Robust metabolomic age prediction based on a wide selection of metabolites

INTERVAL Study

The INTERVAL study is a prospective cohort study of approximately 50,000 participants nested within a pragmatic randomized sample of blood donors (22). Between 2012 and 2014, blood donors, aged 18 years and older, were consented and recruited from 25 National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) static donor centers across the UK. The INTERVAL study was approved by The National Research Ethics Service (11/EE/0538). Individuals with major disease (myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer etc.) as well as those who reported being unwell or having had recent illness or infection or did not fulfill the other criteria required for blood donation (22, 23) were ineligible for the study. Therefore, participants included in the study were predominantly healthy. Participants completed online questionnaires addressing basic lifestyle and health-related information, including self-reported height and weight, ethnicity, smoking status, alcohol consumption, doctor-diagnosed anemia, use of medications (hormone replacement therapy, iron supplements) and menopausal status (22). Untargeted metabolomic data were available in 11,979 individuals (age range 18 -75). Two individuals had incorrect or missing height/weight values and were therefore excluded from the study. Thus, the final sample size for the current study was 11,977.

Untargeted metabolomic measurements

Untargeted metabolomic measurements were quantified at Metabolon Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, USA) using Metabolon™ Discovery HD4 platform. In brief, this process involves four independent ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) platforms (24, 25). Of these platforms, two used positive ionization reverse phase chromatography, one used negative ionization reverse phase chromatography, and one used hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography negative ionization (25). Known metabolites were annotated at Metabolon Inc. with chemical names, super pathways, sub pathways, biochemical properties, and compound identifiers from various metabolite databases. Metabolomic measurements in the INTERVAL study were conducted in three batches (n=4087, 4566, and 3326). Subsequent harmonization and quality checks were performed between the batches by Metabolon. All metabolite measurements were scaled to a median of 1.

Selection of Predictors

We aimed to select metabolites consistently and reliably measured by the Metabolon platform. In total 1,411 metabolites were measured in the INTERVAL study. First, we removed metabolites completely missing in at least one of the batches (n=175). Second, we excluded metabolites without annotation (unnamed metabolites) (n=258), keeping only endogenous and xenobiotic metabolites. These metabolites were excluded as they are inconsistently measured by the platform and are highly variable between batches and studies. Moreover, the lack of full annotation increases the uncertainty that we are using the same metabolite across batches and studies and leaves no secondary information for further verification. Third, we excluded metabolites measured in less than 100 individuals (n=30). Fourth, to ensure that the metabolites that are used for our model are not unique for the INTERVAL study, we cross-referenced our dataset with an independent study with Metabolon measurements. For this we used the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study, a population-based (n=599) cohort study of individuals aged 45–65 years (26, 27). Based on this comparison, we additionally excluded 122 metabolites that were not detected in the NEO study. The final set of metabolites included 826 metabolites, with 678 endogenous and 148 xenobiotic metabolites that were confirmed to be regularly measured by the Metabolon platform (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Flowchart of the selection of predictor metabolites and the development steps for the metabolomic age prediction model in the INTERVAL study

Missing value imputation

Missing values were imputed using the pipeline as described in our previous work (27). In brief, endogenous metabolites were imputed by multiple imputation using chained equations method to generate five imputed datasets (m=5). For each metabolite with missing values, we used the outcome variable (i.e., age), 5-10 highly correlated related metabolites, body mass index (BMI), center number where the blood samples were collected, and the batch number to impute the missing values. Xenobiotic metabolites were imputed to zero to account for true missingness.

Model Development

For the development of the model, we used ridge regression (28) to reduce potential overfitting. Cross validation was performed (n=10) in each imputed dataset to calculate the optimal shrinkage term (lambda). Subsequently the mean of the lambda values was used to develop the model on the stacked imputed datasets (i.e., all 5 datasets combined as one). Accordingly, the weight of the observations in the stacked dataset was set to 1/m = 1/5 = 0.2 (20). As the outcome (age) is a continuous variable, we assessed the fit of the model by deriving the R². As an additional sensitivity test, we used generalized additive model (GAM) to examine and calculate the R² for the nonlinear correlation. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping (b=100). Bootstrapping results were used for the optimization of R² and the calculation of the mean squared error (MSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE) of the model. Two models were developed using two sets of the selected metabolite predictors. First, we used the full set of endogenous and xenobiotic metabolites (n=826) to develop “model A”. Second, we used only the endogenous metabolites (n=678) to develop “model B”. As previous studies found that metabolomic profiles (12, 29) and aging (30-32) are influenced by the sex of individuals, we included sex as an additional predictor in both models.

Sample size considerations

The primary database used to create the prediction model was the INTERVAL study (n= 11,977) with 826 predictors. We used the formulas described by Riley et al. (33) to confirm that our sample size (n) and number of predictor (p) are sufficient to minimize overfitting and provide high prediction precision. First, we calculated Copas global shrinkage factor for our data (34, 35) to see if it is above the recommended 0.9 threshold (33). Based on this calculation the estimated shrinkage factor was 0.95 if the adjusted R² of the model was assumed to be 0.7. Second, we calculated the sample size required to ensure a small difference between the R² and the adjusted R² for the development model. Assuming the adjusted R² was 0.7 again and a small desired R² difference (R²_diff=0.025), then the sample size required to achieve this should be at least n=9913. Third, we checked the sample size required for precise residual standard deviation of the model. Accordingly, we found the multiplicative margin of error (MMOE) to be less than 10% (MMOE =1.3%) using our n and p in the INTERVAL study. Finally, we checked the precision of the mean predicted outcome value (predicted age) of the model. We used n and p for the INTERVAL study and assumed that predicted age would have a mean of 45 and a variance of 35. Accordingly, the upper and lower bounds were approximately 45.34 and 44.65 respectively. Thus, the MMOE for the mean predicted outcome was less 1% (MMOE= 45.34 /45 = 1.007 = 0.7%). Therefore, the sample size of the INTERVAL study was optimal to minimize overfitting, optimism, and provide a precise estimation of the residual standard deviation and mean predicted values.

Population characteristics

Characteristics of the total INTERVAL study population and age subgroups are summarized in Table 1. In total 11,977 individuals were included and had a normal age distribution with a mean age of 45 years and a range of 18 – 75 years. The number of men and women was approximately equal (50.2% were men). BMI was largely in the recommended range of 18.5-24.9 kg/m² (36) with a mean BMI of 22.8 kg/m² and was similar in all age groups.

Metabolomic Age Prediction

Prediction models A (endogenous plus xenobiotic metabolites) and B (endogenous metabolites only) were developed in the INTERVAL study using ridge regression. The workflow including metabolite selection, missing value imputation, and analyses are summarized in Figure 1. Internal validation using bootstrapping (resampling n = 100) and optimization provided an R² of 0.83 (MSE=31, MAE=4.4) for model A, and 0.82 (MSE=33.7, MAE=4.6) for model B. The R² for the generalized additional model (GAM) were slightly higher for both models, 0.85 for model A and 0.84 for model B (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figure 1). Full tables with the intercept, sex and metabolite coefficients for model A and B are provided in Supplementary Table 2. This table also contains the mean values for the metabolites from the INTERVAL study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Correlation plots of the Metabolomic age (predicted age) on the horizontal axis and the chronological age on the vertical axis for model A (A) and model B (B). The data used is the stacked imputed datasets in the INTERVAL study. Abbreviations: GAM, generalized additive model.

Ridge Regression for Metabolomic Age

Our metabolomic age model is based on ridge regression which generates shrinkage factors that shrink metabolite coefficients with weak influence on the model to small values. Unlike methods such as LASSO and elastic net regression, this shrinkage never causes the coefficients to reach zero. Therefore, unlike those methods, ridge regression does not perform selection of predictors, in this case metabolites, due to the shrinkage term. Thus, the model consistently includes the same metabolites during the cross validation and internal validation by bootstrapping (20). Ridge regression thus ensures rigorousness and consideration of all the selected metabolite predictors. In addition, we found in our model that nonlinear GAM R² to be slightly higher than linear R² in both models. Figure 2 also shows that the GAM line curves at the edges of the age ranges. Therefore, predicting metabolomic age from this model in a nonlinear form, by adding a quadratic term or using a spline function, may further expand the model flexibility.

Strengths and Limitations

A major strength of our current study is the development of robust metabolomic age prediction models based on a large number of metabolites measured in a large cohort with a wide age distribution. This sample size was confirmed to fit the required criteria for developing a model with low overfitting (33). Furthermore, the INTERVAL study included relatively healthy blood donors as participants. Blood donors are prescreened for a number of common diseases, making it a suitable study to develop a metabolomic age without being affected by specific disease-related effects on metabolites. Unlike previous metabolomic age predictors (alternatively referred to as metabolomic “clocks”), we developed our model using the latest Metabolon metabolomics platform that measures a large selection of metabolites. An advantage of this platform is the inclusion of xenobiotics, such as those derived from medication or pollution as well as endogenous metabolites. Thus, we were able to include metabolites originating from various internal and external sources. The xenobiotic metabolites represent some of the acquired environmental and lifestyle exposures of individuals that could play a role in biological aging. For example, medication metabolites could be a predictor of frailty. However, our study has two limitations. First, because the INTERVAL study does not have data for health-related outcomes, we could not assess the effects of different disease outcomes and health phenotypes on the metabolomic age. Second, as the INTERVAL study used here was cross sectional, we could not examine the model overtime or examine the ability of metabolomic age to predict disease outcomes or mortality in a future time point.

External Validation for Metabolomic Age and Future Applications

Prediction models may suffer from overfitting due to selection bias, small sample size, methodology limitations, and lack of internal validation and calibration during development. However, another common issue regarding prediction modelling, such as the case with metabolomic age, is the challenge to externally validate them. This a common issue with prediction models in general. Indeed, few studies perform external validation of prediction models (19, 37). The reasons for the lack of external validation include the difficulty of applying and reproducing the prediction model method, lack of the full prediction variables to develop the model in the new dataset, or a lack of an appropriate sample size for external validation. Without external validation, the quality of the models cannot be properly assessed, and a model could still be overfitted despite presenting good results during internal validation(20, 21, 38). We took advantage of the sample size and wide age range to use a stringent ridge regression and internal validation method to develop the metabolomic age model. The resulting model demonstrated a high R² for the metabolomic age. The high R² from our models is unlikely to be due be overfitting as we considered and calculated the power and sensitivity of the model based on the sample size and number predictors (33), in addition to the rigorous prediction modelling methodology. The metabolomic age was able to predict chronological age well but not perfectly. The missing 0.2 from R² is likely a reflection the biological aging process captured by the metabolomic age. However, future robust external validation, using weak and moderate calibrations in other populations (38) would be valuable for the metabolomic age models presented in this paper.

Several age prediction models have been developed that utilize different biological measurements such as targeted metabolomics (7, 14), proteomics (7), and epigenetics (DNA methylation)(6). These studies have reported that the metabolites were a strong predictor of body mass index, metabolic syndrome, cancer (7), type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (14). Furthermore, other biological clocks using proteomics and epigenetics were reported to be associated with depression and other outcomes (7). Therefore, it will be valuable to apply the prediction models presented in this paper in large longitudinal cohorts and examine the metabolomic age in relation to calendar age with the aforementioned phenotypes and other health related outcomes. Assessing the association between the residual between the chronological and metabolomic age with disease and health phenotypes overtime will provide clinically relevant prediction. The prediction strength will indicate the robustness of our model and provide the means to for external validation and re-calibration of the model.

In addition to our aim of addressing primary issues of the development of metabolomic age models, the Metabolon platform is expanded on the range of metabolites that can potentially be a better predictor of age. For example, previous metabolomic age studies have not measured or included xenobiotic metabolites. In our study, we were able to include this additional group of metabolites in model A. Furthermore, Model A may also be used in tandem with metabolomic age from targeted platforms, and biological clocks of different biological molecules measurements, similar to the work by Jansen et al. (7), to possibly improve or compare their predictive performance and their ability of capturing the effects of health-related phenotypes.