CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,882Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingGenetics and Physical Performance

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

Davey Smith, George, Ebrahim, Shah·2003·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/dyg070
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Associations between modifiable exposures and disease seen in observational epidemiology are sometimes confounded and thus misleading, despite our best efforts to improve the design and analysis of studies. Mendelian randomization—the random assortment of genes from parents to offspring that occurs during gamete formation and conception—provides one method for assessing the causal nature of some environmental exposures. The association between a disease and a polymorphism that mimics the biological link between a proposed exposure and disease is not generally susceptible to the reverse causation or confounding that may distort interpretations of conventional observational studies. Several examples where the phenotypic effects of polymorphisms are well documented provide encouraging evidence of the explanatory power of Mendelian randomization and are described. The limitations of the approach include confounding by polymorphisms in linkage disequilibrium with the polymorphism under study, that polymorphisms may have several phenotypic effects associated with disease, the lack of suitable polymorphisms for studying modifiable exposures of interest, and canalization—the buffering of the effects of genetic variation during development. Nevertheless, Mendelian randomization provides new opportunities to test causality and demonstrates how investment in the human genome project may contribute to understanding and preventing the adverse effects on human health of modifiable exposures. Genetic epidemiology—the theme of this issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology—is seen by many to be the only future for epidemiology, perhaps reflecting a growing awareness of the limitations of observational epidemiology1 (Box 1). Genetic epidemiology is concerned with understanding heritable aspects of disease risk, individual susceptibility to disease, and ultimately with contributing to a comprehensive molecular understanding of pathogenesis. The massive investment and expansion of human genetics, if it is to return value for the common good, must be integrated into public health functions. The human genome epidemiology network (HuGE Net—http://www.cdc.gov/genetics/huge.htm) has been established to promote the use of genetic knowledge—in terms of genetic tests and services—for disease prevention and health promotion.2,3 A broad taxonomy of human genome studies of public health relevance has been developed4 (Box 2). In this issue of the IJE, we publish a paper by Miguel Porta,5 who highlights the need for a more rational approach to genetic testing, given the likely low penetrance of many genes associated with cancers,6 likening the role of the genome to a jazz score that is interpreted and developed through experience and context—and is seldom predictable. Such insights may well temper enthusiasm for genetic testing in populations. However, in parallel to the approaches advocated by HuGE, genetic epidemiology can lead to a more robust understanding of environmental determinants of disease (e.g. dietary factors, occupational exposures, and health-related behaviours) relevant to whole populations (and not simply to genetically susceptible sub-populations).7–10 This approach has recently been referred to as ‘Mendelian randomization’.11–15 Here we begin by briefly reviewing reasons for current concerns about aetiological findings generated by conventional observational epidemiology and then we outline the potential contribution (and limitations) of Mendelian randomization. ‘Epidemiology set to get fast-track treatment’ ‘A consortium of leading European research centres and pharmaceutical companies will this week announce a plan to transform epidemiology by combining it with the new techniques of high-throughput biology. They plan to create a new field of study—genomic epidemiology—by using screening technologies derived from the human genome project … We think it is important to expand classical epidemiology and genetic epidemiology to take it to this high-throughput mode, says Esper Boel, vice-president of biotechnology research at Novo Nordisk. We want to use post-genomic technologies to create a new clinical science, to turn functional genomics into real clinical chemistry.’ From: Butler D. Epidemiology set to get fast-track treatment. Nature 2001;414:139. Reprinted with permission. Surveillance Population frequency of gene variants predisposing to specific diseases Population frequency of morbidity and mortality from such diseases Population frequency and effects of environmental factors known to interact with gene variants Economic costs of genetic components of diseases Coverage, access, and uptake of genetic tests and services Aetiology Magnitude of disease risk associated with gene variants in different populations Contribution of gene variants to the overall level of disease in different populations Magnitude of disease risk associated with gene–gene and gene–environment interactions in different populations Heal

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyg070

Cites

179 of 179 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The essence of an MR design is that the association between a genetic variant (G) and an outcome (Y) can be used to test whether and by how much the exposure of interest (X) influences the outcome, provided that the genetic variant is associated with the exposure of interest and has no other source of association with the outcome.

    “The essence of an MR design is that the association between a genetic variant (G) and an outcome (Y) can be used to test whether and by how much the exposure of interest (X) influences the outcome, provided that the genetic variant is associated with the exposure of interest and has no other source of association with the outcome.1,9”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • The original conclusion that MR offers a more robust approach to understanding the effect of some modifiable exposures on health outcomes than much conventional observational epidemiology remains unchanged.

    “When initially presented, it was concluded that “[MR] offers a more robust approach to understanding the effect of some modifiable exposures on health outcomes than does much conventional observational epidemiology”1 and that where possible, RCTs should follow to establish the effects of interventions. This conclusion remains unchanged, although moving towards formal triangulation of all pertinent”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Canalization can occur when polymorphic phenotypes expressed during fetal development lead to the development of compensating pathways to mitigate the effects of that expression.

    “Canalization can occur when polymorphic phenotypes expressed during fetal development lead to the development of compensating pathways to mitigate the effects of that expression. 1,178,179”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Estimating effect sizes through the instrumental variable approach imposes a fourth assumption, usually homogeneity of effects of the exposure on the outcome.

    “Estimating effect sizes through the instrumental variable approach imposes a fourth assumption, usually homogeneity of effects of the exposure on the outcome.16 58 59 60”

    From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [16]

  • Most MR studies rely on three core IV assumptions (relevance, independence, and exclusion restriction) to carry out testing for causal effects of the exposure on the outcome.

    “Most MR studies rely on three core IV assumptions (relevance, independence, and exclusion restriction; fig 1, box 3) to carry out testing for causal effects of the exposure on the outcome.16”

    From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Davey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S.
ORCID
Ebrahim, Shah
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-02
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
1-22
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/dyg070
OpenAlex
W2106036991
Cited by
5,882
References
179
Citations by year
2026: 333 · 2025: 673 · 2024: 1162 · 2023: 681 · 2022: 453 · 2021: 442 · 2020: 353 · 2019: 235 · 2018: 201 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 163 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 115 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 101
FWCI
31.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, genetic epidemiology, environmental factors in disease, causal inference, confounding, reverse causality, linkage disequilibrium, canalization, genetic polymorphism, genetic testing, public health genetics, disease prevention, Human Genome Project, pathogenesis, cancer genetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease, Environmental Exposure, Genotype, Humans, Polymorphism, Genetic, Molecular Epidemiology, Risk Assessment

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