RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Design and quality control of large-scale two-sample Mendelian randomisation studies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.30.21260578
DO 10.1101/2021.07.30.21260578
A1 Haycock, Philip C.
A1 Borges, Maria Carolina
A1 Burrows, Kimberly
A1 Lemaitre, Rozenn N.
A1 Harrison, Sean
A1 Burgess, Stephen
A1 Chang, Xuling
A1 Westra, Jason
A1 Khankari, Nikhil K.
A1 Tsilidis, Kostas
A1 Gaunt, Tom
A1 Hemani, Gib
A1 Zheng, Jie
A1 Truong, Therese
A1 OMara, Tracy
A1 Spurdle, Amanda B.
A1 Law, Matthew H.
A1 Slager, Susan L.
A1 Birmann, Brenda M.
A1 Hosnijeh, Fatemeh Saberi
A1 Mariosa, Daniela
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 Amos, Chris I.
A1 Hung, Rayjean J.
A1 Zheng, Wei
A1 Gunter, Marc J.
A1 Smith, George Davey
A1 Relton, Caroline
A1 Martin, Richard M
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/01/2021.07.30.21260578.abstract
AB Background Mendelian randomization studies are susceptible to meta-data errors (e.g. incorrect specification of the effect allele column) and other analytical issues that can introduce substantial bias into analyses. We developed a quality control pipeline for the Fatty Acids in Cancer Mendelian Randomization Collaboration (FAMRC) that can be used to identify and correct for such errors.Methods We invited cancer GWAS to share summary association statistics with the FAMRC and subjected the collated data to a comprehensive QC pipeline. We identified meta data errors through comparison of study-specific statistics to external reference datasets (the NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog and 1000 genome super populations) and other analytical issues through comparison of reported to expected genetic effect sizes. Comparisons were based on three sets of genetic variants:1) GWAS hits for fatty acids, 2) GWAS hits for cancer and 3) a 1000 genomes reference set.Results We collated summary data from six fatty acid and 49 cancer GWAS. Meta data errors and analytical issues with the potential to introduce substantial bias were identified in seven studies (13%). After resolving analytical issues and excluding unreliable data, we created a dataset of 219,842 genetic associations with 87 cancer types.Conclusion In this large MR collaboration, 13% of included studies were affected by a substantial meta data error or analytical issue. By increasing the integrity of collated summary data prior to their analysis, our protocol can be used to increase the reliability of post-GWAS analyses. Our pipeline is available to other researchers via the CheckSumStats package (https://github.com/MRCIEU/CheckSumStats).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementRMM was supported by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A19169) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme) and by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This research was carried out in the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/4). PCH was supported by Cancer Research UK (C52724/A20138 & 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:This work used summary data from previously published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) or summary data from GWAS conducted in UK Biobank under application number number 15825. Relevant approvals were obtained by each of the previously published studies. An ethics statement for each included GWAS can be found in supplementary table 5. For GWAS conducted in UK Biobank under application number 15825, UK Biobank has obtained Research Tissue Bank (RTB) approval from its ethics committee that covers the majority of proposed uses of the Resource. The UK Biobank Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval number is 16/NW/0274.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.YesMost of the datasets described here were obtained via Open GWAS, the GWAS catalog or the CHARGE website (see links below). Some datasets were obtained by correspondence with study authors and are available upon request. https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/ https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/summary-statistics https://www.chargeconsortium.com/main/results https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/ https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/summary-statistics https://www.chargeconsortium.com/main/results