Epigenetic aging and fecundability: the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION Is there an association between male or female epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) or deceleration (EAD) and fecundability? SUMMARY ANSWER We do not find compelling evidence of an association between EAA or EAD and fecundability. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Prior research has shown that female accelerated epigenetic aging is associated with unfavorable clinical fecundity outcomes and use of in vitro fertilization, and that epigenetic aging in sperm cells is associated with unfavorable sperm parameters. Studies of epigenetic aging and fecundability among individuals who conceive naturally are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study is based on the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa), a population-based pregnancy cohort which recruited pregnant couples between 1999 and 2008. We used data from 1657 couples (women and men) with planned naturally conceived pregnancies and available blood samples. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Methylation levels were measured in DNA from blood samples taken recruitment (at ∼18 gestational weeks) from pregnant women and their partners using the Illumina Methylation EPIC Array. To obtain a measure of EAA/EAD, we performed a linear regression of each of seven different established epigenetic biomarkers (DNAmAge by Horvath, DNAmAge by Hannum et al., PhenoAge by Levine et al., DunedinPoAm by Belsky et al., DunedinPACE by Belsky et al., DNAmTL by Lu et al., and GrimAge by Lu et al.) against chronological age. We fitted proportional probability regression models to obtain fecundability ratios (FRs) for each standard deviation increase in epigenetic aging, and obtained crude and adjusted (for body mass index, smoking, and education level) estimates. Results were evaluated at a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5%. We evaluated all models for non-linear associations using categories of epigenetic age where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Although the DunedinPACE clock in males demonstrated slightly increasing fecundability with increasing EAA (adjusted FR 1.05 per one standard deviation increase in EAA, 95% CI 1.00–1.10), this was not robust when evaluated at an FDR of 5%. We found evidence of non-linearity between biological aging and fecundability in two models in females and three models in males, but non-linear associations were weak and conflicting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION As MoBa is a pregnancy cohort, our findings may not be generalizable to all couples attempting conception. Fecundability is a couple-level measure, and any impacts of epigenetic aging in each partner may be obscured by effects of the other partner. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our findings contrast with those of prior studies, which have indicated an association between EAA and unfavorable clinical fertility outcomes in populations using fertility treatments, possibly due to less important effects of epigenetic aging among couples who conceive naturally. More research is needed on the association between blood-based EAA and clinical fertility parameters in both sexes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Medical Student Research Program funding scheme (project number 271555/F20), its Centres of Excellence funding scheme (project number 262700), and a grant from the Women’s Health Program (320656). Co-funding was also received from the Strategic Research Council (SRC), FLUX consortium, decision numbers 345130 and 345131; the National Institute on Aging (R01AG075208); grants to the Max Planck—University of Helsinki Center from the Max Planck Society (decision number 5714240218), Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki, and Cities of Helsinki, Vantaa, and Espoo; and the European Research Council; and the European Research Council (ERC Synergy, BIOSFER, grant number 101071773, and the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, grant number 947684). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.