ABSTRACT
Background Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Chronological age and race are associated with increased risk of preeclampsia; however, the pathophysiology of preeclampsia and how these risk factors impact its development, are not entirely understood. This gap precludes clinical interventions to prevent preeclampsia occurrence or to address stark racial disparities in maternal and neonatal outcomes. Of note, cellular aging rates can differ between individuals and chronological age is often a poor surrogate of biological age. DNA methylation age provides a marker of biological aging, and those with a DNA methylation age greater than their chronological age have ‘age acceleration’. Examining age acceleration in the context of preeclampsia status, and race, could strengthen our understanding of preeclampsia pathophysiology, inform future interventions to improve maternal/neonatal outcomes, and provide insight to racial disparities across pregnancy.
Objectives The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine associations between age acceleration, preeclampsia status, and race across pregnancy.
Study design This was a longitudinal, observational, case-control study of 56 pregnant individuals who developed preeclampsia (n=28) or were normotensive controls (n=28). Peripheral blood samples were collected at trimester-specific time points and genome-wide DNA methylation data were generated using the Infinium MethylationEPIC Beadchip. DNA methylation age was estimated using the Elastic Net ‘Improved Precision’ clock and age acceleration was computed as Δage, the difference between DNA methylation age and chronological age. DNA methylation age was compared with chronological age using scatterplots and Pearson correlations, while considering preeclampsia status and race. The relationships between preeclampsia status, race, and Δage were formally tested using multiple linear regression, while adjusting for pre-pregnancy body mass index, chronological age, and (chronological age)2. Regressions were performed both with and without consideration of cell-type heterogeneity.
Results We observed strong correlations between chronological age and DNA methylation age in all trimesters, ranging from R=0.91-0.95 in cases and R=0.86-0.90 in controls. We observed significantly stronger correlations between chronological age and DNA methylation age in White versus Black participants ranging from R=0.89-0.98 in White participants and R=0.77-0.83 in Black participants. We observed no association between Δage and preeclampsia status within trimesters. However, even while controlling for covariates, Δage was higher in trimester 1 in participants with higher pre-pregnancy BMI (β=0.12, 95% CI=0.02 to 0.22, p=0.02) and lower in Black participants relative to White participants in trimesters 2 (β=−2.68, 95% CI=−4.43 to −0.94, p=0.003) and 3 (β=−2.10, 95% CI=−4.03 to −0.17, p=0.03). When controlling for cell-type heterogeneity, the observations with BMI in trimester 1 and race in trimester 2 persisted.
Conclusions We report no association between Δage and preeclampsia status, although there were associations with pre-pregnancy BMI and race. In particular, our findings in a small sample demonstrate the need for additional studies to not only investigate the complex pathophysiology of preeclampsia, but also the relationship between race and biological aging, which could provide further insight into racial disparities in pregnancy and birth. Future efforts to confirm these findings in larger samples, including exploration and applications of other epigenetic clocks, is needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD092770 and P01HD303067), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1TR001858), and National Institute of Nursing Research (T32NR009759) of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study has Institutional Review Board Approval from the University of Pittsburgh (Study number 19110285, most recent renewal approved 12-16-2019).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available at dbGAP, accession number: phs001937.v1.p1
