J Lipid Atheroscler.  2019 Sep;8(2):67-77. 10.12997/jla.2019.8.2.67.

Mendelian Randomization Analysis in Observational Epidemiology

• Lee K
• Lim CY

• KMID: 2458376
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12997/jla.2019.8.2.67

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) in epidemiology is the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) in non-experimental design to make causality of a modifiable exposure on an outcome or disease. It assesses the causal effect between risk factor and a clinical outcome. The main reason to approach MR is to avoid the problem of residual confounding. There is no association between the genotype of early pregnancy and the disease, and the genotype of an individual cannot be changed. For this reason, it results with randomly assigned case-control studies can be set by regressing the measurements. IVs in MR are used genetic variants for estimating the causality. Usually an outcome is a disease and an exposure is risk factor, intermediate phenotype which may be a biomarker. The choice of the genetic variable as IV (Z) is essential to a successful in MR analysis. MR is named "˜Mendelian deconfounding' as it gives to estimate of the causality free from biases due to confounding (C). To estimate unbiased estimation of the causality of the exposure (X) on the clinically relevant outcome (Y), Z has the 3 core assumptions (A1-A3). A1) Z is independent of C; A2) Z is associated with X; and A3) Z is independent of Y given X and C; The purpose of this review provides an overview of the MR analysis and is to explain that using an IV is proposed as an alternative statistical method to estimate causal effect of exposure and outcome under controlling for a confounder.

Keyword

Mendelian randomization analysis; Genetic epidemiology; Instrument; Causality; Confounding factors

MeSH Terms

Bias (Epidemiology)
Case-Control Studies
Epidemiology*
Genotype
Mendelian Randomization Analysis*
Methods
Molecular Epidemiology
Phenotype
Pregnancy
Random Allocation
Risk Factors

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Conceptual description of the Mendelian randomization. (A) A1: Z is independent of C. A2: Z is associated with X; (B) Z is independent of Y given X and C.

• 

  Fig. 2 Flow chart of process for Mendelian randomization analysis.

Reference

1. Sekula P, Del Greco M F, Pattaro C, Köttgen A. Mendelian randomization as an approach to assess causality using observational data. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016; 27:3253–3265.

2. Lim CY, In J. Randomization in clinical studies. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019; 72:221–232.

3. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization: methods for using genetic variants in causal estimation. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press;2015.

4. Tobin MD, Minelli C, Burton PR, Thompson JR. Commentary: development of Mendelian randomization: from hypothesis test to ‘Mendelian deconfounding’. Int J Epidemiol. 2004; 33:26–29.

5. Gray R, Wheatley K. How to avoid bias when comparing bone marrow transplantation with chemotherapy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1991; 7:Suppl 3. 9–12.

6. Wheatley K, Gray R. Commentary: Mendelian randomization--an update on its use to evaluate allogeneic stem cell transplantation in leukaemia. Int J Epidemiol. 2004; 33:15–17.

7. Jansen H, Samani NJ, Schunkert H. Mendelian randomization studies in coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35:1917–1924.

8. Ference BA, Yoo W, Alesh I, Mahajan N, Mirowska KK, Mewada A, et al. Effect of long-term exposure to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol beginning early in life on the risk of coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60:2631–2639.

9. Bu SY. Genetically mediated lipid metabolism and risk of insulin resistance: insights from Mendelian randomization studies. J Lipid Atheroscler. 2019.

10. Smith GD. Mendelian randomization for strengthening causal inference in observational studies: application to gene × environment interactions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010; 5:527–545.

11. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000; 29:722–729.

12. Wright S. Appendix. In : Wright PG, editor. The tariff on animal and vegetable oils. New York (NY): Macmillan;1928.

13. Goldberger AS. Structural equation methods in the social sciences. Econometrica. 1972; 40:979–1001.

14. Ogbuanu IU, Zhang H, Karmaus W. Can we apply the Mendelian randomization methodology without considering epigenetic effects? Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2009; 6:3.

15. Almon R, Alvarez-Leon EE, Engfeldt P, Serra-Majem L, Magnuson A, Nilsson TK. Associations between lactase persistence and the metabolic syndrome in a cross-sectional study in the Canary Islands. Eur J Nutr. 2010; 49:141–146.

16. Bech BH, Autrup H, Nohr EA, Henriksen TB, Olsen J. Stillbirth and slow metabolizers of caffeine: comparison by genotypes. Int J Epidemiol. 2006; 35:948–953.

17. Chen L, Smith GD, Harbord RM, Lewis SJ. Alcohol intake and blood pressure: a systematic review implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. PLoS Med. 2008; 5:e52.

18. Mumby HS, Elks CE, Li S, Sharp SJ, Khaw KT, Luben RN, et al. Mendelian randomisation study of childhood BMI and early menarche. J Obes. 2011; 2011:180729.

19. von Hinke Kessler Scholder S, Smith GD, Lawlor DA, Propper C, Windmeijer F. Genetic markers as instrumental variables: an application to child fat mass and academic achievement. Bristol: The Centre for Market and Public Organisation;2010.

20. Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology help redress the failures of observational epidemiology? Hum Genet. 2008; 123:15–33.

21. 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. Int J Obes. 2011; 35:300–308.

22. Kivimäki M, Lawlor DA, Smith GD, Kumari M, Donald A, Britton A, et al. Does high C-reactive protein concentration increase atherosclerosis? The Whitehall II Study. PLoS One. 2008; 3:e3013.

23. Allin KH, Nordestgaard BG, Zacho J, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Bojesen SE. C-reactive protein and the risk of cancer: a mendelian randomization study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102:202–206.

24. Timpson NJ, Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Gaunt TR, Day IN, Palmer LJ, et al. C-reactive protein and its role in metabolic syndrome: mendelian randomisation study. Lancet. 2005; 366:1954–1959.

25. Trompet S, Jukema JW, Katan MB, Blauw GJ, Sattar N, Buckley B, et al. Apolipoprotein e genotype, plasma cholesterol, and cancer: a Mendelian randomization study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 170:1415–1421.

26. 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.

27. Ding W, Lehrer SF, Rosenquist JN, Audrain-McGovern J. The impact of poor health on academic performance: New evidence using genetic markers. J Health Econ. 2009; 28:578–597.

28. Wehby GL, Ohsfeldt RL, Murray JC. ‘Mendelian randomization’ equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments. Stat Med. 2008; 27:2745–2749.

29. Thomas DC, Conti DV. Commentary: the concept of ‘Mendelian randomization’. Int J Epidemiol. 2004; 33:21–25.

30. Burgess S, Small DS, Thompson SG. A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26:2333–2355.

31. Pearl J. Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;2000.

32. 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.

33. Teumer A. Common methods for performing mendelian randomization. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2018; 5:51.

34. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007; 16:309–330.

35. 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.

36. Greco M FD, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med. 2015; 34:2926–2940.

37. Lim HR. Effect of blood lead concentration on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Korean children: a Mendelian randomization study [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University;2017. 78.

38. Yavorska O, Staley J. Package ‘MendelianRandomization’ [Internet]. place unknown: CRAN;2019. accessed on 10 June 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MendelianRandomization/MendelianRandomization.pdf.

39. Yavorska OO, Burgess S. MendelianRandomization: an R package for performing Mendelian randomization analyses using summarized data. Int J Epidemiol. 2017; 46:1734–1739.