Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data

PLoS Genetics

Volumn 13, Issue 11, 2017, Pages

  Hemani, Gibran ^a   Tilling, Kate ^a   Davey Smith, George ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ARTICLE; CAUSAL INFERENCE TEST; CAUSAL MODELING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA METHYLATION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; PLEIOTROPY; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION STUDY; PHENOTYPE; PROCEDURES; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; DNA METHYLATION; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION STUDIES; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 85036637858     PISSN: 15537390     EISSN: 15537404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007081     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Phillips AN, Davey Smith G, How independent are “independent” effects? relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Pergamon; 1991;44: 1223–1231. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90155-3
2. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S, Data dredging, bias, or confounding. BMJ. 2002;325: 1437–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1437
3. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S, Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. International journal of epidemiology. 2004;33: 30–42. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh132
4. Millstein J, Zhang B, Zhu J, Schadt EE, Disentangling molecular relationships with a causal inference test. BMC genetics. 2009;10: 23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-10-23 19473544
5. Aten JE, Fuller TF, Lusis AJ, Horvath S, Using genetic markers to orient the edges in quantitative trait networks: the NEO software. BMC systems biology. 2008;2: 34. doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-2-34 18412962
6. Waszak SM, Delaneau O, Gschwind AR, Kilpinen H, Raghav SK, Witwicki RM, et al. Variation and genetic control of chromatin architecture in humans. Cell. Elsevier Inc. 2015;162: 1039–1050.
7. Houle D, Pélabon C, Wagner G, Hansen T, Measurement and meaning in biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 2011;86: 3–34. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658408 21495498
8. Hernán M a, Cole SR, Invited Commentary: Causal diagrams and measurement bias. American journal of epidemiology. 2009;170: 959–62; discussion 963–4. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp293 19755635
9. Harper KN, Peters B a, Gamble MV, Batch effects and pathway analysis: two potential perils in cancer studies involving DNA methylation array analysis. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2013;22: 1052–60. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0114
10. Chen Y-a, Lemire M, Choufani S, Butcher DT, Grafodatskaya D, Zanke BW, et al. Discovery of cross-reactive probes and polymorphic CpGs in the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 microarray. Epigenetics: official journal of the DNA Methylation Society. 2013;8: 203–9. doi: 10.4161/epi.23470
11. Houseman EA, Accomando WP, Koestler DC, Christensen BC, Marsit CJ, Nelson HH, et al. DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution. BMC bioinformatics. 2012;13: 86. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-86 22568884
12. Ahima RS, Lazar MA, Physiology. The health risk of obesity–better metrics imperative. Science (New York, NY). American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2013;341: 856–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1241244
13. Cessie S le, Debeij J, Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, Vandenbroucke JP, Quantification of bias in direct effects estimates due to different types of measurement error in the mediator. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2012;23: 551–60. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318254f5de
14. Blakely T, McKenzie S, Carter K, Misclassification of the mediator matters when estimating indirect effects. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2013;67: 458–66. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-201813 23386673
15. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S, ’Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?International Journal of Epidemiology. 2003;32: 1–22. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg070
16. Davey Smith G, Hemani G, Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Human molecular genetics. Oxford Univ Press; 2014;23: R89–R98. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddu328
17. Schadt EE, Lamb J, Yang X, Zhu J, Edwards S, GuhaThakurta D, et al. An integrative genomics approach to infer causal associations between gene expression and disease. Nature Genetics. 2005;37: 710–717. doi: 10.1038/ng1589 15965475
18. Millstein J. cit: Causal Inference Test. R package version 1.9 [Internet]. 2016. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/package=cit
19. Koestler DC, Chalise P, Cicek MS, Cunningham JM, Armasu S, Larson MC, et al. Integrative genomic analysis identifies epigenetic marks that mediate genetic risk for epithelial ovarian cancer. BMC medical genomics. BMC Medical Genomics; 2014;7: 8. doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-7-8 24479488
20. Liu Y, Aryee MJ, Padyukov L, Fallin MD, Hesselberg E, Runarsson A, et al. Epigenome-wide association data implicate DNA methylation as an intermediary of genetic risk in rheumatoid arthritis. Nature biotechnology. 2013;31: 142–7. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2487 23334450
21. Yuan W, Xia Y, Bell CG, Yet I, Ferreira T, Ward KJ, et al. An integrated epigenomic analysis for type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci in monozygotic twins. Nature communications. 2014;5: 5719. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6719
22. Tang Y, Axelsson AS, Spégel P, Andersson LE, Mulder H, Groop LC, et al. Genotype-based treatment of type 2 diabetes with an α2A-adrenergic receptor antagonist. Science translational medicine. 2014;6: 257ra139. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009934 25298321
23. Hong X, Hao K, Ladd-Acosta C, Hansen KD, Tsai H-J, Liu X, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies peanut allergy-specific loci and evidence of epigenetic mediation in US children. Nature communications. 2015;6: 6304. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7304
24. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S, Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2015;44: 512–25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080 26050253
25. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S, Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genetic Epidemiology. 2016;40: 304–314. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965 27061298
26. Hemani G, Zheng J, Wade KH, Laurin C, Elsworth B, Burgess S, et al. MR-Base: a platform for systematic causal inference across the phenome using billions of genetic associations. BioRxiv. 2016;10.1101/07.
27. Timpson NJ, Nordestgaard BG, Harbord RM, Zacho J, Frayling TM, Tybjærg-Hansen a, et al. C-reactive protein levels and body mass index: elucidating direction of causation through reciprocal Mendelian randomization. International journal of obesity (2005). 2011;35: 300–8. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2010.137
28. Richmond RC, Davey Smith G, Ness AR, Hoed M den, McMahon G, Timpson NJ, Ludwig DS, Assessing Causality in the Association between Child Adiposity and Physical Activity Levels: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. PLoS Medicine. 2014;11: e1001618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001618 24642734
29. Claussnitzer M, Dankel SN, Kim K-H, Quon G, Meuleman W, Haugen C, et al. FTO Obesity Variant Circuitry and Adipocyte Browning in Humans. The New England journal of medicine. 2015;373: 895–907. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1502214 26287746
30. Pierce BL, Burgess S, Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. American journal of epidemiology. 2013;178: 1177–84. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt084 23863760
31. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM, A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2004;15: 615–25. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15308962doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43
32. Pierce BL, VanderWeele TJ, The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies. International Journal of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press; 2012;41: 1383–1393. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys141
33. Ashenfelter O, Krueger AB, Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins. The American Economic Review. 1994;84: 1157–1173.
34. Nagarajan R, Scutari M, Impact of noise on molecular network inference. PloS one. 2013;8: e80735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080735 24339879
35. Shpitser I, VanderWeele T, Robins J, On the validity of covariate adjustment for estimating causal effects. Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-10). 2010; 527–536.
36. Wang L, Michoel T, Detection of regulator genes and eQTLs in gene networks. arXiv. 2015;arXiv:1512. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05574
37. Lagani V, Triantafillou S, Ball G, Tegner J, Tsamardinos I, Probabilistic Computational Causal Discovery for Systems Biology. Uncertainty in biology: A computational modeling approach. Springer; 2015. p. 47. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=8SLUCgAAQBAJ{\&}pgis=1
38. Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G, Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2017;19: dyw314. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw314
39. Shakhbazov K, Powell JE, Hemani G, Henders AK, Martin NG, Visscher PM, et al. Shared genetic control of expression and methylation in peripheral blood. BMC genomics. BioMed Central; 2016;17: 278. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-2498-4
40. Bird A, DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes & development. 2002;16: 6–21. doi: 10.1101/gad.947102
41. Cole DA, Preacher KJ, Manifest Variable Path Analysis: Potentially Serious and Misleading Consequences Due to Uncorrected Measurement Error. Psychological Methods. 2014;19: 300–315. doi: 10.1037/a0033805 24079927
42. Bose M, Wu C, Pankow JS, Demerath EW, Bressler J, Fornage M, et al. Evaluation of microarray-based DNA methylation measurement using technical replicates: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) Study. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15: 312. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-312 25239148
43. Bryant PA, Smyth GK, Robins-Browne R, Curtis N, Novak J, Sladek R, Khodursky AB, et al. Technical Variability Is Greater than Biological Variability in a Microarray Experiment but Both Are Outweighed by Changes Induced by Stimulation. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science; 2011;6: e19556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019556
44. Zhu Z, Zhang F, Hu H, Bakshi A, Robinson MR, Powell JE, et al. Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nature Genetics. Nature Research; 2016;48: 481–487. doi: 10.1038/ng.3538
45. Mancuso N, Shi H, Goddard P, Kichaev G, Gusev A, Pasaniuc B, Integrating Gene Expression with Summary Association Statistics to Identify Genes Associated with 30 Complex Traits. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017;100: 473–487. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.031 28238358
46. Lee SH, Wray NR, Novel genetic analysis for case-control genome-wide association studies: quantification of power and genomic prediction accuracy. PLoS One. 2013;8: e71494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071494 23977056
47. Do R, Willer CJ, Schmidt EM, Sengupta S, Gao C, Peloso GM, et al. Common variants associated with plasma triglycerides and risk for coronary artery disease. Nature Genetics. Nature Research; 2013;45: 1345–1352. doi: 10.1038/ng.2795
48. Burgess S, Freitag DF, Khan H, Gorman DN, Thompson SG, Using multivariable Mendelian randomization to disentangle the causal effects of lipid fractions. PloS one. Public Library of Science; 2014;9: e108891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108891
49. Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Two-step epigenetic Mendelian randomization: a strategy for establishing the causal role of epigenetic processes in pathways to disease. International journal of epidemiology. 2012;41: 161–76. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr233 22422451
50. Varbo A, Benn M, Smith GD, Timpson NJ, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG, Remnant cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure as mediators from obesity to ischemic heart disease. Circulation research. 2015;116: 665–73. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.304846 25411050
51. Burgess S, Daniel RM, Butterworth AS, Thompson SG, Network Mendelian randomization: using genetic variants as instrumental variables to investigate mediation in causal pathways. International journal of epidemiology. 2015;44: 484–95. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu176 25150977
52. Richmond RC, Hemani G, Tilling K, Davey Smith G, Relton CL, Challenges and novel approaches for investigating molecular mediation. Human molecular genetics. Oxford University Press; 2016;25: R149–R156. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddw197
53. Sterne JAC, Smith GD, Sifting the evidence—what’s wrong with significance tests?BMJ. 2001;322: 226–231. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226 11159626
54. Henningsen A, Hamann JD, systemfit: A Package for Estimating Systems of Simultaneous Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2007;23: 1–40.
55. Steiger JH, Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;87: 245–251. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
56. Revelle W, psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research [Internet]. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University; 2015. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/package=psych
57. R Core TeamR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015. Available: https://www.r-project.org/