Literature DB >> 20224045

Mendelian randomization in the era of genomewide association studies.

Patrick M A Sleiman1, Struan F A Grant.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiology has been instrumental in identifying modifiable causes of common diseases, and, in turn, substantially impacting public health. Spurious associations in observational epidemiologic studies are most commonly caused by confounding due to social, behavioral, or environmental factors and can therefore be difficult to control. They may also be due to reverse causation-in which the phenotypic outcome subsequently influences an environmental exposure such that it is wrongly implicated in its pathogenesis-and selection bias. Randomized controlled trials are effective in dealing with the potential sources of error; however, their use is not always leveraged, for practical or ethical reasons. CONTENT: An alternative method, mendelian randomization, entails the use of genetic variants as proxies for the environmental exposures under investigation. The power of mendelian randomization lies in its ability to avoid the often substantial confounding seen in conventional observational epidemiology. Underpinning mendelian randomization is the principle of the independent assortment of alleles during meiosis, which, importantly in this context, also implies that they are independent of those behavioral and environmental factors that confound epidemiologic studies. By selecting genetic variants that influence exposure patterns or are associated with an intermediate phenotype of the disease, one can effectively re-create a randomized comparison.
SUMMARY: In the past 4 years, genomewide association studies have yielded the first robust genetic associations with common diseases, which in turn should enable mendelian randomization to be even more informative, despite some limitations outlined in this review.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20224045     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.141564

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  19 in total

Review 1.  HDL-targeted therapies: progress, failures and future.

Authors:  Bronwyn A Kingwell; M John Chapman; Anatol Kontush; Norman E Miller
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 84.694

2.  Mendelian randomization and pleiotropy analysis.

Authors:  Xiaofeng Zhu
Journal:  Quant Biol       Date:  2020-10-21

Review 3.  Understanding the assumptions underlying Mendelian randomization.

Authors:  Christiaan de Leeuw; Jeanne Savage; Ioan Gabriel Bucur; Tom Heskes; Danielle Posthuma
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.351

4.  BMI as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes: Refining and Understanding Causal Estimates Using Mendelian Randomization.

Authors:  Laura J Corbin; Rebecca C Richmond; Kaitlin H Wade; Stephen Burgess; Jack Bowden; George Davey Smith; Nicholas J Timpson
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 9.461

5.  A Mendelian Randomization Study of the Effect of Tea Intake on Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Yanan Zhang; Ruiqing Wang; Xinhua Tang; Yanjun Wang; Ping Guo; Shukang Wang; Jing Liu
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Association of APE1 Gene Asp148Glu Variant with Digestive Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  He Li; Jing Zou; Jia Mi; Xiaodan Wei; Dongmei Zhao; Shuping Zhang; Geng Tian
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-08-21

7.  Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression.

Authors:  Jack Bowden; George Davey Smith; Stephen Burgess
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Mendelian randomization in health research: using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates.

Authors:  Amy E Taylor; Neil M Davies; Jennifer J Ware; Tyler VanderWeele; George Davey Smith; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Econ Hum Biol       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 2.184

9.  CETP inhibitors and cardiovascular disease: Time to think again.

Authors:  Norman E Miller
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2014-06-10

10.  Model selection approach suggests causal association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Lina Zgaga; Felix Agakov; Evropi Theodoratou; Susan M Farrington; Albert Tenesa; Malcolm G Dunlop; Paul McKeigue; Harry Campbell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.