Bayesian network analysis incorporating genetic anchors complements conventional Mendelian randomization approaches for exploratory analysis of causal relationships in complex data.
Journal
PLoS genetics
ISSN: 1553-7404
Titre abrégé: PLoS Genet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101239074
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
12
05
2019
accepted:
21
01
2020
revised:
12
03
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
17
6
2020
entrez:
3
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mendelian randomization (MR) implemented through instrumental variables analysis is an increasingly popular causal inference tool used in genetic epidemiology. But it can have limitations for evaluating simultaneous causal relationships in complex data sets that include, for example, multiple genetic predictors and multiple potential risk factors associated with the same genetic variant. Here we use real and simulated data to investigate Bayesian network analysis (BN) with the incorporation of directed arcs, representing genetic anchors, as an alternative approach. A Bayesian network describes the conditional dependencies/independencies of variables using a graphical model (a directed acyclic graph) with an accompanying joint probability. In real data, we found BN could be used to infer simultaneous causal relationships that confirmed the individual causal relationships suggested by bi-directional MR, while allowing for the existence of potential horizontal pleiotropy (that would violate MR assumptions). In simulated data, BN with two directional anchors (mimicking genetic instruments) had greater power for a fixed type 1 error than bi-directional MR, while BN with a single directional anchor performed better than or as well as bi-directional MR. Both BN and MR could be adversely affected by violations of their underlying assumptions (such as genetic confounding due to unmeasured horizontal pleiotropy). BN with no directional anchor generated inference that was no better than by chance, emphasizing the importance of directional anchors in BN (as in MR). Under highly pleiotropic simulated scenarios, BN outperformed both MR (and its recent extensions) and two recently-proposed alternative approaches: a multi-SNP mediation intersection-union test (SMUT) and a latent causal variable (LCV) test. We conclude that BN incorporating genetic anchors is a useful complementary method to conventional MR for exploring causal relationships in complex data sets such as those generated from modern "omics" technologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32119656
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008198
pii: PGENETICS-D-19-00777
pmc: PMC7067488
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1008198Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12013/5
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 102858/Z/13/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12013/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/5
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;44(2):484-95
pubmed: 25150977
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Jun 1;48(3):713-727
pubmed: 30535378
Eur J Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;30(7):543-52
pubmed: 25773750
Stat Methods Med Res. 2017 Oct;26(5):2333-2355
pubmed: 26282889
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Feb 15;181(4):251-60
pubmed: 25632051
Front Genet. 2019 May 21;10:460
pubmed: 31164902
Nature. 2018 Jan 25;553(7689):399-401
pubmed: 29368721
Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Sep 15;23(R1):R89-98
pubmed: 25064373
Nat Genet. 2013 Jun;45(6):690-6
pubmed: 23583978
Lancet. 2012 Aug 11;380(9841):572-80
pubmed: 22607825
Hum Mol Genet. 2018 Aug 1;27(R2):R195-R208
pubmed: 29771313
Stat Med. 2017 May 20;36(11):1783-1802
pubmed: 28114746
Am J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan 13;90(1):7-24
pubmed: 22243964
Bioinformatics. 2019 Nov 1;35(22):4724-4729
pubmed: 31099385
Genet Epidemiol. 2013 Nov;37(7):658-65
pubmed: 24114802
Diabetes. 2016 May;65(5):1231-44
pubmed: 26861784
Am J Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 1;187(12):2681-2685
pubmed: 30188969
PLoS Biol. 2012;10(4):e1001301
pubmed: 22509135
Hum Mol Genet. 2018 Sep 15;27(18):3293-3304
pubmed: 29893838
BMJ. 2018 Jul 12;362:k601
pubmed: 30002074
Nat Genet. 2014 Jun;46(6):543-550
pubmed: 24816252
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;41(1):161-76
pubmed: 22422451
Nat Genet. 2013 Nov;45(11):1345-52
pubmed: 24097064
Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Aug;16(4):309-30
pubmed: 17715159
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 12;13(4):e0195719
pubmed: 29649275
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):1717-1726
pubmed: 28338968
Eur J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;31(4):337-50
pubmed: 27209009
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2015;16:327-50
pubmed: 25939054
Int J Epidemiol. 2003 Feb;32(1):1-22
pubmed: 12689998
Genet Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;41(7):577-586
pubmed: 28691305
Nat Genet. 2010 Nov;42(11):937-48
pubmed: 20935630
Genet Mol Res. 2016 Aug 19;15(3):
pubmed: 27706596
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):1866-1886
pubmed: 28108528
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2004;105(2-4):363-74
pubmed: 15237224
Nat Genet. 2018 May;50(5):693-698
pubmed: 29686387
Nat Commun. 2018 Aug 15;9(1):3268
pubmed: 30111768
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;44(2):512-25
pubmed: 26050253
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 24;10(1):3300
pubmed: 31341166
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):76-85
pubmed: 22253318
Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7726):203-209
pubmed: 30305743
Int J Obes (Lond). 2011 Feb;35(2):300-8
pubmed: 20714329
PLoS Genet. 2017 Nov 17;13(11):e1007081
pubmed: 29149188
Bioinformatics. 2019 Apr 1;35(7):1204-1212
pubmed: 30192904
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Apr;60:114-9
pubmed: 26827624
Stat Med. 2008 Jul 10;27(15):2750-5
pubmed: 18509868
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 24;7:43434
pubmed: 28233834
Nat Commun. 2020 Jan 7;11(1):29
pubmed: 31911605
Genet Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;42(4):394-404
pubmed: 29600553
Nat Commun. 2016 Mar 23;7:11122
pubmed: 27005778
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Feb;30(1):1-11
pubmed: 11171840