Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 7 May 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 34 (21), 2926-2940
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6522
Abstract
Mendelian randomisation (MR) estimates causal effects of modifiable phenotypes on an outcome by using genetic variants as instrumental variables, but its validity relies on the assumption of no pleiotropy, that is, genes influence the outcome only through the given phenotype. Excluding pleiotropy is difficult, but the use of multiple instruments can indirectly address the issue: if all genes represent valid instruments, their MR estimates should vary only by chance. The Sargan test detects pleiotropy when individual phenotype, outcome and genotype data are measured in the same subjects. We propose an alternative approach to be used when only summary genetic data are available or data on gene‐phenotype and gene‐outcome come from different subjects. The presence of pleiotropy is investigated using the between‐instrument heterogeneity Q test (together with the I2 index) in a meta‐analysis of MR Wald estimates, derived separately from each instrument. For a continuous outcome, we evaluate the approach through simulations and illustrate it using published data. For the scenario where all data come from the same subjects, we compare it with the Sargan test. The Q test tends to be conservative in small samples. Its power increases with the degree of pleiotropy and the sample size, as does the precision of the I2 index, in which case results are similar to those of the Sargan test. In MR studies with large sample sizes based on summary data, the between‐instrument Q test represents a useful tool to explore the presence of heterogeneity due to pleiotropy or other causes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
Funding Information
- Royal Society (Travel grant)
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evolution of Heterogeneity (I2) Estimates and Their 95% Confidence Intervals in Large Meta-AnalysesPLOS ONE, 2012
- Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease riskNature, 2011
- Conventional and Mendelian randomization analyses suggest no association between lipoprotein(a) and early atherosclerosis: the Young Finns StudyInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variantsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Variants in ADCY5 and near CCNL1 are associated with fetal growth and birth weightNature Genetics, 2010
- New genetic loci implicated in fasting glucose homeostasis and their impact on type 2 diabetes riskNature Genetics, 2010
- Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analysesBMJ, 2007
- Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses of Genome-Wide Association InvestigationsPLOS ONE, 2007
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002