Stephen Burgess1, Eric Harshfield. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mendelian randomization is a technique for judging the causal impact of a risk factor on an outcome from observational data using genetic variants. Although evidence from Mendelian randomization for the effects of major lipids and lipoproteins on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk has been around for a relatively long time, new data resources and new methodological approaches have given fresh insight into these relationships. The lessons from these analyses are likely to be highly relevant when it comes to lipidomics and the analyses of lipid subspecies whose biology is less well understood. RECENT FINDINGS: Although analyses of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) are unambiguous as there are genetic variants that associate exclusively with these risk factors and have well understood biology, analyses for triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) are less clear. For example, a subset of genetic variants having specific associations with HDL-c are not associated with CHD risk, but an allele score including all variants associated with HDL-c does associate with CHD risk. Recently developed methods, such as multivariable Mendelian randomization, Mendelian randomization-Egger, and a weighted median method, suggest that the relationship between HDL-c and CHD risk is null, thus confirming experimental evidence. SUMMARY: Robust methods for Mendelian randomization have important utility for understanding the causal relationships between major lipids and CHD risk, and are likely to play an important role in judging the causal relevance of lipid subspecies and other metabolites measured on high-dimensional phenotyping platforms.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mendelian randomization is a technique for judging the causal impact of a risk factor on an outcome from observational data using genetic variants. Although evidence from Mendelian randomization for the effects of major lipids and lipoproteins on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk has been around for a relatively long time, new data resources and new methodological approaches have given fresh insight into these relationships. The lessons from these analyses are likely to be highly relevant when it comes to lipidomics and the analyses of lipid subspecies whose biology is less well understood. RECENT FINDINGS: Although analyses of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) are unambiguous as there are genetic variants that associate exclusively with these risk factors and have well understood biology, analyses for triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) are less clear. For example, a subset of genetic variants having specific associations with HDL-c are not associated with CHD risk, but an allele score including all variants associated with HDL-c does associate with CHD risk. Recently developed methods, such as multivariable Mendelian randomization, Mendelian randomization-Egger, and a weighted median method, suggest that the relationship between HDL-c and CHD risk is null, thus confirming experimental evidence. SUMMARY: Robust methods for Mendelian randomization have important utility for understanding the causal relationships between major lipids and CHD risk, and are likely to play an important role in judging the causal relevance of lipid subspecies and other metabolites measured on high-dimensional phenotyping platforms.
Authors: Bernard Keavney; John Danesh; Sarah Parish; Alison Palmer; Sarah Clark; Linda Youngman; Marc Delépine; Mark Lathrop; Richard Peto; Rory Collins Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Robert Clarke; John F Peden; Jemma C Hopewell; Theodosios Kyriakou; Anuj Goel; Simon C Heath; Sarah Parish; Simona Barlera; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Stephan Rust; Derrick Bennett; Angela Silveira; Anders Malarstig; Fiona R Green; Mark Lathrop; Bruna Gigante; Karin Leander; Ulf de Faire; Udo Seedorf; Anders Hamsten; Rory Collins; Hugh Watkins; Martin Farrall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick Linsel-Nitschke; Anika Götz; Jeanette Erdmann; Ingrid Braenne; Peter Braund; Christian Hengstenberg; Klaus Stark; Marcus Fischer; Stefan Schreiber; Nour Eddine El Mokhtari; Arne Schaefer; Jürgen Schrezenmeir; Jürgen Schrezenmeier; Diana Rubin; Anke Hinney; Thomas Reinehr; Christian Roth; Jan Ortlepp; Peter Hanrath; Alistair S Hall; Massimo Mangino; Wolfgang Lieb; Claudia Lamina; Iris M Heid; Angela Doering; Christian Gieger; Annette Peters; Thomas Meitinger; H-Erich Wichmann; Inke R König; Andreas Ziegler; Florian Kronenberg; Nilesh J Samani; Heribert Schunkert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sylwia M Figarska; Stefan Gustafsson; Johan Sundström; Johan Ärnlöv; Anders Mälarstig; Sölve Elmståhl; Tove Fall; Lars Lind; Erik Ingelsson Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Lee B Bockus; Mary L Biggs; Heidi T M Lai; Marcia C de Olivera Otto; Amanda M Fretts; Barbara McKnight; Nona Sotoodehnia; Irena B King; Xiaoling Song; David S Siscovick; Dariush Mozaffarian; Rozenn N Lemaitre Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Clint L Miller; Amy R Kontorovich; Ke Hao; Lijiang Ma; Conrad Iyegbe; Johan L M Björkegren; Jason C Kovacic Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Henry Rodriguez-Broadbent; Philip J Law; Amit Sud; Kimmo Palin; Sari Tuupanen; Alexandra Gylfe; Ulrika A Hänninen; Tatiana Cajuso; Tomas Tanskanen; Johanna Kondelin; Eevi Kaasinen; Antti-Pekka Sarin; Samuli Ripatti; Johan G Eriksson; Harri Rissanen; Paul Knekt; Eero Pukkala; Pekka Jousilahti; Veikko Salomaa; Aarno Palotie; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Anna Lepistö; Jan Böhm; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Nada A Al-Tassan; Claire Palles; Lynn Martin; Ella Barclay; Susan M Farrington; Maria N Timofeeva; Brian F Meyer; Salma M Wakil; Harry Campbell; Christopher G Smith; Shelley Idziaszczyk; Timothy S Maughan; Richard Kaplan; Rachel Kerr; David Kerr; Michael N Passarelli; Jane C Figueiredo; Daniel D Buchanan; Aung K Win; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Steven Gallinger; David Conti; Fred Schumacher; Graham Casey; Lauri A Aaltonen; Jeremy P Cheadle; Ian P Tomlinson; Malcolm G Dunlop; Richard S Houlston Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Ci Song; Stephen Burgess; John D Eicher; Christopher J O'Donnell; Andrew D Johnson Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 5.501