Hacker News Reader

Comment by kgin | Hacker News Reader

Epigenetic clocks measuring methylation sites across DNA are currently the most accurate way to measure aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_clock

What's more, it seems that it is possible to reset the epigenetic of cells to their youthful state and reverse actual the biological age of those cells. They don't just "measure younger", they function as they did when they were younger. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2975-4

View on HN

>currently the most accurate way to measure aging

I don't understand what people mean by statements like this. Per the Wiki page, they found something that on average is highly correlated to chronological age.

But in individual cases, it may be off a little or a lot. What tells you this is meaningful information and not random noise? What is the reference point for the "real" age that is not chronological age?

> But in individual cases, it may be off a little or a lot. What tells you this is meaningful information and not random noise?

Because it was more accurate than other data sources we've tried

It appears to me to be "more accurate" because they have defined the discrepancies as more accurate. Why not just define them as inaccuracy?

I just watched an interesting Veritasium on this aspect of aging: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k

interesting, what are your thoughts on modifying our epigenetics via crisper to pulse Yamanaka factors? also what ever happened to that CEO who gave her immune system a boost with stem cells?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com