Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have often evaluated methods for Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on simulations that do not adequately reflect the data-generating mechanisms in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and there are often discrepancies in the performance of MR methods in simulations and real data sets.
METHODS: We use a simulation framework that generates data on full GWAS for two traits under a realistic model for effect-size distribution coherent with the heritability, co-heritability and polygenicity typically observed for complex traits. We further use recent data generated from GWAS of 38 biomarkers in the UK Biobank and performed down sampling to investigate trends in estimates of causal effects of these biomarkers on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
RESULTS: Simulation studies show that weighted mode and MRMix are the only two methods that maintain the correct type I error rate in a diverse set of scenarios. Between the two methods, MRMix tends to be more powerful for larger GWAS whereas the opposite is true for smaller sample sizes. Among the other methods, random-effect IVW (inverse-variance weighted method), MR-Robust and MR-RAPS (robust adjust profile score) tend to perform best in maintaining a low mean-squared error when the InSIDE assumption is satisfied, but can produce large bias when InSIDE is violated. In real-data analysis, some biomarkers showed major heterogeneity in estimates of their causal effects on the risk of T2D across the different methods and estimates from many methods trended in one direction with increasing sample size with patterns similar to those observed in simulation studies.
CONCLUSION: The relative performance of different MR methods depends heavily on the sample sizes of the underlying GWAS, the proportion of valid instruments and the validity of the InSIDE assumption. Down-sampling analysis can be used in large GWAS for the possible detection of bias in the MR methods.