Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization

Epidemiology

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 427-435

  Vanderweele, Tyler J ^a   Tchetgen Tchetgen, Eric J ^a   Cornelis, Marilyn ^a   Kraft, Peter ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC MARKER; GENOTYPE; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL BIAS;

GENETIC MARKER;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GENETIC MARKERS; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84898050170     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000081     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Katan MB. Apolipoprotein E isoforms, serum cholesterol, and cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:507-508.
2. Little J, Khoury MJ. Mendelian randomisation: a new spin or real progress? Lancet. 2003;362:930-931.
3. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:1-22.
4. Smith GD, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:30-42.
5. Thomas DC, Conti DV. Commentary: the concept of 'Mendelian Randomization'. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:21-25.
6. Timpson NJ, Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, et al. C-reactive protein and its role in metabolic syndrome: mendelian randomisation study. Lancet. 2005;366:1954-1959.
7. Thompson JR, Minelli C, Abrams KR, Tobin MD, Riley RD. Meta- analysis of genetic studies using Mendelian randomization-a multivariate approach. Stat Med. 2005;24:2241-2254.
8. Casas JP, Bautista LE, Smeeth L, Sharma P, Hingorani AD. Homocysteine and stroke: evidence on a causal link from mendelian randomisation. Lancet. 2005;365:224-232.
9. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16: 309-330.
10. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27:1133-1163.
11. Palmer TM, Thompson JR, Tobin MD, Sheehan NA , Burton PR. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1161-1168.
12. Brunner EJ, Kivimäki M, Witte DR, et al. Inflammation, insulin resistance, and diabetes-Mendelian randomization using CRP haplotypes points upstream. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e155.
13. Ding EL, Song Y, Manson JE, et al. Sex hormone binding globulin and type II diabetes. New Engl J Med. 2009;361:1152-1163.
14. Pierce BL, Ahsan H, Vanderweele TJ. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:740-752.
15. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S. Mendelian randomization analysis of case- control data using structural mean models. Stat Med. 2011;30: 678-694.
16. Pierce BL, VanderWeele TJ. The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1383-1393.
17. Glymour MM, Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:332-339.
18. Song Y, Yeung E, Liu A, et al. Pancreatic beta-cell function and type 2 diabetes risk: quantify the causal effect using a Mendelian randomization approach based on meta-analyses. Hum Mol Genet. 2012;21: 5010-5018.
19. Harbord RM, Didelez V, Palmer TM, Meng S, Sterne JA, Sheehan NA . Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies. Stat Med. 2013;32:1246-1258.
20. VanderWeele TJ, Asomaning K, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, et al. Genetic variants on 15q25.1, smoking, and lung cancer: an assessment of mediation and interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:1013-1020.
21. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143-155.
22. Pearl J. Direct and Indirect Effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001:411-420.
23. Vanderweele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1339-1348.
24. Le Marchand L, Derby KS, Murphy SE, et al. Smokers with the CHRNA lung cancer-associated variants are exposed to higher levels of nicotine equivalents and a carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine. Cancer Res. 2008;68:9137-9140.
25. Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.
26. Joffe MM, Small D, Ten Have T, Brunelli S, Feldman HI. Extended instrumental variables estimation for overall effects. Int J Biostat. 2008;4:Article 4.
27. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Walter S, Glymour MM. Commentary: building an evidence base for mendelian randomization studies: assessing the validity and strength of proposed genetic instrumental variables. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:328-331.
28. Eyre S, Bowes J, Diogo D, et al; Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. High-density genetic mapping identifies new susceptibility loci for rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Genet. 2012;44:1336-1340.
29. Morris AP, Voight BF, Teslovich TM, et al; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium; Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-related traits Consortium (MAGIC ) Investigators; Genetic Investigation of ANthropometric Traits (GIANT) Consortium; Asian Genetic Epidemiology Network-Type 2 Diabetes (AGEN -T2D) Consortium; South Asian Type 2 Diabetes (SAT 2D) Consortium; DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRA M) Consortium. Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2012;44:981-990.
30. Scott RA, Lagou V, Welch RP, et al; DIAbetes Genetics Replication and Meta-analysis (DIAGRA M) Consortium. Large-scale association analyses identify new loci influencing glycemic traits and provide insight into the underlying biological pathways. Nat Genet. 2012;44:991-1005.
31. Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G, et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature. 2010;467:832-838.
32. Speliotes EK, Willer CJ, Berndt SI, et al; MAGIC ; Procardis Consortium. Association analyses of 249,796 individuals reveal 18 new loci associated with body mass index. Nat Genet. 2010;42:937-948.
33. Schunkert H, König IR, Kathiresan S, et al; Cardiogenics; CARDIoGRAM Consortium. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2011;43:333-338.
34. Hindorff LA, Sethupathy P, Junkins HA, et al. Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:9362-9367.
35. Garcia-Closas M, Couch FJ, Lindstrom S, et al; Gene ENvironmental Interaction and breast CAncer (GENICA) Network; kConFab Investigators; Familial Breast Cancer Study (FBCS); Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) Investigators. Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci. Nat Genet. 2013;45:392-398, 398e1.
36. Conley TG, Hansen CB, Rossi PE. Plausibly exogenous. Rev Econ Stat. 2012;94:260-272.
37. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2008.
38. Vanderweele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology. 2011;22:42-52.
39. Burgess S. Re: "credible mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions". Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:456-457.
40. Palmer TM, Ramsahai RR, Lawlor DA, Sheehan NA , Didelez V. Re: "credible mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions". Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:457-458; author reply 458.
41. Elliott P, Chambers JC, Zhang W, et al. Genetic Loci associated with C-reactive protein levels and risk of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 2009;302:37-48.
42. Vimaleswaran KS, Berry DJ, Lu C, et al; Genetic Investigation of Anthropometric Traits-GIANT Consortium. Causal relationship between obesity and vitamin D status: bi-directional Mendelian randomization analysis of multiple cohorts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001383.
43. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statistical Science. 2010;25:22-40.