scholarly journals Mendelian Randomization using Public Data from Genetic Consortia

Author(s):  
John R. Thompson ◽  
Cosetta Minelli ◽  
Fabiola Del Greco M

AbstractMendelian randomization (MR) is a technique that seeks to establish causation between an exposure and an outcome using observational data. It is an instrumental variable analysis in which genetic variants are used as the instruments. Many consortia have meta-analysed genome-wide associations between variants and specific traits and made their results publicly available. Using such data, it is possible to derive genetic risk scores for one trait and to deduce the association of that same risk score with a second trait. The properties of this approach are investigated by simulation and by evaluating the potentially causal effect of birth weight on adult glucose level. In such analyses, it is important to decide whether one is interested in the risk score based on a set of estimated regression coefficients or the score based on the true underlying coefficients. MR is primarily concerned with the latter. Methods designed for the former question will under-estimate the variance if used for MR. This variance can be corrected but it needs to be done with care to avoid introducing bias. MR based on public data sources is useful and easy to perform, but care must be taken to avoid false precision or bias.

Author(s):  
Meda R Sandu ◽  
Rhona Beynon ◽  
Rebecca Richmond ◽  
Diana L. Santos Ferreira ◽  
Lucy Hackshaw-McGeagh ◽  
...  

Background: Feasibility trials are preliminary trials that assess the viability and acceptability of intervention studies and the effects of the intervention on intermediate endpoints. Due to their short duration, they are unable to establish the effects of the intervention on long-term clinical outcomes. We propose a novel method that could transform the interpretation of feasibility trials using modified two-stage randomisation analyses. Methods In this two-stage process, we explored the effects of a 6-month feasibility factorial randomised controlled trial (RCT) of lycopene and green tea dietary interventions (ProDiet) on 159 serum metabolic traits in 133 men with raised PSA levels but prostate cancer (PCA) free. In the first stage, we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis, using linear regression to examine the effects of the interventions on metabolic traits, compared to the placebo group and instrumental variable analysis to assess the causal effect of the intervention on the outcomes. In the second stage, we used a two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) approach to assess the causal effect of metabolic traits altered by the interventions, on PCA risk, using summary statistics data from an international PCA consortium of 44,825 cancer cases and 27,904 controls. ResultsThe systemic effects of lycopene and green tea supplementation on serum metabolic profile were comparable to the effects of the respective dietary advice interventions (R2= 0.65 and 0.76 for lycopene and green tea respectively). Metabolites which were altered in response to lycopene supplementation were acetate (standard deviation difference versus placebo (β)): 0.69; 95% CI= 0.24, 1.15; p=0.003), valine (β: -0.62; -1.03, -0.02; p=0.004), pyruvate (β: -0.56; -0.95, -0.16; p=0.006), and docosahexaenoic acid (β: -0.50; -085, -0.14; p=0.006). The instrumental variable analysis showed there was no evidence that green tea altered the metabolome, but lycopene was associated with an increase in acetate (β=2.13; p=0.006) and decreases in pyruvate (β=-1.90; p=0.009), valine (β=-1.79; p=0.023), diacylglycerol (β=-1.81; p=0.026), alanine (β=-1.55; p=0.015) and DHA (p=0.097), where the regression coefficient represents the standard deviation (SD) difference in metabolite measures per unit change in lycopene (µmol/L) or EGCG (nM).Using MR, a genetically instrumented SD increase in pyruvate increased the odds of PCA by 1.29 (1.03, 1.62; p=0.027). Conclusion Using a two-stage randomization analysis in a feasibility RCT, we found that lycopene lowered levels of pyruvate, which our Mendelian randomization analysis suggests may be causally related to reduced PCA risk.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 973
Author(s):  
Joel Schwartz ◽  
Antonella Zanobetti ◽  
Kelvin Fong ◽  
Petros Koutrakis

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Burgess ◽  
Dylan S. Small

AbstractAn instrumental variable can be used to test the causal null hypothesis that an exposure has no causal effect on the outcome, by assessing the association between the instrumental variable and the outcome. Under additional assumptions, an instrumental variable can be used to estimate the magnitude of causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. In this paper, we investigate whether these additional assumptions are necessary in order to predict the direction of the causal effect, based on the direction of association between the instrumental variable and the outcome, or equivalently based on the standard (Wald) instrumental variable estimate. We demonstrate by counterexample that if these additional assumptions (such as monotonicity of the instrument–exposure association) are not satisfied, then the instrumental variable–outcome association can be in the opposite direction to the causal effect for all individuals in the population. Although such scenarios are unlikely, in most cases, a definite conclusion about the direction of causal effect requires similar assumptions to those required to estimate a causal effect.


2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ly ◽  
Beate Leppert ◽  
Dheeraj Rai ◽  
Hannah Jones ◽  
Christina Dardani ◽  
...  

AbstractHigher prevalence of autism in offspring born to mothers with rheumatoid arthritis has been reported in observational studies. We investigated (a) the associations between maternal and offspring’s own genetic liability for rheumatoid arthritis and autism-related outcomes in the offspring using polygenic risk scores (PRS) and (b) whether the effects were causal using Mendelian randomization (MR). Using the latest genome-wide association (GWAS) summary data on rheumatoid arthritis and individual-level data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, United Kingdom, we constructed PRSs for maternal and offspring genetic liability for rheumatoid arthritis (single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] p-value threshold 0.05). We investigated associations with autism, and autistic traits: social and communication difficulties, coherence, repetitive behaviours and sociability. We used modified Poisson regression with robust standard errors. In two-sample MR analyses, we used 40 genome-wide significant SNPs for rheumatoid arthritis and investigated the causal effects on risk for autism, in 18,381 cases and 27,969 controls of the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium and iPSYCH. Sample size ranged from 4992 to 7849 in PRS analyses. We found little evidence of associations between rheumatoid arthritis PRSs and autism-related phenotypes in the offspring (maternal PRS on autism: RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.73–1.07, p = 0.21; offspring’s own PRS on autism: RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.88–1.39, p = 0.39). MR results provided little evidence for a causal effect (IVW OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.98–1.04, p = 0.56). There was little evidence for associations between genetic liability for rheumatoid arthritis on autism-related outcomes in offspring. Lifetime risk for rheumatoid arthritis has no causal effects on autism.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venexia M Walker ◽  
Neil M Davies ◽  
Frank Windmeijer ◽  
Stephen Burgess ◽  
Richard M Martin

ABSTRACTBackgroundInstrumental variable analysis, for example with physicians’ prescribing preferences as an instrument for medications issued in primary care, is an increasingly popular method in the field of pharmacoepidemiology. Existing power calculators for studies using instrumental variable analysis, such as Mendelian randomisation power calculators, do not allow for the structure of research questions in this field. This is because the analysis in pharmacoepidemiology will typically have stronger instruments and detect larger causal effects than in other fields. Consequently, there is a need for dedicated power calculators for pharmacoepidemiological research.Methods and resultsThe formula for calculating the power of a study using instrumental variable analysis in the context of pharmacoepidemiology is derived before being validated by a simulation study. The formula is applicable for studies using a single binary instrument to analyse the causal effect of a binary exposure on a continuous outcome. A web application is provided for the implementation of the formula by others.ConclusionsThe statistical power of instrumental variable analysis in pharmacoepidemiological studies to detect a clinically meaningful treatment effect is an important consideration. Research questions in this field have distinct structures that must be accounted for when calculating power.FUNDING STATEMENTThis work was supported by the Perros Trust and the Integrative Epidemiology Unit. The Integrative Epidemiology Unit is supported by the Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol [grant number MC_UU_12013/9]. Stephen Burgess is supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from the Wellcome Trust [100114].Key MessagesResearch questions using instrumental variable analysis in pharmacoepidemiology have distinct structures that have previously not been catered for by instrumental variable analysis power calculators.Power can be calculated for studies using a single binary instrument to analyse the causal effect of a binary exposure on a continuous outcome in the context of pharmacoepidemiology using the presented formula and online power calculator.The use of this power calculator will allow investigators to determine whether a pharmacoepidemiology study is likely to detect clinically meaningful treatment effects prior to the study’s commencement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document