations (p < 5 × 10−8) comprising 73 SNPs (Additional file 1: Table S7) [27]. Several associations were with sexually dimorphic traits (e.g. prostate cancer, systemic lupus erythematosus, male pattern baldness, body mass index) [28–37]. All of the SNPs were located on the X chromosome. Of the 649 probes significantly associated with the age-sex interaction, 399 were also present on the Illumina 450K array (all of which were X-linked). These were queried against the ARIES methylation Quantitative Trait Locus (mQTL) database (mQTLdb [38];). There were 9664 CpG-SNP associations reported comprising 4582 unique SNPs and 279 unique CpGs (Additional file 1: Table S8). Two mQTL SNPs were present in the 73 SNPs identified from the GWAS catalogue query. These were associated with male pattern baldness and prostate cancer [31, 36]. The prostate cancer-associated SNP (rs17321482) is a QTL in an adolescent sample for the genome-wide significant age-by-sex CpG (cg23722529), mapping to ARHGAP6. Figure 3 shows a plot of methylation at cg23722529 by age, stratified by sex and genotype for rs17321482 in the discovery cohort. A simple linear regression model of CpG on the interaction between genotype and age suggested no association between DNA methylation and age in either sex (male interaction Page_T = 0.40, female interaction Page_CT = 0.86, Page_TT = 0.82). Whereas ascertainment bias (e.g. sampling healthier older males or those that survive prostate cancer) may have been driving the association between cg23722529 and age in men, there was a minimal difference in the effect sizes in the whole population versus those aged under 60 years (βall = − 0.0047, p = 1.2 × 10−4; β< 60 = − 0.0043, p = 5.5 × 10−3). The male pattern baldness SNP (rs79798752) maps to EDA2R, within ~ 554 kb from the EWAS CpG (cg15343840—an EPIC array-specific CpG) in the same gene. This SNP is a QTL for a different probe (cg08021299), approximately 249 kb away and mapping to HEPH. The probe is also among the 649 CpGs significantly associated with the age-by-sex interaction.
Fig. 3.
DNA methylation by genotype at the prostate cancer-associated variant rs17321482. DNA methylation beta values (y-axis) are plotted against chronological age (x-axis) separately for male samples (purple points) and female samples (orange points), based on genotype at rs17321482. Red lines represent the regression slope for the univariate model DNAm ~ age. Black contour lines indicate data density
Functional enrichment analysis
The 251 genes where differential methylation was associated with the age-by-sex interaction in the LR analysis were assessed for enrichment in KEGG pathways, GO terms, and tissue-specific expression in 30 general tissues from GTEx v7 [24, 39].
There were no KEGG pathways or GO terms enriched for the genes associated with the age-by-sex interaction after correction for multiple testing (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.05; Additional file 1: Tables S9-S10). The strongest enrichment was observed among downregulated genes in the testis and upregulated genes in the brain regions including thy hypothalamus and hippocampus (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4.
Enrichment of age-by-sex-associated genes among differentially expressed genes by tissue. The figure shows enrichment among differentially expressed genes in a given tissue (x-axis) compared to all other tissue types. The enrichment –log10(p value) is shown on the y-axis. Tissues with significant enrichment of genes are highlighted in red
Discussion
Using a combination of standard linear regression methods and a more conservative mixed modelling method, we have identified loci displaying sexually dimorphic ageing associations in DNAm across the adult age range. These associations were predominantly X-linked. Of the nine CpGs identified by both methods, two mapped to genes (GAGE10 and FIGN).
The site with the greatest absolute age-DNAm correlation difference between males and females mapped to GAGE10, a member of the GAGE cancer/testis antigen family [40]. Normal expression of GAGE proteins is limited to germ cells. However, GAGE transcripts have been observed in multiple cancers including melanomas and breast, lung, ovarian, and thyroid cancers [40–46].
The majority of age-by-sex-associated genes did not return results when queried in the GWAS catalogue. This is not surprising as the X chromosome is usually omitted from association studies [47]. However, of the associations identified, several pertained to sexually dimorphic traits. A variant in ARGHAP6, an age-by-sex-associated gene from this study, has previously been linked to prostate cancer [31]. However, there was no effect of this genotype on the age-by-sex interaction. Further examination of interactions between DNA methylation and disease-related genetic risk factors in a longitudinal context is warranted.
The mQTLdb resource is limited to probes present on the Infinium Human Methylation 450K BeadChip—the predecessor of the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip used in the current study [38]. Of the 649 sites queried for mQTLs, 399 were present on both platforms. It is, therefore, possible that additional, as-yet-unidentified SNP associations are present among the remaining sites specific to the Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip.
Analysis of tissue-specific expression patterns of the genes displaying sexually dimorphic age-associated DNAm trajectories revealed strong enrichment among differentially expressed genes in the testis and brain regions, including the hypothalamus. Enrichment among differentially expressed genes in the testis may be indicative of a relationship with endocrine function and sex-specific ageing. This is consistent with the current hypotheses of endocrine differences as a contributor to the disparity in the life expectancy of males and females [48–50]. Additionally, the hypothalamus displays anatomical, ontogenetic, and biochemical differences between males and females [51]. The present findings may further delineate the established contribution of differential DNAm profiles to sex-specific disparities in the brain structure and function [52, 53].
In addition to the age-by-sex interaction, we examined the relationship between DNAm and both chronological age and sex. We replicated previous findings, with the strongest age-associated effects observed in KLF14, ELOVL2, and FHL2 [14, 15] and sex-associated effects observed in RFTN1 [54]. As replication was observed using both the liberal LR method and the more conservative MLM approach, these genes should be prioritised for further functional investigation in studies of ageing and sexually dimorphic traits.
The current study is strengthened by the use of large, unrelated discovery and replication cohorts with a broad age range, which has permitted the development of pseudo-longitudinal profiles of DNAm across the life course in males and females. An additional strength is the use of two modelling approaches. The more liberal linear regression approach does not account for correlations which may be present between probes and is prone to genomic inflation. However, in the current study, we accompanied our analysis with a more conservative mixed linear modelling approach (called MOMENT), which accounts for the relationship between a given probe and trait with distal probes fitted in multiple random effect components [22]. This approach can account for unobserved confounders and reduce inflation. However, this also poses a limitation in that results based on this method may be overly conservative. This is evidenced by the small number of age and sex associations identified using MOMENT.
Conclusions
We identified 649 CpG sites displaying differences in age-associated DNAm patterns between males and females. The majority of these sites are located on the X chromosome, several of which are within genes associated with sexually dimorphic traits by GWAS, including prostate cancer and male pattern baldness. In order to identify the mechanisms of sex-specific differences in biological ageing, further investigation of sexually dimorphic characteristics of these processes over the life course is warranted.
Supplementary information
Additional file 1: Tables S1-S10: Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for chronological age present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S1. Top 1000 X-linked probe associations for chronological age present in the discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S2. Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for sex present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S3. Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for the age-by-sex interaction present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression method, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S4. Top 1000 X-linked probe associations for the age-by-sex interaction present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression approach, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S5. Epigenome-wide significant sites associated with the age-by-sex interaction with concordant effects in the discovery and replication cohorts identified using the conservative mixed-modelling approach - Table S6. GWAS catalogue outputs within 1 Mb of age-by-sex-associated CpGs - Table S7. ARIES mQTLdb output for query containing age-by-sex-associated CpGs - Table S8. KEGG pathway enrichment output for age-by-sex-associated sites - Table S9. GO Term enrichment output for age-by-sex-associated sites - Table S10.
Additional file 2: Figures S1-S7. Quantile-quantile plots for the discovery and replication EWASs of chronological age using the linear regression method - Fig. S1. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of chronological age using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S2. Quantile-quantile plots for the discovery and replication EWASs of sex using the linear regression method - Fig. S3. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of sex using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S4. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of the age-by-sex interaction using the linear regression method - Fig. S5. Heterogeneity test P-values for male-only EWAS of age versus female-only EWAS of chronological age in the discovery and replication sets - Fig. S6. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of the age-by-sex interaction using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S7.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the families who took part, the general practitioners, and the Scottish School of Primary Care for their help in recruiting them and the whole GS team that includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists, healthcare assistants, and nurses.
Authors’ contributions
DLM, REM, IJD, AFM, QZ, PMV, and JY were responsible for the conception and design of the study. DLM and FZ contributed to the data analysis. DLM and REM drafted the article. DLM, REM, RMW, MLB, SWM, and AC contributed to the data preparation. DJP, AMM, KLE, and ADM were responsible for the data collection. All authors revised the article and read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
GS received core support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (CZD/16/6) and the Scottish Funding Council (HR03006). Genotyping and DNA methylation profiling of the GS samples was carried out by the Genetics Core Laboratory at the Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, and was funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust Strategic Award “STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally” (STRADL; Reference 104036/Z/14/Z). DLM and REM are supported by the Alzheimer’s Research UK major project grant ARUK-PG2017B-10. PMV and AFM are supported by the NHMRC Fellowship Scheme (1078037, 1078901, and 1083656). JY is supported by an ARC Future Fellowship (FT180100186). RFH and AJS are supported by funding from the Wellcome Trust 4-year PhD in Translational Neuroscience—training the next generation of basic neuroscientists to embrace clinical research [108890/Z/15/Z]. CH and TB are supported by an MRC University Unit Programme Grant MC_UU_00007/10 (QTL in Health and Disease).
Availability of data and materials
According to the terms of consent for GS participants, access to individual-level data (omics and phenotypes) must be reviewed by the GS Access Committee. Applications should be made to access@generationscotland.org. Full summary statistics for the analyses presented are publicly available online at 10.7488/ds/2709.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All components of Generation Scotland received ethical approval from the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics (REC Reference Number: 05/S1401/89). All participants provided broad and enduring written informed consent for biomedical research. Generation Scotland has also been granted Research Tissue Bank status by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (REC Reference Number: 15/0040/ES), providing generic ethical approval for a wide range of uses within medical research. This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki declaration.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
AMM reports grants from The Sackler Trust, grants from Eli Lilly, and grants from Janssen outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Daniel L. McCartney and Futao Zhang contributed equally to this work.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s13073-019-0693-z.
References
- 1.Alberts SC, Archie EA, Gesquiere LR, et al. The male-female health-survival paradox: A comparative perspective on sex differences in aging and mortality. In: Sociality, Hierarchy, Health: Comparative Biodemography: A Collection of Papers. 2014.
- 2.Regitz-Zagrosek Vera. Sex and gender differences in health. EMBO reports. 2012;13(7):596–603. doi: 10.1038/embor.2012.87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.National Records of Scotland. Life Tables for Scotland 2015–2017. https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/life-expectancy/life-expectancy-at-scotland-level/scottish-national-life-tables/2015-2017.
- 4.Vijg Jan, Suh Yousin. Genome Instability and Aging. Annual Review of Physiology. 2013;75(1):645–668. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-030212-183715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Harley Calvin B. Telomere loss: mitotic clock or genetic time bomb? Mutation Research/DNAging. 1991;256(2-6):271–282. doi: 10.1016/0921-8734(91)90018-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jung M, Pfeifer GP. Aging and DNA methylation. BMC Biol. 2015. 10.1186/s12915-015-0118-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 7.Boks Marco P., Derks Eske M., Weisenberger Daniel J., Strengman Erik, Janson Esther, Sommer Iris E., Kahn René S., Ophoff Roel A. The Relationship of DNA Methylation with Age, Gender and Genotype in Twins and Healthy Controls. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(8):e6767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hannum G, Guinney J, Zhao L, et al. Genome-wide methylation profiles reveal quantitative views of human aging rates. Mol Cell. 2013;49:359–367. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Horvath Steve. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biology. 2013;14(10):R115. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zhang Q, Vallerga CL, Walker RM, et al. Improved prediction of chronological age from DNA methylation limits it as a biomarker of ageing. bioRxiv. 2018. 10.1101/327890.
- 11.Horvath Steve, Raj Kenneth. DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the epigenetic clock theory of ageing. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2018;19(6):371–384. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0004-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Levine Morgan E., Lu Ake T., Quach Austin, Chen Brian H., Assimes Themistocles L., Bandinelli Stefania, Hou Lifang, Baccarelli Andrea A., Stewart James D., Li Yun, Whitsel Eric A., Wilson James G, Reiner Alex P, Aviv Abraham, Lohman Kurt, Liu Yongmei, Ferrucci Luigi, Horvath Steve. An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging. 2018;10(4):573–591. doi: 10.18632/aging.101414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lu Ake T., Quach Austin, Wilson James G., Reiner Alex P., Aviv Abraham, Raj Kenneth, Hou Lifang, Baccarelli Andrea A., Li Yun, Stewart James D., Whitsel Eric A., Assimes Themistocles L., Ferrucci Luigi, Horvath Steve. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging. 2019;11(2):303–327. doi: 10.18632/aging.101684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bacalini Maria Giulia, Deelen Joris, Pirazzini Chiara, De Cecco Marco, Giuliani Cristina, Lanzarini Catia, Ravaioli Francesco, Marasco Elena, van Heemst Diana, Suchiman H. Eka D., Slieker Roderick, Giampieri Enrico, Recchioni Rina, Mercheselli Fiorella, Salvioli Stefano, Vitale Giovanni, Olivieri Fabiola, Spijkerman Annemieke M. W., Dollé Martijn E. T., Sedivy John M., Castellani Gastone, Franceschi Claudio, Slagboom Pieternella E., Garagnani Paolo. Systemic Age-Associated DNA Hypermethylation of ELOVL2 Gene: In Vivo and In Vitro Evidences of a Cell Replication Process. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2016;72(8):1015–1023. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jung Sang-Eun, Lim Seung Min, Hong Sae Rom, Lee Eun Hee, Shin Kyoung-Jin, Lee Hwan Young. DNA methylation of the ELOVL2, FHL2, KLF14, C1orf132/MIR29B2C, and TRIM59 genes for age prediction from blood, saliva, and buccal swab samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2019;38:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Smith BH, Campbell A, Linksted P, et al. Cohort profile: generation Scotland: Scottish family health study (GS:SFHS). The study, its participants and their potential for genetic research on health and illness. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:689–700. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.McCartney Daniel L., Stevenson Anna J., Walker Rosie M., Gibson Jude, Morris Stewart W., Campbell Archie, Murray Alison D., Whalley Heather C., Porteous David J., McIntosh Andrew M., Evans Kathryn L., Deary Ian J., Marioni Riccardo E. Investigating the relationship between DNA methylation age acceleration and risk factors for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring. 2018;10:429–437. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yang Jian, Manolio Teri A, Pasquale Louis R, Boerwinkle Eric, Caporaso Neil, Cunningham Julie M, de Andrade Mariza, Feenstra Bjarke, Feingold Eleanor, Hayes M Geoffrey, Hill William G, Landi Maria Teresa, Alonso Alvaro, Lettre Guillaume, Lin Peng, Ling Hua, Lowe William, Mathias Rasika A, Melbye Mads, Pugh Elizabeth, Cornelis Marilyn C, Weir Bruce S, Goddard Michael E, Visscher Peter M. Genome partitioning of genetic variation for complex traits using common SNPs. Nature Genetics. 2011;43(6):519–525. doi: 10.1038/ng.823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Madden R, McCartney DL, Walker RM, et al. Birth weight predicts psychiatric and physical health, cognitive function, and DNA methylation differences in an adult population. bioRxiv. 2019.
- 20.R Core Team. R development Core team. R a Lang. Environ. Stat Comput 2017; 55: 275–286.
- 21.Ritchie Matthew E., Phipson Belinda, Wu Di, Hu Yifang, Law Charity W., Shi Wei, Smyth Gordon K. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015;43(7):e47–e47. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang F, Chen W, Zhu Z, et al. OSCA: a tool for omic-data-based complex trait analysis. Genome Biol. 2019. 10.1186/s13059-019-1718-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 23.Saffari Ayden, Silver Matt J., Zavattari Patrizia, Moi Loredana, Columbano Amedeo, Meaburn Emma L., Dudbridge Frank. Estimation of a significance threshold for epigenome-wide association studies. Genetic Epidemiology. 2017;42(1):20–33. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Phipson B, Maksimovic J, Oshlack A. MissMethyl: an R package for analyzing data from Illumina’s HumanMethylation450 platform. Bioinform. 2016. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv560. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 25.Zhang Yuchao, Castillo-Morales Atahualpa, Jiang Min, Zhu Yufei, Hu Landian, Urrutia Araxi O., Kong Xiangyin, Hurst Laurence D. Genes That Escape X-Inactivation in Humans Have High Intraspecific Variability in Expression, Are Associated with Mental Impairment but Are Not Slow Evolving. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013;30(12):2588–2601. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.MacArthur Jacqueline, Bowler Emily, Cerezo Maria, Gil Laurent, Hall Peggy, Hastings Emma, Junkins Heather, McMahon Aoife, Milano Annalisa, Morales Joannella, Pendlington Zoe May, Welter Danielle, Burdett Tony, Hindorff Lucia, Flicek Paul, Cunningham Fiona, Parkinson Helen. The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog) Nucleic Acids Research. 2016;45(D1):D896–D901. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Pe’er I, Yelensky R, Altshuler D, Daly MJ. Estimation of the multiple testing burden for genomewide association studies of nearly all common variants. Genet Epidemiol. 2008;32:381–385. doi: 10.1002/gepi.20303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Akiyama Masato, Okada Yukinori, Kanai Masahiro, Takahashi Atsushi, Momozawa Yukihide, Ikeda Masashi, Iwata Nakao, Ikegawa Shiro, Hirata Makoto, Matsuda Koichi, Iwasaki Motoki, Yamaji Taiki, Sawada Norie, Hachiya Tsuyoshi, Tanno Kozo, Shimizu Atsushi, Hozawa Atsushi, Minegishi Naoko, Tsugane Shoichiro, Yamamoto Masayuki, Kubo Michiaki, Kamatani Yoichiro. Genome-wide association study identifies 112 new loci for body mass index in the Japanese population. Nature Genetics. 2017;49(10):1458–1467. doi: 10.1038/ng.3951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gudmundsson Julius, Sulem Patrick, Rafnar Thorunn, Bergthorsson Jon T, Manolescu Andrei, Gudbjartsson Daniel, Agnarsson Bjarni A, Sigurdsson Asgeir, Benediktsdottir Kristrun R, Blondal Thorarinn, Jakobsdottir Margret, Stacey Simon N, Kostic Jelena, Kristinsson Kari T, Birgisdottir Birgitta, Ghosh Shyamali, Magnusdottir Droplaug N, Thorlacius Steinunn, Thorleifsson Gudmar, Zheng S Lilly, Sun Jielin, Chang Bao-Li, Elmore J Bradford, Breyer Joan P, McReynolds Kate M, Bradley Kevin M, Yaspan Brian L, Wiklund Fredrik, Stattin Par, Lindström Sara, Adami Hans-Olov, McDonnell Shannon K, Schaid Daniel J, Cunningham Julie M, Wang Liang, Cerhan James R, St Sauver Jennifer L, Isaacs Sara D, Wiley Kathleen E, Partin Alan W, Walsh Patrick C, Polo Sonia, Ruiz-Echarri Manuel, Navarrete Sebastian, Fuertes Fernando, Saez Berta, Godino Javier, Weijerman Philip C, Swinkels Dorine W, Aben Katja K, Witjes J Alfred, Suarez Brian K, Helfand Brian T, Frigge Michael L, Kristjansson Kristleifur, Ober Carole, Jonsson Eirikur, Einarsson Gudmundur V, Xu Jianfeng, Gronberg Henrik, Smith Jeffrey R, Thibodeau Stephen N, Isaacs William B, Catalona William J, Mayordomo Jose I, Kiemeney Lambertus A, Barkardottir Rosa B, Gulcher Jeffrey R, Thorsteinsdottir Unnur, Kong Augustine, Stefansson Kari. Common sequence variants on 2p15 and Xp11.22 confer susceptibility to prostate cancer. Nature Genetics. 2008;40(3):281–283. doi: 10.1038/ng.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Eeles Rosalind A, Kote-Jarai Zsofia, Giles Graham G, Olama Ali Amin Al, Guy Michelle, Jugurnauth Sarah K, Mulholland Shani, Leongamornlert Daniel A, Edwards Stephen M, Morrison Jonathan, Field Helen I, Southey Melissa C, Severi Gianluca, Donovan Jenny L, Hamdy Freddie C, Dearnaley David P, Muir Kenneth R, Smith Charmaine, Bagnato Melisa, Ardern-Jones Audrey T, Hall Amanda L, O'Brien Lynne T, Gehr-Swain Beatrice N, Wilkinson Rosemary A, Cox Angie, Lewis Sarah, Brown Paul M, Jhavar Sameer G, Tymrakiewicz Malgorzata, Lophatananon Artitaya, Bryant Sarah L, Horwich Alan, Huddart Robert A, Khoo Vincent S, Parker Christopher C, Woodhouse Christopher J, Thompson Alan, Christmas Tim, Ogden Chris, Fisher Cyril, Jamieson Charles, Cooper Colin S, English Dallas R, Hopper John L, Neal David E, Easton Douglas F. Multiple newly identified loci associated with prostate cancer susceptibility. Nature Genetics. 2008;40(3):316–321. doi: 10.1038/ng.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Schumacher Fredrick R., Al Olama Ali Amin, Berndt Sonja I., Benlloch Sara, Ahmed Mahbubl, Saunders Edward J., Dadaev Tokhir, Leongamornlert Daniel, Anokian Ezequiel, Cieza-Borrella Clara, Goh Chee, Brook Mark N., Sheng Xin, Fachal Laura, Dennis Joe, Tyrer Jonathan, Muir Kenneth, Lophatananon Artitaya, Stevens Victoria L., Gapstur Susan M., Carter Brian D., Tangen Catherine M., Goodman Phyllis J., Thompson Ian M., Batra Jyotsna, Chambers Suzanne, Moya Leire, Clements Judith, Horvath Lisa, Tilley Wayne, Risbridger Gail P., Gronberg Henrik, Aly Markus, Nordström Tobias, Pharoah Paul, Pashayan Nora, Schleutker Johanna, Tammela Teuvo L. J., Sipeky Csilla, Auvinen Anssi, Albanes Demetrius, Weinstein Stephanie, Wolk Alicja, Håkansson Niclas, West Catharine M. L., Dunning Alison M., Burnet Neil, Mucci Lorelei A., Giovannucci Edward, Andriole Gerald L., Cussenot Olivier, Cancel-Tassin Géraldine, Koutros Stella, Beane Freeman Laura E., Sorensen Karina Dalsgaard, Orntoft Torben Falck, Borre Michael, Maehle Lovise, Grindedal Eli Marie, Neal David E., Donovan Jenny L., Hamdy Freddie C., Martin Richard M., Travis Ruth C., Key Tim J., Hamilton Robert J., Fleshner Neil E., Finelli Antonio, Ingles Sue Ann, Stern Mariana C., Rosenstein Barry S., Kerns Sarah L., Ostrer Harry, Lu Yong-Jie, Zhang Hong-Wei, Feng Ninghan, Mao Xueying, Guo Xin, Wang Guomin, Sun Zan, Giles Graham G., Southey Melissa C., MacInnis Robert J., FitzGerald Liesel M., Kibel Adam S., Drake Bettina F., Vega Ana, Gómez-Caamaño Antonio, Szulkin Robert, Eklund Martin, Kogevinas Manolis, Llorca Javier, Castaño-Vinyals Gemma, Penney Kathryn L., Stampfer Meir, Park Jong Y., Sellers Thomas A., Lin Hui-Yi, Stanford Janet L., Cybulski Cezary, Wokolorczyk Dominika, Lubinski Jan, Ostrander Elaine A., Geybels Milan S., Nordestgaard Børge G., Nielsen Sune F., Weischer Maren, Bisbjerg Rasmus, Røder Martin Andreas, Iversen Peter, Brenner Hermann, Cuk Katarina, Holleczek Bernd, Maier Christiane, Luedeke Manuel, Schnoeller Thomas, Kim Jeri, Logothetis Christopher J., John Esther M., Teixeira Manuel R., Paulo Paula, Cardoso Marta, Neuhausen Susan L., Steele Linda, Ding Yuan Chun, De Ruyck Kim, De Meerleer Gert, Ost Piet, Razack Azad, Lim Jasmine, Teo Soo-Hwang, Lin Daniel W., Newcomb Lisa F., Lessel Davor, Gamulin Marija, Kulis Tomislav, Kaneva Radka, Usmani Nawaid, Singhal Sandeep, Slavov Chavdar, Mitev Vanio, Parliament Matthew, Claessens Frank, Joniau Steven, Van den Broeck Thomas, Larkin Samantha, Townsend Paul A., Aukim-Hastie Claire, Gago-Dominguez Manuela, Castelao Jose Esteban, Martinez Maria Elena, Roobol Monique J., Jenster Guido, van Schaik Ron H. N., Menegaux Florence, Truong Thérèse, Koudou Yves Akoli, Xu Jianfeng, Khaw Kay-Tee, Cannon-Albright Lisa, Pandha Hardev, Michael Agnieszka, Thibodeau Stephen N., McDonnell Shannon K., Schaid Daniel J., Lindstrom Sara, Turman Constance, Ma Jing, Hunter David J., Riboli Elio, Siddiq Afshan, Canzian Federico, Kolonel Laurence N., Le Marchand Loic, Hoover Robert N., Machiela Mitchell J., Cui Zuxi, Kraft Peter, Amos Christopher I., Conti David V., Easton Douglas F., Wiklund Fredrik, Chanock Stephen J., Henderson Brian E., Kote-Jarai Zsofia, Haiman Christopher A., Eeles Rosalind A. Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci. Nature Genetics. 2018;50(7):928–936. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0142-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Al Olama Ali Amin, Kote-Jarai Zsofia, Berndt Sonja I, Conti David V, Schumacher Fredrick, Han Ying, Benlloch Sara, Hazelett Dennis J, Wang Zhaoming, Saunders Ed, Leongamornlert Daniel, Lindstrom Sara, Jugurnauth-Little Sara, Dadaev Tokhir, Tymrakiewicz Malgorzata, Stram Daniel O, Rand Kristin, Wan Peggy, Stram Alex, Sheng Xin, Pooler Loreall C, Park Karen, Xia Lucy, Tyrer Jonathan, Kolonel Laurence N, Le Marchand Loic, Hoover Robert N, Machiela Mitchell J, Yeager Merideth, Burdette Laurie, Chung Charles C, Hutchinson Amy, Yu Kai, Goh Chee, Ahmed Mahbubl, Govindasami Koveela, Guy Michelle, Tammela Teuvo L J, Auvinen Anssi, Wahlfors Tiina, Schleutker Johanna, Visakorpi Tapio, Leinonen Katri A, Xu Jianfeng, Aly Markus, Donovan Jenny, Travis Ruth C, Key Tim J, Siddiq Afshan, Canzian Federico, Khaw Kay-Tee, Takahashi Atsushi, Kubo Michiaki, Pharoah Paul, Pashayan Nora, Weischer Maren, Nordestgaard Borge G, Nielsen Sune F, Klarskov Peter, Røder Martin Andreas, Iversen Peter, Thibodeau Stephen N, McDonnell Shannon K, Schaid Daniel J, Stanford Janet L, Kolb Suzanne, Holt Sarah, Knudsen Beatrice, Coll Antonio Hurtado, Gapstur Susan M, Diver W Ryan, Stevens Victoria L, Maier Christiane, Luedeke Manuel, Herkommer Kathleen, Rinckleb Antje E, Strom Sara S, Pettaway Curtis, Yeboah Edward D, Tettey Yao, Biritwum Richard B, Adjei Andrew A, Tay Evelyn, Truelove Ann, Niwa Shelley, Chokkalingam Anand P, Cannon-Albright Lisa, Cybulski Cezary, Wokołorczyk Dominika, Kluźniak Wojciech, Park Jong, Sellers Thomas, Lin Hui-Yi, Isaacs William B, Partin Alan W, Brenner Hermann, Dieffenbach Aida Karina, Stegmaier Christa, Chen Constance, Giovannucci Edward L, Ma Jing, Stampfer Meir, Penney Kathryn L, Mucci Lorelei, John Esther M, Ingles Sue A, Kittles Rick A, Murphy Adam B, Pandha Hardev, Michael Agnieszka, Kierzek Andrzej M, Blot William, Signorello Lisa B, Zheng Wei, Albanes Demetrius, Virtamo Jarmo, Weinstein Stephanie, Nemesure Barbara, Carpten John, Leske Cristina, Wu Suh-Yuh, Hennis Anselm, Kibel Adam S, Rybicki Benjamin A, Neslund-Dudas Christine, Hsing Ann W, Chu Lisa, Goodman Phyllis J, Klein Eric A, Zheng S Lilly, Batra Jyotsna, Clements Judith, Spurdle Amanda, Teixeira Manuel R, Paulo Paula, Maia Sofia, Slavov Chavdar, Kaneva Radka, Mitev Vanio, Witte John S, Casey Graham, Gillanders Elizabeth M, Seminara Daniella, Riboli Elio, Hamdy Freddie C, Coetzee Gerhard A, Li Qiyuan, Freedman Matthew L, Hunter David J, Muir Kenneth, Gronberg Henrik, Neal David E, Southey Melissa, Giles Graham G, Severi Gianluca, Cook Michael B, Nakagawa Hidewaki, Wiklund Fredrik, Kraft Peter, Chanock Stephen J, Henderson Brian E, Easton Douglas F, Eeles Rosalind A, Haiman Christopher A. A meta-analysis of 87,040 individuals identifies 23 new susceptibility loci for prostate cancer. Nature Genetics. 2014;46(10):1103–1109. doi: 10.1038/ng.3094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bentham James, Morris David L, Cunninghame Graham Deborah S, Pinder Christopher L, Tombleson Philip, Behrens Timothy W, Martín Javier, Fairfax Benjamin P, Knight Julian C, Chen Lingyan, Replogle Joseph, Syvänen Ann-Christine, Rönnblom Lars, Graham Robert R, Wither Joan E, Rioux John D, Alarcón-Riquelme Marta E, Vyse Timothy J. Genetic association analyses implicate aberrant regulation of innate and adaptive immunity genes in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Nature Genetics. 2015;47(12):1457–1464. doi: 10.1038/ng.3434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Alarcón-Riquelme Marta E., Ziegler Julie T., Molineros Julio, Howard Timothy D., Moreno-Estrada Andrés, Sánchez-Rodríguez Elena, Ainsworth Hannah C., Ortiz-Tello Patricia, Comeau Mary E., Rasmussen Astrid, Kelly Jennifer A., Adler Adam, Acevedo-Vázquez Eduardo M., Mariano Cucho-Venegas Jorge, García-De la Torre Ignacio, Cardiel Mario H., Miranda Pedro, Catoggio Luis J., Maradiaga-Ceceña Marco, Gaffney Patrick M., Vyse Timothy J., Criswell Lindsey A., Tsao Betty P., Sivils Kathy L., Bae Sang-Cheol, James Judith A., Kimberly Robert P., Kaufman Kenneth M., Harley John B., Esquivel-Valerio Jorge A., Moctezuma José F., García Mercedes A., Berbotto Guillermo A., Babini Alejandra M., Scherbarth Hugo, Toloza Sergio, Baca Vicente, Nath Swapan K., Aguilar Salinas Carlos, Orozco Lorena, Tusié-Luna Teresa, Zidovetzki Raphael, Pons-Estel Bernardo A., Langefeld Carl D., Jacob Chaim O. Genome-Wide Association Study in an Amerindian Ancestry Population Reveals Novel Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Risk Loci and the Role of European Admixture. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 2016;68(4):932–943. doi: 10.1002/art.39504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lessard CJ, Sajuthi S, Zhao J, et al. Identification of a systemic lupus erythematosus risk locus spanning ATG16L2, FCHSD2, and P2RY2 in Koreans. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016. 10.1002/art.39548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 36.Hagenaars Saskia P., Hill W. David, Harris Sarah E., Ritchie Stuart J., Davies Gail, Liewald David C., Gale Catharine R., Porteous David J., Deary Ian J., Marioni Riccardo E. Genetic prediction of male pattern baldness. PLOS Genetics. 2017;13(2):e1006594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Yap CX, Sidorenko J, Wu Y, et al. Dissection of genetic variation and evidence for pleiotropy in male pattern baldness. Nat Commun. 2018. 10.1038/s41467-018-07862-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 38.Gaunt TR, Shihab HA, Hemani G, et al. Systematic identification of genetic influences on methylation across the human life course. Genome Biol. 2016. 10.1186/s13059-016-0926-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 39.Watanabe K, Taskesen E, Van Bochoven A, Posthuma D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat Commun. 2017. 10.1038/s41467-017-01261-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 40.Gjerstorff M. F., Ditzel H. J. An overview of the GAGE cancer/testis antigen family with the inclusion of newly identified members. Tissue Antigens. 2008;71(3):187–192. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0039.2007.00997.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.De Backer O, Arden KC, Boretti M, et al. Characterization of the GAGE genes that are expressed in various human cancers and in normal testis. Cancer Res. 1999. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970127)70:3<349::aid-ijc17>3.0.co. [PubMed]
- 42.Ruschenburg I, Kubitz A, Schlott T, Korabiowska M, Droese M. MAGE-1, GAGE-1/−2 gene expression in FNAB of classic variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma and papillary hyperplasia in nodular goiter. Int J Mol Med. 1999. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 43.Maio Michele, Coral Sandra, Sigalotti Luca, Elisei Rossella, Romei Cristina, Rossi Guido, Cortini Enzo, Colizzi Francesca, Fenzi Gianfranco, Altomonte Maresa, Pinchera Aldo, Vitale Mario. Analysis of Cancer/Testis Antigens in Sporadic Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: Expression and Humoral Response to NY-ESO-1. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2003;88(2):748–754. doi: 10.1210/jc.2002-020830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mischo Axel, Kubuschok Boris, Ertan Kubilay, Preuss Klaus-Dieter, Romeike Bernd, Regitz Evi, Schormann Claudia, de Bruijn Diederik, Wadle Andreas, Neumann Frank, Schmidt Werner, Renner Christoph, Pfreundschuh Michael. Prospective study on the expression of cancer testis genes and antibody responses in 100 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 2005;118(3):696–703. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Russo V, Dalerba P, Ricci A, et al. MAGE BAGE and GAGE genes expression in fresh epithelial ovarian carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1996. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960729)67:3<457::AID-IJC24>3.0.CO;2-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 46.Sigalotti L, Coral S, Altomonte M, Natali L, Gaudino G, Cacciotti P, Libener R, Colizzi F, Vianale G, Martini F, Tognon M, Jungbluth A, Cebon J, Maraskovsky E, Mutti L, Maio M. Cancer testis antigens expression in mesothelioma: role of DNA methylation and bioimmunotherapeutic implications. British Journal of Cancer. 2002;86(6):979–982. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Editorial. Accounting for sex in the genome. Nat Med. 2017. 10.1038/nm.4445. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 48.Haring Robin, John Ulrich, Völzke Henry, Nauck Matthias, Dörr Marcus, Felix Stephan B., Wallaschofski Henri. Low Testosterone Concentrations in Men Contribute to the Gender Gap in Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality. Gender Medicine. 2012;9(6):557–568. doi: 10.1016/j.genm.2012.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Austad Steven N., Fischer Kathleen E. Sex Differences in Lifespan. Cell Metabolism. 2016;23(6):1022–1033. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.05.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Ashpole Nicole M., Logan Sreemathi, Yabluchanskiy Andriy, Mitschelen Matthew C., Yan Han, Farley Julie A., Hodges Erik L., Ungvari Zoltan, Csiszar Anna, Chen Sixia, Georgescu Constantin, Hubbard Gene B., Ikeno Yuji, Sonntag William E. IGF-1 has sexually dimorphic, pleiotropic, and time-dependent effects on healthspan, pathology, and lifespan. GeroScience. 2017;39(2):129–145. doi: 10.1007/s11357-017-9971-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Swaab Dick F., Chung Wilson C.J., Kruijver Frank P.M., Hofman Michel A., Hestiantoro Andon. Sex differences in the hypothalamus in the different stages of human life. Neurobiology of Aging. 2003;24:S1–S16. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(03)00059-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Ratnu Vikram S., Emami Michael R., Bredy Timothy W. Genetic and epigenetic factors underlying sex differences in the regulation of gene expression in the brain. Journal of Neuroscience Research. 2016;95(1-2):301–310. doi: 10.1002/jnr.23886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Forger Nancy G. Epigenetic mechanisms in sexual differentiation of the brain and behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016;371(1688):20150114. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Inoshita M, Numata S, Tajima A, et al. Sex differences of leukocytes DNA methylation adjusted for estimated cellular proportions. Biol Sex Differ. 2015. 10.1186/s13293-015-0029-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Additional file 1: Tables S1-S10: Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for chronological age present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S1. Top 1000 X-linked probe associations for chronological age present in the discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S2. Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for sex present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression model, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S3. Top 1000 autosomal probe associations for the age-by-sex interaction present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression method, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S4. Top 1000 X-linked probe associations for the age-by-sex interaction present in both discovery and replication cohorts, using the linear regression approach, ranked by discovery P-value. Table headers correspond to Limma TopTable outputs - Table S5. Epigenome-wide significant sites associated with the age-by-sex interaction with concordant effects in the discovery and replication cohorts identified using the conservative mixed-modelling approach - Table S6. GWAS catalogue outputs within 1 Mb of age-by-sex-associated CpGs - Table S7. ARIES mQTLdb output for query containing age-by-sex-associated CpGs - Table S8. KEGG pathway enrichment output for age-by-sex-associated sites - Table S9. GO Term enrichment output for age-by-sex-associated sites - Table S10.
Additional file 2: Figures S1-S7. Quantile-quantile plots for the discovery and replication EWASs of chronological age using the linear regression method - Fig. S1. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of chronological age using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S2. Quantile-quantile plots for the discovery and replication EWASs of sex using the linear regression method - Fig. S3. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of sex using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S4. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of the age-by-sex interaction using the linear regression method - Fig. S5. Heterogeneity test P-values for male-only EWAS of age versus female-only EWAS of chronological age in the discovery and replication sets - Fig. S6. Quantile-quantile plots for discovery and replication EWASs of the age-by-sex interaction using the conservative mixed-modelling method - Fig. S7.
Data Availability Statement
According to the terms of consent for GS participants, access to individual-level data (omics and phenotypes) must be reviewed by the GS Access Committee. Applications should be made to access@generationscotland.org. Full summary statistics for the analyses presented are publicly available online at 10.7488/ds/2709.




