4.8 Article

Mendelian randomization analysis using mixture models for robust and efficient estimation of causal effects

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09432-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [U24OD023382]
  2. Bloomberg Distinguished Professorship Endowment at the Johns Hopkins University
  3. Government of Canada through Genome Canada
  4. Government of Canada through Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  5. 'Ministere de l'Economie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Quebec' through Genome Quebec
  6. Ministere de l'Economie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Quebec [PSR-SIIRI-701]
  7. National Institutes of Health [U19 CA148065, X01HG007492]
  8. Cancer Research UK [C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710]
  9. European Union [HEALTH-F2-2009-223175, H2020 633784, 634935]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mendelian randomization (MR) has emerged as a major tool for the investigation of causal relationship among traits, utilizing results from large-scale genome-wide association studies. Bias due to horizontal pleiotropy, however, remains a major concern. We propose a novel approach for robust and efficient MR analysis using large number of genetic instruments, based on a novel spike-detection algorithm under a normal-mixture model for underlying effect-size distributions. Simulations show that the new method, MRMix, provides nearly unbiased or/and less biased estimates of causal effects compared to alternative methods and can achieve higher efficiency than comparably robust estimators. Application of MRMix to publicly available datasets leads to notable observations, including identification of causal effects of BMI and age-at-menarche on the risk of breast cancer; no causal effect of HDL and triglycerides on the risk of coronary artery disease; a strong detrimental effect of BMI on the risk of major depressive disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available