Keywords: Biological Aging, Epigenetic Clock, Health Span, Inflammaging, Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Multi-omics Biomarkers, Plasma Proteomics, Telomere Length
Introduction
Human longevity is no longer viewed simply as the absence of premature death. The contemporary framework of longevity science distinguishes between lifespan, the total years lived and health span, the proportion of life spent in good health, free from chronic disease and functional decline. As the global burden of non-communicable diseases rises and demographic ageing accelerates, understanding what drives divergence between chronological and biological age has become a priority for medicine, public health, and health technology alike [1].
Chronological age is the single strongest predictor of most diseases; yet two individuals of the same age may carry strikingly different biological burdens, one metabolically optimal, the other progressing silently toward type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or neurodegeneration. This divergence is not random. It is encoded in measurable molecular signatures across the epigenome, proteome, metabolome, and immune landscape. These signatures, collectively termed longevity biomarkers, are increasingly validated as superior predictors of morbidity and mortality compared with chronological age alone [2,3].
From an AI health technology perspective, the ability to quantify biological age at scale through blood-based assays, wearable sensors, and multi-omic platforms offers unprecedented opportunity to stratify risk, personalize interventions, and track the efficacy of longevity-oriented programs. This article provides a deep-dive review of the principal categories of longevity biomarkers, examines their mechanistic underpinnings, evaluates their clinical and translational validity, and proposes an integrative framework for their application in preventive and precision medicine [4].
Epigenetic Clocks: The Gold Standard of Biological Age Estimation
DNA methylation (DNAm) patterns shift predictably across the lifespan, making them among the most accurate molecular proxies for biological age. The development of the Horvath multi-tissue clock in 2013 demonstrated that a weighted average of cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) methylation at a defined set of loci could predict chronological age with remarkable precision across human tissues. Subsequent generations refined this paradigm: the Hannum clock was optimised for blood samples; the PhenoAge clock integrated biological markers of physiological dysregulation; and GrimAge, leveraging DNAm surrogates of plasma proteins, demonstrated predictive power for lifespan and cause-specific mortality [5,6].
The most clinically actionable metric from these second-generation clocks is epigenetic age acceleration (EAA), the residual difference between biological age estimated by DNAm and chronological age. Positive EAA reflects faster biological aging and has been prospectively associated with increased all-cause mortality, incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and frailty. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in The Lancet Healthy Longevity confirmed that DNAm-derived biological age metrics are consistently associated with frailty across independent cohorts, with effect sizes that are robust to adjustment for conventional risk factors [7].
DunedinPACE (Pace of Aging Computed from the Epigenome) represents a third-generation advance: rather than estimating a static age, it quantifies the rate of aging within an individual, functioning analogously to a speedometer for biological aging. Longitudinal analyses have shown that smoking, elevated BMI, high fasting glucose, and suboptimal blood pressure collectively accelerate DunedinPACE, whereas regular physical activity and a Mediterranean-quality diet decelerate it. A major comparative analysis of 14 epigenetic clocks in Nature Communications evaluated their association with 174 incident disease outcomes, confirming that second- and third-generation clocks substantially outperform first-generation clocks in predicting age-related morbidity [8,9].
Despite their strong predictive utility, epigenetic clocks currently face barriers to routine clinical implementation including cost, assay standardization, and reference population diversity. Nevertheless, their mechanistic grounding in cellular aging biology positions them as the benchmark against which other longevity biomarkers are increasingly evaluated.
Telomere Length and Cellular Replicative Potential
Telomeres are tandem nucleotide repeats (TTAGGG)n capping the ends of chromosomes, protecting genomic integrity during replication. With each cell division, telomeres shorten progressively; critically short telomeres trigger replicative senescence or apoptosis, hallmarks of cellular aging. Leucocyte telomere length (LTL), measurable from peripheral blood, has been widely adopted as a biomarker of cellular aging in epidemiological research [10].
The relationship between LTL and age-related disease is well established. Shorter LTL is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, and neurodegenerative conditions. A 2025 review in Clinical and Experimental Medicine comprehensively catalogued these associations, reinforcing LTL as a clinically meaningful correlate of aging-related pathology. Importantly, LTL correlates with metabolic health: metabolic syndrome and obesity, both central to longevity medicine, independently accelerate telomere attrition, creating a bidirectional loop between metabolic dysfunction and cellular aging [11,12].
A key technical advance published in 2024 introduced digital telomere measurement via nanopore (long-read) sequencing, enabling resolution of individual telomere length distributions rather than mean LTL alone. This approach identified that human aging is characterized by a progressive loss of long telomeres and an accumulation of critically short telomeres, a distinction masked by conventional mean-LTL assays, and one that more accurately discriminates healthy aging from disease states [13].
From a longevity intervention perspective, LTL is modifiable. Physical activity, caloric restriction, stress reduction, and adequate micronutrient status, particularly vitamin C, D, and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with attenuated telomere shortening. Recent frameworks in longevity medicine propose integrating LTL with senescence biomarkers (e.g., p16INK4a, GDF-15) and epigenetic clock data to construct individualized aging trajectories [14,15].
Inflammaging: Inflammatory Biomarkers as drivers of Biological Aging
The term inflammaging, coined by Franceschi and colleagues describes the chronic, low-grade, sterile inflammatory state that accumulates with advancing age and is now recognized as a convergent driver of virtually all major age-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, sarcopenia, and cancer. Unlike acute inflammation, inflammaging is characterized by modest, sustained elevations in pro-inflammatory mediators that progressively erode tissue homeostasis and accelerate biological aging [16].
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) are the most extensively validated inflammaging biomarkers in clinical use. Elevated hs-CRP, defined broadly as levels above 1.0 mg/L in the low-risk range to >3.0 mg/L in the high-risk range predicts incident cardiovascular events, insulin resistance, and all-cause mortality independently of traditional risk factors. IL-6 is considered the upstream orchestrator of the acute-phase response and a key mediator of the chronic inflammatory state in aged tissues; its levels increase consistently with advancing age and correlate with mortality risk in prospective cohort studies. A large longitudinal analysis in Polish centenarian offspring (PolSenior study) confirmed that lower IL-6 and CRP independently predicted successful aging and reduced mortality, and that genetic polymorphisms promoting elevated IL-6 production are associated with shortened lifespan [17,18].
Beyond CRP and IL-6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interleukin-18 are emerging as complementary inflammaging markers. A bibliometric analysis of inflammaging research from 2005 to 2024 published in Frontiers in Aging confirmed the exponential growth of this field and highlighted the increasing use of multi-cytokine panels as more sensitive indicators of chronic inflammatory burden than single-marker approaches. The anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 merits equal attention: higher circulating IL-10, observed in centenarians, appears protective against inflammaging and is associated with greater longevity. Therapeutic strategies targeting the IL-6 pathway (e.g., tocilizumab) and senolytic agents that remove senescent cells and their associated secretory phenotype (SASP) represent emerging frontiers in inflammaging-directed intervention [19,20].
Metabolomic Biomarkers and the Metabolic Longevity Signature
Metabolomics, the systematic profiling of small-molecule metabolites in biofluids has delivered granular insights into the biochemical correlates of healthy aging and longevity. A 2025 review in npj Metabolic Health and Disease described the development of metabolomic aging clocks: computational models trained on plasma or serum metabolite profiles that estimate biological age and predict healthspan and mortality with accuracy comparable to epigenetic clocks [21].
Studies of extreme longevity, centenarians and supercentenarians have consistently identified metabolomic signatures that distinguish long-lived individuals from age-matched controls. These signatures include elevated omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), higher circulating phospholipids and sphingolipids, enriched secondary bile acid pools (indicative of favorable gut microbial diversity), and optimal branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) metabolism. Conversely, elevated BCAAs in the context of insulin resistance predict metabolic disease onset years before clinical manifestation. Vitamin D and vitamin K metabolites appear consistently in longevity-associated metabolomic profiles, reflecting their roles in immune regulation, mitochondrial function, and vascular health [22].
A landmark 2025 multi-organ metabolomic analysis published in Nature Communications characterized organ-specific biological aging trajectories derived from plasma metabolite patterns, demonstrating that cardiometabolic aging, as captured metabolomically was the strongest predictor of incident cardiometabolic conditions and all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for epigenetic age. The presence of metabolic syndrome has been shown to markedly accelerate metabolomic aging scores, creating a compounding biological debt that amplifies downstream disease risk [24].
From an intervention standpoint, the health span Project pilot study demonstrated that a six-month multimodal wellness intervention, combining dietary modification, exercise, stress management, and targeted supplementation produced significant improvements across metabolic biomarkers including fasting glucose, triglycerides, LDL particle size, and inflammatory indices, with corresponding improvements in biological age estimates. These findings underscore the responsiveness of metabolomic biomarkers to lifestyle intervention, making them especially valuable as outcome measures in longevity-focused programs [25].
Insulin/ IGF-1 Signaling Axis: Metabolic Longevity at the Molecular Level
The insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) signaling (IIS) pathway is the most evolutionarily conserved determinant of longevity across species, from C. elegans and Drosophila to mammals. Reduced IIS activity consistently extends lifespan in model organisms through activation of the FOXO family of transcription factors and suppression of mTOR-mediated anabolic signaling, two central nodes of the nutrient-sensing machinery [26].
In humans, the IIS-longevity relationship is nuanced. Offspring of familial nonagenarians display lower non-fasted glucose levels and enhanced insulin sensitivity compared with controls, a phenotype consistent with reduced IIS activity conferring longevity advantage. Centenarians and their offspring have lower circulating IGF-1 bioactivity and exhibit upregulated IGF-1 binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) levels, dampening IGF-1 receptor activation. However, the relationship between circulating IGF-1 and longevity in humans follows a U-shaped curve: both very low and very high levels associated with increased morbidity and mortality, complicating the direct translation of findings from model organisms [27,28].
Clinically, fasting insulin and the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, a validated surrogate for insulin resistance are actionable biomarkers that predict type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease onset years before fasting glucose becomes abnormal. Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reflects medium-term glycaemic exposure and is increasingly included in longevity panels as a proxy for deregulated nutrient sensing. Fasting insulin in particular captures the compensatory hyperinsulinaemia of early insulin resistance that fasting glucose alone misses. Collectively, these markers constitute a metabolic longevity signature, an early warning system for the downstream cascade of metabolic disease, accelerated biological aging, and shortened health span [29].
Proteomic Clocks and Multi-Omics Integration
Advances in high-throughput plasma proteomics, enabled by proximity extension assay (PEA) platforms such as Olink Explore and aptamer-based SomaScan arrays have catalyzed the development of proteomic aging clocks that complement and, in some dimensions, exceed the predictive power of epigenetic clocks. A 2024 study using Olink Explore 1536 identified 204 plasma proteins predictive of chronological age (Pearson r = 0.94), with a derived proteomic clock independently predicting incident chronic diseases, multimorbidity, and all-cause mortality across ethnically diverse cohorts [30].
Organ-specific proteomic aging, in which protein signatures are used to compute organ-level biological age has opened a new dimension in aging biology. A 2025 analysis in JACC demonstrated that proteomic aging of the heart, liver, kidney, lung, and brain follow distinct trajectories and carry organ-specific disease risk implications, for instance, proteomic brain aging predicted Alzheimer’s disease risk decades before symptom onset. A longitudinal proteomic aging index developed from UK Biobank data (n>40,000) further demonstrated that proteomic aging acceleration at baseline predicted frailty, multimorbidity, and mortality over 15 years of follow-up [31,32].
The convergence of epigenomic, transcriptomic, metabolomic, and proteomic data into unified biological age scores represents the frontier of multi-omic longevity medicine. Artificial intelligence models, particularly ensemble machine learning and deep neural networks are uniquely suited to integrating these high-dimensional datasets, identifying interaction effects invisible to conventional regression, and generating individual-level predictions of aging rate and disease trajectory. Emerging AI-driven longevity platforms are beginning to operationalize this vision in real-world clinical and direct-to-consumer settings [33].
Clinical Integration: From Biomarkers to Actionable Longevity Medicine
The translation of longevity biomarkers from research tools to routine clinical practice requires attention to four key domains: (1) analytical validity like assay precision, reproducibility, and standardization; (2) clinical validity such as strength of association with meaningful health outcomes; (3) clinical utility, whether biomarker-guided decisions improve outcomes compared with standard care; and (4) accessibility such as cost, scalability, and health equity.
Current evidence is strongest for clinical validity across all five biomarker categories reviewed. Analytical validity is established for hs-CRP, HbA1c, fasting insulin, and LTL; it is emerging for DNAm-based clocks and proteomic panels as assay costs decline. Clinical utility, the highest evidentiary bar is beginning to be demonstrated in intervention trials. The health span Project pilot study showed that biomarker-guided, multimodal lifestyle interventions improved biological age estimates, validating the utility of regular biomarker monitoring in longevity programs [25].
A practical longevity biomarker panel for clinical or corporate wellness settings might priorities: hs-CRP, IL-6, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HbA1c, lipid fractionation (including triglycerides and LDL particle number), LTL, and where cost permits, a DNAm-based biological age estimate. Periodic re-assessment at 3- to 6-month intervals after initiation of lifestyle or pharmacological interventions (e.g., metformin, rapamycin, senolytics, GLP-1 receptor agonists) enables dynamic tracking of biological age trajectory in response to treatment [34].
A key consideration for AI health technology companies is the need to contextualize biomarker data within the individual’s lifestyle exposome such as dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep quality, stress burden, and environmental exposures since it is the interaction between exposome and biological system that determines aging rate. Digital longevity platforms that integrate wearable-derived data with periodic laboratory biomarker assessment and AI-guided personalized recommendations represent a scalable model for deploying precision longevity medicine at population scale.
Conclusion
The era of measuring longevity through a single number, chronological age is giving way to a multi-dimensional, molecularly grounded understanding of biological aging. Epigenetic clocks, telomere dynamics, inflammatory biomarkers, metabolomic signatures, and proteomic panels each capture distinct, partially overlapping facets of the aging process. Their integration particularly through AI-driven platforms enables the construction of comprehensive biological age profiles that are more predictive of health span outcomes than any single biomarker alone.
For clinicians and health technology practitioners working in longevity, wellness, and metabolic disease prevention, these biomarkers are not merely research curiosities. They are actionable instruments for identifying individuals at risk of accelerated aging, monitoring the impact of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, and ultimately extending not just the quantity but the quality of human life. As assay costs decline, standardization improves, and clinical validation deepens, longevity biomarker panels are poised to become a cornerstone of preventive medicine in the 21st century.
Future research priorities include: large-scale intervention trials powered to detect biological age reversal as a primary endpoint; development of globally diverse reference populations for epigenetic and proteomic clocks; regulatory frameworks for biomarker-guided longevity interventions; and equitable deployment models that extend the benefits of precision longevity medicine beyond high-income settings.
Reference
1. Lopez-Otin C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. Hallmarks of aging: an expanding universe. Cell. 2023;186(2):243-278.
2. Jylhava J, Pedersen NL, Hagg S. Biological age predictors. EBioMedicine. 2017;21:29-36.
3. Levine ME, Lu AT, Quach A, et al. An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging (Albany NY). 2018;10(4):573-591.
4. Barzilai N, Cuervo AM, Austad S. Aging as a biological target for prevention and therapy. JAMA. 2018;320(13):1321-1322.
5. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115.
6. Lu AT, Quach A, Wilson JG, et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(2):303-327.
7. Faul L, Ackermann S, Mendelson MM, et al. Biological age measured by DNA methylation clocks and frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2025;6(4):e274-e285.
8. Belsky DW, Caspi A, Corcoran DL, et al. DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging. eLife. 2022;11:e73420.
9. Becker J, Bhosle V, Kuhnel B, et al. An unbiased comparison of 14 epigenetic clocks in relation to 174 incident disease outcomes. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):7834.
10. Blackburn EH, Epel ES, Lin J. Human telomere biology: a contributory and interactive factor in aging, disease risks, and protection. Science. 2015;350(6265):1193-1198.
11. Mangaonkar AA, Ferrer A, Munoz-Guerrero R, et al. The relationship between telomere length and aging-related diseases. Clin Exp Med. 2025;25(1):42.
12. Caiano S, Aguilera M, Gutierrez-Menendez A, et al. Premature aging and metabolic diseases: the impact of telomere attrition. Front Aging. 2025;6:1541127.
13. Robinson NB, Goldstone AB, Woo YJ, et al. Digital telomere measurement by long-read sequencing distinguishes healthy aging from disease. Nat Aging. 2024;4(6):843-858.
14. Shammas MA. Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14(1):28-34.
15. Yegorov YE, Poznyak AV, Nikiforov NG, Sobenin IA, Orekhov AN. From telomeres and senescence to integrated longevity medicine: redefining the path to extended healthspan. Biogerontology. 2025;26(2):61.
16. Franceschi C, Bonafe M, Valensin S, et al. Inflamm-aging. An evolutionary perspective on immunosenescence. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;908:244-254.
17. Ferrucci L, Fabbri E. Inflammageing: chronic inflammation in ageing, cardiovascular disease, and frailty. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018;15(9):505-522.
18. Mossakowska M, Broczek K, Wieczorowska-Tobis K, et al. Interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein, successful aging, and mortality: the PolSenior study. Immun Ageing. 2014;11(1):1.
19. Zhang Y, Gu S, Liu Y, et al. Global research trends in inflammaging from 2005 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis. Front Aging. 2025;6:1554186.
20. Connelly MA, Otvos JD. Inflammation, cytokines, and longevity. J Investig Med. 2012;60(1):6-13.
21. Auwerx C, Kutalik Z, Bergmann S. Metabolomic-based aging clocks. npj Metab Health Dis. 2025;3(1):14.
22. Sebastiani P, Federico A, Morris M, et al. The biomarkers in extreme longevity: insights gained from metabolomics and proteomics. Int J Med Sci. 2024;21(14):2725-2744.
23. Ding Y, Gao Y, Wang Z, et al. Multi-organ metabolome biological age implicates cardiometabolic conditions and mortality risk. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):4901.
24. Barbieri M, Paolisso G, Kimura M, et al. The influence of metabolic syndrome on potential aging biomarkers in participants with metabolic syndrome compared to healthy controls. Nutrients. 2024;16(2):213.
25. Greenberg SN, Moshier E, Doyle MF, et al. The Healthspan Project: a retrospective pilot of biomarkers and biometric outcomes after a 6-month multi-modal wellness intervention. Aging Dis. 2024;15(2):719-733.
26. Kenyon C. The genetics of ageing. Nature. 2010;464(7288):504-512.
27. Rozing MP, Westendorp RG, de Craen AJ, et al. Human insulin/IGF-1 and familial longevity at middle age. Aging (Albany NY). 2010;2(3):174-180.
28. Vitale G, Pellegrino G, Vollery M, Hofland LJ. Role of IGF-1 system in the modulation of longevity: controversies and new insights from a centenarians’ perspective. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:27.
29. Stern JH, Rutkowski JM, Scherer PE. Adiponectin, leptin, and fatty acids in the maintenance of metabolic homeostasis through adipose tissue crosstalk. Cell Metab. 2016;23(5):770-784.
30. Lehallier B, Gate D, Schaum N, et al. Proteomic aging clock predicts mortality and risk of common age-related diseases in diverse populations. Nat Aging. 2024;4(9):1250-1265.
31. Oh HS, Rutledge J, Nachun D, et al. Organ-specific proteomic aging and cognitive performance: implications for risk prediction of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. J Alzheimers Dis. 2025;104(1):211-225.
32. Huang S, Li P, Murray JC, et al. A novel longitudinal proteomic aging index predicts mortality, multimorbidity, and frailty in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2025;80(4):glaf021.
33. Pierson E, Aglin C, Mandl KD, et al. Biomarker integration and biosensor technologies enabling AI-driven insights into biological aging. arXiv. 2025;2508.20150.
34. Kaeberlein M, Bhaumik S. Geroscience: the biology of aging. Annu Rev Med. 2023;74:363-380.