Extending Causality Tests with Genetic Instruments: An Integration of Mendelian Randomization with the Classical Twin Design
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Although experimental studies are regarded as the method of choice for determining causal influences, these are not always practical or ethical to answer vital questions in health and social research (e.g., one cannot assign individuals to a "childhood trauma condition" in studying the causal effects of childhood trauma on depression). Key to solving such questions are observational studies. Mendelian Randomization (MR) is an influential method to establish causality in observational studies. MR uses genetic variants to test causal relationships between exposures/risk factors and outcomes such as physical or mental health. Yet, individual genetic variants have small effects, and so, when used as instrumental variables, render MR liable to weak instrument bias. Polygenic scores have the advantage of larger effects, but may be characterized by horizontal pleiotropy, which violates a central assumption of MR. We developed the MR-DoC twin model by integrating MR with the Direction of Causation twin model. This model allows us to test pleiotropy directly. We considered the issue of parameter identification, and given identification, we conducted extensive power calculations. MR-DoC allows one to test causal hypotheses and to obtain unbiased estimates of the causal effect given pleiotropic instruments, while controlling for genetic and environmental influences common to the outcome and exposure. Furthermore, the approach allows one to employ strong instrumental variables in the form of polygenic scores, guarding against weak instrument bias, and increasing the power to detect causal effects of exposures on potential outcomes. Beside allowing to test pleiotropy directly, incorporating in MR data collected from relatives provide additional within-family data that resolve additional assumptions like random mating, the absence of the gene-environment interaction/covariance, no dyadic effects. Our approach will enhance and extend MR's range of applications, and increase the value of the large cohorts collected at twin/family registries as they correctly detect causation and estimate effect sizes even in the presence of pleiotropy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Population stratification, dynastic effects and assortative mating all induce bias by creating an artefactual relation at the population level between the genetic variants and the outcome, violating the second IV condition.
“However, population stratification, dynastic effects and assortative mating all induce bias by creating an artefactual relation at the population level between the genetic variants and the outcome, violating the second IV condition.65,163–166”
From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [165]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 80
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Bekker PA Merckens A Wansbeek TJ Identification, equivalent models, and computer algebra: statistical modeling and decision science 2014 Cambridge Academic Press
- Plomin R DeFries JC Knopik VS Neiderheiser J Behavioral genetics 2013 Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan
- Authors
- Minică, C. C., Dolan, C. V., Boomsma, D. I., de Geus, E., & Neale, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Minică, Camelia C.
- Venue
- Behavior Genetics
- Published
- 2018-06-07
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 337-349
- ISSN
- 0001-8244 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3297
- PMC
- PMC6028857
- OpenAlex
- W2951264395
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behavior Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-018673)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Keywords
- Mendelian randomization, horizontal pleiotropy, polygenic risk score, weak instrument bias, causal inference, parameter estimation, statistical power, gene-environment interaction
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Genetic, Monte Carlo Method, Twins, Dizygotic, Twins, Monozygotic, Genetic Variation, Causality, Twin Studies as Topic, Multifactorial Inheritance, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Genetic Pleiotropy, Gene-Environment Interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review