Genetic EpidemiologyGeneticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Constrained Instruments and their Application to Mendelian Randomization with Pleiotropy
Lai JiangiD, Karim OualkachaiD, Vanessa DideleziD, Antonio CiampiiD, Pedro Rosa‐NetoiD, Andréa Lessa BenedetiD, Sulantha Sanjeewa MathotaarachchiiD, John Brent RichardsiD, Celia M.T. GreenwoodiD, and for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Abstract
In Mendelian randomization (MR), genetic variants are used to construct instrumental variables, which enable inference about the causal relationship between a phenotype of interest and a response or disease outcome. However, standard MR inference requires several assumptions, including the assumption that the genetic variants only influence the response through the phenotype of interest. Pleiotropy occurs when a genetic variant has an effect on more than one phenotype; therefore, a pleiotropic genetic variant may be an invalid instrumental variable. Hence, a naive method for constructing instrumental variables may lead to biased estimation of the causality between the phenotype and the response. Here, we present a set of intuitive methods (Constrained Instrumental Variable methods [CIV]) to construct valid instrumental variables and perform adjusted causal effect estimation when pleiotropy exists, focusing particularly on the situation where pleiotropic phenotypes have been measured. Our approach includes an automatic and valid selection of genetic variants when building the instrumental variables. We also provide details of the features of many existing methods, together with a comparison of their performance in a large series of simulations. CIV methods performed consistently better than many comparators across four different pleiotropic violations of the MR assumptions. We analyzed data from the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Mueller et al. (2005) to disentangle causal relationships of several biomarkers with AD progression. The results showed that CIV methods can provide causal effect estimates, as well as selection of valid instruments while accounting for pleiotropy.
- organism: human
- assay: GWAS summary statistics
- research focus: GWAS / association mapping
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 23
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Field percentile
- top 16%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian Randomization
Hans van Kippersluis, Cornelius A Rietveld·International Journal of EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Feb 22, 2017
- CaPri: Bayesian Mendelian randomization for joint estimation of causal and pleiotropic effects
Ou Ren, Wenmin Zhang, Tianyuan Lu·medRxiv·Oct 14, 2026
- Widespread pleiotropy confounds causal relationships between complex traits and diseases inferred from Mendelian randomization
Marie Verbanck, Chia‐Yen Chen, … Ron Do·Nature GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 20, 2018
- A Bayesian approach to Mendelian randomization using summary statistics in the univariable and multivariable settings with correlated pleiotropy
Andrew J. Grant, Stephen Burgess·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- Testing and Correcting for Weak and Pleiotropic Instruments in Two-Sample Multivariable Mendelian Randomisation
Eleanor C. M. Sanderson, Wes Spiller, Jack Bowden·Statistics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Aug 2, 2021
- Mendelian Randomization with Instrumental Variable Synthesis (IVY)
Zhaobin Kuang, Aldo Córdova‐Palomera, … James Rush Priest·bioRxiv·Sep 9, 2019