SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    For all the dog lovers: “Here’s a better way to convert dog years to human years, scientists say.”
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
For all the dog lovers: “Here’s a better way to convert dog years to human years, scientists say.” Login/Join 
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted
From the journal Science:

Summary: find the natural log of the dog’s actual age, multiply that by 16, then add 31.

Example of age 14:
ln 14 = 2.64 × 16 = 42.2 + 31 = 73.2


===========================

By Virginia Morell Nov. 15, 2019 , 3:42 PM

Our Scotch collie, Buckaroo, is just shy of 14 years old. Following the long-debunked but still popular idea that one dog year equals seven human years, he’s almost a centenarian. (This “formula” may be based on average life spans of 10 and 70 years for dogs and people, respectively.) Now, researchers say they have a new formula (see calculator below) to convert dog years to human years—one with some actual science behind it.

The work is based on a relatively new concept in aging research: that chemical modifications to a person’s DNA over a lifetime create what is known as an epigenetic clock. Scientists have built a case that one such modification, the addition of methyl groups to specific DNA sequences, tracks human biological age—that is, the toll that disease, poor lifestyle, and genetics take on our bodies. As a result, some groups have converted a person’s DNA methylation status to an age estimate—or even a prediction of life expectancy (worrying ethicists, who say the data could be misused by forensic investigators and insurance companies).

Other species also undergo DNA methylation as they age. Mice, chimpanzees, wolves, and dogs, for example, all seem to have epigenetic clocks. To find out how those clocks differ from the human version, geneticist Trey Ideker of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues started with dogs. Even though man’s best friends diverged from humans early in mammalian evolution, they’re a good group for comparison because they live in the same environments and many receive similar healthcare and hospital treatments.

All dogs—no matter the breed—follow a similar developmental trajectory, reaching puberty around 10 months and dying before age 20. But to increase their chances of finding genetic factors associated with aging, Ideker’s team focused on a single breed: Labrador retrievers.

They scanned DNA methylation patterns in the genomes of 104 dogs, ranging from 4 weeks to 16 years of age. Their analysis revealed that dogs (at least Labrador retrievers) and humans do have similar age-related methylation of certain genomic regions with high mutation rates; those similarities were most apparent when the scientists looked at young dogs and young humans or old dogs and old humans. Most importantly, they found that certain groups of genes involved in development are similarly methylated during aging in both species. That suggests at least some aspects of aging are a continuation of development rather than a distinct process—and that at least some of these changes are evolutionarily conserved in mammals, Ideker and colleagues report in a preprint posted online at bioRxiv.

“We already knew that dogs get the same diseases and functional declines of aging that humans do, and this work provides evidence that similar molecular changes are also occurring during aging,” says Matt Kaeberlein, a biogerontologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who was not involved with this research. “It’s a beautiful demonstration of the conserved features of the epigenetic age clocks shared by dogs and humans.”

The research team also used the rate of the methylation changes in dogs to match it to the human epigenetic clock, although the resulting dog age conversion is a bit more complex than “multiply by seven.” The new formula, which applies to dogs older than one, says that a canine’s human age roughly equals 16 × ln(dog age) + 31. (That’s the natural logarithm of the dog’s real age, multiplied by 16, with 31 added to the total.)

[Dog age calculator here in original article]

Based on the methylation data, dogs’ and humans’ life stages seem to match up. For example, a 7-week-old puppy would be equivalent roughly to a 9-month-old human baby, both of whom are just starting to sprout teeth. The formula also nicely matches up the average life span of Labrador retrievers (12 years) with the worldwide lifetime expectancy of humans (70 years). Overall, the canine epigentic clock ticks much faster initially than the human one—that 2-year-old Lab may still act like a puppy but it is middle-aged, the methylation-based formula suggests—and then slows down.

“They’ve shown that there’s a gradual increase in DNA methylation in both species with age,” says Steve Austad, an evolutionary biologist and aging expert at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. He doesn’t find that especially surprising, but he thinks the technique could reveal far more interesting results if applied to issues like the different life spans among different dog breeds.

That’s one goal of Kaeberlein, whose group’s new Dog Aging Project (open to all breeds) will include epigenetic profiles of its canine subjects. He hopes to find out why some dogs develop disease at younger ages or die earlier than normal, whereas others live long, disease-free lives.

So, how does our Buckaroo fare? Happily, the epigenetic clock calculation goes in his favor. He’s now only 73 in human years—and a spry 73 at that.

*Update, 16 November, 10:52 a.m.: This story has been updated to include a sentence explaining why young dogs come out middle-aged in human years on the calculator.

Link




6.4/93.6
___________
“We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.”
— George H. W. Bush
 
Posts: 47852 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I know I am bad at math but, using the formula you typed my 1 year 9 month old Lab is 59 yoa and my 11 year old Spotted Weinerhund is 207 yoa.

Am I looking at this wrong?
 
Posts: 4167 | Registered: January 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of mcrimm
posted Hide Post
I saw this last week. My Goldendoodle is 67 and my Bearded Collie was 72 when I buried him 2 weeks ago.

Fuzz......better check you slide rule again.



I'm sorry if I hurt you feelings when I called you stupid - I thought you already knew - Unknown
...................................
When you have no future, you live in the past. " Sycamore Row" by John Grisham
 
Posts: 4287 | Location: Saddlebrooke, Arizona | Registered: December 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
An investment in knowledge
pays the best interest
posted Hide Post
I corrected his formula:
ln[dog’s age] x 16 + 31 = revised age
The original used equals (=) in places it shouldn’t have.
Unfortunately the revision is horse crap. My 6.5 year old Golden still looks young, is healthy as a horse and acts like a pup but well trained. According to the revised calculation instead of being 45.5 years old, she’s supposed to be 61. I don’t think so...
 
Posts: 3398 | Location: Mid-Atlantic | Registered: December 27, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 357fuzz:
I know I am bad at math but, using the formula you typed my 1 year 9 month old Lab is 59 yoa and my 11 year old Spotted Weinerhund is 207 yoa.

Am I looking at this wrong?


You weren't doing the natural log. Using the calculator embedded in the article that Sigfreund posted:

1 year 9 month old Lab = 40.0

11 year old Spotted Weinerhund = 69.4



ACCU-STRUT FOR MINI-14
"First, Eyes."
 
Posts: 17121 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dakor:
I corrected his formula:
ln[dog’s age] x 16 + 31 = revised age
The original used equals (=) in places it shouldn’t have.
Unfortunately the revision is horse crap. My 6.5 year old Golden still looks young, is healthy as a horse and acts like a pup but well trained. According to the revised calculation instead of being 45.5 years old, she’s supposed to be 61. I don’t think so...

Average lifespan of a golden retriever is 10-12 years, so the calculation seems about right?



ACCU-STRUT FOR MINI-14
"First, Eyes."
 
Posts: 17121 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Originally posted by Dakor:
I corrected his formula:
ln[dog’s age] x 16 + 31 = revised age
The original used equals (=) in places it shouldn’t have.
Unfortunately the revision is horse crap. My 6.5 year old Golden still looks young, is healthy as a horse and acts like a pup but well trained. According to the revised calculation instead of being 45.5 years old, she’s supposed to be 61. I don’t think so...

Average lifespan of a golden retriever is 10-12 years, so the calculation seems about right?


Not even close. Is the average human lifespan 120 years?
The old formula is just about right.
7x10 to 7x12 = 70 to 84

Thats more realistic.
 
Posts: 1096 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: August 16, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Is the average human lifespan 120 years?

The new formula doesn't say that. It's based on an average human lifespan (worldwide) of 70 years.

If you run the calc backwards you still have to run it through a natural log function.



ACCU-STRUT FOR MINI-14
"First, Eyes."
 
Posts: 17121 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
אַרְיֵה
Picture of V-Tail
posted Hide Post
If Alpo is 99 cents / can, that's almost seven bucks in doggie dollars.



הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים
 
Posts: 31608 | Location: Central Florida, Orlando area | Registered: January 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
An investment in knowledge
pays the best interest
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Originally posted by Dakor:
I corrected his formula:
ln[dog’s age] x 16 + 31 = revised age
The original used equals (=) in places it shouldn’t have.
Unfortunately the revision is horse crap. My 6.5 year old Golden still looks young, is healthy as a horse and acts like a pup but well trained. According to the revised calculation instead of being 45.5 years old, she’s supposed to be 61. I don’t think so...

Average lifespan of a golden retriever is 10-12 years, so the calculation seems about right?


All 3 Goldens I’ve had lived to the ripe old ages of 14 or 15. Using averages as a basis for the equation raises the specter of many potential outliers.
 
Posts: 3398 | Location: Mid-Atlantic | Registered: December 27, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Science is the top American science journal.
If its article and explanation of how the calculation works isn’t clear, the rest of us aren’t going to do much better. The fact that it uses the natural logarithm of the dog’s age in actual years was specifically stated. My summary that used equal signs after every portion of the calculation was for the benefit of people who are not familiar with the more common method of showing an arithmetic sequence. The article itself does of course do that.




6.4/93.6
___________
“We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.”
— George H. W. Bush
 
Posts: 47852 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
quote:
Using averages as a basis for the equation raises the specter of many potential outliers.

The old formula was far more guilty of that.



ACCU-STRUT FOR MINI-14
"First, Eyes."
 
Posts: 17121 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lost
Picture of kkina
posted Hide Post
Your explanation seemed very clear, Sigfreund.



ACCU-STRUT FOR MINI-14
"First, Eyes."
 
Posts: 17121 | Location: SF Bay Area | Registered: December 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Using averages as a basis for the equation raises the specter of many potential outliers.

The old formula was far more guilty of that.


Exactly, and that was the whole point of the research.
What's more likely: that a 15-year-old lab is as uncommon as a 74-YO human or as a 105-YO person?




6.4/93.6
___________
“We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.”
— George H. W. Bush
 
Posts: 47852 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Talked to the veterinarian wife about this the other day when I saw it in my news feed. She thought it was a lot of wasted effort. We're turning over generations of pretty much any dog breed every 7 to 15 or so years. We know A LOT about their life spans and expectancies.

The seven year thing is fun for kids and that kind of thing. If you want to teach your kids logarithms, I guess this new one serves the same role.
 
Posts: 5239 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mcrimm:
I saw this last week. My Goldendoodle is 67 and my Bearded Collie was 72 when I buried him 2 weeks ago.

Fuzz......better check you slide rule again.


Your right!! Ha ha. LoL. Abacus anyone?
 
Posts: 4167 | Registered: January 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dakor:

All 3 Goldens I’ve had lived to the ripe old ages of 14 or 15. Using averages as a basis for the equation raises the specter of many potential outliers.


I’ve wondered about that. Is there actually a database that tracks the age of death for each breed? Doubt it. I’d imagine that a fairly large percentage of dogs die outside of veterinary care, so their passing is never recorded.

If you search for lifespan of a specific breed, various citations are all over the place. One site will say 11-13, another 13-15. That’s a huge variation by percentage.

I think the genetic lineage, mixing of breeds and living conditions (outside vs inside) all confound the formulas.
 
Posts: 9060 | Location: The Red part of Minnesota | Registered: October 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of hjs157
posted Hide Post
If a Pit Bull leaves Philadelphia traveling west to Chicago at an average speed of 7 mph . . .
 
Posts: 3590 | Location: Western PA | Registered: July 20, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of SPWAMike0317
posted Hide Post
However one calculates the age of a dog, they all pass way too soon. I miss all my pups.



Let me help you out. Which way did you come in?
 
Posts: 756 | Location: North of Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: January 29, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    For all the dog lovers: “Here’s a better way to convert dog years to human years, scientists say.”

© SIGforum 2024