Hans van Kippersluis1,2,3, Cornelius A Rietveld1,3,4. 1. Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Economics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. 3. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Erasmus University Rotterdam Institute for Behavior and Biology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: The potential of Mendelian randomization studies is rapidly expanding due to: (i) the growing power of genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses to detect genetic variants associated with several exposures; and (ii) the increasing availability of these genetic variants in large-scale surveys. However, without a proper biological understanding of the pleiotropic working of genetic variants, a fundamental assumption of Mendelian randomization (the exclusion restriction) can always be contested. Methods: We build upon and synthesize recent advances in the literature on instrumental variables (IVs) estimation that test and relax the exclusion restriction. Our pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization (PRMR) method first estimates the degree of pleiotropy, and in turn corrects for it. If (i) a subsample exists for which the genetic variants do not affect the exposure; (ii) the selection into this subsample is not a joint consequence of the IV and the outcome; (iii) pleiotropic effects are homogeneous, PRMR obtains unbiased estimates of causal effects. Results: Simulations show that existing MR methods produce biased estimators for realistic forms of pleiotropy. Under the aforementioned assumptions, PRMR produces unbiased estimators. We illustrate the practical use of PRMR by estimating the causal effect of: (i) tobacco exposure on body mass index (BMI); (ii) prostate cancer on self-reported health; and (iii) educational attainment on BMI in the UK Biobank data. Conclusions: PRMR allows for instrumental variables that violate the exclusion restriction due to pleiotropy, and it corrects for pleiotropy in the estimation of the causal effect. If the degree of pleiotropy is unknown, PRMR can still be used as a sensitivity analysis.
Background: The potential of Mendelian randomization studies is rapidly expanding due to: (i) the growing power of genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses to detect genetic variants associated with several exposures; and (ii) the increasing availability of these genetic variants in large-scale surveys. However, without a proper biological understanding of the pleiotropic working of genetic variants, a fundamental assumption of Mendelian randomization (the exclusion restriction) can always be contested. Methods: We build upon and synthesize recent advances in the literature on instrumental variables (IVs) estimation that test and relax the exclusion restriction. Our pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization (PRMR) method first estimates the degree of pleiotropy, and in turn corrects for it. If (i) a subsample exists for which the genetic variants do not affect the exposure; (ii) the selection into this subsample is not a joint consequence of the IV and the outcome; (iii) pleiotropic effects are homogeneous, PRMR obtains unbiased estimates of causal effects. Results: Simulations show that existing MR methods produce biased estimators for realistic forms of pleiotropy. Under the aforementioned assumptions, PRMR produces unbiased estimators. We illustrate the practical use of PRMR by estimating the causal effect of: (i) tobacco exposure on body mass index (BMI); (ii) prostate cancer on self-reported health; and (iii) educational attainment on BMI in the UK Biobank data. Conclusions: PRMR allows for instrumental variables that violate the exclusion restriction due to pleiotropy, and it corrects for pleiotropy in the estimation of the causal effect. If the degree of pleiotropy is unknown, PRMR can still be used as a sensitivity analysis.
Authors: Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Cathie Sudlow; John Gallacher; Naomi Allen; Valerie Beral; Paul Burton; John Danesh; Paul Downey; Paul Elliott; Jane Green; Martin Landray; Bette Liu; Paul Matthews; Giok Ong; Jill Pell; Alan Silman; Alan Young; Tim Sprosen; Tim Peakman; Rory Collins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jessica Tyrrell; Samuel E Jones; Robin Beaumont; Christina M Astley; Rebecca Lovell; Hanieh Yaghootkar; Marcus Tuke; Katherine S Ruth; Rachel M Freathy; Joel N Hirschhorn; Andrew R Wood; Anna Murray; Michael N Weedon; Timothy M Frayling Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-03-08
Authors: Jie Zheng; Denis Baird; Maria-Carolina Borges; Jack Bowden; Gibran Hemani; Philip Haycock; David M Evans; George Davey Smith Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2017-11-22
Authors: Stephen Burgess; George Davey Smith; Neil M Davies; Frank Dudbridge; Dipender Gill; M Maria Glymour; Fernando P Hartwig; Michael V Holmes; Cosetta Minelli; Caroline L Relton; Evropi Theodoratou Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2020-04-28