J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010 Aug;65(8):789-91. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glq095. Epub 2010 Jun 10.
A host of recent publications has highlighted a growing number of discrepancies between small-scale laboratory-based studies and larger clinical and epidemiological studies, using telomere length as a bio-aging marker for physical, sociological, and psychological parameters in their respective cohorts. These discrepancies may be rooted in differing telomere length measurement methods and their application. This leads to the question of just how robust telomere length is as a biomarker of aging and whether measurement of CDKN2A levels offers a better alternative. The latter has already provided reproducible data from a small number of clinical studies and in one proven better than telomere length determination in predicting organ function. It seems prudent to address the use of these markers, alone or in combination, in multicentre double-blinded studies, using standardized methodologies and reagents, in order to identify the most appropriate marker and method for investigating bio-aging.
最近的大量出版物强调了越来越多的小规模实验室研究与更大的临床和流行病学研究之间的差异，这些研究将端粒长度作为生物老化标志物，用于各自队列中的身体、社会学和心理学参数。这些差异可能源于不同的端粒长度测量方法及其应用。这就引出了一个问题，即端粒长度作为衰老标志物的稳健程度如何，以及测量 CDKN2A 水平是否提供了更好的替代方法。后者已经从少数临床研究中提供了可重复的数据，并且在一项研究中已经证明比端粒长度测定更能预测器官功能。谨慎的做法是在多中心双盲研究中单独或组合使用这些标志物，使用标准化的方法和试剂，以确定最适合的标志物和方法来研究生物衰老。
