Comparing the genetic and environmental architecture of blood count, blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry biological ages with machine learning

UKB blood biochemistry biomarkers outperformed urine biochemistry and blood cell biomarkers as age predictors

We predicted chronological age from blood cell, blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry biomarkers using an ensemble of an elastic net, a gradient boosted machine [GBM] and a shallow, fully connected neural network. Blood biochemistry predicted chronological age with a R-Squared [R²] of 48.6+-0.4% and a root mean squared error of 5.92+-0.02 years, significantly outperforming blood cells (R²=12.5+-0.2%; RMSE=7.60+-0.02 years) and urine biochemistry (R²=10.4+-0.3%; RMSE=7.72+-0.04 years) (Figure 2 and Table S1). For the three datasets, the GBM and the neural network [NN] performed similarly and both outperformed the elastic net. For example, for blood cells, the GBM explained twice more variance in chronological age than the elastic net (R²=12.2+-0.2% vs. 5.8+-0.4%).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Chronological age prediction performance (R² and RMSE)

* represent ensemble models

Identification of the laboratory biomarkers driving age prediction

The complete feature importances are found in Table S2, Table S3 and Table S4. Below, we summarize the most important findings for each aging dimension.

Genetic factors and heritability of accelerated aging

We performed three genome wide association studies [GWASs] to estimate the GWAS-based heritability of blood biochemistry (h_g²=26.2±0.3%), blood cells (h_g²=18.1±0.2%), and urine biochemistry (h_g²=10.5±0.5%) accelerated aging, and to identify SNPs associated with these phenotypes (Figure 3 and Table 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: GWAS results - SNPs associated with accelerated aging for each dimension

−log10(p-value) vs. chromosomal position of locus. Dotted line denotes 5×10⁻⁸.

Biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, diseases, environmental and socioeconomic variables associated with accelerated aging

We use “X” to refer to all nongenetic variables measured in the UK Biobank (biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, diseases, family history, environmental and socioeconomic variables). We performed an X-Wide Association Study [XWAS] to identify which of the 4,372 biomarkers classified in 21 subcategories (Table S7), 187 clinical phenotypes classified in 11 subcategories (Table S10), 2,073 diseases classified in 26 subcategories (Table S13), 92 family history variables (Table S16), 265 environmental variables classified in nine categories (Table S19), and 91 socioeconomic variables classified in five categories (Table S22) are associated (p-value threshold of 0.05 and Bonferroni correction) with accelerated aging in the different dimensions. We summarize our findings for general accelerated blood cells, blood biochemistry,and urine biochemistry aging in Table S8, Table S9, Table S11, Table S12, Table S14, Table S15, Table S20, Table S21, Table S23, Table S24, where we list the three variables of each X-subcategory (e.g spirometry biomarkers) most associated with each accelerated aging dimension. The full results can be exhaustively explored at https://www.multidimensionality-of-aging.net/xwas/univariate_associations.

Below, we provide an overview of the X-subcategories with a high proportion of variables associated with accelerated blood biochemistry aging.

Correlation between blood cell, blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry aging

We estimated the phenotypic correlation between accelerated blood cell, blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry aging by computing the pairwise correlations between the three different dimensions of accelerated aging. Is a participant with accelerated blood biochemistry aging likely to also have accelerated blood cells aging? Accelerated blood cells and blood biochemistry aging are phenotypically .143+-.002 correlated, accelerated blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry are phenotypically .070+-.003 correlated, and blood cells and urine biochemistry are phenotypically .195+-.003 correlated.

Similarly, we estimated the genetic correlation between accelerated aging dimensions. Are the SNPs associated with accelerated aging in one dimension also associated with accelerated aging in another dimension? Accelerated blood cells and blood biochemistry aging are phenotypically .085+-.011 correlated, accelerated blood biochemistry and urine biochemistry are phenotypically −.080+-.043 correlated, and blood cells and urine biochemistry are phenotypically −.031+-.025 correlated.

Finally, we computed the correlations between the different accelerated aging dimensions in terms of their XWAS associations. For example, are the environmental variables associated with accelerated blood biochemistry aging also associated with accelerated blood cells aging? A summary of the all the correlations can be found in Table S25 and Figure S2. These results can be interactively explored at https://www.multidimensionality-of-aging.net/correlation_between_aging_dimensions/xwas_univariate.

Predicting accelerated aging from biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, diseases, environmental variables and socioeconomic variables

We predicted accelerated aging in the three aging dimensions (blood biochemistry, blood cells, urine biochemistry) using variables from the different X-datasets categories (biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, diseases, environmental variables and socioeconomic variables). Specifically we built a model using the variables from each of their respective subcategories (e.g blood pressure biomarkers), and found that no dataset could explain more than 5% of the variance in accelerated aging.

Blood biochemistry outperformed blood cells and urine biochemistry as an age predictor

Blood biochemistry biomarkers could explain approximately half the variance in chronological age (R²=48.6+-0.4%; RMSE=5.92+-0.02 years), in contrast to urine biochemistry and blood cells, which respectively explained 10.4+-0.3% and 12.5+-0.2% of the variance. The low performance of the urine biomarkers model can be explained by the limited number of biomarkers (four). It is likely that a model trained on a larger number of urine biomarkers would significantly outperform our current model in predicting age. In contrast, the low performance of blood cell biomarkers as age predictors is neither explained by the number of biomarkers (31), nor by the sample size (N=489,079). We conclude that, despite observable differences in normal blood count values throughout the different ages of life ¹⁷, blood count biomarkers can not, alone, predict age.

For the three aging dimensions, non-linear algorithms (GBM, neural network) outperformed the linear model (elastic net), suggesting that important information related to aging are encoded non-linearly and in complex interactions between the biomarkers.

Comparison between our age predictors and the literature

We compare the performance of our models in predicting chronological age to models that were built on (1) laboratory biomarkers, which include all biomarkers listed under (2-4), (2) blood biochemistry biomarkers, (3) urine biochemistry biomarkers, and (4) blood count biomarkers.

Blood biochemistry, blood cells and urine biochemistry aging are three distinct phenotypes

Blood biochemistry, blood cells and urine biochemistry aging are three distinct phenotypes as shown by their weak phenotypic and genetic correlations. This low correlation can be explained in part by the low age prediction accuracy for the blood cell- and urine biochemistry-derived models. In contrast to these low correlations, we indeed observed that accelerated blood biochemistry aging is associated with blood cells and urine biochemistry biomarkers. More generally, in terms of nongenetic correlations (similarity in terms of associations with biomarkers, phenotypes, diseases, environmental and socioeconomic variables), we found that blood biochemistry and blood cells accelerated aging are correlated (e.g they are influenced similarly by environmental factors), whereas urine biochemistry accelerated aging stands apart and is negatively correlated with the two other accelerated aging phenotypes.

Blood and urine features driving age prediction

The biomarkers selected as most important by the different models undergo important changes with age, as observed by their pairwise correlation with the target variable, and as reported in the literature.

Accelerated aging is partially heritable

We found that accelerated aging was 26.2-10.5% heritable, depending on the aging dimension. The SNPs highlighted by the GWAS reflect, as expected, the feature importances of the models. For example, the GWAS we performed on accelerated blood biochemistry aging identified the genes encoding SHBG and cystatin C as significantly associated with these aging phenotypes. This finding is intuitive considering that these two biomarkers were respectively ranked as the first and the sixth most important predictors by the model we trained to predict chronological age as a function of blood biochemistry biomarkers. SHBG and cystatin C levels increase with age (respective correlations of .06±.01 and .30±.02) so accelerated biochemistry agers are likely to have higher SHBG and cystatin C levels than an average person of the same chronological age. Genes for which some alleles are associated with a higher/lower serum SHBG and cystatin C levels are therefore likely to be associated with accelerated/decelerated biochemistry aging by the GWAS. Similarly, the model ranked glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] as the third most important predictor and glucose as the 19th most important predictors for chronological, which possibly explains why the GWAS identified MPDU1, HK1 and G6PC2 as significantly associated with accelerated aging, since mutations in MPDU1 lead to glycosylation disorders ¹⁶ and both HK1 and G6PC2 are enzymes involved in the glucose pathway ¹⁶. The GWAS also highlighted UDP glucuronosyltransferase genes, which are linked to liver function and more specifically to drug metabolism ¹⁶. Deficiency in UDP glucuronosyltransferase can lead to increased drug hepatotoxicity, which increases alanine aminotransferase [ALT] levels ⁵¹. ALT is a biomarker for liver damage and was ranked as the tenth most important predictor for chronological age by our model. Finally, the GWAS highlighted CETP (involved in cholesterol metabolism) and ABCB11 (involved in statins metabolism, which regulate cholesterol level), which can be explained by the blood biochemistry model, which included cholesterol, LDL, HDL and triglycerides as predictors (respectively ranked as 18th, seventh, 21th and 17th most important predictors).

Similarly, for blood cell aging, the four most important age predictors are red blood cell distribution width, red blood cell count, mean corpuscular volume and mean sphered cell volume. The GWAS highlighted several genes related to red blood cells such as HBS1L (involved in erythrocyte volume, hemoglobin content, erythrocyte count, platelet count and monocyte count, and linked to sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia), SPTA1 (a component of red blood cell plasma membrane and linked to erythrocyte diseases such as elliptocytosis 2, pyropoikilocytosis, and type 3 spherocytosis), and ANK1 (linked to spherocytosis). The 5th most important predictor for age is platelet crit, and the GWAS highlighted TUBB1 (expressed in thrombocytes and megakaryocytes and linked to macrothrombocytopenia) and WDR66 (involved in mean platelet volume).

We emphasize, however, that the interpretation of these loci are different than the associations uncovered in the GWASs of the individual subdimension traits themselves (e.g., SHBG and creatinine). Specifically, SNPs and loci uncovered in our study may hypothetically exert their effect, if causal, along the axis of biological age in a pleiotropic manner.

Accelerated blood biochemistry aging is linked to aging in other organ systems

Accelerated blood biochemistry aging is associated with cardiovascular biomarkers (e.g pulse rate, arterial stiffness, blood pressure, waist circumference, GMI, hip circumference), as well as with lung function, ocular health (eyesight, intraocular pressure), hearing acuity, musculoskeletal health (hand grip strength, bone density), brain anatomical features and cognitive function biomarkers. Similarly it is associated with clinical phenotypes in diverse organ systems, such as chest pain, breathing issues, claudication, joint pain, mental health, hearing, eyesight and oral health. Interestingly, blood aging is correlated with facial aging. Finally, it is associated with diverse diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, poor general health, respiratory diseases, kidney disease, metabolic disorders, neuropathies, mental diseases, skin diseases, eye diseases, fractures, cancer, infections, and others. These findings suggest that blood aging is linked to aging in other organ systems, an hypothesis which we further investigate in a separate paper ⁵².

Environmental and social and economic factors associated with accelerated blood biochemistry aging

In terms of environmental variables, accelerated blood biochemistry aging is associated with smoking (including maternal smoking around birth), poor sleep and sedentarity. Decelerated blood biochemistry aging, in contrast, is associated with physical activity. These findings are aligned with the literature ^53–55. Some diet factors are associated with accelerated aging (e.g white bread, high sugar cereals), while others are associated with decelerated aging (whole grain bread, oily fish). Alcohol intake showed mixed associations, with alcohol intake frequency being associated with accelerated aging, whereas usually taking alcohol with meals and red wine intake are associated with decelerated aging, reflecting a complex literature ⁵⁶.

In terms of socioeconomic status, being wealthy, education and emotionally supported (e.g able to confide, frequency of friend/family visits) were associated with decelerated blood biochemistry aging. Social support is associated with better health ⁵⁷, and education might improve aging via health literacy ⁵⁸. The correlation between wealth and life expectancy is also strong, with the richest 1% US males and females respectively living 14.6±0.2 and 10.1±0.2 years longer than their poorest 1% counterparts ⁵⁹.

Limitations

We identify three key limitations to our work. First, the age range covered by the UKB is narrow (37-82 years). Our models therefore do not inform about the aging process during childhood and young adulthood and centenarian years, and would likely poorly generalize on these populations. Second, the poor predictive performance of blood count and urine biochemistry biomarkers as chronological age predictors, in part due to the limited number of urine biomarkers, limits the power of the subsequent steps of our analysis (e.g GWAS, XWAS, correlation between aging dimensions). Third, UKB is an observational cohort and a largely cross-sectional dataset. As a consequence, the correlations we report between accelerated aging and other factors (biomarkers, phenotypes, diseases, environmental and socioeconomic variables) do not allow us to infer causation.

Data and materials availability

We used the UK Biobank (project ID: 52887). The code can be found at https://github.com/Deep-Learning-and-Aging. The results can be interactively and extensively explored at https://www.multidimensionality-of-aging.net/. We will make the biological age phenotypes available through UK Biobank upon publication. The GWAS results can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/59e9ojl3wu8qie9/Multidimensionality_of_aging-GWAS_results.zip?dl=0.

Software

Our code can be found at https://github.com/Deep-Learning-and-Aging. For the genetics analysis, we used the BOLT-LMM ^60,61 and BOLT-REML ⁶² softwares. We coded the parallel submission of the jobs in Bash ⁶³.

Cohort Dataset: Participants of the UK Biobank

We leveraged the UK Biobank¹³ cohort (project ID: 52887). The UKB cohort consists of data originating from a large biobank collected from 502,211 de-identified participants in the United Kingdom that were aged between 37 years and 74 years at enrollment (starting in 2006). The Harvard internal review board (IRB) deemed the research as non-human subjects research (IRB: IRB16-2145).

Data types and Preprocessing

The data preprocessing step is different for demographic variables and biomarkers. For demographics variables, first, we removed out the UKB samples for which age or sex was missing. For sex, we used the genetic sex when available, and the self-reported sex when genetic sex was not available. We computed age as the difference between the date when the participant attended the assessment center and the year and month of birth of the participant to estimate the participant’s age with greater precision. We one-hot encoded ethnicity. For the biomarkers, we did not perform any preprocessing, aside from the normalization that is described under cross-validation further below. The complete list of biomarkers can be found in Table S7 under “BloodBiochemistry”, “BloodCells” and “UrineBiochemistry”.

Machine learning algorithms

We used three different algorithms to predict age. Elastic Nets [EN] (a regularized linear regression that represents a compromise between ridge regularization and LASSO regularization), Gradient Boosted Machines [GBM] (LightGBM implementation ⁶⁴), and Neural Networks [NN]. The choice of these three algorithms represents a compromise between interpretability and performance. Linear regressions and their regularized forms (LASSO ⁶⁵, ridge ⁶⁶, elastic net ⁶⁷) are highly interpretable using the regression coefficients but are poorly suited to leverage non-linear relationships or interactions between the features and therefore tend to underperform compared to the other algorithms. In contrast, neural networks ^68,69 are complex models, which are designed to capture non-linear relationships and interactions between the variables. However, tools to interpret them are limited ⁷⁰ so they are closer to a “black box”. Tree-based methods such as random forests ⁷¹, gradient boosted machines ⁷² or XGBoost ²⁷ represent a compromise between linear regressions and neural networks in terms of interpretability. They tend to perform similarly to neural networks when limited data is available, and the feature importances can still be used to identify which predictors played an important role in generating the predictions. However, unlike linear regression, feature importances are always non-negative values, so one cannot interpret whether a predictor is associated with older or younger age. We also performed preliminary analyses with other tree-based algorithms, such as random forests ⁷¹, vanilla gradient boosted machines ⁷² and XGBoost ²⁷. We found that they performed similarly to LightGBM, so we only used this last algorithm as a representative for tree-based algorithms in our final calculations.

Training, tuning and predictions

We split the entire dataset into ten data folds and performed a nested-cross validation. We describe the splitting of the data into different folds and the tuning procedures in greater detail in the Supplementary.

Interpretability of the machine learning predictions

To interpret the models, we used the regression coefficients for the elastic nets, the feature importances for the GBMs, and a permutation test for the fully connected neural networks (Supplementary Methods).

Ensembling to improve prediction and define aging dimensions

For each dataset, we ensembled the three models obtained from the elastic net, the GBM and the neural network. We built each ensemble model separately on each of the ten data folds. For example, to build the ensemble model on the testing predictions of the data fold #1, we trained and tuned an elastic net on the validation predictions from the data fold #0 using a 10-folds inner cross-validation, as the validation predictions on fold #0 and the testing predictions on fold #1 are generated by the same model. We used the same hyperparameters space and Bayesian hyperparameters optimization method as we did for the inner cross-validation we performed during the tuning of the non-ensemble models.

To summarize, the testing ensemble predictions are computed by concatenating the testing predictions generated by ten different elastic nets, each of which was trained and tuned using a 10-folds inner cross-validation on one validation data fold (10% of the full dataset) and tested on one testing fold. This is different from the inner-cross validation performed when training the non-ensemble models, which was performed on the “training+validation” data folds, so on 9 data folds (90% of the dataset).

Evaluating the performance of models

We evaluated the performance of the models using two different metrics: R-Squared [R²] and root mean squared error [RMSE]. We computed a confidence interval on the performance metrics in two different ways. First, we computed the standard deviation between the different data folds. The test predictions on each of the ten data folds are generated by ten different models, so this measure of standard deviation captures both model variability and the variability in prediction accuracy between samples. Second, we computed the standard deviation by bootstrapping the computation of the performance metrics 1,000 times. This second measure of variation does not capture model variability but evaluates the variance in the prediction accuracy between samples.

Biological age definition

We defined the biological age of participants as the prediction generated by the model corresponding to aging dimension, after correcting for the bias in the residuals. We indeed observed a bias in the residuals. For each model, participants on the older end of the chronological age distribution tend to be predicted younger than they are. Symmetrically, participants on the younger end of the chronological age distribution tend to be predicted older than they are. This bias does not seem to be biologically driven. Rather it seems to be statistically driven, as the same 60-year-old individual will tend to be predicted younger in a cohort with an age range of 60-80 years, and to be predicted older in a cohort with an age range of 60-80. We ran a linear regression on the residuals as a function of age for each model and used it to correct each prediction for this statistical bias.

After defining biological age as the corrected prediction, we defined accelerated aging as the corrected residuals. For example, a 60-year-old whose blood biochemistry biomarkers predicted an age of 70 years old after correction for the bias in the residuals is estimated to have a blood biochemistry age of 70 years, and an accelerated blood biochemistry aging of ten years.

It is important to understand that this step of correction of the predictions and the residuals takes place after the evaluation of the performance of the models but precedes the analysis of the biological ages properties.

Genome-wide association study of accelerated aging

The UKB contains genome-wide genetic data for 488,251 of the 502,492 participants⁷³ under the hg19/GRCh37 build. We used the average accelerated aging value over the different samples collected over time (see Supplementary - Generating average predictions for each participant). Next, we performed genome wide association studies [GWASs] to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs] associated with accelerated aging in each aging dimension using BOLT-LMM ^60,61 and estimated the SNP-based heritability for each of our biological age phenotypes, and we computed the genetic pairwise correlations between dimensions using BOLT-REML ⁶². We used the v3 imputed genetic data to increase the power of the GWAS, and we corrected all of them for the following covariates: age, sex, ethnicity, the assessment center that the participant attended when their DNA was collected, and the 20 genetic principal components precomputed by the UKB. We used the linkage disequilibrium [LD] scores from the 1,000 Human Genomes Project ⁷⁴. To avoid population stratification, we performed our GWAS on individuals with White ethnicity.

Non-genetic correlates of accelerated aging

We identified non-genetically measured (i.e factors not measured on a GWAS array) correlates of each aging dimension, which we classified in six categories: biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, diseases, family history, environmental, and socioeconomic variables. We refer to the union of these association analyses as an X-Wide Association Study [XWAS]. (1) We define as biomarkers the scalar variables measured on the participant, which we initially leveraged to predict age (e.g. blood pressure, Table S7). (2) We define clinical phenotypes as other biological factors not directly measured on the participant, but instead collected by the questionnaire, and which we did not use to predict chronological age. For example, one of the clinical phenotypes categories is eyesight, which contains variables such as “wears glasses or contact lenses”, which is different from the direct refractive error measurements performed on the participants, which are considered “biomarkers” (Table S10). (3) Diseases include the different medical diagnoses categories listed by UKB (Table S13). (4) Family history variables include illnesses of family members (Table S16). (5) Environmental variables include alcohol, diet, electronic devices, medication, sun exposure, early life factors, medication, sun exposure, sleep, smoking, and physical activity variables collected from the questionnaire (Table S19). (6) Socioeconomic variables include education, employment, household, social support and other sociodemographics (Table S22). We provide information about the preprocessing of the XWAS in the Supplementary Methods.