Assessing causal relationships using genetic proxies for exposures: an introduction to Mendelian randomization

Addiction

Volumn 113, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 764-774

  Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ^a   Green, Michael J ^a   Taylor, Amy E ^b   Davey Smith, George ^b   Munafò, Marcus R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Addictive behaviour; causality; econometric models; epidemiological methods; genetic epidemiology; Mendelian randomization analysis

Indexed keywords

ADH1B PROTEIN, HUMAN; ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE; CHRNA5 PROTEIN, HUMAN; CHRNB4 PROTEIN, HUMAN; NERVE PROTEIN; NICOTINIC RECEPTOR; NICOTINIC RECEPTOR SUBUNIT ALPHA3;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CAUSALITY; DEPRESSION; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SMOKING;

ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE; ALCOHOL DRINKING; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CAUSALITY; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; NERVE TISSUE PROTEINS; RECEPTORS, NICOTINIC; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SMOKING;

EID: 85032966631     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/add.14038     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Davey Smith G., Lawlor D. A., Harbord R., Timpson N., Day I., Ebrahim S. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLOS Med 2007; 4: e352.
2. Torgerson D. J., Torgerson C. J. Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences: an Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
3. Petticrew M., McKee M., Lock K., Green J., Phillips G. In search of social equipoise. BMJ 2013; 347: f4016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4016.
4. Victora C. G., Habicht J.-P., Bryce J. Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 400–405.
5. Sheehan N. A., Didelez V., Burton P. R., Tobin M. D. Mendelian randomisation and causal inference in observational epidemiology. PLOS Med 2008; 5: e177.
6. Davey Smith G., Ebrahim S. What can Mendelian randomisation tell us about modifiable behavioural and environmental exposures? BMJ 2005; 330: 1076–1079.
7. Taylor A. E., Ware J. J., Gage S. H., Smith G. D., Munafò M. R. Using molecular genetic information to infer causality in observational data: Mendelian randomisation. Curr Opin Behav Sci 2015; 2: 39–45.
8. Davey Smith G., Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 1–22.
9. Didelez V., Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res 2007; 16: 309–330.
10. Craig P., Katikireddi S. V., Leyland A. H., Popham F. Natural experiments: an overview of methods, approaches and contribution to public health intervention research. Annu Rev Public Health 2017; 38: 39–56.
11. Basu S., Meghani A., Siddiqi A. Evaluating the health impact of large-scale public policy changes: classical and novel approaches. Annu Rev Public Health 2017; 38: 351–370.
12. Hernán M. A., Hernández-Díaz S., Robins J. M. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004; 15: 615–625.
13. Greenland S., Morgenstern H. Confounding in health research. Annu Rev Public Health 2001; 22: 189–212.
14. Fewell Z., Davey Smith G., Sterne J. A. C. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166: 646–655.
15. Elwert F., Winship C. Endogenous selection bias: the problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annu Rev Sociol 2014; 40: 31–53.
16. Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology 2003; 14: 300–306.
17. Gorman E., Leyland A. H., McCartney G., White I. R., Katikireddi S. V., Rutherford L. et al. Assessing the representativeness of population-sampled health surveys through linkage to administrative data on alcohol-related outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2014; 180: 941–948.
18. Gray L., McCartney G., White I. R., Katikireddi S. V., Rutherford L., Gorman E. et al. Use of record-linkage to handle non-response and improve alcohol consumption estimates in health survey data: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002647.
19. Gorman E., Leyland A. H., McCartney G., Katikireddi S. V., Rutherford L., Graham L. et al. Adjustment for survey non-representativeness using record-linkage: refined estimates of alcohol consumption by deprivation in Scotland. Addiction 2017; 112: 1270–1280.
20. Munafo M. R., Tilling K., Taylor A. E., Evans D. M., Davey Smith G. Collider scope: how selection bias can induce spurious associations. Int J Epidemiol 2017; https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx206.
21. Wooldridge J. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. New Delhi: Nelson Education; 2015.
22. Heckman J. J. Randomization as an instrumental variable. Rev Econ Stat 1995; 78: 336–341.
23. French M. T., Popovici I. That instrument is lousy! In search of agreement when using instrumental variables estimation in substance use research. Health Econ 2011; 20: 127–146.
24. Hartwig F. P., Davies N. M., Hemani G., Davey Smith G. Two-sample Mendelian randomization: avoiding the downsides of a powerful, widely applicable but potentially fallible technique. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1717–1726.
25. Boef A. G. C., Dekkers O. M., le Cessie S. Mendelian randomization studies: A review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 496–511.
26. Haycock P. C., Burgess S., Wade K. H., Bowden J., Relton C., Davey Smith G. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2016; 103: 965–978.
27. Brion M.-J. A., Shakhbazov K., Visscher P. M. Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1497–1501.
28. Burgess S., Small D. S., Thompson S. G. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat Methods Med Res 2015; pii: 0962280215597579.
29. Katan M. B. Apolipoprotein E isoforms, serum cholesterol, and cancer. Lancet 1986; 327: 507–508.
30. Angrist J., Krueger A. B. Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. J Econ Perspect 2001; 15: 69–85.
31. Holmes M. V., Ala-Korpela M., Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017; 14: 577–590.
32. Wium-Andersen M. K., Ørsted D. D., Nordestgaard B. G. Tobacco smoking is causally associated with antipsychotic medication use and schizophrenia, but not with antidepressant medication use or depression. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 566–577.
33. Swanson S. A., Hernan M. A. Commentary: How to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology 2013; 24: 370–374.
34. Laird N. M., Lange C. Principles of Inheritance: Mendel's Laws and Genetic Models. In: The Fundamentals of Modern Statistical Genetics. New York: Springer; 2011, pp. 15–30.
35. Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization for strengthening causal inference in observational studies: application to gene × environment interactions. Perspect Psychol Sci 2010; 5: 527–545.
36. The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 2007; 447: 661–678.
37. Ebrahim S., Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology help redress the failures of observational epidemiology? Hum Genet 2008; 123: 15–33.
38. Jackson J. W., Swanson S. A. Toward a clearer portrayal of confounding bias in instrumental variable applications. Epidemiology 2015; 26: 498–504.
39. Davies N. M. Commentary: An even clearer portrait of bias in observational studies? Epidimiology 2015; 26: 505–508.
40. Paternoster L., Tilling K., Davey Smith G. Genetic epidemiology and Mendelian randomization for informing disease therapeutics: conceptual and methodological challenges. PLoS Genet 2017; 13: e1006944.
41. Cardon L. R., Palmer L. J. Population stratification and spurious allelic association. Lancet 2003; 361: 598–604.
42. McCarthy M. I., Abecasis G. R., Cardon L. R., Goldstein D. B., Little J., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet 2008; 9: 356–369.
43. Hirschhorn J. N., Daly M. J. Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits. Nat Rev Genet 2005; 6: 95–108.
44. Bush W. S., Moore J. H. Chapter 11: Genome-wide association studies. PLOS Comput Biol 2012; 8: e1002822.
45. Freeman G., Cowling B. J., Schooling C. M. Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization studies using one genetic instrument. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1157–1163.
46. Bound J., Jaeger D. A., Baker R. M. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 443–450.
47. Burgess S., Thompson S. G. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments. Stat Med 2011; 30: 1312–1323.
48. Davies N. M., von Hinke Kessler Scholder S., Farbmacher H., Burgess S., Windmeijer F., Davey Smith G. The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2015; 34: 454–468.
49. Burgess S., Thompson S. G. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1134–1144.
50. Pierce B. L., Ahsan H., VanderWeele T. J. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40: 740–752.
51. Burgess S., Timpson N. J., Ebrahim S., Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: where are we now and where are we going? Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 379–388.
52. Krebs J. E., Lewin B., Goldstein E. S., Kilpatrick S. T. Lewin's genes XI. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2014.
53. Burgess S., Thompson S. G. Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects. Am J Epidemiol 2015; 181: 251–260.
54. Tyler A. L., Asselbergs F. W., Williams S. M., Moore J. H. Shadows of complexity: what biological networks reveal about epistasis and pleiotropy. Bioessays 2009; 31: 220–227.
55. Taylor A. E., Davies N. M., Ware J. J., VanderWeele T., Davey Smith G., Munafò M. R. Mendelian randomization in health research: using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates. Econ Hum Biol 2014; 13: 99–106.
56. Burgess S., Thompson S. G. Mendelian randomization: methods for using genetic variants in causal estimation. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2015.
57. Davey Smith G., Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33: 30–42.
58. Debat V., David P. Mapping phenotypes: Canalization, plasticity and developmental stability. Trends Ecol Evol 2001; 16: 555–561.
59. Holmes M. V., Dale C. E., Zuccolo L., Silverwood R. J., Guo Y., Ye Z. et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2014; 349: g4164.
60. Xu L., Jiang C. Q., Cheng K. K., Au Yeung S. L. R., Zhang W. S., Lam T. H. et al. Alcohol use and gamma-glutamyltransferase using a Mendelian randomization design in the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study. PLOS ONE 2015; 10: e0137790.
61. Cho Y., Shin S.-Y., Won S., Relton C. L., Davey Smith G., Shin M.-J. Alcohol intake and cardiovascular risk factors: a Mendelian randomisation study. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 18422.
62. Evans D. M., Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: new applications in the coming age of hypothesis-free causality. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2015; 16: 327–350.
63. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.
64. Bowden J., Davey Smith G., Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 512–525.
65. Bowden J., Del Greco M. F., Minelli C., Davey Smith G., Sheehan N. A., Thompson J. R. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1961–1974.
66. Bowden J., Davey Smith G., Haycock P. C., Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol 2016; 40: 304–314.
67. Gage S. H., Jones H. J., Burgess S., Bowden J., Davey Smith G., Zammit S., et al. Assessing causality in associations between cannabis use and schizophrenia risk: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Psychol Med 2016; 47: 971–980.
68. Burgess S., Daniel R. M., Butterworth a. S., Thompson S. G. and the EPIC-InterAct Consortium Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44: 484–495.
69. Richmond R. C., Hemani G., Tilling K., Davey Smith G., Relton C. L. Challenges and novel approaches for investigating molecular mediation. Hum Mol Genet 2016; 25: R149–56.
70. Davey Smith G., Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23: R89–R98.
71. Liu B., Balkwill A., Reeves G., Beral V. Body mass index and risk of liver cirrhosis in middle aged UK women: prospective study. BMJ 2010; 340: c912.
72. Hart C. L., Morrison D. S., Batty G. D., Mitchell R. J., Davey Smith G. Effect of body mass index and alcohol consumption on liver disease: analysis of data from two prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2010; 340: c1240.
73. Gage S. H., Munafò M. R., Davey Smith G. Causal inference in developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) research. Annu Rev Psychol 2016; 67: 567–585.