Literature DB >> 35281810

A Mild Causal Relationship Between Tea Consumption and Obesity in General Population: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.

Cancan Li1,2, Mingyun Niu3, Zheng Guo4, Pengcheng Liu1, Yulu Zheng4, Di Liu2, Song Yang5, Wei Wang4, Yuanmin Li3, Haifeng Hou1.   

Abstract

Evidence from observational studies for the effect of tea consumption on obesity is inconclusive. This study aimed to verify the causal association between tea consumption and obesity through a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis in general population-based datasets. The genetic instruments, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with tea consumption habits, were obtained from genome-wide association studies (GWAS): UK Biobank, Nurses' Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and Women's Genome Health Study. The effect of the genetic instruments on obesity was analyzed using the UK Biobank dataset (among ∼500,000 participants). The causal relationship between tea consumption and obesity was analyzed by five methods of MR analyses: inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, MR-Egger regression method, weighted median estimator (WME), weighted mode, and simple mode. Ninety-one SNPs were identified as genetic instruments in our study. A mild causation was found by IVW (odds ratio [OR] = 0.998, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.996 to 1.000, p = 0.049]), which is commonly used in two-sample MR analysis, indicating that tea consumption has a statistically significant but medically weak effect on obesity control. However, the other four approaches did not show significance. Since there was no heterogeneity and pleiotropy in this study, the IVW approach has the priority of recommendation. Further studies are needed to clarify the effects of tea consumption on obesity-related health problems in detail.
Copyright © 2022 Li, Niu, Guo, Liu, Zheng, Liu, Yang, Wang, Li and Hou.

Entities:  

Keywords:  causal association; mendelian randomization analysis; obesity; single nucleotide polymorphism; tea consumption

Year:  2022        PMID: 35281810      PMCID: PMC8907656          DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.795049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Genet        ISSN: 1664-8021            Impact factor:   4.599


Introduction

Obesity is a nutrition-related metabolic disorder caused by genetic and environmental determinants (González-Muniesa et al., 2017; Blüher, 2019). Obesity and obesity-related diseases have been becoming major public health burdens worldwide. In the United States, the healthcare expense was about $1,901 per year for each obese person, which extrapolated to about $149.4 billion at the national level (Kim and Basu, 2016). Due to the continuous rise of incidence in the past 50 years, obesity has now reached pandemic proportion (Blüher, 2019; Chooi et al., 2019), and is predicted to be 20% by 2025 ((NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC), 2016). Moreover, obesity increases the risk of various diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dementia and cancers (Blüher, 2019). In spite of the crucial role of diet and exercise in the treatment of obesity, supportive herbal remedies are of increasing concern (Liang et al., 2019). Tea is one of the popular beverages globally, which is consumed up to 2 billion cups per day (Drew, 2019). Tea is considered an anti-obesity beverage attributed to three main components: tea polyphenols, tea polysaccharides, and caffeine (Wang et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2018b). Although growing researches have focused on the relationship between tea and anti-obesity, the findings are inconsistent (Jurgens et al., 2012; Baladia et al., 2014; Li X. et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020). Conventional epidemiological studies are susceptible to the potential confounders and inverse causality, which over-or under-estimate the causal relationship between determinants and outcomes. Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis is able to control the biases by introducing instrumental variables (Cao et al., 2019). In MR studies, genetic variants that are closely associated with exposure factors are defined as instrumental variables, by which the causations between exposures and disease outcomes are measured by genetic variants as substitution (Zhang et al., 2020). Since the formation of gametes follows the Mendelian law of “parental alleles randomly assigned to offspring”, genetic variation is not affected by traditional confounding factors and is associated with outcomes in a time-sequential manner (Emdin et al., 2017). In the current study, a two-sample MR analysis was used to assess the causal relationship between tea consumption and obesity in general population-based databases.

Materials and Methods

Datasets

Obesity is a chronic disorder featured by excessive adiposity and defined by body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 (ICD10: E66) for adults (WHO, 2004). For the datasets of exposure, significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to tea consumption (p < 5 × 10–6) were obtained from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) among ∼120,000 participants of European ancestry, which included participants from the UK Biobank, Nurses’ Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Women’s Genome Health Study (Supplementary Table S1). The summary statistics associated with tea consumption from the largest GWAS consortium were used to control the bias of participant overlap as well as to increase the statistical power (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b). Exposure data were collected using a 24 h recall questionnaire (Oxford WebQ), where tea consumption refers to drinking any type of tea without other substances (e.g., sugary). (Zhong et al., 2019). The linkage disequilibrium (LD) of significant SNPs linked to tea consumption was set to meet r 2 < 0.001 to avoid the effect of strong LD on the results. The outcome datasets of obesity were obtained from the UK Biobank study which recruited about 500,000 European participants aged 37–73 years from 2006 to 2010. The relevant data were extracted from two datasets respectively, including SNP sites, alleles, effect estimates for exposure and outcome (BETA), standard error (SE), and p values.

Statistical Analysis

There are three premises for two-sample MR (Emdin et al., 2017; Greenland, 2018): 1) Genetic variation as an instrumental variable must be closely related to exposure. 2) Instrumental variables are not associated with any known confounders. 3) The instrumental variables are not directly related to the outcome, that is, the instrumental variables cannot affect the outcome in other ways except through the exposure factors (Supplementary Figure S1). Prior to two-sample MR analysis, there is a need to unify the effect-value directions of exposure data and outcome data. Exposure and outcome data are unified into a dataset by removing the intermediate allele frequencies of SNPs containing palindromes (Hemani et al., 2018). In addition, SNPs with A/T or G/C alleles are defined as palindromic SNPs, “intermediate allele frequencies” referred to 0.01 < allele frequency < 0.30 (Hartwig et al., 2016). Inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, MR-Egger regression method, weighted median estimator (WME), weighted mode, and simple mode were used to evaluate the causal effect between tea consumption and obesity, and subsequently checked the stability and reliability of the results. The IVW model is a weighted linear regression model, which is based on the premise that all genetic variants are valid instrumental variables (Yuan et al., 2020). MR-Egger regression method can obtain unbiased estimation when there is pleiotropy in instrumental variables, measure average pleiotropy through intercept term, and perform sensitivity analysis (Bowden et al., 2015). WME can still calculate the causal association effect when the genetic variation below 50% violates the core assumptions of MR (Bowden et al., 2016). The weighted mode is effective when the majority of instrumental variables are valid, even though other instrumental variables in the method do not meet the requirements of MR causal inference (Hartwig et al., 2017). The simple mode is a model-based estimation method that provides robustness for pleiotropy, although it is not as powerful as IVW (Milne et al., 2017). Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) global test was used to appraise the pleiotropy and to identify the outliers (Verbanck et al., 2018). The intercept of the MR-Egger regression line illustrated the magnitude of the genetic pleiotropy. It was considered that there was no pleiotropic effect if no significant difference between intercept and 0 (p > 0.05) (Bowden et al., 2015). Cochran’s Q statistic and I statistic were used to assess the heterogeneity among the estimates from included SNPs. The funnel plot showed the relationship between the individual Wald ratio of each SNP and its accuracy, and whether its symmetry indicated whether the results had directional horizontal pleiotropy (Choi et al., 2020). The “leave-one-out” method was used for sensitivity analysis. By gradually eliminating each SNP and calculating the combined effect of the remaining SNPs, the influence of individual SNP on results and the stability of the results were evaluated (Mokry et al., 2016). With regard to the overlap between the participants from which these summary statistics were generated and the outcome dataset, the analyses of Bias and Type 1 Error Rate for Mendelian Randomization with Sample Overlap were carried out to assess the potential bias caused by population overlap (https://sb452.shinyapps.io/overlap/) (Burgess et al., 2016). Finally, F statistics (Eq. (1)) were used to test the strength of the association between the SNPs as instrumental variables and tea consumption, and an F statistic >10 indicates a lower risk of weak instrumental variable bias (Zhang Q. et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). N represents the sample size; eaf represents effect allele frequency. All data analyses were performed by the “TwoSampleMR” package in R version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A power calculation was conducted using mRnd (https://cnsgenomics.com/shiny/mRnd/) (Brion et al., 2013). Statistical significance was set as two-tailed p < 0.05 unless otherwise specified.

Results

Instrumental Variable Selection

A total of 108 significant SNPs (p < 5 × 10–6, LD r 2 < 0.001) were obtained from the GWAS about tea consumption (Zhong et al., 2019). Among them, 16 SNPs were removed for being palindromic with intermediate allele frequencies, and one SNP was removed because of no corresponding outcome data. Finally, 91 SNPs were selected to perform the following MR analysis. The detailed information of these SNPs was shown in Supplementary Table S2, mainly including effect allele (EA), other allele (OA) and summary statistics (beta coefficient, SE, and p-value).

MR Analysis

The causation between tea consumption and obesity was analyzed using the methods of IVW, MR Egger, WME, weighted mode, and simple mode, independently. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, a statistical significance was observed in IVW method analysis [odds ratio (OR) = 0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.996 to 1.000, p = 0.049] (Table 1; Figures 1, 2). No significant causal relationships were observed in the analyses of MR Egger (OR = 1.003, 95% CI = 0.998 to 1.008, p = 0.255), WME (OR = 0.998, 95% CI = 0.996 to 1.001, p = 0.262), weighted mode (OR = 0.999, 95% CI = 0.994 to 1.003, p = 0.505) or simple mode (OR = 0.999, 95% CI = 0.993 to 1.005, p = 0.747) (Table 1; Figures 1, 2). In addition, a high statistical power (>85%) was identified in our study.
TABLE 1

Two-sample Mendelian Randomization for tea consumption on obesity risk.

MethodN SNPsBeta coefficientSEOR (95%CI) p
IVW91−0.0020.0010.998 (0.996–1.000)0.049
MR-Egger910.0030.0031.003 (0.998–1.008)0.255
WME91-0.0020.0010.998 (0.996–1.001)0.262
Weighted mode91-0.0010.0020.999 (0.994–1.003)0.505
Simple mode91-0.0010.0030.999 (0.993–1.005)0.747

N SNPs, the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms; SE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IVW, inverse variance weighted; WME, weighted median estimator.

FIGURE 1

Scatter plot to visualize the causal effect between tea consumption and obesity. The slope of the straight line indicates the magnitude of the causal association, scatter plot of inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, MR-Egger regression method, weighted median estimator (WME), weighted mode and simple mode. MR, Mendelian randomization; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

FIGURE 2

Forest plot to show the causal effect of tea consumption on obesity. Forest plot of IVW and MR-Egger regression method. MR, Mendelian randomization.

Two-sample Mendelian Randomization for tea consumption on obesity risk. N SNPs, the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms; SE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IVW, inverse variance weighted; WME, weighted median estimator. Scatter plot to visualize the causal effect between tea consumption and obesity. The slope of the straight line indicates the magnitude of the causal association, scatter plot of inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, MR-Egger regression method, weighted median estimator (WME), weighted mode and simple mode. MR, Mendelian randomization; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism. Forest plot to show the causal effect of tea consumption on obesity. Forest plot of IVW and MR-Egger regression method. MR, Mendelian randomization.

Sensitivity Analysis

The leave-one-out method displayed that the results of the current two-sample MR analysis were strong (Figure 3), indicating that no instrumental variables influenced the causal inference. Our Cochrane Q-test showed no significant heterogeneity across the estimates of included SNPs (p = 0.464, I = 0.61%). The funnel plot analysis illustrated a symmetry result (Figure 4), by which non-significance in directional and horizontal multipolarity was observed. And the genetic pleiotropy was not identified by the MR-Egger regression analysis (p = 0.053) or MR-PRESSO global test (p = 0.654), indicating that our findings were not influenced by the polymorphisms. As for population overlap, the overlap percentage was 17.17% (85852/500000). In addition, the bias and Type 1 error rate with sample overlap were <0.001 and 0.05 respectively, demonstrating that our results were less likely affected by sample overlap bias. Finally, no significant instrumental variable bias was observed by the F statistics (F > 10, ranging from 11.23 to 140.36).
FIGURE 3

Forest plot of “leave-one-out” sensitivity analysis method to show the influence of individual SNP on the results. MR, Mendelian randomization.

FIGURE 4

Funnel plot to visualize overall heterogeneity of Mendelian randomization assessment for the effect of tea consumption on obesity. MR, Mendelian randomization; SE, standard error; IV, instrument variable.

Forest plot of “leave-one-out” sensitivity analysis method to show the influence of individual SNP on the results. MR, Mendelian randomization. Funnel plot to visualize overall heterogeneity of Mendelian randomization assessment for the effect of tea consumption on obesity. MR, Mendelian randomization; SE, standard error; IV, instrument variable.

Discussion

Our two-sample MR analyses are conducted in five independent approaches. The result of IVW analysis evidenced that individuals drinking tea might have a 0.2% decrease in risk for obesity compared to those who do not. This mild causal relationship between tea consumption and obesity indicated that tea consumption has a statistically significant but medically weak effect on obesity control. The results of other approaches, including MR Egger, WME, weighted mode, and simple mode analyses, did not show causation between tea consumption and obesity. Since there was no heterogeneity and pleiotropy in this study, IVW results had the priority of recommendation. Besides, IVW is the most widely used and usually provides predominant results (Dan et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2020). It should be concerned whether instrumental variables in this study are associated with potential confounders. Firstly, the included SNPs were reported in the GWAS using statistical models on 24 h recall data, which were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and top 20 principal components of population sub-structure (Zhong et al., 2019). Secondly, the GWAS studies for potential confounders (i.e., energy intake and expenditure, exercise, physical activity, and sleep duration) have been examined, consequently, there were no overlap SNPs between tea consumption and potential confounders (De Moor et al., 2009; Doherty et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2021). Although there might be other confounder-associated SNPs that have not been reported in these studies, we did not observe a significant association between potential confounders and the instrumental variables selected in our study. As a popular, economical, and safe drink, the effect of tea on obesity is widely understood, especially among overweight and obese individuals (Wang et al., 2014; Ahmad et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2018b). The potential mechanisms of tea on obesity are as follows: 1) reducing food intake and energy absorption (Yang et al., 2016), 2) regulating the expression of lipid metabolism genes and inhibiting fat accumulation (Chen et al., 2017), 3) enhancing the activity of antioxidant defense enzymes (Ren et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2018a), 4) regulating intestinal microflora disturbance and attenuating intestinal inflammation (Li Y. et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), and 5) maintaining intestinal barrier integrity (Lu et al., 2019). White adipose tissue (WAT) is one of the body’s adipose tissues, and its browning can increase the body’s energy expenditure. The consumption of tea could induce the browning of WAT through the activation of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) signaling pathway via the upregulation of uncoupling protein-1 (UCP-1) expression (Yamashita et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2018). In addition, tea can reduce fat synthesis by inhibiting fat synthases [fatty acid synthase (FAS) and stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD)] and fat synthesis transcription factor [sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SrebP-1C)] (Li et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019). In recent years, a growing number of studies have begun to explore the association between tea consumption and obesity. For example, one RCT study found that the intake of black Chinese tea extract (BTE) (333 mg/day) before meals for 12 weeks induced a decrease in both BMI and weight (Kubota et al., 2011). Another study found that drinking 8 g of oolong tea per day could decrease body fat content (He et al., 2009). In addition, one cohort study published in 2021 [relative risk (RR) = 0.767, 95% CI = 0.738 to 0.796, p < 0.05] and two meta-analyses published in 2020 came up with the positive results of the effect of tea on obesity (Li X. et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021c). Our study, a two-sample MR analysis based on general population-based datasets, verified the causal relationship between tea consumption and obesity. Traditional epidemiological studies, consisting of case-control studies and cohort studies, provide representative findings on the relationship between exposures and outcomes. However, these studies are usually biased by confounding factors and adverse causal effects (He et al., 2009; Vernarelli and Lambert, 2013; Cai et al., 2021). MR analysis can control the biases by introducing instrumental variables (Gage et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2020). MR analysis on general population-based datasets is a novel approach to provide evidence on causation. Our MR study based on the UK Biobank, Nurses’ Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Women’s Genome Health Study validated that tea consumption has a mild causal relationship with obesity.

Limitations

There are inevitable limitations that should be notified. First, potential horizontal pleiotropy could not be comprehensively assessed even though multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. However, Cochran’s Q statistic, I statistics, MR-Egger intercept test, and MR-PRESSO global test found that there were no heterogeneity or pleiotropy in this MR analysis. Second, our study only checked the SNPs that were reported in the GWAS; the unpublished SNPs that are potentially associated with the confounders (i.e., energy intake and expenditure, exercise, physical activity, and sleep duration) might bias our findings. Third, we did not carry out subgroup analysis due to the lack of demographic information in detail. In the end, this study was on the basis of a European database. The differences in habit of tea drinking between Europeans and other races, as well as the variance within European populations living in different countries, may limit the generalizability of our results.

Conclusion

Our findings evidenced that tea consumption has a mild causal relationship with obesity in general population. More studies are needed to clarify the effects of tea and its components on obesity-related health problems.
  58 in total

1.  Evaluation of chemical property, cytotoxicity and antioxidant activity in vitro and in vivo of polysaccharides from Fuzhuan brick teas.

Authors:  Guijie Chen; Mingjia Wang; Minhao Xie; Peng Wan; Dan Chen; Bing Hu; Hong Ye; Xiaoxiong Zeng; Zhonghua Liu
Journal:  Int J Biol Macromol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 6.953

Review 2.  Mendelian Randomization.

Authors:  Connor A Emdin; Amit V Khera; Sekar Kathiresan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Ripened Pu-erh Tea Extract Protects Mice from Obesity by Modulating Gut Microbiota Composition.

Authors:  Xiaojie Lu; Jiuxi Liu; Naisheng Zhang; Yunhe Fu; Zecai Zhang; Yanxin Li; Wenqing Wang; Yanyi Li; Peng Shen; Yongguo Cao
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 5.279

4.  Beneficial effects of oolong tea consumption on diet-induced overweight and obese subjects.

Authors:  Rong-Rong He; Ling Chen; Bing-Hui Lin; Yokichi Matsui; Xin-Sheng Yao; Hiroshi Kurihara
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 1.978

Review 5.  Obesity: global epidemiology and pathogenesis.

Authors:  Matthias Blüher
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 43.330

6.  Preventive role of green tea catechins from obesity and related disorders especially hypercholesterolemia and hyperglycemia.

Authors:  Rabia Shabir Ahmad; Masood Sadiq Butt; M Tauseef Sultan; Zarina Mushtaq; Shakeel Ahmad; Saikat Dewanjee; Vincenzo De Feo; Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 5.531

7.  Obesity and Multiple Sclerosis: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

Authors:  Lauren E Mokry; Stephanie Ross; Nicholas J Timpson; Stephen Sawcer; George Davey Smith; J Brent Richards
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  No Causal Effect of Telomere Length on Ischemic Stroke and Its Subtypes: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

Authors:  Weijie Cao; Xingang Li; Xiaoyu Zhang; Jie Zhang; Qi Sun; Xizhu Xu; Ming Sun; Qiuyue Tian; Qihuan Li; Hao Wang; Jiaonan Liu; Xiaoni Meng; Lijuan Wu; Manshu Song; Haifeng Hou; Youxin Wang; Wei Wang
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 6.600

9.  Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Roger L Milne; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Kyriaki Michailidou; Jonathan Beesley; Siddhartha Kar; Sara Lindström; Shirley Hui; Audrey Lemaçon; Penny Soucy; Joe Dennis; Xia Jiang; Asha Rostamianfar; Hilary Finucane; Manjeet K Bolla; Lesley McGuffog; Qin Wang; Cora M Aalfs; Marcia Adams; Julian Adlard; Simona Agata; Shahana Ahmed; Habibul Ahsan; Kristiina Aittomäki; Fares Al-Ejeh; Jamie Allen; Christine B Ambrosone; Christopher I Amos; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Natalia N Antonenkova; Volker Arndt; Norbert Arnold; Kristan J Aronson; Bernd Auber; Paul L Auer; Margreet G E M Ausems; Jacopo Azzollini; François Bacot; Judith Balmaña; Monica Barile; Laure Barjhoux; Rosa B Barkardottir; Myrto Barrdahl; Daniel Barnes; Daniel Barrowdale; Caroline Baynes; Matthias W Beckmann; Javier Benitez; Marina Bermisheva; Leslie Bernstein; Yves-Jean Bignon; Kathleen R Blazer; Marinus J Blok; Carl Blomqvist; William Blot; Kristie Bobolis; Bram Boeckx; Natalia V Bogdanova; Anders Bojesen; Stig E Bojesen; Bernardo Bonanni; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Aniko Bozsik; Angela R Bradbury; Judith S Brand; Hiltrud Brauch; Hermann Brenner; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; Carole Brewer; Louise Brinton; Per Broberg; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Joan Brunet; Thomas Brüning; Barbara Burwinkel; Saundra S Buys; Jinyoung Byun; Qiuyin Cai; Trinidad Caldés; Maria A Caligo; Ian Campbell; Federico Canzian; Olivier Caron; Angel Carracedo; Brian D Carter; J Esteban Castelao; Laurent Castera; Virginie Caux-Moncoutier; Salina B Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Xiaoqing Chen; Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Jocelyne Chiquette; Hans Christiansen; Kathleen B M Claes; Christine L Clarke; Thomas Conner; Don M Conroy; Jackie Cook; Emilie Cordina-Duverger; Sten Cornelissen; Isabelle Coupier; Angela Cox; David G Cox; Simon S Cross; Katarina Cuk; Julie M Cunningham; Kamila Czene; Mary B Daly; Francesca Damiola; Hatef Darabi; Rosemarie Davidson; Kim De Leeneer; Peter Devilee; Ed Dicks; Orland Diez; Yuan Chun Ding; Nina Ditsch; Kimberly F Doheny; Susan M Domchek; Cecilia M Dorfling; Thilo Dörk; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Stéphane Dubois; Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Martine Dumont; Alison M Dunning; Lorraine Durcan; Miriam Dwek; Bernd Dworniczak; Diana Eccles; Ros Eeles; Hans Ehrencrona; Ursula Eilber; Bent Ejlertsen; Arif B Ekici; A Heather Eliassen; Christoph Engel; Mikael Eriksson; Laura Fachal; Laurence Faivre; Peter A Fasching; Ulrike Faust; Jonine Figueroa; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Olivia Fletcher; Henrik Flyger; William D Foulkes; Eitan Friedman; Lin Fritschi; Debra Frost; Marike Gabrielson; Pragna Gaddam; Marilie D Gammon; Patricia A Ganz; Susan M Gapstur; Judy Garber; Vanesa Garcia-Barberan; José A García-Sáenz; Mia M Gaudet; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Andrea Gehrig; Vassilios Georgoulias; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Graham G Giles; Gord Glendon; Andrew K Godwin; Mark S Goldberg; David E Goldgar; Anna González-Neira; Paul Goodfellow; Mark H Greene; Grethe I Grenaker Alnæs; Mervi Grip; Jacek Gronwald; Anne Grundy; Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich; Pascal Guénel; Qi Guo; Lothar Haeberle; Eric Hahnen; Christopher A Haiman; Niclas Håkansson; Emily Hallberg; Ute Hamann; Nathalie Hamel; Susan Hankinson; Thomas V O Hansen; Patricia Harrington; Steven N Hart; Jaana M Hartikainen; Catherine S Healey; Alexander Hein; Sonja Helbig; Alex Henderson; Jane Heyworth; Belynda Hicks; Peter Hillemanns; Shirley Hodgson; Frans B Hogervorst; Antoinette Hollestelle; Maartje J Hooning; Bob Hoover; John L Hopper; Chunling Hu; Guanmengqian Huang; Peter J Hulick; Keith Humphreys; David J Hunter; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Claudine Isaacs; Motoki Iwasaki; Louise Izatt; Anna Jakubowska; Paul James; Ramunas Janavicius; Wolfgang Janni; Uffe Birk Jensen; Esther M John; Nichola Johnson; Kristine Jones; Michael Jones; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Rudolf Kaaks; Maria Kabisch; Katarzyna Kaczmarek; Daehee Kang; Karin Kast; Renske Keeman; Michael J Kerin; Carolien M Kets; Machteld Keupers; Sofia Khan; Elza Khusnutdinova; Johanna I Kiiski; Sung-Won Kim; Julia A Knight; Irene Konstantopoulou; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vessela N Kristensen; Torben A Kruse; Ava Kwong; Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm; Yael Laitman; Fiona Lalloo; Diether Lambrechts; Keren Landsman; Christine Lasset; Conxi Lazaro; Loic Le Marchand; Julie Lecarpentier; Andrew Lee; Eunjung Lee; Jong Won Lee; Min Hyuk Lee; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Fabienne Lesueur; Jingmei Li; Jenna Lilyquist; Anne Lincoln; Annika Lindblom; Jolanta Lissowska; Wing-Yee Lo; Sibylle Loibl; Jirong Long; Jennifer T Loud; Jan Lubinski; Craig Luccarini; Michael Lush; Robert J MacInnis; Tom Maishman; Enes Makalic; Ivana Maleva Kostovska; Kathleen E Malone; Siranoush Manoukian; JoAnn E Manson; Sara Margolin; John W M Martens; Maria Elena Martinez; Keitaro Matsuo; Dimitrios Mavroudis; Sylvie Mazoyer; Catriona McLean; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Primitiva Menéndez; Jeffery Meyer; Hui Miao; Austin Miller; Nicola Miller; Gillian Mitchell; Marco Montagna; Kenneth Muir; Anna Marie Mulligan; Claire Mulot; Sue Nadesan; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan L Neuhausen; Heli Nevanlinna; Ines Nevelsteen; Dieter Niederacher; Sune F Nielsen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Aaron Norman; Robert L Nussbaum; Edith Olah; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Janet E Olson; Curtis Olswold; Kai-Ren Ong; Jan C Oosterwijk; Nick Orr; Ana Osorio; V Shane Pankratz; Laura Papi; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Ylva Paulsson-Karlsson; Rachel Lloyd; Inge Søkilde Pedersen; Bernard Peissel; Ana Peixoto; Jose I A Perez; Paolo Peterlongo; Julian Peto; Georg Pfeiler; Catherine M Phelan; Mila Pinchev; Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska; Bruce Poppe; Mary E Porteous; Ross Prentice; Nadege Presneau; Darya Prokofieva; Elizabeth Pugh; Miquel Angel Pujana; Katri Pylkäs; Brigitte Rack; Paolo Radice; Nazneen Rahman; Johanna Rantala; Christine Rappaport-Fuerhauser; Gad Rennert; Hedy S Rennert; Valerie Rhenius; Kerstin Rhiem; Andrea Richardson; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Atocha Romero; Jane Romm; Matti A Rookus; Anja Rudolph; Thomas Ruediger; Emmanouil Saloustros; Joyce Sanders; Dale P Sandler; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Elinor J Sawyer; Daniel F Schmidt; Minouk J Schoemaker; Fredrick Schumacher; Peter Schürmann; Lukas Schwentner; Christopher Scott; Rodney J Scott; Sheila Seal; Leigha Senter; Caroline Seynaeve; Mitul Shah; Priyanka Sharma; Chen-Yang Shen; Xin Sheng; Hermela Shimelis; Martha J Shrubsole; Xiao-Ou Shu; Lucy E Side; Christian F Singer; Christof Sohn; Melissa C Southey; John J Spinelli; Amanda B Spurdle; Christa Stegmaier; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Grzegorz Sukiennicki; Harald Surowy; Christian Sutter; Anthony Swerdlow; Csilla I Szabo; Rulla M Tamimi; Yen Y Tan; Jack A Taylor; Maria-Isabel Tejada; Maria Tengström; Soo H Teo; Mary B Terry; Daniel C Tessier; Alex Teulé; Kathrin Thöne; Darcy L Thull; Maria Grazia Tibiletti; Laima Tihomirova; Marc Tischkowitz; Amanda E Toland; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Ian Tomlinson; Ling Tong; Diana Torres; Martine Tranchant; Thérèse Truong; Kathy Tucker; Nadine Tung; Jonathan Tyrer; Hans-Ulrich Ulmer; Celine Vachon; Christi J van Asperen; David Van Den Berg; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Liliana Varesco; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ana Vega; Alessandra Viel; Joseph Vijai; Daniel Vincent; Jason Vollenweider; Lisa Walker; Zhaoming Wang; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Clarice R Weinberg; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Camilla Wendt; Jelle Wesseling; Alice S Whittemore; Juul T Wijnen; Walter Willett; Robert Winqvist; Alicja Wolk; Anna H Wu; Lucy Xia; Xiaohong R Yang; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Daniela Zaffaroni; Wei Zheng; Bin Zhu; Argyrios Ziogas; Elad Ziv; Kristin K Zorn; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Arto Mannermaa; Håkan Olsson; Manuel R Teixeira; Jennifer Stone; Kenneth Offit; Laura Ottini; Sue K Park; Mads Thomassen; Per Hall; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Arnaud Droit; Gary D Bader; Paul D P Pharoah; Fergus J Couch; Douglas F Easton; Peter Kraft; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Montserrat García-Closas; Marjanka K Schmidt; Antonis C Antoniou; Jacques Simard
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization.

Authors:  Stephen Burgess; Neil M Davies; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 2.135

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.