posted on 2021-06-27, 03:17authored byLeonard 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