Nature CommunicationsGeneticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Within-family studies for Mendelian randomization: avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases
Ben Michael BrumptoniD, Eleanor C. M. SandersoniD, Karl HeilbroniD, Fernando Pires HartwigiD, Sean HarrisoniD, Gunnhild Åberge VieiD, Yoonsu ChoiD, Laura D HoweiD, Amanda HughesiD, Dorret Irene BoomsmaiD, Alexandra HavdahliD, John Llewelyn HopperiD, Michael Churton NealeiD, Michel Guillaume NivardiD, Nancy L. PederseniD, Chandra A. ReynoldsiD, Elliot M. Tucker–DrobiD, Andrew David GrotzingeriD, Laurence J HoweiD, Tim MorrisiD, Shuai LiiD, Dorret I. Boomsma, Adam AutoniD, Frank A. G. WindmeijeriD, Wei‐Min CheniD, , Neil M DaviesiD
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely-used method for causal inference using genetic data. Mendelian randomization studies of unrelated individuals may be susceptible to bias from family structure, for example, through dynastic effects which occur when parental genotypes directly affect offspring phenotypes. Here we describe methods for within-family Mendelian randomization and through simulations show that family-based methods can overcome bias due to dynastic effects. We illustrate these issues empirically using data from 61,008 siblings from the UK Biobank and Nord-Trondelag Health Study. Both within-family and population-based Mendelian randomization analyses reproduced established effects of lower BMI reducing risk of diabetes and high blood pressure. However, while MR estimates from population-based samples of unrelated individuals suggested that taller height and lower BMI increase educational attainment, these effects largely disappeared in within-family MR analyses. We found differences between population-based and within-family based estimates, indicating the importance of controlling for family effects and population structure in Mendelian randomization studies.
- organism: human
- assay: GWAS summary statistics
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 402
- FWCI
- 30.00
- Field percentile
- top 1%
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
- Leveraging family data to design Mendelian Randomization that is provably robust to population stratification
Nathan LaPierre, Boyang Fu, … Sriram Sankararaman·Genome ResearchPeer-reviewed·May 17, 2023
- Robust Mendelian randomization in the presence of residual population stratification, batch effects and horizontal pleiotropy
Carlos Cinelli, Nathan LaPierre, … Eleazar Eskin·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Mar 1, 2022
- Mendelian Randomization Analysis Using Mixture Models (MRMix) for Genetic Effect-Size-Distribution Leads to Robust Estimation of Causal Effects
Guanghao Qi, Nilanjan Chatterjee·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Apr 26, 2019
- 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
- Utilising offspring genotype by proxy Mendelian randomization to investigate the causal effect of offspring traits on parental health
Alesha A Hatton, Caroline Brito Nunes, … David M. Evans·medRxiv·Jun 11, 2025
- The use of negative control outcomes in Mendelian Randomisation to detect potential population stratification or selection bias.
Eleanor C. M. Sanderson, Tom G. Richardson, … George Davey Smith·International Journal of EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Jan 18, 2021