Guanghao Qi1, Nilanjan Chatterjee1,2. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets. METHODS: We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESULTS: Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies. CONCLUSION: The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets. METHODS: We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESULTS: Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies. CONCLUSION: The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.
Authors: Anubha Mahajan; Daniel Taliun; Matthias Thurner; Neil R Robertson; Jason M Torres; N William Rayner; Anthony J Payne; Valgerdur Steinthorsdottir; Robert A Scott; Niels Grarup; James P Cook; Ellen M Schmidt; Matthias Wuttke; Chloé Sarnowski; Reedik Mägi; Jana Nano; Christian Gieger; Stella Trompet; Cécile Lecoeur; Michael H Preuss; Bram Peter Prins; Xiuqing Guo; Lawrence F Bielak; Jennifer E Below; Donald W Bowden; John Campbell Chambers; Young Jin Kim; Maggie C Y Ng; Lauren E Petty; Xueling Sim; Weihua Zhang; Amanda J Bennett; Jette Bork-Jensen; Chad M Brummett; Mickaël Canouil; Kai-Uwe Ec Kardt; Krista Fischer; Sharon L R Kardia; Florian Kronenberg; Kristi Läll; Ching-Ti Liu; Adam E Locke; Jian'an Luan; Ioanna Ntalla; Vibe Nylander; Sebastian Schönherr; Claudia Schurmann; Loïc Yengo; Erwin P Bottinger; Ivan Brandslund; Cramer Christensen; George Dedoussis; Jose C Florez; Ian Ford; Oscar H Franco; Timothy M Frayling; Vilmantas Giedraitis; Sophie Hackinger; Andrew T Hattersley; Christian Herder; M Arfan Ikram; Martin Ingelsson; Marit E Jørgensen; Torben Jørgensen; Jennifer Kriebel; Johanna Kuusisto; Symen Ligthart; Cecilia M Lindgren; Allan Linneberg; Valeriya Lyssenko; Vasiliki Mamakou; Thomas Meitinger; Karen L Mohlke; Andrew D Morris; Girish Nadkarni; James S Pankow; Annette Peters; Naveed Sattar; Alena Stančáková; Konstantin Strauch; Kent D Taylor; Barbara Thorand; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Daniel R Witte; Josée Dupuis; Patricia A Peyser; Eleftheria Zeggini; Ruth J F Loos; Philippe Froguel; Erik Ingelsson; Lars Lind; Leif Groop; Markku Laakso; Francis S Collins; J Wouter Jukema; Colin N A Palmer; Harald Grallert; Andres Metspalu; Abbas Dehghan; Anna Köttgen; Goncalo R Abecasis; James B Meigs; Jerome I Rotter; Jonathan Marchini; Oluf Pedersen; Torben Hansen; Claudia Langenberg; Nicholas J Wareham; Kari Stefansson; Anna L Gloyn; Andrew P Morris; Michael Boehnke; Mark I McCarthy Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Peter M Visscher; Naomi R Wray; Qian Zhang; Pamela Sklar; Mark I McCarthy; Matthew A Brown; Jian Yang Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jack Bowden; Fabiola Del Greco M; Cosetta Minelli; George Davey Smith; Nuala Sheehan; John Thompson Journal: Stat Med Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Zhi Yu; Josef Coresh; Guanghao Qi; Morgan Grams; Eric Boerwinkle; Harold Snieder; Alexander Teumer; Cristian Pattaro; Anna Köttgen; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Adrienne Tin Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Iyas Daghlas; Rebecca C Richmond; Jacqueline M Lane; Hassan S Dashti; Hanna M Ollila; Eva S Schernhammer; George Davey Smith; Martin K Rutter; Richa Saxena; Céline Vetter Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 7.196