scholarly journals Model Checking via Testing for Direct Effects in Mendelian Randomization and Transcriptome-wide Association Studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yangqing Deng ◽  
Wei Pan
Keyword(s):  
Model Checking ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Direct Effects ◽  
Statistical Efficiency ◽  
Challenging Situation ◽  
High Statistical Power

It is of great interest and potential to discover causal relationships between pairs of exposures and outcomes using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to deal with hidden confounding in observational studies. Two most popular approaches are Mendelian randomization (MR), which usually use independent genetic variants/SNPs across the genome, and transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) using cis-SNPs local to a gene, as IVs. In spite of their many promising applications, both approaches face a major challenge: the validity of their causal conclusions depends on three critical assumptions on valid IVs, which however may not hold in practice. The most likely as well as challenging situation is due to the wide-spread horizontal pleiotropy, leading to two of three IV assumptions being violated and thus to biased statistical inference. Although some methods have been proposed as being robust to various degrees to the violation of some modeling assumptions, they often give different and even conflicting results due to their own modeling assumptions and possibly lower statistical efficiency, imposing difficulties to the practitioner in choosing and interpreting varying results across different methods. Hence, it would help to directly test whether any assumption is violated or not. In particular, there is a lack of such tests for TWAS. We propose a new and general GOF test, called TEDE (TEsting Direct Effects), applicable to both correlated and independent SNPs/IVs (as commonly used in TWAS and MR respectively). Through simulation studies and real data examples, we demonstrate high statistical power and advantages of our new method, while confirming the frequent violation of modeling (including IV) assumptions in practice and thus the importance of model checking by applying such a test in MR/TWAS analysis.

scholarly journals Model checking via testing for direct effects in Mendelian Randomization and transcriptome-wide association studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. e1009266
Author(s):  
Yangqing Deng ◽  
Wei Pan
Keyword(s):  
Model Checking ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Direct Effects ◽  
Statistical Efficiency ◽  
Challenging Situation

It is of great interest and potential to discover causal relationships between pairs of exposures and outcomes using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to deal with hidden confounding in observational studies. Two most popular approaches are Mendelian randomization (MR), which usually use independent genetic variants/SNPs across the genome, and transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) (or their generalizations) using cis-SNPs local to a gene (or some genome-wide and likely dependent SNPs), as IVs. In spite of their many promising applications, both approaches face a major challenge: the validity of their causal conclusions depends on three critical assumptions on valid IVs, and more generally on other modeling assumptions, which however may not hold in practice. The most likely as well as challenging situation is due to the wide-spread horizontal pleiotropy, leading to two of the three IV assumptions being violated and thus to biased statistical inference. More generally, we’d like to conduct a goodness-of-fit (GOF) test to check the model being used. Although some methods have been proposed as being robust to various degrees to the violation of some modeling assumptions, they often give different and even conflicting results due to their own modeling assumptions and possibly lower statistical efficiency, imposing difficulties to the practitioner in choosing and interpreting varying results across different methods. Hence, it would help to directly test whether any assumption is violated or not. In particular, there is a lack of such tests for TWAS. We propose a new and general GOF test, called TEDE (TEsting Direct Effects), applicable to both correlated and independent SNPs/IVs (as commonly used in TWAS and MR respectively). Through simulation studies and real data examples, we demonstrate high statistical power and advantages of our new method, while confirming the frequent violation of modeling (including valid IV) assumptions in practice and thus the importance of model checking by applying such a test in MR/TWAS analysis.

scholarly journals Bias in two-sample Mendelian randomization when using heritable covariable-adjusted summary associations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Pires Hartwig ◽  
Kate Tilling ◽  
George Davey Smith ◽  
Deborah A Lawlor ◽  
Maria Carolina Borges
Keyword(s):  
Waist Circumference ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Effect Estimate ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Residual Confounding

Abstract Background Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) allows the use of freely accessible summary association results from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to estimate causal effects of modifiable exposures on outcomes. Some GWAS adjust for heritable covariables in an attempt to estimate direct effects of genetic variants on the trait of interest. One, both or neither of the exposure GWAS and outcome GWAS may have been adjusted for covariables. Methods We performed a simulation study comprising different scenarios that could motivate covariable adjustment in a GWAS and analysed real data to assess the influence of using covariable-adjusted summary association results in two-sample MR. Results In the absence of residual confounding between exposure and covariable, between exposure and outcome, and between covariable and outcome, using covariable-adjusted summary associations for two-sample MR eliminated bias due to horizontal pleiotropy. However, covariable adjustment led to bias in the presence of residual confounding (especially between the covariable and the outcome), even in the absence of horizontal pleiotropy (when the genetic variants would be valid instruments without covariable adjustment). In an analysis using real data from the Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) consortium and UK Biobank, the causal effect estimate of waist circumference on blood pressure changed direction upon adjustment of waist circumference for body mass index. Conclusions Our findings indicate that using covariable-adjusted summary associations in MR should generally be avoided. When that is not possible, careful consideration of the causal relationships underlying the data (including potentially unmeasured confounders) is required to direct sensitivity analyses and interpret results with appropriate caution.

scholarly journals A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guanghao Qi ◽  
Nilanjan Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Type I ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Simulation Studies ◽  
Sample Sizes

Abstract Background Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets. Methods We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Results Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies. Conclusion The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.

scholarly journals A Novel Method for Mendelian Randomization Analyses With Pleiotropy and Linkage Disequilibrium in Genetic Variants From Individual Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuquan Wang ◽  
Tingting Li ◽  
Liwan Fu ◽  
Siqian Yang ◽  
Yue-Qing Hu
Keyword(s):  
Linkage Disequilibrium ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Pleiotropic Effect ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Novel Method

Mendelian randomization makes use of genetic variants as instrumental variables to eliminate the influence induced by unknown confounders on causal estimation in epidemiology studies. However, with the soaring genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies, the pleiotropy, and linkage disequilibrium in genetic variants are unavoidable and may produce severe bias in causal inference. In this study, by modeling the pleiotropic effect as a normally distributed random effect, we propose a novel mixed-effects regression model-based method PLDMR, pleiotropy and linkage disequilibrium adaptive Mendelian randomization, which takes linkage disequilibrium into account and also corrects for the pleiotropic effect in causal effect estimation and statistical inference. We conduct voluminous simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed and existing methods. Simulation results illustrate the validity and advantage of the novel method, especially in the case of linkage disequilibrium and directional pleiotropic effects, compared with other methods. In addition, by applying this novel method to the data on Atherosclerosis Risk in Communications Study, we conclude that body mass index has a significant causal effect on and thus might be a potential risk factor of systolic blood pressure. The novel method is implemented in R and the corresponding R code is provided for free download.

scholarly journals Investigating genetic correlations and causal effects between caffeine consumption and sleep behaviours

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorien L. Treur ◽  
Mark Gibson ◽  
Amy E Taylor ◽  
Peter J Rogers ◽  
Marcus R Munafò
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Correlation ◽  
Sleep Duration ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Genetic Correlations ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Caffeine Consumption ◽  
Insomnia Complaints

AbstractStudy Objectives:Higher caffeine consumption has been linked to poorer sleep and insomnia complaints. We investigated whether these observational associations are the result of genetic risk factors influencing both caffeine consumption and poorer sleep, and/or whether they reflect (possibly bidirectional) causal effects.Methods:Summary-level data were available from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on caffeine consumption (n=91,462), sleep duration, and chronotype (i.e., being a ‘morning’ versus an ‘evening’ person) (both n=128,266), and insomnia complaints (n=113,006). Linkage disequilibrium (LD) score regression was used to calculate genetic correlations, reflecting the extent to which genetic variants influencing caffeine consumption and sleep behaviours overlap. Causal effects were tested with bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR), an instrumental variable approach that utilizes genetic variants robustly associated with an exposure variable as an instrument to test causal effects. Estimates from individual genetic variants were combined using inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis, weighted median regression and MR Egger regression methods.Results:There was no clear evidence for genetic correlation between caffeine consumption and sleep duration (rg=0.000,p=0.998), chronotype (rg=0.086,p=0.192) or insomnia (rg=-0.034,p=0.700). Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses did not support causal effects from caffeine consumption to sleep behaviours, or the other way around.Conclusions:We found no evidence in support of genetic correlation or causal effects between caffeine consumption and sleep. While caffeine may have acute effects on sleep when taken shortly before habitual bedtime, our findings suggest that a more sustained pattern of high caffeine consumption is likely associated with poorer sleep through shared environmental factors.

scholarly journals A transcriptome-wide Mendelian randomization study to uncover tissue-dependent regulatory mechanisms across the human phenome

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom G Richardson ◽  
Gibran Hemani ◽  
Tom R Gaunt ◽  
Caroline L Relton ◽  
George Davey Smith
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Complex Traits ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Drug Repositioning ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Thyroid Tissue ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Tissue Specific ◽  
Genome Wide

AbstractBackgroundDeveloping insight into tissue-specific transcriptional mechanisms can help improve our understanding of how genetic variants exert their effects on complex traits and disease. By applying the principles of Mendelian randomization, we have undertaken a systematic analysis to evaluate transcriptome-wide associations between gene expression across 48 different tissue types and 395 complex traits.ResultsOverall, we identified 100,025 gene-trait associations based on conventional genome-wide corrections (P < 5 × 10−08) that also provided evidence of genetic colocalization. These results indicated that genetic variants which influence gene expression levels in multiple tissues are more likely to influence multiple complex traits. We identified many examples of tissue-specific effects, such as genetically-predicted TPO, NR3C2 and SPATA13 expression only associating with thyroid disease in thyroid tissue. Additionally, FBN2 expression was associated with both cardiovascular and lung function traits, but only when analysed in heart and lung tissue respectively.We also demonstrate that conducting phenome-wide evaluations of our results can help flag adverse on-target side effects for therapeutic intervention, as well as propose drug repositioning opportunities. Moreover, we find that exploring the tissue-dependency of associations identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can help elucidate the causal genes and tissues responsible for effects, as well as uncover putative novel associations.ConclusionsThe atlas of tissue-dependent associations we have constructed should prove extremely valuable to future studies investigating the genetic determinants of complex disease. The follow-up analyses we have performed in this study are merely a guide for future research. Conducting similar evaluations can be undertaken systematically at http://mrcieu.mrsoftware.org/Tissue_MR_atlas/.

Optimal selection of genetic variants for adjustment of population stratification in European association studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Brinster ◽  
Dominique Scherer ◽  
Justo Lorenzo Bermejo
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Population Stratification ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Reference Sample ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
The Cancer Genome Atlas ◽  
Type I ◽  
Genotype Data

Abstract Population stratification is usually corrected relying on principal component analysis (PCA) of genome-wide genotype data, even in populations considered genetically homogeneous, such as Europeans. The need to genotype only a small number of genetic variants that show large differences in allele frequency among subpopulations—so-called ancestry-informative markers (AIMs)—instead of the whole genome for stratification adjustment could represent an advantage for replication studies and candidate gene/pathway studies. Here we compare the correction performance of classical and robust principal components (PCs) with the use of AIMs selected according to four different methods: the informativeness for assignment measure ($IN$-AIMs), the combination of PCA and F-statistics, PCA-correlated measurement and the PCA weighted loadings for each genetic variant. We used real genotype data from the Population Reference Sample and The Cancer Genome Atlas to simulate European genetic association studies and to quantify type I error rate and statistical power in different case–control settings. In studies with the same numbers of cases and controls per country and control-to-case ratios reflecting actual rates of disease prevalence, no adjustment for population stratification was required. The unnecessary inclusion of the country of origin, PCs or AIMs as covariates in the regression models translated into increasing type I error rates. In studies with cases and controls from separate countries, no investigated method was able to adequately correct for population stratification. The first classical and the first two robust PCs achieved the lowest (although inflated) type I error, followed at some distance by the first eight $IN$-AIMs.

scholarly journals Factorial Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants to assess interactions

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1147-1158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M B Rees ◽  
Christopher N Foley ◽  
Stephen Burgess
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Instrumental Variables ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Uk Biobank ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Natural Break ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Randomization Analysis

Abstract Background Factorial Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic variants to answer questions about interactions. Although the approach has been used in applied investigations, little methodological advice is available on how to design or perform a factorial Mendelian randomization analysis. Previous analyses have employed a 2 × 2 approach, using dichotomized genetic scores to divide the population into four subgroups as in a factorial randomized trial. Methods We describe two distinct contexts for factorial Mendelian randomization: investigating interactions between risk factors, and investigating interactions between pharmacological interventions on risk factors. We propose two-stage least squares methods using all available genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, and using continuous genetic scores as instrumental variables rather than dichotomized scores. We illustrate our methods using data from UK Biobank to investigate the interaction between body mass index and alcohol consumption on systolic blood pressure. Results Simulated and real data show that efficiency is maximized using the full set of interactions between genetic variants as instruments. In the applied example, between 4- and 10-fold improvement in efficiency is demonstrated over the 2 × 2 approach. Analyses using continuous genetic scores are more efficient than those using dichotomized scores. Efficiency is improved by finding genetic variants that divide the population at a natural break in the distribution of the risk factor, or else divide the population into more equal-sized groups. Conclusions Previous factorial Mendelian randomization analyses may have been underpowered. Efficiency can be improved by using all genetic variants and their interactions as instrumental variables, rather than the 2 × 2 approach.

scholarly journals MR-LDP: a two-sample Mendelian randomization for GWAS summary statistics accounting for linkage disequilibrium and horizontal pleiotropy

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Cheng ◽  
Yi Yang ◽  
Xingjie Shi ◽  
Kar-Fu Yeung ◽  
Can Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Linkage Disequilibrium ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Summary Statistics ◽  
Causal Relationships ◽  
Disease Outcomes

Abstract The proliferation of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has prompted the use of two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) with genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) for drawing reliable causal relationships between health risk factors and disease outcomes. However, the unique features of GWAS demand that MR methods account for both linkage disequilibrium (LD) and ubiquitously existing horizontal pleiotropy among complex traits, which is the phenomenon wherein a variant affects the outcome through mechanisms other than exclusively through the exposure. Therefore, statistical methods that fail to consider LD and horizontal pleiotropy can lead to biased estimates and false-positive causal relationships. To overcome these limitations, we proposed a probabilistic model for MR analysis in identifying the causal effects between risk factors and disease outcomes using GWAS summary statistics in the presence of LD and to properly account for horizontal pleiotropy among genetic variants (MR-LDP) and develop a computationally efficient algorithm to make the causal inference. We then conducted comprehensive simulation studies to demonstrate the advantages of MR-LDP over the existing methods. Moreover, we used two real exposure–outcome pairs to validate the results from MR-LDP compared with alternative methods, showing that our method is more efficient in using all-instrumental variants in LD. By further applying MR-LDP to lipid traits and body mass index (BMI) as risk factors for complex diseases, we identified multiple pairs of significant causal relationships, including a protective effect of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol on peripheral vascular disease and a positive causal effect of BMI on hemorrhoids.

scholarly journals A comparative analysis of cell-type adjustment methods for epigenome-wide association studies based on simulated and real data sets

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 2055-2065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Brägelmann ◽  
Justo Lorenzo Bermejo
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Type I ◽  
Cell Type ◽  
Type I Error Rates

Abstract Technological advances and reduced costs of high-density methylation arrays have led to an increasing number of association studies on the possible relationship between human disease and epigenetic variability. DNA samples from peripheral blood or other tissue types are analyzed in epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) to detect methylation differences related to a particular phenotype. Since information on the cell-type composition of the sample is generally not available and methylation profiles are cell-type specific, statistical methods have been developed for adjustment of cell-type heterogeneity in EWAS. In this study we systematically compared five popular adjustment methods: the factored spectrally transformed linear mixed model (FaST-LMM-EWASher), the sparse principal component analysis algorithm ReFACTor, surrogate variable analysis (SVA), independent SVA (ISVA) and an optimized version of SVA (SmartSVA). We used real data and applied a multilayered simulation framework to assess the type I error rate, the statistical power and the quality of estimated methylation differences according to major study characteristics. While all five adjustment methods improved false-positive rates compared with unadjusted analyses, FaST-LMM-EWASher resulted in the lowest type I error rate at the expense of low statistical power. SVA efficiently corrected for cell-type heterogeneity in EWAS up to 200 cases and 200 controls, but did not control type I error rates in larger studies. Results based on real data sets confirmed simulation findings with the strongest control of type I error rates by FaST-LMM-EWASher and SmartSVA. Overall, ReFACTor, ISVA and SmartSVA showed the best comparable statistical power, quality of estimated methylation differences and runtime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document