Search

Causal discovery is a powerful tool to disclose underlying structures by analyzing purely observational data. Genetic variants can provide useful complementary information for structure learning. Recently, Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have provided abundant marginal causal relationships of traits. Here, we propose a causal network pruning algorithm MRSL (MR-based structure learning algorithm) based on these marginal causal relationships. MRSL combines the graph theory with multivariable MR to learn the conditional causal structure using only genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) summary statistics. Specifically, MRSL utilizes topological sorting to improve the precision of structure learning. It proposes MR-separation instead of d-separation and three candidates of sufficient separating set for MR-separation. The results of simulations revealed that MRSL had up to 2-fold higher F1 score and 100 times faster computing time than other eight competitive methods. Furthermore, we applied MRSL to 26 biomarkers and 44 International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD10)-defined diseases using GWAS summary data from UK Biobank. The results cover most of the expected causal links that have biological interpretations and several new links supported by clinical case reports or previous observational literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The timings of reproductive life events have been examined to be associated with various psychiatric disorders. However, studies have not considered the causal pathways from reproductive behaviors to different psychiatric disorders. This study aimed to investigate the nature of the relationships between five reproductive behaviors and twelve psychiatric disorders. Methods: Firstly, we calculated genetic correlations between reproductive factors and psychiatric disorders. Then two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was conducted to estimate the causal associations among five reproductive behaviors, and these reproductive behaviors on twelve psychiatric disorders, using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data from genetic consortia. Multivariable MR was then applied to evaluate the direct effect of reproductive behaviors on these psychiatric disorders whilst accounting for other reproductive factors at different life periods. Results: Univariable MR analyses provide evidence that age at menarche, age at first sexual intercourse and age at first birth have effects on one (depression), seven (anxiety disorder, ADHD, bipolar disorder, bipolar disorder II, depression, PTSD and schizophrenia) and three psychiatric disorders (ADHD, depression and PTSD) (based on p<7.14×10-4), respectively. However, after performing multivariable MR, only age at first sexual intercourse has direct effects on five psychiatric disorders (Depression, Attention deficit or hyperactivity disorder, Bipolar disorder, Posttraumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia) when accounting for other reproductive behaviors with significant effects in univariable analyses. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that reproductive behaviors predominantly exert their detrimental effects on psychiatric disorders and age at first sexual intercourse has direct effects on psychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonrandom selection in one-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) results in biased estimates and inflated type I error rates only when the selection effects are sufficiently large. In two-sample MR, the different selection mechanisms in two samples may more seriously affect the causal effect estimation. Firstly, we propose sufficient conditions for causal effect invariance under different selection mechanisms using two-sample MR methods. In the simulation study, we consider 49 possible selection mechanisms in two-sample MR, which depend on genetic variants (G), exposures (X), outcomes (Y) and their combination. We further compare eight pleiotropy-robust methods under different selection mechanisms. Results of simulation reveal that nonrandom selection in sample II has a larger influence on biases and type I error rates than those in sample I. Furthermore, selections depending on X+Y, G+Y, or G+X+Y in sample II lead to larger biases than other selection mechanisms. Notably, when selection depends on Y, bias of causal estimation for non-zero causal effect is larger than that for null causal effect. Especially, the mode based estimate has the largest standard errors among the eight methods. In the absence of pleiotropy, selections depending on Y or G in sample II show nearly unbiased causal effect estimations when the casual effect is null. In the scenarios of balanced pleiotropy, all eight MR methods, especially MR-Egger, demonstrate large biases because the nonrandom selections result in the violation of the Instrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect (InSIDE) assumption. When directional pleiotropy exists, nonrandom selections have a severe impact on the eight MR methods. Application demonstrates that the nonrandom selection in sample II (coronary heart disease patients) can magnify the causal effect estimation of obesity on HbA1c levels. In conclusion, nonrandom selection in two-sample MR exacerbates the bias of causal effect estimation for pleiotropy-robust MR methods. Author summary: It is well known that nonrandom selection in one-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) can result in biased estimates and inflated type I error rates. Actually, two-sample MR analyses are more prone to be affected by nonrandom selection than one-sample MR analyses, because two samples for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may be selected each under different mechanisms from the source population. Summary-level genetic association statistics in two-sample MR may be derived from different study designs such as case-control, case-only and cohort studies, which further inevitably affect the causal effect estimation of exposure on outcome. In this study, we firstly propose a theorem for causal effect invariance under different selection mechanisms. In the simulation, we design 49 combinations of nonrandom selection mechanisms in sample I and sample II, which are widespread in practical applications. The simulation results reveal that the selection mechanisms in sample II have a larger influence on biases and type I error rates than those in sample I. As an illustrative example, we find the nonrandom selection in sample II (coronary heart disease patients) can magnify the causal effect estimation of obesity on the HbA1c levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]