Talk:Epigenetic clock

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 17 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonathan6444 (article contribs).

Rename article to "DNA methylation clock"?

I suggest the article is renamed to "DNA methylation clock", because the term "biological clock" is much broader, as a Google search shows:

• "an innate mechanism that controls the physiological activities of an organism which change on a daily, seasonal, yearly, or other regular cycle"

• women's fertility during their lifetimes

• circadian sleep cycles

The main author behind this article published only recently (Horvath et al 2013), and therefore a title change would hardly cause perturbations elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.21.105 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How about "epigenetic clock"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I understand this (thoroughly confused) Wiki article, a chap called Horvath in 2013 selected 353 epigenetic markers which he identified as tracking age quite reliably. So at least the term "Horvath's clock" is justified. With regards to "epigenetic clock", please ponder this scenario: By the same logic, if Joe Bloggs discovers a more accurate clock by using only 352 of Horvath's epigenetic markers, or indeed by using 100 other epigenetic markers, Joe Bloggs could not call his improved clock an "epigenetic clock", because someone has already reserved that title for Horvath's 353-marker clock in Wikipedia. Solutions: either we rename the article as "Horvath's clock". Or we keep the title "epigenetic clock", but delve into the literature since 1967 and see how many other methylation-based clocks have been published, and list all of these in this wikipedia article. My preference is for the second solution. But perhaps I have misread the situation? Comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.250 (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No opposing views? So I have rewritten and reorganised the article to reflect the new hierarchy biological clock > DNA clock > epigenetic clock > Horvath's clock. I hope I am happy now. Merry Christmas 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.123.127 (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I've flagged some sections which appear to be WP:SYNTH. The reasoning in these sections seem clear and well thought out, but it is of a technical nature and we should be citing published sources--ideally secondary sources. The sections I've claimed look like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on primary sources. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I went and removed one as I was going through Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20240516. Potential copyright problems and WP:SYNTH? If somebody wants this information back, they'll have to rewrite it to be a)encyclopedic and b)clear of copyright issues. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Getting old

This kind of missing fact amazes me. Where is it mentioned in this article how the 'age' is determined? Is it the relative increase of methylation in CpG sites from some starting expectation, or the relative decrease in methylation? That is, and what is also missing, which 'change' during aging is the marker (correlation) for such aging?

Note there is one mention of "increased methylation" buried deep within the article, which I think might be a clue accidentally left in the article. But otherwise the article is just screaming "We saw a change in some numbers! Isn't that wonderful?!"

BTW: Came here trying to understand what a 'CpG' was, as referenced in web article Study suggests some CpGs in the genome can be hemimethylated by design, and not made clear at all there. Being too close to the subject material to relate to other people is endemic to specialties? Shenme (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Answer: some go up, some go down. About 40% of the 353 sites, methylation goes up. In the rest, its goes down. CpG is CpG island -- a CGCGCG sequence. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Question the Chinese version '生物钟'

The Chinese link '生物钟' is totally different from this english 'Epigenetic clock'. I want to edit a '表观遗传学时钟' to link this page. But I'm banned due to GFW. Anyway I still suggest it. The '生物钟' is more like 'Circadian rhythm'. 2017 nobel prize about Circadian rhythm is described as '生物钟' on media.Mahengrui1 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

POV

A lot of this reads like PR for Horvath's particular clock. Ben Finn (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

none iminternal 2607:FB91:17C4:5D83:F33C:A51F:348F:709F (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

demo sound trak victor🇺🇲 2607:FB91:17C4:5D83:F33C:A51F:348F:709F (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)