RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Exploring the lifetime effect of children on wellbeing using two-sample Mendelian randomisation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.06.15.22276383
DO 10.1101/2022.06.15.22276383
A1 Woolf, Benjamin
A1 Sallis, Hannah
A1 Munafò, Marcus R.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/16/2022.06.15.22276383.abstract
AB Objectives To provide Mendelian randomisation evidence of the effect of having children on parental wellbeing.Design Two sample Mendelian randomisation.Setting Non-clinical European ancestry participants.Participants We used the UK Biobank (460,654 male and female European ancestry participants) as a source of genotype-exposure associations, and the Social Science Genetics Consortia (SSGAC) (298,420 male and female European ancestry participants) and Within-Family Consortia (effective sample of 22,656 male and female European ancestry participants) as sources of genotype-outcome associations.Interventions The lifetime effect of an increase in the genetic liability to having children.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary analysis was an inverse variance weighed analyses of subjective wellbeing measured in the 2016 SSGAC GWAS. Secondary outcomes included pleiotropy robust estimators applied in the SSGAC and an analysis using the Within-Family consortia GWAS.Results The primary IVW estimate found evidence of a 0.153 standard deviation increase for every child a parent has (95% CI: -0.210 to 0.516). Secondary outcomes were generally slightly deflated (e.g. -0.049 [95% CI: -0.533 to 0.435] for the WFC and 0.090 [95% CI: -0.167 to 0.347] for weighted median) implying the presence of some residual confounding and pleiotropy.Conclusions Contrary to the existing literature, our results are not compatible with a measurable negative effect of number of children on the average wellbeing of a parent over their life course. However, we were unable to explore non-linearities, interactions, or time varying effects.Strengths and limitations of this study- Mendelian randomisation (MR) is a natural experiment which is theoretically robust to confounding and reverse causation.- We were able to use two negative control analyses to explore the robustness of our study to two potential sources of residual confounding (populations structure and passive gene-environment correlation).- We additionally use pleiotropy robust estimates (like MR-PRESSO, MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighed mode) to explore if our result was affected by direct effects of the genetic variants on the outcome, not mediated by the exposure.- Because we use summary data, we were unable to explore interactions, non-linear and time-varying, or time sensitive, effects.- Our study is a proof of concept for using MR to explore the causal effect of the heritable environment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementBenjamin Woolf is funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP) 1+3 PhD Studentship Award (ES/P000630/1). BW, HS and MM work in the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit which is supported by the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/3, MC_UU_00011/7). This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.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:All data that was used in this study is publicly available from the MRC-IEU OpenGWAS platform using the IDs provided in the text.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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data that was used in this study is publicly available from the MRC-IEU OpenGWAS platform using the IDs provided in the text.