Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 May;25(3):427-35.
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000081.

Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization

Tyler J VanderWeele  1 , Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, Marilyn Cornelis, Peter Kraft
Affiliations
Review

Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization

Tyler J VanderWeele et al. Epidemiology. 2014 May.

Abstract

We give critical attention to the assumptions underlying Mendelian randomization analysis and their biological plausibility. Several scenarios violating the Mendelian randomization assumptions are described, including settings with inadequate phenotype definition, the setting of time-varying exposures, the presence of gene-environment interaction, the existence of measurement error, the possibility of reverse causation, and the presence of linkage disequilibrium. Data analysis examples are given, illustrating that the inappropriate use of instrumental variable techniques when the Mendelian randomization assumptions are violated can lead to biases of enormous magnitude. To help address some of the strong assumptions being made, three possible approaches are suggested. First, the original proposal of Katan (Lancet. 1986;1:507-508) for Mendelian randomization was not to use instrumental variable techniques to obtain estimates but merely to examine genotype-outcome associations to test for the presence of an effect of the exposure on the outcome. We show that this more modest goal and approach can circumvent many, though not all, the potential biases described. Second, we discuss the use of sensitivity analysis in evaluating the consequences of violations in the assumptions and in attempting to correct for those violations. Third, we suggest that a focus on negative, rather than positive, Mendelian randomization results may turn out to be more reliable.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagrams illustrating a genetic variant (G) which is an instrument for the effect of exposure (X) on outcome (Y) when the exposure-outcome relationship is confounded by unmeasured factors (U)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Diagrams illustrating violations of the exclusion restriction with the genetic variant (G) not independent of outcome (Y) conditional on exposure (X) and confounders (U) because of a direct effect of G on Y not through X
Figure 3
Figure 3
Setting in which the variant (G) affects an intermediate (W) on the pathway to exposure (X), violating the exclusion restriction
Figure 4
Figure 4
Setting in which the exclusion restriction holds when (X1, X2) are taken together as the exposure but does not hold for X1 alone.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Setting in which the exposure is time-varying and in which the exclusion restriction holds when (X1, X2) are taken together as the exposure but does not hold for X1 alone.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Diagram illustrating that when the exposure (X) is measured with error (X*) the exclusion restriction will not in general hold for the mismeasured exposure X*
Figure 7
Figure 7
Setting in which prior outcome (Y0) can affect subsequent exposure (X1) so that the variant (G) is not independent of final outcome (Y1) conditional on exposures (X0,X1) and confounders (U), violating MR assumptions, due to reverse causation
Figure 8
Figure 8
Setting in which variant (G) is associated with outcome (Y) conditional on exposure (X) and confounders (U), violating the MR assumptions, because of using data from a case-control study of another outcome (D)
Figure 9
Figure 9
Setting in which variant (G) is associated with outcome (Y) conditional on exposure (X) and confounders (U), violating MR assumptions, because of linkage disequilibrium with another variant (GU) that affects the outcome.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Setting in which variant (G) is associated with outcome (Y) conditional on exposure (X) and confounders (U), violating MR assumptions, because of linkage disequilibrium with another variant (GU) that affects the outcome, and in which the exclusion restriction is violated.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Katan MB. Apolipoprotein E isoforms, serum cholesterol, and cancer. Lancet. 1986;1:507–508. - PubMed
    1. Little J, Khoury MJ. Mendelian randomisation: a new spin or real progress? Lancet. 2003;362:930–931. - PubMed
    1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:1–22. - PubMed
    1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:30–42. - PubMed
    1. Thomas DC, Conti DV. Commentary: the concept of ‘Mendelian Randomization’. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:21–25. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

-