DMRdb: a disease-centric Mendelian randomization database for systematically assessing causal relationships of diseases with genes, proteins, CpG sites, metabolites and other diseases
- PMID: 39351893
- PMCID: PMC11701675
- DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkae853
DMRdb: a disease-centric Mendelian randomization database for systematically assessing causal relationships of diseases with genes, proteins, CpG sites, metabolites and other diseases
Abstract
Exploring the causal relationships of diseases with genes, proteins, CpG sites, metabolites and other diseases is fundamental to the life sciences. However, large-scale research using Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis is currently lacking. To address this, we introduce DMRdb (http://www.inbirg.com/DMRdb/), a disease-centric Mendelian randomization database, designed to systematically assess causal relationships of diseases with genes, proteins, CpG sites, metabolites and other diseases. The database consists of three main components: (i) 6640 high-quality disease genome-wide association studies (GWASs) from public sources that were subjected to rigorous quality filtering and standardization; (ii) over 497 billion results from MR analyses involving 6640 disease GWAS datasets, 16 238 expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) data, 2564 protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) data, 12 000 methylation quantitative trait locus (meQTLs) data and 825 metabolites data and (iii) over 380 000 causal relationship pairs from 1223 literature sources relevant to MR analyses. A user-friendly online database was developed to allow users to query, search, and download all the results. In summary, we anticipate that DMRdb will be a valuable resource for advancing our understanding of disease mechanisms and identifying new biomarkers and therapeutic targets.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research.
Figures
References
-
- Lawlor D.A., Davey Smith G., Kundu D., Bruckdorfer K.R., Ebrahim S.. Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence?. Lancet. 2004; 363:1724–1727. - PubMed
-
- Vandenbroucke J.P. Commentary: the HRT story: vindication of old epidemiological theory. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2004; 33:456–457. - PubMed
-
- Vandenbroucke J.P. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials. Lancet. 2004; 363:1728–1731. - PubMed
-
- Lawlor D.A., Smith G.D.. Cardiovascular risk and hormone replacement therapy. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 18:658–665. - PubMed
-
- Phillips A.N., Smith G.D.. Bias in relative odds estimation owing to imprecise measurement of correlated exposures. Stat. Med. 1992; 11:953–961. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
