Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 1279-1288

  Van Kippersluis, Hans ^a,b,c   Rietveld, Cornelius A ^a,c,d  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c TINBERGEN INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^d ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Mendelian randomization; Plausibly exogenous; Pleiotropy

Indexed keywords

BODY MASS; CANCER; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; GENETIC VARIATION; PLEIOTROPY; PUBLIC HEALTH; TOBACCO;

ARTICLE; BIOBANK; BODY MASS; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MALE; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MENTAL CAPACITY; PLEIOTROPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; SELF REPORT; TOBACCO; UNITED KINGDOM; DISEASES; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; PROCEDURES;

NICOTIANA TABACUM;

DISEASE; GENETIC PLEIOTROPY; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 85053425116     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx002     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Met Med Res 2007;16:309–30.
2. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1–22.
3. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials and limitations. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33: 30–42.
4. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014;23:89–98.
5. Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology help redress the failures of observational epidemiology? Hum Genet 2007;123:15–33.
6. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JAC, Timpson NJ, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133–63.
7. Burgess S, Timpson NJ, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: where are we now and where are we going? Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:379–88.
8. Boef AGC, Dekkers OM, Le Cessie S. Mendelian randomization studies: A review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:496–511.
9. Swerdlow DI, Kuchenbaecker KB, Shah et al. Selecting instruments for Mendelian randomization in the wake of genome-wide association studies Int J Epidemiol 2016;45: 1600–16.
10. Nitsch D, Molokhia M, Smeeth L, DeStavola BL, Whittaker JC, Leon DA. Limits to causal inference based on Mendelian randomization: A comparison with randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:397–403.
11. Sheehan NA, Didelez V, Burton PR, Tobin MD. Mendelian randomization and causal inference in observational epidemiology. PLoS Med 2008;5:e177.
12. VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen EJT, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology 2014;25:427–35.
13. Von Hinke S, Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Propper C, Windmeijer F. Genetic markers as instrumental variables. J Health Econ 2016;45:131–48.
14. Pickrell J. Fulfilling the promise of Mendelian randomization. bioRxiv 2015. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/018150.
15. Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: a premature burial? bioRxiv 2015. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/021386.
16. Glymour MM, Tchetgen EJT, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175: 332–339.
17. Solovieff N, Cotsapas C, Lee PH, Purcell SM, Smoller JW. Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:483–95.
18. Imbens G, Angrist JD. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994;62:467–75.
19. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai TT, Small DS. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments and its application to Mendelian randomization. J Am Stat Assoc 2016. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2014.994705.
20. 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: 512–25.
21. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock, PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian Randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol 2016;40:304–14.
22. 2 statistic. Int J Epidemiol 2016: doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw220.
23. Conley TG, Hansen CB, Rossi PE. Plausibly exogenous. Rev Econ Stat 2012;94:260–72.
24. Fletcher JM. The promise and pitfalls of combining genetic and economic research. Health Econ 2011;20:889–92.
25. Altonji JG, Elder TE, Taber CR. An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of Catholic schooling. J Hum Res 2005;40:791–821.
26. Imbens GW. Instrumental variables: an econometrician’s perspective. Stat Sci 2014;29:323–58.
27. Angrist J, Lavy V, Schlosser A. Multiple experiments for the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. J Lab Econ 2010;28:773–824.
28. Chen L, Davey Smith G, Harbord R, Lewis SJ. Alcohol and blood pressure: A systematic review implementing a Mendelian Randomization approach. PLoS Med 2008;5:e52.
29. Davey Smith G. Use of genetic markers and gene-diet interactions for interrogating population-level causal influences of diet on health Genes Nutr 2011;6:27–43.
30. Cho Y, Shin S, Won S, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Shin M-J. Alcohol intake and cardiovascular risk factors: A Mendelian ran-domisation study. Sci Rep 2015;5:1–12.
31. Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Harbord R, Timpson NJ, Day I, Ebrahim S. Clustered environments and randomized genes: A fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007;4:e352.
32. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RG. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 1995;90:443–50.
33. Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology 2010;21:383–88.
34. Slichter D. Testing instrument validity and identification with invalid instruments. Mimeo, University of Rochester, 2015.
35. Clarke D. PLAUSEXOG: Stata module to implement Conley et al’s plausibly exogenous bounds. Statistical Software Components S457832. Boston College Department of Economics, 2014.
36. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004;15:615–25.
37. Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:417–20.
38. Gage SH, Davey Smith G, Ware JJ, Flint J, Munafo MR. G ¼ E: What GWAS can tell us about the environment. Plos Genet 2016;12:e1005765.
39. Angrist JD. Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors: simple strategies for empirical practice. J Bus Econ Stat 2001;19:2–16.
40. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian Randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658–65.
41. Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen A et al. UK Biobank: An open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001779.
42. Marchini J, O’Connell J, Delaneau O et al. Genotype imputation and genetic association studies of UK Biobank: Interim data release. Technical report, 2015. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/imputation_documentation_May2015.pdf <1 December 2016, date last accessed>.
43. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 2006; 38:904–09.
44. Gruber J, Frakes M. Does falling smoking lead to rising obesity? J Health Econ 2006;25:183–97.
45. Chiolero A, Faeh D, Paccaud F, Cornuz J. Consequences of smoking for body weight, body fat distribution, and insulin resistance. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:801–09.
46. Courtemanche C. Rising cigarette prices and rising obesity: Coincidence or unintended consequence? J Health Econ 2009;28:781–98.
47. Wehby GL, Murray JC, Wilcox A, Lie RT. Smoking and body weight: Evidence using genetic instruments. Econ Hum Biol 2012;10:113–26.
48. Cawley J, Dragone D, Von Hinke Kessler Scholder S. The demand for cigarettes as derived from the demand for weight loss: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Health Econ 2016;25:8–23.
49. Bierut LJ. Genetic vulnerability and susceptibility to substance dependence. Neuron 2011;69:618–27.
50. Tobacco and Genetics Consortium. Genome-wide meta-analyses identify multiple loci associated with smoking behavior. Nat Genet 2010;42:441–47.
51. Munafo MR, Timofeeva MN, Moris RW et al. Association between genetic variants on chromosome 15q25 locus and objective measures of tobacco exposure. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;16:740–48.
52. Taylor AE, Davies NM, Ware JJ, VanderWeele T, Davey Smith G, Munafo M. Mendelian randomization in health research: Using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates. Econ Hum Biol 2014;13:99–106.
53. Hewitt M, Rowland JH, Yancik R. Cancer survivors in the United States: Age, health, and disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003;58:M82–91.
54. Demark-Wahnefried W, Aziz NM, Rowland JH, Pinto BM. Riding the crest of the teachable moment: Promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23: 5814–30.
55. Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Clauser S, Davis WW, Brown ML. Burden of illness in cancer survivors: Findings from a population-based national sample. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96: 1322–30.
56. Al Olama AA, Kote-Jarai Z, Berndt SI et al. A meta-analysis of 87,040 individuals identifies 23 new susceptibility loci for prostate cancer. Nat Genet 2014;46:1103–09.
57. Burgess S, Thompson SG; CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:755–64.
58. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1134–44.
59. Davies NM, Von Hinke S, Farbmacher H, Burgess S, Windmeijer F, Davey Smith G. The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2015;34: 454–68.
60. Ross CE, Wu C. The links between education and health. Am Soc Rev 1995;60:719–45.
61. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam AJR et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2468–81.
62. Tyrrell J, Jones SE, Beaumont R et al. Height, body mass index, and socioeconomic status: Mendelian Randomisation study in UK Biobank. BMJ 2016;352:i582.
63. Clark D, Royer H. The effect of education on adult mortality and health: Evidence from Britain. Am Econ Rev 2013;103: 2087–120.
64. Arendt JN. Does education cause better health? A panel data analysis using school reforms for identification. Econ Educ Rev 2005;24:149–60.
65. Spasojevic J. Effects of education on adult health in Sweden: Results from a natural experiment. In: Tchernis R, Slottje DJ (eds). Current Issues in Health Economics. (Contributions to Economic Analysis, Vol. 290). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2010.
66. Jürges H, Reinhold S, Salm M. Does schooling affect health behavior? Evidence from the educational expansion in western Germany. Econ Educ Rev 2011;30:862–72.
67. Kemptner D, Jürges H, Reinhold S. Changes in compulsory schooling and the causal effect of education on health: Evidence from Germany. J Health Econ 2011;30:340–54.
68. Braakmann N. The causal relationship between education, health and health related behaviour: Evidence from a natural experiment in England. J Health Econ 2011;30:753–63.
69. Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana M et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016;533:539–42.
70. Devereux PJ, Black SE, Salvanes KG. From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight. Q J Econ 2007;122:409–39.