Mendelian randomization and pleiotropy analysis
- PMID: 34386270
- PMCID: PMC8356909
- DOI: 10.1007/s40484-020-0216-3
Mendelian randomization and pleiotropy analysis
Abstract
Background: Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis has become popular in inferring and estimating the causality of an exposure on an outcome due to the success of genome wide association studies. Many statistical approaches have been developed and each of these methods require specific assumptions.
Results: In this article, we review the pros and cons of these methods. We use an example of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol on coronary artery disease to illuminate the challenges in Mendelian randomization investigation.
Conclusion: The current available MR approaches allow us to study causality among risk factors and outcomes. However, novel approaches are desirable for overcoming multiple source confounding of risk factors and an outcome in MR analysis.
Keywords: Mendelian randomization; causality; confounding; instrumental variable; summary statistics.
Conflict of interest statement
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICS GUIDELINES The author Xiaofeng Zhu declare that he has no conflict of interests.
Figures
References
-
- Schatzkin A, Lanza E, Corle D, Lance P, Iber F, Caan B,Shike M, Weissfeld J, Burt R, Cooper MR, et al. (2000) Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. N. Engl. J. Med, 342, 1149–1155 - PubMed
-
- The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators.(2000) Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med, 342, 154–160 - PubMed
-
- Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group.(1994) The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N. Engl. J. Med, 330, 1029–1035 - PubMed
-
- Davey Smith G. and Ebrahim S. (2001) Epidemiology–is it time to call it a day? Int. J. Epidemiol, 30, 1–11 - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous