In a cross-sectional study Davey Smith and colleagues show why observational studies can produce misleading claims regarding potential causal factors for disease, and illustrate the use of mendelian randomization to study environmentally modifiable risk factors

Bhatti

Campbell

Cardon

Casas

Chatterjee

Dachet

Davey Smith

Debbie A Lawlor

Didelez

Epstein

George Davey Smith

Georges

Hoggart

Ian Day

Ioannidis

Jaffee

Keavney

Khoury

Lawlor

Lewis

Lon Cardon

Macleod

Manson

Modan

Nic Timpson

Nitsch

Ordovas

Phillips

Roger Harbord

Shah Ebrahim

Shin

Smits

Sterne

Thomas

Thompson

Timpson

Umbach

Vandenbroucke

Wacholder

English

PubMed

BACKGROUND: In conventional epidemiology confounding of the exposure of interest with lifestyle or socioeconomic factors, and reverse causation whereby disease status influences exposure rather than vice versa, may invalidate causal interpretations of observed associations. Conversely, genetic variants should not be related to the confounding factors that distort associations in conventional observational epidemiological studies. Furthermore, disease onset will not influence genotype. Therefore, it has been suggested that genetic variants that are known to be associated with a modifiable (nongenetic) risk factor can be used to help determine the causal effect of this modifiable risk factor on disease outcomes. This approach, mendelian randomization, is increasingly being applied within epidemiological studies. However, there is debate about the underlying premise that associations between genotypes and disease outcomes are not confounded by other risk factors. We examined the extent to which genetic variants, on the one hand, and nongenetic environmental exposures or phenotypic characteristics on the other, tend to be associated with each other, to assess the degree of confounding that would exist in conventional epidemiological studies compared with mendelian randomization studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated pairwise correlations between nongenetic baseline variables and genetic variables in a cross-sectional study comparing the number of correlations that were statistically significant at the 5%, 1%, and 0.01% level (alpha = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.0001, respectively) with the number expected by chance if all variables were in fact uncorrelated, using a two-sided binomial exact test. We demonstrate that behavioural, socioeconomic, and physiological factors are strongly interrelated, with 45% of all possible pairwise associations between 96 nongenetic characteristics (n = 4,560 correlations) being significant at the p < 0.01 level (the ratio of observed to expected significant associations was 45; p-value for difference between observed and expected < 0.000001). Similar findings were observed for other levels of significance. In contrast, genetic variants showed no greater association with each other, or with the 96 behavioural, socioeconomic, and physiological factors, than would be expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: These data illustrate why observational studies have produced misleading claims regarding potentially causal factors for disease. The findings demonstrate the potential power of a methodology that utilizes genetic variants as indicators of exposure level when studying environmentally modifiable risk factors

Smith, George Davey

Lawlor, Debbie A

Harbord, Roger

Timpson, Nic

Day, Ian

Ebrahim, Shah

LSHTM Research Online

A simple and improved correction for population stratiﬁcation in case-control studies.

Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a MR approach.

Antioxidant vitamins and the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women [abstract].

Association of C-reactive protein with blood pressure and hypertension: lifecourse confounding and mendelian randomization tests of causality.

Association of cholesteryl ester transfer protein-TaqIB polymorphism with variations in lipoprotein subclasses and coronary heart disease risk: the Framingham study.

Association of metabolic gene polymorphisms with tobacco consumption in healthy controls.

Bias in relative odds estimation owing to imprecise measurement of correlated exposures.

Capitalizing on mendelian randomization to assess the effects of treatments.

Case-control inference of interaction between genetic and nongenetic risk factors under assumptions on their distribution.

Confounding in epidemiological studies: why ‘‘independent’’ effects may not be all they seem.

Control of confounding of genetic associations in stratiﬁed populations.

Counterpoint: bias from population stratiﬁcation is not a major threat to the validity of conclusions from epidemiological studies of common polymorphisms and cancer.

Creactive protein and its role in metabolic syndrome: mendelian randomization study.

Data dredging, bias, or confounding [editorial].

Demonstrating stratiﬁcation in a European American population.

Designing and analysing case-control studies to exploit independence of genotype and exposure.

Does elevated plasma ﬁbrinogen increase the risk of coronary heart disease?: Evidence from a meta-analysis of genetic association studies.

Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials.

Epidemiology—is it time to call it a day?

Exploiting gene-environment independence in family-based case-control studies: increased power for detecting associations, interactions and joint effects.

Family study of lipoprotein lipase gene polymorphisms and plasma triglyceride levels.

Fibrinogen and coronary heart disease: test of causality by ‘mendelian randomization.’

Genetic variation and willingness to participate in epidemiological research: data from three studies.

How independent are ‘‘independent’’ effects? Relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely.

Insight into the nature of the CRP-coronary event association using mendelian randomization.

Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.

Lactase persistence related genetic variant: population substructure, milk drinking and health outcomes. Eur J Hum Genet.

Limits to causal inference based on mendelian randomization: A comparison with randomized controlled trials.

Mendelian randomization: why epidemiology needs a formal language for causality. In:

Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?

Modern epidemiology. 2nd edition.

New functional promoter polymorphism, CETP/-629, incholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) gene related to CETP mass and high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: role of Sp1/Sp3 in transcriptional regulation.

Nontraditional epidemiologic approaches in the analysis of gene-environment interaction: case-control studies with no controls.

Observational versus randomized trial evidence [correspondence].

Parity, oral contraceptives, and the risk of ovarian cancer among carriers and noncarriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Point: population stratiﬁcation: a problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations?

Population stratiﬁcation in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: quantiﬁcation of bias.

Psychological stress and cardiovascular disease: empirical demonstration of biasinaprospectiveobservationalstudyonScottishmen.BMJ324:1247–1251.

Semiparametric maximum likelihood estimation exploiting gene-environment independence in case-control studies.

Sifting the evidence—what’s wrong with signiﬁcance tests?

Smoking as ‘‘independent’’ PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org

The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group

The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium

Thoseconfoundedvitamins:whatcanwelearnfromthedifferencesbetween observational versus randomized trial evidence?

Wagging the dog? Population stratiﬁcation and spurious allelic association.

When are observational studies as credible as randomized trials?

Wikipedia has pages on epidemiology and on mendelian randomization (note: Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages). Epidemiology for the Uninitiated is a primer from the

Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology.

In conventional epidemiology confounding of the exposure of interest with lifestyle or socioeconomic factors, and reverse causation whereby disease status influences exposure rather than vice versa, may invalidate causal interpretations of observed associations. Conversely, genetic variants should not be related to the confounding factors that distort associations in conventional observational epidemiological studies. Furthermore, disease onset will not influence genotype. Therefore, it has been suggested that genetic variants that are known to be associated with a modifiable (nongenetic) risk factor can be used to help determine the causal effect of this modifiable risk factor on disease outcomes. This approach, mendelian randomization, is increasingly being applied within epidemiological studies. However, there is debate about the underlying premise that associations between genotypes and disease outcomes are not confounded by other risk factors. We examined the extent to which genetic variants, on the one hand, and nongenetic environmental exposures or phenotypic characteristics on the other, tend to be associated with each other, to assess the degree of confounding that would exist in conventional epidemiological studies compared with mendelian randomization studies.-value for difference between observed and expected < 0.000001). Similar findings were observed for other levels of significance. In contrast, genetic variants showed no greater association with each other, or with the 96 behavioural, socioeconomic, and physiological factors, than would be expected by chance.These data illustrate why observational studies have produced misleading claims regarding potentially causal factors for disease. The findings demonstrate the potential power of a methodology that utilizes genetic variants as indicators of exposure level when studying environmentally modifiable risk factors

Smith George Davey

Lawlor Debbie A

Harbord Roger

Timpson Nic

Day Ian

Ebrahim Shah

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

Clustered Environments and Randomized Genes: A Fundamental Distinction between Conventional and Genetic Epidemiology 

BackgroundIn conventional epidemiology confounding of the exposure of interest with lifestyle or socioeconomic factors, and reverse causation whereby disease status influences exposure rather than vice versa, may invalidate causal interpretations of observed associations. Conversely, genetic variants should not be related to the confounding factors that distort associations in conventional observational epidemiological studies. Furthermore, disease onset will not influence genotype. Therefore, it has been suggested that genetic variants that are known to be associated with a modifiable (nongenetic) risk factor can be used to help determine the causal effect of this modifiable risk factor on disease outcomes. This approach, mendelian randomization, is increasingly being applied within epidemiological studies. However, there is debate about the underlying premise that associations between genotypes and disease outcomes are not confounded by other risk factors. We examined the extent to which genetic variants, on the one hand, and nongenetic environmental exposures or phenotypic characteristics on the other, tend to be associated with each other, to assess the degree of confounding that would exist in conventional epidemiological studies compared with mendelian randomization studies.Methods and findingsWe estimated pairwise correlations between nongenetic baseline variables and genetic variables in a cross-sectional study comparing the number of correlations that were statistically significant at the 5%, 1%, and 0.01% level (alpha = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.0001, respectively) with the number expected by chance if all variables were in fact uncorrelated, using a two-sided binomial exact test. We demonstrate that behavioural, socioeconomic, and physiological factors are strongly interrelated, with 45% of all possible pairwise associations between 96 nongenetic characteristics (n = 4,560 correlations) being significant at the p ConclusionsThese data illustrate why observational studies have produced misleading claims regarding potentially causal factors for disease. The findings demonstrate the potential power of a methodology that utilizes genetic variants as indicators of exposure level when studying environmentally modifiable risk factors

Directory of Open Access Journals

PLoS Medicine

In conventional epidemiology confounding of the exposure of interest with lifestyle or socioeconomic factors, and reverse causation whereby disease status influences exposure rather than vice versa, may invalidate causal interpretations of observed associations. Conversely, genetic variants should not be related to the confounding factors that distort associations in conventional observational epidemiological studies. Furthermore, disease onset will not influence genotype. Therefore, it has been suggested that genetic variants that are known to be associated with a modifiable (nongenetic) risk factor can be used to help determine the causal effect of this modifiable risk factor on disease outcomes. This approach, mendelian randomization, is increasingly being applied within epidemiological studies. However, there is debate about the underlying premise that associations between genotypes and disease outcomes are not confounded by other risk factors. We examined the extent to which genetic variants, on the one hand, and nongenetic environmental exposures or phenotypic characteristics on the other, tend to be associated with each other, to assess the degree of confounding that would exist in conventional epidemiological studies compared with mendelian randomization studies.In conventional epidemiology confounding of the exposure of interest with lifestyle or socioeconomic factors, and reverse causation whereby disease status influences exposure rather than vice versa, may invalidate causal interpretations of observed associations. Conversely, genetic variants should not be related to the confounding factors that distort associations in conventional observational epidemiological studies. Furthermore, disease onset will not influence genotype. Therefore, it has been suggested that genetic variants that are known to be associated with a modifiable (nongenetic) risk factor can be used to help determine the causal effect of this modifiable risk factor on disease outcomes. This approach, mendelian randomization, is increasingly being applied within epidemiological studies. However, there is debate about the underlying premise that associations between genotypes and disease outcomes are not confounded by other risk factors. We examined the extent to which genetic variants, on the one hand, and nongenetic environmental exposures or phenotypic characteristics on the other, tend to be associated with each other, to assess the degree of confounding that would exist in conventional epidemiological studies compared with mendelian randomization studies

Davey Smith, G

Lawlor, D

Harbord, RM

Timpson, NJ

Day, INM

Ebrahim, S

Explore Bristol Research

Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology

Crossref

Clustered Environments and Randomized Genes: A Fundamental Distinction between Conventional and Genetic Epidemiology

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2121108

Clustered Environments and Randomized Genes: A Fundamental Distinction between Conventional and Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSHTM Research Online

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

Directory of Open Access Journals

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

Explore Bristol Research

Crossref