Rita Hamad1, Stefan Walter2, David H Rehkopf3. 1. Stanford University, Department of Medicine, 1070 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. Electronic address: rhamad@stanford.edu. 2. University of California San Francisco, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. 3. Stanford University, Department of Medicine, 1070 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies linking telomere length (TL) and health have been largely associational. We apply genetic instrumental variables (IV) analysis, also known as Mendelian randomization, to test the hypothesis that shorter TL leads to poorer health. This method reduces bias from reverse causation or confounding. METHODS: We used two approaches in this study that rely on two separate data sources: (1) individual-level data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (N=3734), and (2) coefficients from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We employed two-sample genetic IV analyses, constructing a polygenic risk score (PRS) of TL-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. The first approach examined the association of the PRS with nine individual health outcomes in HRS. The second approach took advantage of estimates available in GWAS databases to estimate the impact of TL on five health outcomes using an inverse variance-weighted meta-analytic technique. RESULTS: Using individual-level data, shorter TL was marginally statistically significantly associated with decreased risk of stroke and increased risk of heart disease. Using the meta-analytic approach, shorter TL was associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease (OR 1.02 per 100 base pairs, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.03). DISCUSSION: With the exception of a small contribution to heart disease, our findings suggest that TL may be a marker of disease rather than a cause. They also demonstrate the utility of the inverse variance-weighted meta-analytic approach when examining small effect sizes.
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies linking telomere length (TL) and health have been largely associational. We apply genetic instrumental variables (IV) analysis, also known as Mendelian randomization, to test the hypothesis that shorter TL leads to poorer health. This method reduces bias from reverse causation or confounding. METHODS: We used two approaches in this study that rely on two separate data sources: (1) individual-level data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (N=3734), and (2) coefficients from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We employed two-sample genetic IV analyses, constructing a polygenic risk score (PRS) of TL-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. The first approach examined the association of the PRS with nine individual health outcomes in HRS. The second approach took advantage of estimates available in GWAS databases to estimate the impact of TL on five health outcomes using an inverse variance-weighted meta-analytic technique. RESULTS: Using individual-level data, shorter TL was marginally statistically significantly associated with decreased risk of stroke and increased risk of heart disease. Using the meta-analytic approach, shorter TL was associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease (OR 1.02 per 100 base pairs, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.03). DISCUSSION: With the exception of a small contribution to heart disease, our findings suggest that TL may be a marker of disease rather than a cause. They also demonstrate the utility of the inverse variance-weighted meta-analytic approach when examining small effect sizes.
Authors: Mariska Klerk; Petra Verhoef; Robert Clarke; Henk J Blom; Frans J Kok; Evert G Schouten Journal: JAMA Date: 2002 Oct 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A M Valdes; T Andrew; J P Gardner; M Kimura; E Oelsner; L F Cherkas; A Aviv; T D Spector Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 20-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: L F Cherkas; A Aviv; A M Valdes; J L Hunkin; J P Gardner; G L Surdulescu; M Kimura; T D Spector Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Scott W Brouilette; Jasbir S Moore; Alex D McMahon; John R Thompson; Ian Ford; James Shepherd; Chris J Packard; Nilesh J Samani Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Demissie; D Levy; E J Benjamin; L A Cupples; J P Gardner; A Herbert; M Kimura; M G Larson; J B Meigs; J F Keaney; A Aviv Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Annette L Fitzpatrick; Richard A Kronmal; Jeffrey P Gardner; Bruce M Psaty; Nancy S Jenny; Russell P Tracy; Jeremy Walston; Masyuki Kimura; Abraham Aviv Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-10-16 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: G Zhai; A Aviv; D J Hunter; D J Hart; J P Gardner; M Kimura; X Lu; A M Valdes; T D Spector Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-10-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Shun-Chiao Chang; Jennifer Prescott; Immaculata De Vivo; Peter Kraft; Olivia I Okereke Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Robert L Tennyson; Lee T Gettler; Christopher W Kuzawa; M Geoffrey Hayes; Sonny S Agustin; Dan T A Eisenberg Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 1.937
Authors: Rita Hamad; Thu T Nguyen; M Maria Glymour; Anusha Vable; Jennifer J Manly; David H Rehkopf Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Audrie Lin; Benjamin F Arnold; Andrew N Mertens; Jue Lin; Jade Benjamin-Chung; Shahjahan Ali; Alan E Hubbard; Christine P Stewart; Abul K Shoab; Md Ziaur Rahman; Md Saheen Hossen; Palash Mutsuddi; Syeda L Famida; Salma Akther; Mahbubur Rahman; Leanne Unicomb; Firdaus S Dhabhar; Lia C H Fernald; John M Colford; Stephen P Luby Journal: Elife Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 8.140