New research published this month in Nature Medicine suggests that a range of environmental factors have a greater influence than genetics when it comes to aging well and premature mortality.
Led by researchers from Oxford Population Health, the study analyzed data from nearly 500,000 individuals in the U.K. Biobank to examine the impact of 164 environmental factors and genetic risk scores for 22 major diseases on aging, age-related diseases and premature death.
“We mapped all of the environmental exposures (the “exposome”) influencing mortality and biological aging, and then compared the influence of the exposome vs. genetics in explaining aging and disease,” Dr. M. Austin Argentieri, lead author of the study at Oxford Population Health and Research Fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, explained in a LinkedIn post. “While genetics certainly play a role, our study highlights that modifiable environmental factors explain far more of the variation in premature mortality than genes do.”
Argentieri then dove into the study’s key findings, such as that the exposome explains nearly 10x more variation in mortality risk than genetic predisposition and that smoking, socioeconomic factors, living conditions, physical activity, sleep, early life factors and psychological well-being were “among the strongest associations with mortality risk and biological aging.”
Of the 25 independent environmental factors identified, smoking, socioeconomic status, physical activity and living conditions had the most significant impact on mortality and biological aging. Smoking was linked to 21 diseases, while socioeconomic factors—such as household income, homeownership, and employment status—were associated with 19 diseases. Physical activity, meanwhile, was connected to 17 diseases.
The study also found that cancers like breast and prostate (as well as dementia) are more genetically driven, while heart, lung and liver diseases are more environmentally driven.
Argentieri also noted that the association of early life factors—such as childhood body weight at ten years old and maternal smoking around birth—with mortality and biological aging measured 30-80 years later was “striking.”
Encouragingly, 23 of the factors identified are modifiable, according to the findings.
“This work underscores the urgent need for public health interventions that address the exposome—we show that tackling modifiable exposures and environmental risks could be one of our most powerful levers for longevity and healthspan,” Argentieri added.
And in an ever-changing environment, Professor Cornelia van Duijn, St. Cross Professor of Epidemiology at Oxford Population Health and senior author of the paper, says it’s critical that researchers continue to use all resources available to understand the impact of the environment over time.
“There are a lot of questions still to be answered related to diet, lifestyle and exposure to new pathogens (such as bird flu and COVID-19) and chemicals (think of pesticides and plastics), and the impact of environmental and genetic factors in different populations,” van Duijn said.
