Abstract
Current methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses are restricted to single SNP instruments, and cannot reliably infer causality with instruments that are mostly weak and pleiotropic. We describe methods to overcome these limitations: key innovations are construction of scalar instruments from multiple SNPs, use of a regularized horseshoe prior, and hypothesis tests based on the marginal likelihood of the causal effect parameter. To demonstrate the approach, we constructed genotypic instruments from unlinked trans-pQTLs detected in two large GWAS studies of plasma proteins, and tested the top 20 genes for which the aggregated effects of the instruments was associated with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank cohort. The only protein with clear evidence of a causal effect on type 2 diabetes was adiponectin, encoded by ADIPOQ: standardized log odds ratio -0.34 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.24) using UK Biobank instruments. These results have implications for the design and analysis of Mendelian randomization studies. Where the exposure under study is expression of a gene, restricting the instruments to cis-acting variants is likely to miss causal effects. Tests based on the marginal likelihood should supersede other methods of testing for causality in the presence of pleiotropy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No specific funding was received for this work. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application number [23652]. The development of the GENOSCORES platform was supported by a Springboard Award (SBF006/1109) to AS from the Academy of Medical Sciences, supported in turn by the Wellcome Trust, the UK Government Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the British Heart Foundation, and Diabetes UK. AI was supported by the Medical Research Council Cross Disciplinary Fellowship (XDF) Programme (MC_FE_00035).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the UK Biobank study was granted in 2011 by the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (11/NW/0382), and renewed every five years since then. Informed consent was obtained for all participants in UK Biobank. The work described herein was approved by the UK Biobank under application number 23652
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Figures revised. Additional discussion of other models, sampling algorithms and estimation methods.
Data Availability
UK Biobank data are available to approved researchers via managed access. A guide to accessing data is available at https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/exinfo.cgi?src=accessing_data_guide
