Assessing the causal role of epigenetic clocks in the development of multiple cancers: a Mendelian randomization study

INTRODUCTION

DNA methylation (DNAm) is an epigenetic biomarker that can be used as an estimator of chronological age. Biological age, as predicted by DNAm patterns at specific cytosine- phosphate-guanine (CpG) sites, may differ from chronological age on an individual basis. Observational evidence suggests that epigenetic age acceleration (i.e., when an individual’s biological age is greater than their chronological age) may be associated with an increased risk of mortality and age-related diseases, including cancer¹.

Epigenetic clocks are heritable indicators of biological ageing derived from DNAm data. Each clock is based on DNAm levels measured at a different set of CpG sites, which capture distinctive features of epigenetic ageing². ‘First-generation’ epigenetic clocks, such as HannumAge³ and Intrinsic HorvathAge⁴, have been derived from DNAm levels at CpG sites found to be strongly associated with chronological age. HannumAge is trained on 71 age- related CpGs found in blood³, while Intrinsic HorvathAge is based on 353 age-related CpGs found in several human tissues and cell types, and is further adjusted for blood cell counts⁴. More recently, ‘second-generation’ epigenetic clocks, such as, PhenoAge⁵ and GrimAge⁶, have been developed to predict age-related morbidity and mortality. PhenoAge incorporates data from 513 age-related CpGs associated with mortality and nine clinical biomarkers (i.e., albumin, creatinine, serum glucose, C-reactive protein, lymphocyte percentage, mean corpuscular volume, red cell distribution width, alkaline phosphatase and leukocyte count)⁵, and GrimAge includes data from 1,030 age-related CpGs associated with smoking pack-years and seven plasma proteins (i.e., cystatin C, leptin, tissue inhibitor metalloproteinases 1, adrenomedullin, beta-2-microglobulin, growth differentiation factor 15, and plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1))⁶. Due to differences in their composition, HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge are better predictors of chronological age^{3 4}, while PhenoAge and GrimAge stand out for their ability to predict health and lifespan^5–7.

Several studies suggest that HannumAge, Intrinsic HorvathAge, PhenoAge and GrimAge acceleration are associated with cancer risk^{5 8–13}. In contrast, others indicate that evidence in support of this claim is weak or non existent^14–17. This lack of consensus could be explained by biases that often affect observational research, such as reverse causation (e.g., cancer influencing the epigenome and not the other way around) and residual confounding (e.g., unmeasured, or imprecisely measured confounders of the association between epigenetic age acceleration and cancer)¹⁸.

The strength of the associations between epigenetic age acceleration and different cancers has also been found to vary across epigenetic clocks. For instance, positive associations between epigenetic age acceleration and colorectal cancer seem to be much stronger when biological age is estimated using second-generation clocks (i.e., PhenoAge and GrimAge)¹⁰ rather than first-generation clocks (i.e., HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge)^{14 16}. Lack of consensus across epigenetic clocks could be explained by differences in their algorithms (which may reflect different mechanisms of biological ageing), as well as heterogeneity in study designs¹. Furthermore, even if there were a consensus, it would still be unclear whether age-related DNA methylation plays a causal role in cancer risk or if it merely acts as a non-causal prognostic biomarker.

Mendelian randomization (MR), a method that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causality between a modifiable exposure and an outcome, is less likely to be affected by residual confounding and reverse causation than traditional observational methods¹⁹. A recent genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis has revealed 137 genetic loci associated with epigenetic age acceleration (as measured by six epigenetic biomarkers) that may be used within an MR framework²⁰.

McCartney et al.²⁰ used IVW MR, MR-Egger, weighted median and weighted mode methods to explore the genetically predicted effects of HannumAge, Intrinsic HorvathAge, PhenoAge and GrimAge acceleration on breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Here we extend this analysis to include colorectal and prostate cancer (two of the most common cancers worldwide²¹) and use additional methods and datasets to verify the robustness of our findings.

The aim of this two-sample MR study was to examine the genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration (as measured by HannumAge³, Horvath Intrinsic Age⁴, PhenoAge⁵ and GrimAge⁶) on multiple cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian and lung cancer) using summary genetic association data from (1) McCartney et al. (N=34,710)²⁰, (2) the UK Biobank (N cases=2,671–13,879; N controls=173,493–372,016), (3) FinnGen (N cases=719– 8,401; N controls=74,685–174,006) and (4) several international cancer genetic consortia (N cases=11,348–122,977; N controls=15,861–105,974).

METHODS

Statistical analysis

We estimated the genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration (as measured by HannumAge³, Horvath Intrinsic Age⁴, PhenoAge⁵ and GrimAge⁶) on multiple cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian and lung cancer) using a two-sample MR framework (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flowchart summarising study methods. Abbreviations: BCAC, Breast Cancer Association Consortium; OCAC, Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium; PRACTICAL, Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome; ILCCO, International Lung Cancer Consortium; GECCO, Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium; LD, linkage disequilibrium; IVW, inverse variance weighted; MR, Mendelian randomization; FDR, false discovery rate; GWAS, genome-wide association study; CAUSE, Causal Analysis Using Summary Effect estimates.

Main analyses

Main analyses were performed using multiplicative random effects inverse variance weighted (IVW) MR, a method that combines the genetically predicted effect of epigenetic age acceleration on cancer across genetic variants²⁴. We used fixed effect meta-analysis to pool results across studies (i.e., UK Biobank, FinnGen and international consortia). For colorectal cancer, we only pooled FinnGen and GECCO estimates, since UK Biobank participants were already included in GECCO. I² statistics and their corresponding confidence intervals were used to estimate heterogeneity across study estimates²⁵. A Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) <5% was used to correct the pooled main IVW results for multiple testing²⁶.

Sensitivity analyses

MR assumes genetic instruments for epigenetic age acceleration are 1) associated with epigenetic age acceleration (relevance assumption), 2) independent of confounders (independence assumption) and 3) only associated with cancer through their effect on epigenetic age acceleration (exclusion restriction assumption)^{27 28}.

As a sensitivity analysis and to test for potential violations of the relevance assumption, we calculated F-statistics and the R² for each measure of epigenetic age acceleration²⁹. Other sensitivity analyses included MR-Egger³⁰, weighted median³¹ and weighted mode³² methods, which are robust to some of the assumptions of the IVW approach (described in the Supplementary Methods). These results were also pooled across studies, as explained above. Consistency across different MR methods would suggest that it is less likely that the independence and exclusion restriction assumptions are violated.

Where associations between genetically predicted epigenetic age acceleration and cancer were identified, we additionally performed single-SNP two-sample MR analysis to assess whether the effects were likely to be driven by a single SNP. We also used Causal Analysis using Summary Effect Estimates (CAUSE)³³, a method that uses genome-wide summary statistics to disentangle causality (i.e., SNPs are associated with cancer through their effect on epigenetic age acceleration) from correlated horizontal pleiotropy (i.e., SNPs are associated with epigenetic age acceleration and cancer through a shared heritable factor), while taking into account uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropy (i.e., SNPs are associated with epigenetic age acceleration through separate mechanisms). It uses Bayesian modelling to assess whether the sharing model (i.e., model that fixes the causal effect at zero) fits the data at least as well as the causal model (i.e., model that allows a causal effect different from zero). Additionally, Cochran’s Q statistics were used to quantify global heterogeneity across SNP-specific MR estimates³⁴ and MR-Egger intercept tests were performed to detect uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropy³⁰.

Secondary analyses

As a secondary analysis, we conducted two-sample MR of epigenetic age acceleration and cancer subtypes (i.e., breast cancer: ER+, ER-, triple negative, luminal B/HER2-negative-like, HER2-enriched-like, luminal A-like, luminal B-like, BRCA1 and BRCA2; ovarian cancer: high grade serous, low grade serous, invasive mucinous, clear cell, endometrioid, BRCA1 and BRCA2; prostate cancer: advanced, advanced [vs non-advanced], early onset, high risk [vs low risk], and high risk [vs low and intermediate risk]; lung cancer: adenocarcinoma and squamous cell; colorectal cancer: colon-specific, proximal colon-specific, distal colon- specific, rectal-specific, male and female) (Supplementary Methods).

We also performed two-sample MR analyses of epigenetic age acceleration and parental history of cancer in the UK Biobank for breast, prostate, lung and bowel cancer (Supplementary Methods). Data on parental history of ovarian cancer were not available in UK Biobank. Family history data correlate with combined hospital record and questionnaire data and it has been suggested that they provide better power to detect GWAS-significant associations for some phenotypes in the UK Biobank³⁵. Therefore, we expected these results to be consistent with those obtained in the main analyses. Although these analyses were conducted as a form of replication, their effect estimates are not directly comparable to those obtained in the main analyses due to cases in the GWAS-by-proxy of parental endpoints being defined as either or both parents reportedly having a type of cancer.

MR results were reported as the odds ratio (OR) of site-specific cancer per one year increase in genetically predicted epigenetic age acceleration.

LD Score regression³⁶ was used to identify genome-wide genetic correlations between epigenetic age acceleration and cancer. Genetic correlations were estimated using full GWAS summary statistics for the epigenetic clocks and cancer, as well as the 1000 Genomes Project European LD reference panel. Traits with mean heritability chi-square values <1.02 were excluded from the analyses.

All MR analyses were performed using R software version 4.0.2. Two sample MR analyses were conducted using the “TwoSampleMR” package version 0.5.5. Meta-analyses of IVW results were performed using the “meta” package version 4.18. CAUSE analyses were conducted using the “cause” package version 1.2.0. Forest plots were created using the “ggforestplot” package version 0.1.0. LD Scores were computed using the “ldsc” command line tool version 1.0.1. The code used in this study is available at: https://github.com/fernandam93/epiclocks_cancer.

RESULTS

Breast cancer

We did not find strong evidence of causality between epigenetic age acceleration and breast cancer (GrimAge IVW OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.95–1.00, p=0.08; PhenoAge IVW OR=0.99, 95%CI 0.98–1.01, p=0.23; HannumAge IVW OR=0.99, 95%CI 0.97–1.02, p=0.63; and Intrinsic HorvathAge IVW OR=0.99, 95%CI 0.98–1.00, p=0.13) (Figure 2, Supplementary Figures 1 and 5–7, Supplementary Tables 3–6 and 9–10).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Fixed effect meta-analysis of inverse-variance weighted Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration on multiple cancers. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in (A) GrimAge acceleration, (B) PhenoAge acceleration, (C) HannumAge acceleration and (D) Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration. GrimAge, PhenoAge, HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration were instrumented by 4, 11, 9 and 24 genetic variants, respectively. All meta-analysis estimates were calculated using data from UK Biobank, FinnGen and international consortia, except for colorectal cancer estimates, which exclude UK Biobank data to avoid double counting.

Prostate cancer

Meta-analysed IVW MR findings suggested that genetically predicted GrimAge acceleration decreased the risk of prostate cancer (OR=0.93 per year increase in GrimAge acceleration, 95%CI 0.87–0.99, p=0.02) (Figure 2, Supplementary Tables 3–6). These results withstood multiple testing correction (FDR p=0.04), there was little evidence of heterogeneity across study estimates (I²=0%, 95%CI 0–41%, p=0.84) and the direction of the genetically predicted effect was consistent across main and sensitivity MR analyses (i.e., MR-Egger, weighted median and weighted mode) (Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 3–6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Fixed effect meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of GrimAge acceleration on multiple cancers. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. GrimAge acceleration was instrumented by four genetic variants. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. All meta-analysis estimates were calculated using data from UK Biobank, FinnGen and international consortia, except for colorectal cancer estimates, which exclude UK Biobank data to avoid double counting.

We further explored the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge on prostate cancer using PRACTICAL data only. Single-SNP analysis revealed that the effect was not driven by a single SNP (Supplementary Table 7), although there was some evidence of heterogeneity across SNPs (Cochran’s Q 10.63, p= 0.01) (Supplementary Table 8). Additionally, results suggested no evidence of detectable uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropy (MR-Egger intercept = -0.03, 95%CI -0.34–0.28, p=0.87) (Supplementary Table 8). However, we were unable to rule out correlated pleiotropy (CAUSE OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.94–1.02, p=0.64; shared q=3%, 95%CI=0– 25%) (Supplementary Figure 2).

Among subtypes, the protective effect of GrimAge acceleration appeared strongest in relation to advanced (IVW OR=0.90, 95%CI 0.82–1.00, p=0.04) and early onset prostate cancer (IVW OR=0.76, 95%CI 0.62–0.92, p=0.005) (Figure 4, Supplementary Table 9).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of GrimAge acceleration on prostate and colorectal cancer subtypes. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. GrimAge acceleration was instrumented by four genetic variants. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. Data sources: PRACTICAL and GECCO.

However, the prostate cancer results must be interpreted with caution, as findings did not replicate when using parental history of prostate cancer as the outcome (IVW OR=1.00 per year increase in GrimAge acceleration, 95%CI 0.96–1.04, p=1.00) (Figure 5, Supplementary Table 10). Furthermore, LD Score regression results did not provide strong, consistent evidence of a genetic correlation between GrimAge and prostate cancer (PRACTICAL rg=- 0.13, p=0.12; UK Biobank rg=0.03, p=0.76; FinnGen rg=-0.02, p=0.89) (Supplementary Figure 3, Supplementary Table 11)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of GrimAge acceleration on parental history of multiple cancers. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. GrimAge acceleration was instrumented by four genetic variants. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. Data source: UK Biobank.

We did not find consistent evidence of causality between other measures of epigenetic age acceleration and prostate cancer (PhenoAge IVW OR=1.01, 95%CI 0.99–1.03, p=0.31; HannumAge IVW OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.95–1.02, p=0.39; and Intrinsic HorvathAge IVW OR=0.99, 95%CI 0.98–1.01, p=0.42) (Figure 2, Supplementary Figures 1 and 5–7, Supplementary Tables 3–6 and 9–10).

DISCUSSION

In this comprehensive two-sample MR study of epigenetic age acceleration and multiple cancers, we found evidence to suggest that genetically predicted GrimAge acceleration may increase the risk of colorectal cancer in both males and females. Among subtypes, effects appeared to be stronger in relation to colon than rectal cancer. Our MR results also suggested that genetically predicted GrimAge acceleration may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. The protective effect appeared strongest for advanced and early onset prostate cancer. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility of bias, as the prostate cancer results did not replicate in the MR analysis using data regarding parental history of cancer, and LD Score regression analyses did not indicate a genetic correlation between the traits.

We also identified a protective effect of Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration on lung cancer, but this did not pass multiple testing correction and was substantially attenuated in sensitivity analyses. Finally, we found no consistent evidence for other measures of epigenetic age acceleration and cancers.

Our estimates for the association between GrimAge and colorectal cancer were consistent with those reported in Dugue et al.¹⁰, an observational nested case-control study in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (RR=1.04 per year increase in GrimAge acceleration, 95%CI 1.01–1.07, p=0.02). However, our findings contrast with those highlighted in Hillary et al.¹⁵. The latter authors observed no evidence of an association between GrimAge acceleration and colorectal cancer after correcting for multiple testing. Nevertheless, it is possible that their analyses were underpowered, as their sample only included 63 colorectal cancer cases (0.66%). More importantly, the direction of the reported estimate is consistent with our findings and those presented in Dugue et al.¹⁰.

As in our study, Dugue et al.¹⁰ provided evidence of a weak inverse association between GrimAge acceleration and prostate cancer (RR=0.86 per 5-year increase in GrimAge acceleration, 95%CI 0.74–1.01, p=0.07). Nevertheless, associations in both studies seem to have been driven by different prostate cancer subtypes. Stratified results in Dugue et al.¹⁰ suggested that the protective effect of GrimAge acceleration is driven by non-aggressive prostate cancer, while we only found evidence of a protective effect for early onset prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer (which both tend to be more aggressive³⁷).

The weak inverse association observed in Dugue et al.¹⁰ could have emerged due to detection bias. Health-conscious individuals are more likely to use health services and undergo prostate cancer screening^{38 39}. Hence, their likelihood of being diagnosed with less severe cancers may be greater, despite them potentially also having lower GrimAge acceleration. This could lead to spurious conclusions, such as that people with higher GrimAge acceleration are less likely to develop non-aggressive prostate cancer. The inverse effect in our study could be explained by selection bias, as cases of early onset prostate cancer (who possibly have higher GrimAge acceleration) are likely to be missed if studies only recruit middle- to late-aged participants. Likewise, individuals with longer lifespans (and possibly lower GrimAge acceleration) are more likely to develop advanced prostate cancer, simply because they have not died of other illnesses (survival bias).

Observational evidence for the association between other measures of epigenetic ageing and cancer is inconclusive (the pre-existing evidence has been summarised in Supplementary Table 12). For instance, epigenetic clock acceleration has been positively associated with breast^{8 11 12} and lung cancer^{5 9 10} in some studies. However, Durso et al.¹⁶, Hillary et al.¹⁵ and Dugue et al.¹⁴ did not find strong evidence to support this. In some cases, observational evidence is stronger for some clocks than it is for others. For example, for colorectal cancer, evidence of a positive association was much stronger for second- generation clocks¹⁰ than for first-generation clocks^{14 16}. For prostate cancer, evidence of an association was only found for GrimAge^{10 14}, as in our study. To date, the association between epigenetic age acceleration and ovarian cancer has not been explored observationally. Although our findings were less susceptible to biases that often influence observational research, they still provide no compelling evidence of a causal association between several measures of epigenetic clock acceleration and cancer.

This MR study had several strengths. For instance, we pooled results from multiple sources using fixed effect meta-analysis to improve the precision of the estimates presented in McCartney et al²⁰. We also conducted extra sensitivity analyses, such as single-SNP and CAUSE analyses, to assess the validity of the MR assumptions. Moreover, we performed subtype-specific MR analyses and sought to replicate our results using UK Biobank GWAS data on parental history of cancer and LD Score regression. Additionally, our findings contribute to the identification of modifiable targets for future interventions aimed at reversing epigenetic ageing for the prevention of cancer. Compared to clinical trials, MR provides a cheaper, quicker, and ethical way of assessing the long-term impact of interventions on epigenetic ageing. This is especially relevant while attempts to develop interventions which reverse epigenetic ageing are still in early stages^40–43.

The findings from this study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. We only identified four genetic instruments for GrimAge acceleration, which explained 0.47% of the variance in the trait. This could lead to two issues: low statistical power and horizontal pleiotropy. First, our GrimAge analyses were underpowered to detect ORs <1.20 for colorectal cancer and >0.84 for prostate cancer. Therefore, it is possible that our findings do not reflect a true effect (we identified ORs=1.12 and 0.93 for colorectal and prostate cancer, respectively). Similarly, our study was underpowered to detect genetically predicted effects of GrimAge acceleration on cancer subtypes and cancers with smaller sample sizes (i.e., ovarian and lung cancer). Some of our sensitivity analyses, such as the MR-Egger intercept test used to detect uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropy, also had low power, resulting in imprecise estimates. The weighted mode method may also be misleading in this context, as its use is limited in the presence of very few SNPs. Although these limitations potentially undermine the validity of our results, it is reassuring that point estimates for the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge acceleration on prostate and colorectal cancer were consistent across MR methods and study populations. However, since CAUSE analyses did not provide evidence against confounding by correlated horizontal pleiotropy, it is possible that the genetically predicted effects identified are attributed to correlated pleiotropy (whereby SNPs are associated with epigenetic age acceleration and cancer through a shared heritable factor) rather than a causal effect of GrimAge on cancer risk.

One could argue that because the results for GrimAge acceleration were inconsistent with those obtained for other measures of epigenetic age acceleration, chance and horizontal pleiotropy are more likely explanations for our findings. However, inconsistencies across epigenetic ageing measures do not necessarily invalidate our results. They may simply reflect differences in how clocks were trained (i.e., they were trained on different outcomes, tissues, and populations). Different clocks may capture information on distinct underlying biological ageing mechanisms². For example, GrimAge was trained on mortality and smoking (factors which are closely related to cancer risk), which may explain why it outperforms other measures of epigenetic ageing in predicting time-to-cancer⁶. Although little is known about the underlying mechanisms, GrimAge may plausibly influence cancer risk through its effect on hormonal, inflammatory and metabolic processes^44–46. Furthermore, Wang et al.⁴⁷ suggests that the disruption of epigenomic maintenance systems, reflected by either epigenetic clock acceleration or deceleration, may be involved in the process of carcinogenesis.

Although promising in terms of consistency and biological plausibility, further research is required to confirm our findings. For example, multivariable MR^{48 49} could be used to disentangle the causal effects of GrimAge acceleration on cancer from shared heritable factors such as and blood cell composition. Additionally, our analyses could be replicated using other large independent cancer datasets to increase power. It would also be useful to replicate our analyses once a larger GWAS of epigenetic ageing with more genetic instruments for GrimAge acceleration is available. This would allow for a more rigorous assessment of horizontal pleiotropy and may be used to assess clustering of genetic variants to reveal distinct biological mechanisms underlying the effects⁵⁰.

The selection of “super controls” (e.g., in UK Biobank, FinnGen and GECCO), with no other cancers, related lesions (i.e., benign, in situ, uncertain or unspecified behaviour neoplasms) or reported family history of cancer, could have inflated cancer GWAS effect sizes (and our MR estimates), because “super controls” are healthier than the general population and are less likely to be genetically predisposed to develop cancer.

Another limitation is that we did not have access to individual level data. Therefore, we were unable to stratify the analyses by potential effect modifiers, such as sex, smoking and menopausal status. Moreover, we did not have sex-specific instruments for sex-specific cancers. However, it is unlikely that the genetic architecture of epigenetic clock acceleration differs across sexes, as DNAm levels at individual clock CpGs are highly correlated between males and females^{51 52}.

Finally, to reduce bias due to population stratification, this study was conducted using data from participants of European ancestry only. The GWAS data used for the analyses had been adjusted for the top genetic principal components for the same reason. Assortative mating is unlikely to be a problem in the context of this study because we would not expect people to select partners based on their epigenetic age acceleration. Despite this, confounding due to population stratification and assortative mating cannot be ruled out completely, as it is not possible to test the second MR assumption (i.e., independence assumption). Furthermore, more research is required to see if our results could translate to other ancestries.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that genetically predicted GrimAge acceleration may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. There is more limited evidence that it may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. Findings were less consistent for other epigenetic clocks and cancers. Further work is required to investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the genetically predicted effects identified in this study.

Competing interests

ATL and SH declare that UC Regents filed the patent “DNA METHYLATION BASED BIOMARKERS FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY AND MORBIDITY” (in pending status), and that the Epigenetic Clock Development Foundation and Foxo Labs hold licenses. SH receives consulting fees from the Epigenetic Clock Development Foundation and royalties for patents involving epigenetic clocks. REM has received a speaker fee from Illumina and is an advisor to the Epigenetic Clock Development Foundation. TGR is employed part time by Novo Nordisk outside of this work. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplement 1. STROBE-MR checklist of recommended items to address in reports of Mendelian randomization studies²²

Supplement 2. PRACTICAL consortia authorship and acknowledgements PIs from the PRACTICAL (http://practical.icr.ac.uk/) consortia:

Rosalind A. Eeles^1,2, Christopher A. Haiman³, Zsofia Kote-Jarai¹, Fredrick R. Schumacher^4,5, Sara Benlloch^6,1, Ali Amin Al Olama^6,7, Kenneth R. Muir⁸, Sonja I. Berndt⁹, David V. Conti³, Fredrik Wiklund¹⁰, Stephen Chanock⁹, Ying Wang¹¹, Catherine M. Tangen¹², Jyotsna Batra^{13, 14}, Judith A. Clements^{13, 14}, APCB BioResource (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource)^{14, 15}, Henrik Grönberg¹⁰, Nora Pashayan^16,17, Johanna Schleutker^18,19, Demetrius Albanes⁹, Stephanie Weinstein⁹, Alicja Wolk²⁰, Catharine M. L. West²¹, Lorelei A. Mucci²², Géraldine Cancel-Tassin^23,24, Stella Koutros⁹, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen^25,26, Eli Marie Grindedal²⁷, David E. Neal^28,29,30, Freddie C. Hamdy^31,32, Jenny L. Donovan³³, Ruth C. Travis³⁴, Robert J. Hamilton^35,36, Sue Ann Ingles³⁷, Barry S. Rosenstein³⁸, Yong-Jie Lu³⁹, Graham G. Giles^40,41,42, Robert J. MacInnis^40,41, Adam S. Kibel⁴³, Ana Vega^44,45,46, Manolis Kogevinas^47,48,49,50, Kathryn L. Penney⁵¹, Jong Y. Park⁵², Janet L. Stanford^53,54, Cezary Cybulski⁵⁵, Børge G. Nordestgaard^56,57, Sune F. Nielsen^56,57, Hermann Brenner^58,59,60, Christiane Maier⁶¹, Jeri Kim⁶², Esther M. John⁶³, Manuel R. Teixeira^64,65,66, Susan L. Neuhausen⁶⁷, Kim De Ruyck⁶⁸, Azad Razack⁶⁹, Lisa F. Newcomb^53,70, Davor Lessel⁷¹, Radka Kaneva⁷², Nawaid Usmani^73,74, Frank Claessens⁷⁵, Paul A. Townsend^76,77, Jose Esteban Castelao⁷⁸, Monique J. Roobol⁷⁹, Florence Menegaux⁸⁰, Kay-Tee Khaw⁸¹, Lisa Cannon- Albright^82,83, Hardev Pandha⁷⁷, Stephen N. Thibodeau⁸⁴, David J. Hunter⁸⁵, Peter Kraft⁸⁶, William J. Blot^87,88, Elio Riboli⁸⁹

¹The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK

²Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK

³Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA 90015, USA

⁴Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7219, USA

⁵Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.

⁶Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK

⁷University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Stroke Research Group, R3, Box 83, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK

⁸Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

⁹Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892, USA

¹⁰Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

¹¹Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA

¹²SWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA

¹³Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-Qld, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane QLD 4059, Australia

¹⁴Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia

¹⁵Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-Qld, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane; Prostate Cancer Research Program, Monash University, Melbourne; Dame Roma Mitchell Cancer Centre, University of Adelaide, Adelaide; Chris O’Brien Lifehouse

¹⁶Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK

¹⁷Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK ¹⁸Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Finland

¹⁹Department of Medical Genetics, Genomics, Laboratory Division, Turku University Hospital, PO Box 52, 20521 Turku, Finland

²⁰Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden

²¹Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9PL UK

²²Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA

²³CeRePP, Tenon Hospital, F-75020 Paris, France.

²⁴Sorbonne Universite, GRC n°5 , AP-HP, Tenon Hospital, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France

²⁵Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensen Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark

²⁶Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, DK-8200 Aarhus N

²⁷Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway

²⁸Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Room 6603, Level 6, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK

²⁹University of Cambridge, Department of Oncology, Box 279, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK

³⁰Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK

³¹Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2JD, UK

³²Faculty of Medical Science, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK

³³Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

³⁴Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK

³⁵Dept. of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto ON M5G 2M9, Canada

³⁶Dept. of Surgery (Urology), University of Toronto, Canada

³⁷Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA 90015, USA

³⁸Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Box 1236, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA

³⁹Centre for Cancer Biomarker and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

⁴⁰Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia

⁴¹Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

⁴²Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia

⁴³Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Womens Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA

⁴⁴Fundación Pública Galega Medicina Xenómica, Santiago de Compostela, 15706, Spain

⁴⁵Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago De Compostela, 15706, Spain.

⁴⁶Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Spain

⁴⁷ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

⁴⁸IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain

⁴⁹Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain

⁵⁰CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain

⁵¹Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA

⁵²Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA

⁵³Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, 98109-1024, USA

⁵⁴Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA

⁵⁵International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, 70-115 Szczecin, Poland

⁵⁶Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark

⁵⁷Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark

⁵⁸Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany

⁵⁹German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany

⁶⁰Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

⁶¹Humangenetik Tuebingen, Paul-Ehrlich-Str 23, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany

⁶²The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA

⁶³Departments of Epidemiology & Population Health and of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94304 USA

⁶⁴Department of Genetics, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO-Porto), 4200-072 Porto, Portugal

⁶⁵Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), University of Porto, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal

⁶⁶Cancer Genetics Group, IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO-Porto), 4200-072 Porto, Portugal

⁶⁷Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, 626-256-HOPE (4673)

⁶⁸Ghent University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Basic Medical Sciences, Proeftuinstraat 86, B-9000 Gent

⁶⁹Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

⁷⁰Department of Urology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356510, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

⁷¹Institute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany

⁷²Molecular Medicine Center, Department of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, 2 Zdrave Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria

⁷³Department of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 1Z2

⁷⁴Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 1Z2

⁷⁵Molecular Endocrinology Laboratory, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, BE-3000, Belgium

⁷⁶Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Health Innovation Manchester, Univeristy of Manchester, M13 9WL

⁷⁷The University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

⁷⁸Genetic Oncology Unit, CHUVI Hospital, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Galicia Sur (IISGS), 36204, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain

⁷⁹Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands

⁸⁰"Exposome and Heredity", CESP (UMR 1018), Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif

⁸¹Clinical Gerontology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK

⁸²Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA

⁸³George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84148, USA

⁸⁴Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

⁸⁵Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

⁸⁶Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

⁸⁷Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 800, Nashville, TN 37232 USA.

⁸⁸International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA

⁸⁹Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK

CRUK and PRACTICAL consortium Funding Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135, and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: No. 1 U19 CA 148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative).

We would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now PCUK), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, Rosetrees Trust, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, and Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The Prostate Cancer Program of Cancer Council Victoria also acknowledge grant support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, , 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394, 614296,), VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, The Whitten Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Tattersall’s. EAO, DMK, and EMK acknowledge the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support.

Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [U19 CA 148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) under contract number HHSN268201200008I]. Additional analytic support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (PI: Schumacher).

Research reported in this publication also received support from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers U10 CA37429 (CD Blanke), and UM1 CA182883 (CM Tangen/IM Thompson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund.

SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS

Supplementary Figures

Supplementary Figure 1.

Fixed effect meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration on multiple cancers. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in (A) GrimAge acceleration, (B) PhenoAge acceleration, (C) HannumAge acceleration and (D) Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. All meta-analysis estimates were calculated using data from UK Biobank, FinnGen and international consortia, except for colorectal cancer estimates, which exclude UK Biobank data to avoid double counting.

Supplementary Figure 2.

CAUSE analysis for the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge acceleration on prostate cancer in PRACTICAL. CAUSE estimates reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. Data source: PRACTICAL, Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome.

Supplementary Figure 3.

Genetic correlation estimates for epigenetic age acceleration and multiple cancers. Genetic correlation coefficients are reported per 1 year increase in epigenetic age acceleration. Results were obtained using LD Score regression. Abbreviations: BCAC, Breast Cancer Association Consortium; OCAC, Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium; PRACTICAL, Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome; ILCCO, International Lung Cancer Consortium; GECCO, Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium. For UK Biobank lung cancer results, adjusted means results have been adjusted for genotyping chip and unadjusted means results have not been adjusted for genotyping chip.

Supplementary Figure 4.

CAUSE analysis for the genetically predicted effect of GrimAge acceleration on colorectal cancer in GECCO.CAUSE estimates reported per 1 year increase in GrimAge acceleration. Data source: GECCO, Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium.

Supplementary Figure 5.

Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of GrimAge and PhenoAge acceleration on multiple cancer subtypes. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in (A) GrimAge acceleration, (B) PhenoAge acceleration. GrimAge and PhenoAge acceleration were instrumented by four and 11 genetic variants, respectively. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. Data sources: BCAC, OCAC, CIMBA, PRACTICAL, ILCCO and GECCO.

Supplementary Figure 6.

Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration on multiple cancer subtypes. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in (A) HannumAge acceleration, (B) Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration. HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration were instrumented by nine and 24 genetic variants, respectively. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. Data sources: BCAC, OCAC, CIMBA, PRACTICAL, ILCCO and GECCO.

Supplementary Figure 7.

Mendelian randomization estimates for genetically predicted effects of epigenetic age acceleration on parental history of multiple cancers. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported per 1 year increase in (A) GrimAge acceleration, (B) PhenoAge acceleration, (C) HannumAge acceleration and (D) Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration. GrimAge, PhenoAge, HannumAge and Intrinsic HorvathAge acceleration were instrumented by 4, 11, 9 and 24 genetic variants, respectively. Results were obtained using inverse variance weighted MR (dark blue), weighted median (sky blue) and weighted mode (turquoise) methods. Data source: UK Biobank.