No association between frailty index and epigenetic clocks in Italian semi-supercentenarians

Frailty and biological age. Which best describes our aging and longevity?

Frailty and Biological Age are two closely related concepts; however, frailty is a multisystem geriatric syndrome that applies to elderly subjects, whereas biological age is a gerontologic way to describe the rate of aging of each individual, which can be used from the beginning of the aging process, in adulthood. If frailty reaches less consensus on the definition, it is a term much more widely used than this of biological age, which shows a clearer definition but is scarcely employed in social and medical fields. In this review, we suggest that this Biological Age is the best to describe how we are aging and determine our longevity, and several examples support our proposal.

The epigenetics of frailty

The conceptual change of frailty, from a physical to a biopsychosocial phenotype, expanded the field of frailty, including social and behavioral domains with critical interaction between different frailty models. Environmental exposures - including physical exercise, psychosocial factors and diet - may play a role in the frailty pathophysiology. Complex underlying mechanisms involve the progressive interactions of genetics with epigenetics and of multimorbidity with environmental factors. Here we review the literature on possible mechanisms explaining the association between epigenetic hallmarks (i.e., global DNA methylation, DNA methylation age acceleration and microRNAs) and frailty, considered as biomarkers of aging. Frailty could be considered the result of environmental epigenetic factors on biological aging, caused by conflicting DNA methylation age and chronological age.

Recent developments in frailty identification, management, risk factors and prevention: A narrative review of leading journals in geriatrics and gerontology

Frailty is an age-related clinical condition characterised by an increased susceptibility to stressors and an elevated risk of adverse outcomes such as mortality. In the light of global population ageing, the prevalence of frailty is expected to soar in coming decades. This narrative review provides critical insights into recent developments and emerging practices in frailty research regarding identification, management, risk factors, and prevention. We searched journals in the top two quartiles of geriatrics and gerontology (from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports) for articles published between 01 January 2018 and 20 December 2022. Several recent developments were identified, including new biomarkers and biomarker panels for frailty screening and diagnosis, using artificial intelligence to identify frailty, and investigating the altered response to medications by older adults with frailty. Other areas with novel developments included exercise (including technology-based exercise), multidimensional interventions, person-centred and integrated care, assistive technologies, analysis of frailty transitions, risk-factors, clinical guidelines, COVID-19, and potential future treatments. This review identified a strong need for the implementation and evaluation of cost-effective, community-based interventions to manage and prevent frailty. Our findings highlight the need to better identify and support older adults with frailty and involve those with frailty in shared decision-making regarding their care.

Frailty biomarkers under the perspective of geroscience: A narrative review

Cellular and molecular aging biomarkers might contribute to identify at-risk individuals for frailty before overt clinical manifestations appear. Although studies on the associations of aging biomarkers and frailty exist, no investigation has gathered this information using a structured framework for identifying aging biomarkers; as a result, the evidence on frailty and aging biomarkers is diffuse and incomplete. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to gather information on the associations of the hallmarks of aging and frailty under the perspective of geroscience. The literature on human studies on this topic is sparse and mainly composed of cross-sectional investigations performed in small study samples. The main putative aging biomarkers associated to frailty were: mitochondrial DNA copy number (genomic instability and mitochondrial dysfunction), telomere length (telomere attrition), global DNA methylation (epigenetic alterations), Hsp70 and Hsp72 (loss of proteostasis), IGF-1 and SIRT1 (deregulated nutrient-sensing), GDF-15 (mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence and altered intercellular communication), CD4 + and CD8 + cell percentages (cellular senescence), circulating osteogenic progenitor (COP) cells (stem cell exhaustion), and IL-6, CRP and TNF-alpha (altered intercellular communication). IGF-1, SIRT1, GDF-15, IL-6, CRP and TNF-alpha presented more evidence among these biomarkers, highlighting the importance of inflammation and nutrient sensing on frailty. Further longitudinal studies investigating biomarkers across the hallmarks of aging would provide valuable information on this topic.

Biological Frailty Index in centenarians

This study measured the subclinical frailty of centenarians by looking at the accumulation of their biological abnormalities. For this aim, a biological Frailty Index (FI) was computed in centenarians living in Northern Italy. The median value of the biological FI was 0.33 (interquartile range, IQR 0.28–0.41). The biological FI did not significantly differ between women (0.34, IQR 0.31–0.39) and men (0.32, IQR 0.26–0.43). The biological FI seems to have a narrower distribution compared to clinical FI we previously computed in the same cohort. In conclusion, our study suggests that centenarians benefit from exceptional biological reserves that might be underestimated by clinical appearances.

The Frailty Puzzle: Searching for Immortality or for Knowledge Survival?

What is the value of assessing the biological age and frailty and predicting residual lifespan and health status? The benefit is obvious if we have means to alter the pace of aging and the development of frailty. So far, limited but increasing examples of interventions altering the predicted status indicate that, at least in some cases, this is possible through interventions spanning from the economic-social through drug treatments. Thus, why searching for biological markers, when some clinical and socio-economic indicators do already provide sufficiently accurate predictions? Indeed, the search of frailty biomarkers and of their biological clocks helps to build up a mechanistic frame that may orientate the design of interventions and the time window of their efficacy. Among the candidate biomarkers identified, several studies converge to indicate epigenetic clocks as a promising sensitive biomarker of the aging process. Moreover, it will help to establish the relationship between personal aging and health trajectories and to individuate the check points beyond which biological changes are irreversible.