Violation of the Constant Genetic Effect Assumption Can Result in Biased Estimates for Non-Linear Mendelian Randomization.

IF 1.1 4区 生物学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Human Heredity Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1159/000531659
Stephen Burgess
{"title":"Violation of the Constant Genetic Effect Assumption Can Result in Biased Estimates for Non-Linear Mendelian Randomization.","authors":"Stephen Burgess","doi":"10.1159/000531659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Non-linear Mendelian randomization is an extension of conventional Mendelian randomization that performs separate instrumental variable analyses in strata of the study population with different average levels of the exposure. The approach estimates a localized average causal effect function, representing the average causal effect of the exposure on the outcome at different levels of the exposure. The commonly used residual method for dividing the population into strata works under the assumption that the effect of the genetic instrument on the exposure is linear and constant in the study population. However, this assumption may not hold in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use the recently developed doubly ranked method to re-analyse various datasets previously analysed using the residual method. In particular, we consider a genetic score for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) used in a recent non-linear Mendelian randomization analysis to assess the potential effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The effect of the genetic score on 25(OH)D concentrations varies strongly, with a five-fold difference in the estimated genetic association with the exposure in the lowest and highest decile groups. Evidence for a protective causal effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality in low vitamin D individuals is evident for the residual method but not for the doubly ranked method. We show that the constant genetic effect assumption is more reasonable for some exposures and less reasonable for others. If the doubly ranked method indicates that this assumption is violated, then estimates from both the residual and doubly ranked methods can be biased, although bias was smaller on average in the doubly ranked method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Analysts wanting to perform non-linear Mendelian randomization should compare results from both the residual and doubly ranked methods, as well as consider transforming the exposure for the residual method to reduce heterogeneity in the genetic effect on the exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":13226,"journal":{"name":"Human Heredity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10614256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Heredity","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000531659","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Non-linear Mendelian randomization is an extension of conventional Mendelian randomization that performs separate instrumental variable analyses in strata of the study population with different average levels of the exposure. The approach estimates a localized average causal effect function, representing the average causal effect of the exposure on the outcome at different levels of the exposure. The commonly used residual method for dividing the population into strata works under the assumption that the effect of the genetic instrument on the exposure is linear and constant in the study population. However, this assumption may not hold in practice.

Methods: We use the recently developed doubly ranked method to re-analyse various datasets previously analysed using the residual method. In particular, we consider a genetic score for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) used in a recent non-linear Mendelian randomization analysis to assess the potential effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality.

Results: The effect of the genetic score on 25(OH)D concentrations varies strongly, with a five-fold difference in the estimated genetic association with the exposure in the lowest and highest decile groups. Evidence for a protective causal effect of vitamin D supplementation on all-cause mortality in low vitamin D individuals is evident for the residual method but not for the doubly ranked method. We show that the constant genetic effect assumption is more reasonable for some exposures and less reasonable for others. If the doubly ranked method indicates that this assumption is violated, then estimates from both the residual and doubly ranked methods can be biased, although bias was smaller on average in the doubly ranked method.

Conclusion: Analysts wanting to perform non-linear Mendelian randomization should compare results from both the residual and doubly ranked methods, as well as consider transforming the exposure for the residual method to reduce heterogeneity in the genetic effect on the exposure.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
违反恒定遗传效应假设可能导致对非线性孟德尔随机化的有偏估计。
引言:非线性孟德尔随机化是传统孟德尔随机化的扩展,它在不同平均暴露水平的研究人群中进行单独的工具变量分析。该方法估计了局部平均因果效应函数,表示不同暴露水平下暴露对结果的平均因果效应。将人群划分为阶层的常用残差方法是在假设遗传工具对研究人群暴露的影响是线性和恒定的情况下工作的。然而,这一假设在实践中可能并不成立。方法:我们使用最近开发的双重排序方法来重新分析以前使用残差方法分析的各种数据集。特别是,我们考虑了最近一项非线性孟德尔随机化分析中使用的25-羟基维生素D[25(OH)D]的遗传评分,以评估补充维生素D对全因死亡率的潜在影响。结果:遗传评分对25(OH)D浓度的影响差异很大,在最低和最高十分位数组中,估计的遗传关联与暴露量相差五倍。维生素D补充对低维生素D人群全因死亡率的保护性因果效应的证据在残差法中是明显的,但在双重排序法中则不然。我们表明,恒定遗传效应假设对某些暴露更合理,而对其他暴露则不太合理。如果双重排序方法表明违反了这一假设,那么残差和双重排序方法的估计都可能有偏差,尽管双重排序方法中的偏差平均较小。结论:想要进行非线性孟德尔随机化的分析人员应该比较残差和双排序方法的结果,并考虑将暴露量转换为残差方法,以减少遗传效应对暴露量的异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Human Heredity
Human Heredity 生物-遗传学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gathering original research reports and short communications from all over the world, ''Human Heredity'' is devoted to methodological and applied research on the genetics of human populations, association and linkage analysis, genetic mechanisms of disease, and new methods for statistical genetics, for example, analysis of rare variants and results from next generation sequencing. The value of this information to many branches of medicine is shown by the number of citations the journal receives in fields ranging from immunology and hematology to epidemiology and public health planning, and the fact that at least 50% of all ''Human Heredity'' papers are still cited more than 8 years after publication (according to ISI Journal Citation Reports). Special issues on methodological topics (such as ‘Consanguinity and Genomics’ in 2014; ‘Analyzing Rare Variants in Complex Diseases’ in 2012) or reviews of advances in particular fields (‘Genetic Diversity in European Populations: Evolutionary Evidence and Medical Implications’ in 2014; ‘Genes and the Environment in Obesity’ in 2013) are published every year. Renowned experts in the field are invited to contribute to these special issues.
期刊最新文献
Place of concordance-discordance model in evaluating NGS performance. Implications of the Co-Dominance Model for Hardy-Weinberg Testing in Genetic Association Studies. Joint Linkage and Association Analysis Using GENEHUNTER-MODSCORE with an Application to Familial Pancreatic Cancer. Investigation of Recessive Effects of Coding Variants on Common Clinical Phenotypes in Exome-Sequenced UK Biobank Participants. comorbidPGS: An R Package Assessing Shared Predisposition between Phenotypes Using Polygenic Scores.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1