Integrating Family-Based and Mendelian Randomization Designs

Mendelian randomization: causal inference leveraging genetic data

Mendelian randomization (MR) leverages genetic information to examine the causal relationship between phenotypes allowing for the presence of unmeasured confounders. MR has been widely applied to unresolved questions in epidemiology, making use of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies on an increasing number of human traits. However, an understanding of essential concepts is necessary for the appropriate application and interpretation of MR. This review aims to provide a non-technical overview of MR and demonstrate its relevance to psychiatric research. We begin with the origins of MR and the reasons for its recent expansion, followed by an overview of its statistical methodology. We then describe the limitations of MR, and how these are being addressed by recent methodological advances. We showcase the practical use of MR in psychiatry through three illustrative examples - the connection between cannabis use and psychosis, the link between intelligence and schizophrenia, and the search for modifiable risk factors for depression. The review concludes with a discussion of the prospects of MR, focusing on the integration of multi-omics data and its extension to delineating complex causal networks.

Implications of the genomic revolution for education research and policy

Research at the intersection of social science and genomics, 'sociogenomics', is transforming our understanding of the interplay between genomics, individual outcomes and society. It has interesting and maybe unexpected implications for education research and policy. Here we review the growing sociogenomics literature and discuss its implications for educational researchers and policymakers. We cover key concepts and methods in genomic research into educational outcomes, how genomic data can be used to investigate social or environmental effects, the methodological strengths and limitations of genomic data relative to other observational social data, the role of intergenerational transmission and potential policy implications. The increasing availability of genomic data in studies can produce a wealth of new evidence for education research. This may provide opportunities for disentangling the environmental and genomic factors that influence educational outcomes and identifying potential mechanisms for intervention.

The genetic landscape of substance use disorders

Substance use disorders represent a significant public health concern with considerable socioeconomic implications worldwide. Twin and family-based studies have long established a heritable component underlying these disorders. In recent years, genome-wide association studies of large, broadly phenotyped samples have identified regions of the genome that harbour genetic risk variants associated with substance use disorders. These regions have enabled the discovery of putative causal genes and improved our understanding of genetic relationships among substance use disorders and other traits. Furthermore, the integration of these data with clinical information has yielded promising insights into how individuals respond to medications, allowing for the development of personalized treatment approaches based on an individual's genetic profile. This review article provides an overview of recent advances in the genetics of substance use disorders and demonstrates how genetic data may be used to reduce the burden of disease and improve public health outcomes.

The causal effect of HbA1c on white matter brain aging by two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis

Background

Poor glycemic control with elevated levels of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment, with potentially varying effects between sexes. However, the causal impact of poor glycemic control on white matter brain aging in men and women is uncertain.

Methods

We used two nonoverlapping data sets from UK Biobank cohort: gene-outcome group (with neuroimaging data, (N = 15,193; males/females: 7,101/8,092)) and gene-exposure group (without neuroimaging data, (N = 279,011; males/females: 122,638/156,373)). HbA1c was considered the exposure and adjusted "brain age gap" (BAG) was calculated on fractional anisotropy (FA) obtained from brain imaging as the outcome, thereby representing the difference between predicted and chronological age. The causal effects of HbA1c on adjusted BAG were studied using the generalized inverse variance weighted (gen-IVW) and other sensitivity analysis methods, including Mendelian randomization (MR)-weighted median, MR-pleiotropy residual sum and outlier, MR-using mixture models, and leave-one-out analysis.

Results

We found that for every 6.75 mmol/mol increase in HbA1c, there was an increase of 0.49 (95% CI = 0.24, 0.74; p-value = 1.30 × 10-4) years in adjusted BAG. Subgroup analyses by sex and age revealed significant causal effects of HbA1c on adjusted BAG, specifically among men aged 60-73 (p-value = 2.37 × 10-8).

Conclusion

Poor glycemic control has a significant causal effect on brain aging, and is most pronounced among older men aged 60-73 years, which provides insights between glycemic control and the susceptibility to age-related neurodegenerative diseases.

Power, measurement error, and pleiotropy robustness in twin-design extensions to Mendelian Randomization

Mendelian Randomization (MR) has become an important tool for causal inference in the health sciences. It takes advantage of the random segregation of alleles to control for background confounding factors. In brief, the method works by using genetic variants as instrumental variables, but it depends on the assumption of exclusion restriction, i.e., that the variants affect the outcome exclusively via the exposure variable. Equivalently, the assumption states that there is no horizontal pleiotropy from the variant to the outcome. This assumption is unlikely to hold in nature, so several extensions to MR have been developed to increase its robustness against horizontal pleiotropy, though not eliminating the problem entirely (Sanderson et al. 2022). The Direction of Causation (DoC) model, which affords information from the cross-twin cross-trait correlations to estimate causal paths, was extended with polygenic scores to explicitly model horizontal pleiotropy and a causal path (MR-DoC, Minică et al 2018). MR-DoC was further extended to accommodate bidirectional causation (MR-DoC2 ; Castro-de-Araujo et al. 2023). In the present paper, we compared the power of the DoC model, MR-DoC, and MR-DoC2. We investigated the effect of phenotypic measurement error and the effect of misspecification of unshared (individual-specific) environmental factors on the parameter estimates.

The providential randomisation of genotypes

When building causal knowledge in behavioural genetics, the natural randomisation of genotypes at conception (approximately analogous to the artificial randomisation occurring in randomised controlled trials) facilitates the discovery of genetic causes. More importantly, the randomisation of genetic material within families also enables a better identification of (environmental) risk factors and aetiological pathways to diseases and behaviours.

A General Approach to Adjusting Genetic Studies for Assortative Mating

The effects of assortative mating (AM) on estimates from genetic studies has been receiving increasing attention in recent years. We extend existing AM theory to more general models of sorting and conclude that correct theory-based AM adjustments require knowledge of complicated, unknown historical sorting patterns. We propose a simple, general-purpose approach using polygenic indexes (PGIs). Our approach can estimate the fraction of genetic variance and genetic correlation that is driven by AM. Our approach is less effective when applied to Mendelian randomization (MR) studies for two reasons: AM can induce a form of selection bias in MR studies that remains after our adjustment; and, in the MR context, the adjustment is particularly sensitive to PGI estimation error. Using data from the UK Biobank, we find that AM inflates genetic correlation estimates between health traits and education by 14% on average. Our results suggest caution in interpreting genetic correlations or MR estimates for traits subject to AM.

Genetically predicted green tea intake and the risk of arterial embolism and thrombosis

Background

In previous observational studies, green tea intake has been demonstrated to protect against arterial embolism and thrombosis. However, whether there is a causative connection between green tea intake and arterial embolism and thrombosis is currently unclear.

Methods

A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study has been designed to explore whether there is a causal association between green tea intake and arterial embolism and thrombosis by acquiring exposure and outcome data from previously published research. Data from the MRC-IEU (data on green tea intake, 64,949 participants) consortium and the FinnGen project (data on arterial embolism and thrombosis, 278 cases of arterial thrombosis and 92,349 control participants) has been utilized to determine the causal impact of green tea intake on arterial embolism and thrombosis.

Results

We found that genetically predicted green tea intake was causally associated with a lower risk of arterial embolism and thrombosis (IVW odds ratio [OR] per SD decrease in green tea intake = 0.92 [95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.99]; p = 0.032). Moreover, the sensitivity analysis (both MR Egger regression and weighted median) yielded comparable estimates but with low precision. No directional pleiotropic effect between green tea intake and arterial embolism and thrombosis was observed in both funnel plots and MR-Egger intercepts.

Conclusions

Our study provided causal evidence that genetically predicted green tea intake may be a protective factor against arterial embolism and thrombosis.

Research Review: How to interpret associations between polygenic scores, environmental risks, and phenotypes

BACKGROUND

Genetic influences are ubiquitous as virtually all phenotypes and most exposures typically classified as environmental have been found to be heritable. A polygenic score summarises the associations between millions of genetic variants and an outcome in a single value for each individual. Ever lowering costs have enabled the genotyping of many samples relevant to child psychology and psychiatry research, including cohort studies, leading to the proliferation of polygenic score studies. It is tempting to assume that associations detected between polygenic scores and phenotypes in those studies only reflect genetic effects. However, such associations can reflect many pathways (e.g. via environmental mediation) and biases.

METHODS

Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the many reasons why associations between polygenic scores, environmental exposures, and phenotypes exist. We include formal representations of common analyses in polygenic score studies using structural equation modelling. We derive biases, provide illustrative empirical examples and, when possible, mention steps that can be taken to alleviate those biases.

RESULTS

Structural equation models and derivations show the many complexities arising from jointly modelling polygenic scores with environmental exposures and phenotypes. Counter-intuitive examples include that: (a) associations between polygenic scores and phenotypes may exist even in the absence of direct genetic effects; (b) associations between child polygenic scores and environmental exposures can exist in the absence of evocative/active gene-environment correlations; and (c) adjusting an exposure-outcome association for a polygenic score can increase rather than decrease bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Strikingly, using polygenic scores may, in some cases, lead to more bias than not using them. Appropriately conducting and interpreting polygenic score studies thus requires researchers in child psychology and psychiatry and beyond to be versed in both epidemiological and genetic methods or build on interdisciplinary collaborations.

A lifecourse mendelian randomization study highlights the long-term influence of childhood body size on later life heart structure

Children with obesity typically have larger left ventricular heart dimensions during adulthood. However, whether this is due to a persistent effect of adiposity extending into adulthood is challenging to disentangle due to confounding factors throughout the lifecourse. We conducted a multivariable mendelian randomization (MR) study to separate the independent effects of childhood and adult body size on 4 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of heart structure and function in the UK Biobank (UKB) study. Strong evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on all measures of adulthood heart structure was identified, which remained robust upon accounting for adult body size using a multivariable MR framework (e.g., left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), Beta = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23 to 0.43, P = 4.6 × 10-10). Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that other lifecourse measures of body composition were responsible for these effects. Conversely, evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on various other MRI-based measures, such as fat percentage in the liver (Beta = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.23, P = 0.002) and pancreas (Beta = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.33, P = 3.9 × 10-4), attenuated upon accounting for adult body size. Our findings suggest that childhood body size has a long-term (and potentially immutable) influence on heart structure in later life. In contrast, effects of childhood body size on other measures of adulthood organ size and fat percentage evaluated in this study are likely explained by the long-term consequence of remaining overweight throughout the lifecourse.

Causal Inference with Genetic Data: Past, Present, and Future

The set of methods discussed in this collection has emerged from the convergence of two scientific fields-genetics and causal inference. In this introduction, we discuss relevant aspects of each field and show how their convergence arises from the natural experiments that genetics offer. We present introductory concepts useful to readers unfamiliar with genetically informed methods for causal inference. We conclude that existing applications and foreseeable developments should ensure that we rapidly reap the rewards of this relatively new field, not only in terms of our understanding of human disease and development, but also in terms of tangible translational applications.

Human Genomics and Drug Development

Insights into the genetic basis of human disease are helping to address some of the key challenges in new drug development including the very high rates of failure. Here we review the recent history of an emerging, genomics-assisted approach to pharmaceutical research and development, and its relationship to Mendelian randomization (MR), a well-established analytical approach to causal inference. We demonstrate how human genomic data linked to pharmaceutically relevant phenotypes can be used for (1) drug target identification (mapping relevant drug targets to diseases), (2) drug target validation (inferring the likely effects of drug target perturbation), (3) evaluation of the effectiveness and specificity of compound-target engagement (inferring the extent to which the effects of a compound are exclusive to the target and distinguishing between on-target and off-target compound effects), and (4) the selection of end points in clinical trials (the diseases or conditions to be evaluated as trial outcomes). We show how genomics can help identify indication expansion opportunities for licensed drugs and repurposing of compounds developed to clinical phase that proved safe but ineffective for the original intended indication. We outline statistical and biological considerations in using MR for drug target validation (drug target MR) and discuss the obstacles and challenges for scaled applications of these genomics-based approaches.

Mendelian Randomization: Concepts and Scope

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method of studying the causal effects of modifiable exposures (i.e., potential risk factors) on health, social, and economic outcomes using genetic variants associated with the specific exposures of interest. MR provides a more robust understanding of the influence of these exposures on outcomes because germline genetic variants are randomly inherited from parents to offspring and, as a result, should not be related to potential confounding factors that influence exposure-outcome associations. The genetic variant can therefore be used as a tool to link the proposed risk factor and outcome, and to estimate this effect with less confounding and bias than conventional epidemiological approaches. We describe the scope of MR, highlighting the range of applications being made possible as genetic data sets and resources become larger and more freely available. We outline the MR approach in detail, covering concepts, assumptions, and estimation methods. We cover some common misconceptions, provide strategies for overcoming violation of assumptions, and discuss future prospects for extending the clinical applicability, methodological innovations, robustness, and generalizability of MR findings.

Estimating direct and indirect genetic effects on offspring phenotypes using genome-wide summary results data

Estimation of direct and indirect (i.e. parental and/or sibling) genetic effects on phenotypes is becoming increasingly important. We compare several multivariate methods that utilize summary results statistics from genome-wide association studies to determine how well they estimate direct and indirect genetic effects. Using data from the UK Biobank, we contrast point estimates and standard errors at individual loci compared to those obtained using individual level data. We show that Genomic structural equation modelling (SEM) outperforms the other methods in accurately estimating conditional genetic effects and their standard errors. We apply Genomic SEM to fertility data in the UK Biobank and partition the genetic effect into female and male fertility and a sibling specific effect. We identify a novel locus for fertility and genetic correlations between fertility and educational attainment, risk taking behaviour, autism and subjective well-being. We recommend Genomic SEM be used to partition genetic effects into direct and indirect components when using summary results from genome-wide association studies.

The Meaning of "Cause" in Genetics

Causation has multiple distinct meanings in genetics. One reason for this is meaning slippage between two concepts of the gene: Mendelian and molecular. Another reason is that a variety of genetic methods address different kinds of causal relationships. Some genetic studies address causes of traits in individuals, which can only be assessed when single genes follow predictable inheritance patterns that reliably cause a trait. A second sense concerns the causes of trait differences within a population. Whereas some single genes can be said to cause population-level differences, most often these claims concern the effects of many genes. Polygenic traits can be understood using heritability estimates, which estimate the relative influences of genetic and environmental differences to trait differences within a population. Attempts to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying polygenic traits have been developed, although causal inference based on these results remains controversial. Genetic variation has also recently been leveraged as a randomizing factor to identify environmental causes of trait differences. This technique-Mendelian randomization-offers some solutions to traditional epidemiological challenges, although it is limited to the study of environments with known genetic influences.

Triangulating Evidence through the Inclusion of Genetically Informed Designs

Much research effort is invested in attempting to determine causal influences on disease onset and progression to inform prevention and treatment efforts. However, this is often dependent on observational data that are prone to well-known limitations, particularly residual confounding and reverse causality. Several statistical methods have been developed to support stronger causal inference. However, a complementary approach is to use design-based methods for causal inference, which acknowledge sources of bias and attempt to mitigate these through the design of the study rather than solely through statistical adjustment. Genetically informed methods provide a novel and potentially powerful extension to this approach, accounting by design for unobserved genetic and environmental confounding. No single approach will be absent from bias. Instead, we should seek and combine evidence from multiple methodologies that each bring different (and ideally uncorrelated) sources of bias. If the results of these different methodologies align-or triangulate-then we can be more confident in our causal inference. To be truly effective, this should ideally be done prospectively, with the sources of evidence specified in advance, to protect against one final source of bias-our own cognitions, expectations, and fondly held beliefs.

Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are two study designs that provide randomized evidence in human biological and medical research. Both exploit the power of randomization to provide unconfounded estimates of causal effect. However, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies have very different study designs and scientific objectives. As a result, despite sometimes being referred to as "nature's randomized trial," a Mendelian randomization study cannot be used to replace a randomized trial but instead provides complementary information. In this review, we explain the similarities and differences between randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies, and suggest several ways that Mendelian randomization can be used to directly inform and improve the design of randomized trials illustrated with practical examples. We conclude by describing how Mendelian randomization studies can employ the principles of trial design to be framed as "naturally randomized trials" that can provide a template for the design of future randomized trials evaluating therapies directed against genetically validated targets.

Computational Tools for Causal Inference in Genetics

The advent of large-scale, phenotypically rich, and readily accessible data provides an unprecedented opportunity for epidemiologists, statistical geneticists, bioinformaticians, and also behavioral and social scientists to investigate the causes and consequences of disease. Computational tools and resources are an integral component of such endeavors, which will become increasingly important as these data continue to grow exponentially. In this review, we have provided an overview of computational software and databases that have been developed to assist with analyses in causal inference. This includes online tools that can be used to help generate hypotheses, publicly accessible resources that store summary-level information for millions of genetic markers, and computational approaches that can be used to leverage this wealth of data to study causal relationships.

Twins and Causal Inference: Leveraging Nature's Experiment

In this review, we discuss how samples comprising monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs can be used for the purpose of strengthening causal inference by controlling for shared influences on exposure and outcome. We begin by briefly introducing how twin data can be used to inform the biometric decomposition of population variance into genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences. We then discuss how extensions to this model can be used to explore whether associations between exposure and outcome survive correction for shared etiology (common causes). We review several analytical approaches that can be applied to twin data for this purpose. These include multivariate structural equation models, cotwin control methods, direction of causation models (cross-sectional and longitudinal), and extended family designs used to assess intergenerational associations. We conclude by highlighting some of the limitations and considerations that researchers should be aware of when using twin data for the purposes of interrogating causal hypotheses.

Family-Based Designs that Disentangle Inherited Factors from Pre- and Postnatal Environmental Exposures: In Vitro Fertilization, Discordant Sibling Pairs, Maternal versus Paternal Comparisons, and Adoption Designs

Identifying environmental risk and protective exposures that have causal effects on health is an important scientific goal. Many environmental exposures are nonrandomly allocated and influenced by dispositional factors including inherited ones. We review family-based designs that can separate the influence of environmental exposures from inherited influences shared between parent and offspring. We focus on prenatal exposures. We highlight that the family-based designs that can separate the prenatal environment from inherited confounds are different to those that are able to pull apart later-life environmental exposures from inherited confounds. We provide a brief review of the literature on maternal smoking during pregnancy and offspring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and conduct problems; these inconsistencies in the literature make a review useful and this illustrates that results of family-based genetically informed studies are inconsistent with a causal interpretation for this exposure and these two offspring outcomes.

Avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases in Mendelian randomization through within-family analyses

Estimates from Mendelian randomization studies of unrelated individuals can be biased due to uncontrolled confounding from familial effects. Here we describe methods for within-family Mendelian randomization analyses and use simulation studies to show that family-based analyses can reduce such biases. We illustrate empirically how familial effects can affect estimates using data from 61,008 siblings from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and UK Biobank and replicated our findings using 222,368 siblings from 23andMe. Both Mendelian randomization estimates using unrelated individuals and within family methods reproduced established effects of lower BMI reducing risk of diabetes and high blood pressure. However, while Mendelian randomization estimates from samples of unrelated individuals suggested that taller height and lower BMI increase educational attainment, these effects were strongly attenuated in within-family Mendelian randomization analyses. Our findings indicate the necessity of controlling for population structure and familial effects in Mendelian randomization studies.