Note: The discrepancy in spelling ("ageing" vs. "aging") is in the original.
To indicate this more concisely, you can put [sic] after "Ageing" in the quote.
This might be better received in the open thread, although I agree that this looks interesting enough that it isn't unreasonable to include it here. I'm not sure why it has been downvoted so much.
The paper is called DNA methylation age and human tissues and cell types and it's from Genome Biology. Here is a Nature article based on the paper.
I have submitted this to LW because of its relevance to the measurement of aging and, hence, to life extension. Here is a bit from the Nature piece:
"Ageing is a major health problem, and interestingly there are really no objective measures of aging, other than a verified birth date," says Darryl Shibata, a pathologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "Studies like this one provide important new efforts to increase the rigour of human aging studies."
Note: The discrepancy in spelling ("ageing" vs. "aging") is in the original.