PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ciarrah Barry
AU  - Junxi Liu
AU  - Rebecca Richmond
AU  - Martin K Rutter
AU  - Deborah A Lawlor
AU  - Frank Dudbridge
AU  - Jack Bowden
TI  - Exploiting collider bias to apply two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization methods to one-sample individual level data
AID  - 10.1101/2020.10.20.20216358
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.10.20.20216358
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/23/2020.10.20.20216358.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/23/2020.10.20.20216358.full
AB  - Over the last decade the availability of SNP-trait associations from genome-wide association studies data has led to an array of methods for performing Mendelian randomization studies using only summary statistics. A common feature of these methods, besides their intuitive simplicity, is the ability to combine data from several sources, incorporate multiple variants and account for biases due to weak instruments and pleiotropy. With the advent of large and accessible fully-genotyped cohorts such as UK Biobank, there is now increasing interest in understanding how best to apply these well developed summary data methods to individual level data, and to explore the use of more sophisticated causal methods allowing for non-linearity and effect modification.In this paper we describe a general procedure for optimally applying any two sample summary data method using one sample data. Our procedure first performs a meta-analysis of summary data estimates that are intentionally contaminated by collider bias between the genetic instruments and unmeasured confounders, due to conditioning on the observed exposure. A weighted sum of these estimates is then used to correct the standard observational association between an exposure and outcome. Simulations are conducted to demonstrate the method’s performance against naive applications of two sample summary data MR. We apply the approach to the UK Biobank cohort to investigate the causal role of sleep disturbance on HbA1c levels, an important determinant of diabetes.Our approach is closely related to the work of Dudbridge et al. (Nat. Comm. 10: 1561), who developed a technique to adjust for index event bias when uncovering genetic predictors of disease progression based on case-only data. Our paper serves to clarify that in any one sample MR analysis, it can be advantageous to estimate causal relationships by artificially inducing and then correcting for collider bias.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJames Liu is funded by a Diabetes UK project grant (17/0005700). Deborah A Lawlor, James Liu and Rebecca Richmond all work in a Unit that receives support from the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MCUU00011/6). Deborah A Lawlor is a National Institute of Research Senior Investigator (NF-0616-10102). Jack Bowden is funded by an Establishing Excellence in England (E3) research award. None of the funders influenced the research presented here and the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily any funders acknowledged here.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is a primarily methodological paper which uses publicly accessible, anonymised data for the purposes of illustration. No approval was therefore needed.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis paper analyses data from the publicly accessible UK Biobank study and published summary statistics. Information on UK Biobank is available at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/principles-of-access/