Springer Nature
Browse
13041_2021_810_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (32.27 kB)

Additional file 5 of Novel epigenetic clock for fetal brain development predicts prenatal age for cellular stem cell models and derived neurons

Download (32.27 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2021-06-27, 03:17 authored by Leonard C. Steg, Gemma L. Shireby, Jennifer Imm, Jonathan P. Davies, Alice Franklin, Robert Flynn, Seema C. Namboori, Akshay Bhinge, Aaron R. Jeffries, Joe Burrage, Grant W. A. Neilson, Emma M. Walker, Leo W. Perfect, Jack Price, Grainne McAlonan, Deepak P. Srivastava, Nicholas J. Bray, Emma L. Cope, Kimberley M. Jones, Nicholas D. Allen, Ehsan Pishva, Emma L. Dempster, Katie Lunnon, Jonathan Mill, Eilis Hannon
Additional file 5: Fig. S3. Comparison of predictions from the four DNAm clocks in adult brain samples (n = 1221). Shown are scatterplots comparing chronological age (x-axis; years) against predicted epigenetic age (y-axis; years) calculated using A Fetal Brain Clock (FBC); B Horvath’s Multi Tissue Clock (MTC); C Knight’s Gestational Age Clock (GAC); D Lee’s Control Placental Clock (CPC) in an independent adult brain dataset. Where necessary, predicted age was converted to years, where 0 indicates birth. The black line indicates the identity line of chronological and predicted epigenetic age and represents a perfect prediction. Two statistics were calculated to evaluate the precision of each DNAm clock: Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and the root mean squared error (RMSE).

Funding

Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative Medical Research Council (UK) Medical Research Council UK Wellcome Trust EU-AIMS Innovative Medicines Initiative

History

Usage metrics

    Molecular Brain

    Categories

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC