Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

33 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An allele score is a single variable summarizing multiple genetic variants associated with a risk factor. It is calculated as the total number of risk factor-increasing alleles for an individual (unweighted score), or the sum of weights for each allele corresponding to estimated genetic effect sizes (weighted score). An allele score can be used in a Mendelian randomization analysis to estimate the causal effect of the risk factor on an outcome.

Methods

Data were simulated to investigate the use of allele scores in Mendelian randomization where conventional instrumental variable techniques using multiple genetic variants demonstrate 'weak instrument' bias. The robustness of estimates using the allele score to misspecification (for example non-linearity, effect modification) and to violations of the instrumental variable assumptions was assessed.

Results

Causal estimates using a correctly specified allele score were unbiased with appropriate coverage levels. The estimates were generally robust to misspecification of the allele score, but not to instrumental variable violations, even if the majority of variants in the allele score were valid instruments. Using a weighted rather than an unweighted allele score increased power, but the increase was small when genetic variants had similar effect sizes. Naive use of the data under analysis to choose which variants to include in an allele score, or for deriving weights, resulted in substantial biases.

Conclusions

Allele scores enable valid causal estimates with large numbers of genetic variants. The stringency of criteria for genetic variants in Mendelian randomization should be maintained for all variants in an allele score.

SUBMITTER: Burgess S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3780999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in Mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods.

Project description:Mendelian randomization is the use of genetic instrumental variables to obtain causal inferences from observational data. Two recent developments for combining information on multiple uncorrelated instrumental variables (IVs) into a single causal estimate are as follows: (i) allele scores, in which individual-level data on the IVs are aggregated into a univariate score, which is used as a single IV, and (ii) a summary statistic method, in which causal estimates calculated from each IV using summarized data are combined in an inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis. To avoid bias from weak instruments, unweighted and externally weighted allele scores have been recommended. Here, we propose equivalent approaches using summarized data and also provide extensions of the methods for use with correlated IVs. We investigate the impact of different choices of weights on the bias and precision of estimates in simulation studies. We show that allele score estimates can be reproduced using summarized data on genetic associations with the risk factor and the outcome. Estimates from the summary statistic method using external weights are biased towards the null when the weights are imprecisely estimated; in contrast, allele score estimates are unbiased. With equal or external weights, both methods provide appropriate tests of the null hypothesis of no causal effect even with large numbers of potentially weak instruments. We illustrate these methods using summarized data on the causal effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on coronary heart disease risk. It is shown that a more precise causal estimate can be obtained using multiple genetic variants from a single gene region, even if the variants are correlated.

| S-EPMC4832315 | biostudies-literature

Mendelian Randomization With Refined Instrumental Variables From Genetic Score Improves Accuracy and Reduces Bias.

Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) can estimate the causal effect for a risk factor on a complex disease using genetic variants as instrument variables (IVs). A variety of generalized MR methods have been proposed to integrate results arising from multiple IVs in order to increase power. One of the methods constructs the genetic score (GS) by a linear combination of the multiple IVs using the multiple regression model, which was applied in medical researches broadly. However, GS-based MR requires individual-level data, which greatly limit its application in clinical research. We propose an alternative method called Mendelian Randomization with Refined Instrumental Variable from Genetic Score (MR-RIVER) to construct a genetic IV by integrating multiple genetic variants based on summarized results, rather than individual data. Compared with inverse-variance weighted (IVW) and generalized summary-data-based Mendelian randomization (GSMR), MR-RIVER maintained the type I error, while possessing more statistical power than the competing methods. MR-RIVER also presented smaller biases and mean squared errors, compared to the IVW and GSMR. We further applied the proposed method to estimate the effects of blood metabolites on educational attainment, by integrating results from several publicly available resources. MR-RIVER provided robust results under different LD prune criteria and identified three metabolites associated with years of schooling and additional 15 metabolites with indirect mediation effects through butyrylcarnitine. MR-RIVER, which extends score-based MR to summarized results in lieu of individual data and incorporates multiple correlated IVs, provided a more accurate and powerful means for the discovery of novel risk factors.

| S-EPMC8044958 | biostudies-literature

Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways.

Project description:BackgroundMendelian randomization uses genetic variants, assumed to be instrumental variables for a particular exposure, to estimate the causal effect of that exposure on an outcome. If the instrumental variable criteria are satisfied, the resulting estimator is consistent even in the presence of unmeasured confounding and reverse causation.MethodsWe extend the Mendelian randomization paradigm to investigate more complex networks of relationships between variables, in particular where some of the effect of an exposure on the outcome may operate through an intermediate variable (a mediator). If instrumental variables for the exposure and mediator are available, direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated, for example using either a regression-based method or structural equation models. The direction of effect between the exposure and a possible mediator can also be assessed. Methods are illustrated in an applied example considering causal relationships between body mass index, C-reactive protein and uric acid.ResultsThese estimators are consistent in the presence of unmeasured confounding if, in addition to the instrumental variable assumptions, the effects of both the exposure on the mediator and the mediator on the outcome are homogeneous across individuals and linear without interactions. Nevertheless, a simulation study demonstrates that even considerable heterogeneity in these effects does not lead to bias in the estimates.ConclusionsThese methods can be used to estimate direct and indirect causal effects in a mediation setting, and have potential for the investigation of more complex networks between multiple interrelated exposures and disease outcomes.

| S-EPMC4469795 | biostudies-literature

Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure-outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization.

Project description:Mendelian randomization, the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables (IV), can test for and estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Most IV methods assume that the function relating the exposure to the expected value of the outcome (the exposure-outcome relationship) is linear. However, in practice, this assumption may not hold. Indeed, often the primary question of interest is to assess the shape of this relationship. We present two novel IV methods for investigating the shape of the exposure-outcome relationship: a fractional polynomial method and a piecewise linear method. We divide the population into strata using the exposure distribution, and estimate a causal effect, referred to as a localized average causal effect (LACE), in each stratum of population. The fractional polynomial method performs metaregression on these LACE estimates. The piecewise linear method estimates a continuous piecewise linear function, the gradient of which is the LACE estimate in each stratum. Both methods were demonstrated in a simulation study to estimate the true exposure-outcome relationship well, particularly when the relationship was a fractional polynomial (for the fractional polynomial method) or was piecewise linear (for the piecewise linear method). The methods were used to investigate the shape of relationship of body mass index with systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure.

| S-EPMC5400068 | biostudies-literature

Exploring and mitigating potential bias when genetic instrumental variables are associated with multiple non-exposure traits in Mendelian randomization.

Project description:With the increasing size and number of genome-wide association studies, individual single nucleotide polymorphisms are increasingly found to associate with multiple traits. Many different mechanisms could result in proposed genetic IVs for an exposure of interest being associated with multiple non-exposure traits, some of which could bias MR results. We describe and illustrate, through causal diagrams, a range of scenarios that could result in proposed IVs being related to non-exposure traits in MR studies. These associations could occur due to five scenarios: (i) confounding, (ii) vertical pleiotropy, (iii) horizontal pleiotropy, (iv) reverse causation and (v) selection bias. For each of these scenarios we outline steps that could be taken to explore the underlying mechanism and mitigate any resulting bias in the MR estimation. We recommend MR studies explore possible IV-non-exposure associations across a wider range of traits than is usually the case. We highlight the pros and cons of relying on sensitivity analyses without considering particular pleiotropic paths versus systematically exploring and controlling for potential pleiotropic or other biasing paths via known traits. We apply our recommendations to an illustrative example of the effect of maternal insomnia on offspring birthweight in UK Biobank.

| S-EPMC9329407 | biostudies-literature

Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions.

Project description:As with other instrumental variable (IV) analyses, Mendelian randomization (MR) studies rest on strong assumptions. These assumptions are not routinely systematically evaluated in MR applications, although such evaluation could add to the credibility of MR analyses. In this article, the authors present several methods that are useful for evaluating the validity of an MR study. They apply these methods to a recent MR study that used fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) genotype as an IV to estimate the effect of obesity on mental disorder. These approaches to evaluating assumptions for valid IV analyses are not fail-safe, in that there are situations where the approaches might either fail to identify a biased IV or inappropriately suggest that a valid IV is biased. Therefore, the authors describe the assumptions upon which the IV assessments rely. The methods they describe are relevant to any IV analysis, regardless of whether it is based on a genetic IV or other possible sources of exogenous variation. Methods that assess the IV assumptions are generally not conclusive, but routinely applying such methods is nonetheless likely to improve the scientific contributions of MR studies.

| S-EPMC3366596 | biostudies-literature

Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators.

Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method for estimating the causal relationship between an exposure and an outcome using a genetic factor as an instrumental variable (IV) for the exposure. In the traditional MR setting, data on the IV, exposure, and outcome are available for all participants. However, obtaining complete exposure data may be difficult in some settings, due to high measurement costs or lack of appropriate biospecimens. We used simulated data sets to assess statistical power and bias for MR when exposure data are available for a subset (or an independent set) of participants. We show that obtaining exposure data for a subset of participants is a cost-efficient strategy, often having negligible effects on power in comparison with a traditional complete-data analysis. The size of the subset needed to achieve maximum power depends on IV strength, and maximum power is approximately equal to the power of traditional IV estimators. Weak IVs are shown to lead to bias towards the null when the subsample is small and towards the confounded association when the subset is relatively large. Various approaches for confidence interval calculation are considered. These results have important implications for reducing the costs and increasing the feasibility of MR studies.

| S-EPMC3783091 | biostudies-literature

Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Investigators often support the validity of Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, an instrumental variable approach proposing genetic variants as instruments, via. subject matter knowledge. However, the instrumental variable model implies certain inequalities, offering an empirical method of falsifying (but not verifying) the underlying assumptions. Although these inequalities are said to detect only extreme assumption violations in practice, to our knowledge they have not been used in settings with multiple proposed instruments. METHODS:We applied the instrumental inequalities to an MR analysis of the effect of maternal pregnancy vitamin D on offspring psychiatric outcomes, proposing four independent maternal genetic variants as instruments. We assessed whether the proposed instruments satisfied the instrumental inequalities separately and jointly and explored the instrumental inequalities' properties via simulations. RESULTS:The instrumental inequalities were satisfied (i.e., we did not falsify the MR model) when considering each variant separately. However, the inequalities were violated when considering four variants jointly and for some combinations of two or three variants (two of 36 two-variant combinations and 18 of 24 three-variant combinations). In simulations, the inequalities detected structural biases more often when assessing proposed instruments jointly, although falsification in the absence of structural bias remained rare. CONCLUSIONS:The instrumental inequalities detected violations of the MR assumptions for genetic variants jointly proposed as instruments in our study, although the instrumental inequalities were satisfied when considering each proposed instrument separately. We discuss how investigators can assess instrumental inequalities to eliminate clearly invalid analyses in settings with many proposed instruments and provide appropriate code.

| S-EPMC6889903 | biostudies-literature

Genetic markers as instrumental variables.

Project description:The use of genetic markers as instrumental variables (IV) is receiving increasing attention from economists, statisticians, epidemiologists and social scientists. Although IV is commonly used in economics, the appropriate conditions for the use of genetic variants as instruments have not been well defined. The increasing availability of biomedical data, however, makes understanding of these conditions crucial to the successful use of genotypes as instruments. We combine the econometric IV literature with that from genetic epidemiology, and discuss the biological conditions and IV assumptions within the statistical potential outcomes framework. We review this in the context of two illustrative applications.

| S-EPMC4770870 | biostudies-literature

Mendelian randomization identifies FLCN expression as a mediator of diabetic retinopathy

Project description:The goal of the study was to identify genes whose aberrant expression can contribute to diabetic retinopathy. We determined differential response in gene expression to high glucose in lymphoblastoid cell lines derived from matched type 1 diabetic individuals with and without retinopathy. Those genes exhibiting the largest difference in glucose response between diabetic subjects with and without retinopathy were assessed for association to diabetic retinopathy utilizing genotype data from a meta-genome-wide association study. All genetic variants associated with gene expression (expression QTLs; eQTLs) of the glucose response genes were tested for association with diabetic retinopathy. We detected an enrichment of the glucose response gene eQTLs among small association p-values for diabetic retinopathy. Among these, we identified FLCN as a susceptibility gene for diabetic retinopathy. Expression of FLCN in response to glucose is greater in individuals with diabetic retinopathy compared to diabetic individuals without retinopathy. Three large, independent cohorts of diabetic individuals revealed an enhanced association of FLCN eQTL to diabetic retinopathy. Mendelian randomization confirmed a direct positive effect of increased FLCN expression on retinopathy in diabetic individuals. Together, our studies integrating genetic association and gene expression implicate FLCN as a disease gene in diabetic retinopathy.

2020-03-10 | GSE146615 | GEO

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data