IJE Advance Access originally published online on September 19, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology 2008 37(2):414-416; doi:10.1093/ije/dym186
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letters to the Editor |
A cautionary note on the use of Mendelian randomization to infer causation in observational epidemiology
1 Community Prevention Unit, University Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland.
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
* Corresponding author. Community Prevention Unit, University Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: murielle.bochud{at}chuv.ch
The concept of Mendelian randomization when used in the context of association studies refers to the random allocation of alleles at the time of gamete formation. This concept has received a lot of attention in recent years in observational epidemiology for its potential to reduce residual confounding and to protect against reverse causation.1 In brief, the random segregation of alleles at the time of gamete formation is a natural experiment that occurs before the outcome of interest, which protects against falsely reversing the inference about a cause-effect relationship. If a particular genetic variant is strongly associated with a risk factor for the outcome of interest, the association between this genetic variant and the outcome of interest may be used to infer causality.
Table 1 indicates the commonly acknowledged necessary conditions (1–9) for Mendelian randomization to provide this protection in observational epidemiology.2,3 We list additional necessary conditions (10–12) that have been given little attention and may be of relevance for certain genetic variants.
|
The first of these additional conditions is the absence of transmission ratio distortion (TRD). TRD occurs when the distribution of alleles at a particular locus differs in the surviving offspring from that expected on the basis of Mendelian proportions. TRD can occur either during or after meiosis. Segregation distortion or meiotic drive refers to the phenomenon of non-random assignment of alleles at the time of gamete formation and therefore describes TRD during meiosis.4 After meiosis, TRD may result from selective survival between conception and birth or later. In humans, a few examples of TRD have been reported.5–10 In particular, a recent report suggests that transmission distortion may be widespread in the human genome.6 Selective survival due to the genetic variant of interest is acknowledged as a potential source of bias analogous to differential loss of follow up in randomized controlled trials.2 With that perspective, selective survival may occur not only between conception and birth, but also between birth and entry into the study if the genetic variant of interest causes early mortality.
The second additional condition is the absence of parent-of-origin effect. A parent-of-origin effect occurs whenever the effect of an allele on a phenotype of interest depends on whether the allele was passed on to the child from the father or from the mother. Some genes may be silent or functionally active depending on whether a particular variant was maternally or paternally inherited. This effect is mediated through an epigenetic modification called imprinting. As a consequence, a parent-of-origin effect implies that the effect on the phenotype conferred by a specific genetic variant is not homogeneous in the population.
Segregation distortion and parent-of-origin effect have, to our knowledge, not been previously described as potential limitations to the use of Mendelian randomization for inferring causality in observational epidemiology. We consider here data on the relationship between homocysteine blood level and stroke to illustrate how these limitations may jeopardize the use of Mendelian randomization to infer causation.
Homocysteine blood level is associated with increased risk of stroke11 and is determined, in part, by the activity of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). The C677T MTHFR variant is associated with both the risk of stroke and homocysteine blood level.12 The risk of stroke conferred by the C677T MTHFR variant is consistent with the risk expected from the increased homocysteine blood level associated with the C677T MTHFR variant.12 These findings strongly suggest a causal relationship between homocysteine and stroke. We now consider to what extent the earlier-mentioned conditions may not have been met for this particular example.
Infante-Rivard and Weinberg13 assessed TRD for variants in five genes associated with thrombophilic disorders, including the MTHFR gene. They found some evidence of TRD for the MTHFR gene, which may be due to either segregation distortion at the time of gamete formation or due to post-meiotic events occurring between conception and birth. Furthermore, fetal C677T MTHFR status has been associated with fetal viability, i.e. selective survival between gamete formation and birth.14,15 Maternal C677T MTHFR status may influence pregnancy outcome. The C677T status of the mother has been associated with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy losses in some studies16–18 but not in others.19–22 Maternal hyperhomocysteinemia could be a risk factor for recurrent early pregnancy loss.23 Together, these observations may contribute to TRD at this particular locus and so invalidate the assumption of random segregation of alleles that underlies Mendelian randomization. Finally, although there is currently no evidence for a parent-of-origin effect, few studies have evaluated genomic imprinting at the C677T MTHFR locus13 so far. Due to the growing evidence for the role of imprinted genes in common complex diseases,24–28 assuming that parent-of-origin effects are absent may be disputable in many instances.
Hence, for this specific example, not only may the process of randomization itself be flawed, but substantial selective survival may also occur between the time of randomization (i.e. gamete formation) and the time of birth. As a consequence, the genotype distribution at birth may differ from the distribution at the time of randomization. The influence of maternal C677T genotype and maternal homocysteine levels on the fetal genotype distribution may represent additional sources of bias.
Currently, little is known about the mechanisms that distort the distribution of alleles from that expected from Mendel's first law between gamete formation, conception, birth and entry into a study. It is therefore difficult to estimate the extent to which these mechanisms may affect the results of Mendelian randomization studies. However, these mechanisms should not be assumed to be negligible until they have been properly evaluated. Potential for segregation distortion, selective survival and parent-of-origin effect should be kept in mind when conducting Mendelian randomization studies to draw causal inference in observational studies.
References
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.
2 Nitsch D, Molokhia M, Smeeth L, et al. Limits to causal inference based on Mendelian randomization: a comparison with randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol (2006) 163:397–403.
3 Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol (2004) 33:30–42.
4 Naumova AK, Greenwood CM, Morgan K. Imprinting and deviation from Mendelian transmission ratios. Genome (2001) 44:311–20.[Medline]
5 Naumova AK, Leppert M, Barker DF, et al. Parental origin-dependent, male offspring-specific transmission-ratio distortion at loci on the human X chromosome. Am J Hum Genet (1998) 62:1493–99.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6 Zöllner S, Wen X, Hanchard NA, et al. Evidence for extensive transmission distortion in the human genome. Am J Hum Genet (2004) 74:62–72.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7 Eaves IA, Bennett ST, Forster P, et al. Transmission ratio distortion at the INS-IGF2 VNTR. Nat Genet (1999) 22:324–25.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8 Dean NL, Loredo-Osti JC, Fujiwara TM, et al. Transmission ratio distortion in the myotonic dystrophy locus in human preimplantation embryos. Eur J Hum Genet (2006) 14:299–306.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9 Friedrichs F, Brescianini S, Annese V, et al. Evidence of transmission ratio distortion of DLG5 R30Q variant in general and implication of an association with Crohn disease in men. Hum Genet (2006) 119:305–11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10 Paterson A, Sun L, Liu XQ. Transmission ratio distortion in families from the Framingham Heart Study. BMC Genet (2003) 4:S48.[CrossRef][Medline]
11 Wald DS, Law M, Morris JK. Homocysteine and cardiovascular disease: evidence on causality from a meta-analysis. Br Med J (2002) 325:1202.
12 Casas JP, Bautista LE, Smeeth L, et al. Homocysteine and stroke: evidence on a causal link from Mendelian randomisation. Lancet (2005) 365:224–32.[Web of Science][Medline]
13 Infante-Rivard C, Weinberg CR. Parent-of-origin transmission of thrombophilic alleles to intrauterine growth-restricted newborns and transmission-ratio distortion in unaffected newborns. Am J Epidemiol (2005) 162:891–97.
14 Isotalo PA, Wells GA, Donnelly JG. Neonatal and fetal methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase genetic polymorphisms: an examination of C677T and A1298C mutations. Am J Hum Genet (2000) 67:986–90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
15 Zetterberg H, Regland B, Palmer M, et al. Increased frequency of combined methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T and A1298C mutated alleles in spontaneously aborted embryos. Eur J Hum Genet (2002) 10:113–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16 Nelen WL, Steegers EA, Eskes TK, et al. Genetic risk factor for unexplained recurrent early pregnancy loss. Lancet (1997) 350:861.[Web of Science][Medline]
17 Mtiraoui N, Zammiti W, Ghazouani L, et al. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T and A1298C polymorphism and changes in homocysteine concentrations in women with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy losses. Reproduction (2006) 131:395–401.
18 Unfried G, Griesmacher A, Weismuller W, et al. The C677T polymorphism of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene and idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol (2002) 99:614–19.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
19 Parle-McDermott A, Pangilinan F, Mills JL, et al. A polymorphism in the MTHFD1 gene increases a mother's risk of having an unexplained second trimester pregnancy loss. Mol Hum Reprod (2005) 11:477–80.
20 Makino A, Nakanishi T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, et al. No association of C677T methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase and an endothelial nitric oxide synthase polymorphism with recurrent pregnancy loss. Am J Reprod Immunol (2004) 52:60–66.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21 Hohlagschwandtner M, Unfried G, Heinze G, et al. Combined thrombophilic polymorphisms in women with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril (2003) 79:1141–48.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
22 Kobashi G, Kato EH, Morikawa M, et al. MTHFR C677T Polymorphism and factor V Leiden mutation are not associated with recurrent spontaneous abortion of unexplained etiology in Japanese women. Semin Thromb Hemost (2005) 31:266–71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
23 Nelen WL, Blom HJ, Steegers EA, et al. Hyperhomocysteinemia and recurrent early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril (2000) 74:1196–99.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24 Paterson AD, Naimark DM, Petronis A. The analysis of parental origin of alleles may detect susceptibility loci for complex disorders. Hum Hered (1999) 49:197–204.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25 Guo YF, Shen H, Liu YJ, et al. Assessment of genetic linkage and parent-of-origin effects on obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2006) 91:4001–5.
26 Dong C, Li WD, Geller F, et al. Possible genomic imprinting of three human obesity-related genetic loci. Am J Hum Genet (2005) 76:427–37.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27 Polychronakos C, Kukuvitis A, Giannoukakis N, et al. Parental imprinting effect at the INS-IGF2 diabetes susceptibility locus. Diabetologia (1995) 38:715–19.[Web of Science][Medline]
28 Lindsay RS, Kobes S, Knowler WC, et al. Genome-wide linkage analysis assessing parent-of-origin effects in the inheritance of birth weight. Hum Genet (2002) 110:503–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Bochud On the use of Mendelian randomization to infer causality in observational epidemiology Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2008; 29(20): 2456 - 2457. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Schnabel, M. G. Larson, J. Dupuis, K. L. Lunetta, I. Lipinska, J. B. Meigs, X. Yin, J. Rong, J. A. Vita, C. Newton-Cheh, et al. Relations of Inflammatory Biomarkers and Common Genetic Variants With Arterial Stiffness and Wave Reflection Hypertension, June 1, 2008; 51(6): 1651 - 1657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||