PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Reed, Zoe E.
AU  - Wootton, Robyn E.
AU  - Khouja, Jasmine N.
AU  - Richardson, Tom G.
AU  - Sanderson, Eleanor
AU  - Smith, George Davey
AU  - Munafò, Marcus R
TI  - Exploring pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation analyses: What are genetic variants associated with “cigarette smoking initiation” really capturing?
AID  - 10.1101/2023.08.04.23293638
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.08.04.23293638
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.04.23293638.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.04.23293638.full
AB  - Background Genetic variants used as instruments for exposures in Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses may also have horizontal pleiotropic effects (i.e., influence outcomes via pathways other than through the exposure), which can undermine the validity of results. We examined the extent to which horizontal pleiotropy may be present, using smoking behaviours as an example.Methods We first ran a phenome-wide association study in UK Biobank, using a genetic instrument for smoking initiation. From the most strongly associated phenotypes, we selected those that we considered could either plausibly or not plausibly be caused by smoking. We next examined the association between genetic instruments for smoking initiation, smoking heaviness and lifetime smoking and these phenotypes in both UK Biobank and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). We conducted negative control analyses among never smokers, including children in ALSPAC.Results We found evidence that smoking-related genetic instruments (mainly for smoking initiation and lifetime smoking) were associated with phenotypes not plausibly caused by smoking in UK Biobank and (to a lesser extent) ALSPAC, although this may reflect the much smaller sample size in ALSPAC. We also observed associations with several phenotypes among never smokers.Conclusion Our results suggest that genetic instruments for smoking-related phenotypes demonstrate horizontal pleiotropy. When using genetic variants – particularly those for complex behavioural exposures – in genetically-informed causal inference analyses (e.g., MR) it is important to include negative control outcomes where possible, and other triangulation approaches, to avoid arriving at incorrect conclusions.Competing Interest StatementTGR is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline outside of this research. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementThis work was supported in part by the UK Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol (Grant ref: MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/7). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and ZER and MRM will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf); this research was specifically funded by the British Heart Foundation for mother's clinic data (Grant ref: SP/07/008/24066), the Wellcome Trust and MRC for father's clinic data (Grant ref: 092731), Wellcome Trust for mother's genetic data (Grant ref: WT088806) and the Wellcome Trust and MRC for father's genetic data (Grant ref: 102215/2/13/2). GWAS data was generated by Sample Logistics and Genotyping Facilities at Wellcome Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe. MRM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre. This work was also supported by Cancer Research UK (Grant ref: C18281/A29019).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:UK Biobank received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference for UK Biobank is 11/NW/0382). Ethics approval was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/research-ethics/).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesGWAS data for smoking initiation with UK Biobank and 23andMe removed can be found here: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/201564. Full GWAS summary statistics for the 23andMe discovery data set (which we combined with the publicly available smoking initiation data) will be made available through 23andMe to qualified researchers under an agreement with 23andMe that protects the privacy of the 23andMe participants. Please visit https://research.23andme.com/collaborate/#dataset-access/ for more information and to apply to access the data. ALSPAC data access is through a system of managed open access (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/). UK Biobank data are available through a procedure described at http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/using-the-resource/.