Genetic Evidence on the Association of Interleukin (IL)-1-Mediated Chronic Inflammation with Airflow Obstruction: A Mendelian Randomization Study

Bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization analysis identifies causal associations of MRI-based cortical thickness and surface area relation to NAFLD

BACKGROUND

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients have exhibited extra-hepatic neurological changes, but the causes and mechanisms remain unclear. This study investigates the causal effect of NAFLD on cortical structure through bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis.

METHODS

Genetic data from 778,614 European individuals across four NAFLD studies were used to determine genetically predicted NAFLD. Abdominal MRI scans from 32,860 UK Biobank participants were utilized to evaluate genetically predicted liver fat and volume. Data from the ENIGMA Consortium, comprising 51,665 patients, were used to evaluate the associations between genetic susceptibility, NAFLD risk, liver fat, liver volume, and alterations in cortical thickness (TH) and surface area (SA). Inverse-variance weighted (IVW) estimation, Cochran Q, and MR-Egger were employed to assess heterogeneity and pleiotropy.

RESULTS

Overall, NAFLD did not significantly affect cortical SA or TH. However, potential associations were noted under global weighting, relating heightened NAFLD risk to reduced parahippocampal SA and decreased cortical TH in the caudal middle frontal, cuneus, lingual, and parstriangularis regions. Liver fat and volume also influenced the cortical structure of certain regions, although no Bonferroni-adjusted p-values reached significance. Two-step MR analysis revealed that liver fat, AST, and LDL levels mediated the impact of NAFLD on cortical structure. Multivariable MR analysis suggested that the impact of NAFLD on the cortical TH of lingual and parstriangularis was independent of BMI, obesity, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that NAFLD causally influences the cortical structure of the brain, suggesting the existence of a liver-brain axis in the development of NAFLD.

Credible Mendelian Randomization Studies in the Presence of Selection Bias Using Control Exposures

Selection bias is increasingly acknowledged as a limitation of Mendelian randomization (MR). However, few methods exist to assess this issue. We focus on two plausible causal structures relevant to MR studies and illustrate the data-generating process underlying selection bias via simulation studies. We conceptualize the use of control exposures to validate MR estimates derived from selected samples by detecting potential selection bias and reproducing the exposure-outcome association of primary interest based on subject matter knowledge. We discuss the criteria for choosing the control exposures. We apply the proposal in an MR study investigating the potential effect of higher transferrin with stroke (including ischemic and cardioembolic stroke) using transferrin saturation and iron status as control exposures. Theoretically, selection bias affects associations of genetic instruments with the outcome in selected samples, violating the exclusion-restriction assumption and distorting MR estimates. Our applied example showing inconsistent effects of genetically predicted higher transferrin and higher transferrin saturation on stroke suggests the potential selection bias. Furthermore, the expected associations of genetically predicted higher iron status on stroke and longevity indicate no systematic selection bias. The routine use of control exposures in MR studies provides a valuable tool to validate estimated causal effects. Like the applied example, an antagonist, decoy, or exposure with similar biological activity as the exposure of primary interest, which has the same potential selection bias sources as the exposure-outcome association, is suggested as the control exposure. An additional or a validated control exposure with a well-established association with the outcome is also recommended to explore possible systematic selection bias.