Mendelian randomization, a powerful tool in medical research, helps us understand whether certain factors truly cause disease. This technique uses genetic variations as “natural experiments” to reveal cause-and-effect relationships. However, choosing the proper genetic variations is crucial for accurate results.
Think of a train network where the genetic variation is the starting point, the exposure is a station, and the disease is the destination. The train must pass through the exposure station en route to the disease. This represents the critical assumption of Mendelian randomization: the genetic variation affects the exposure, which then influences the disease.
Biologically motivated approaches are preferred for selecting these genetic variations. They focus on genes directly linked to the exposure, like using variations within a protein-coding gene to understand the protein’s impact on disease. This approach is more reliable as it minimizes “off-track” influences on the disease.
Genome-wide analyses, while tempting due to their vast data, can be misleading. They often introduce noise and weaken the signal, leading to unreliable conclusions. Just like having trains going in different directions, these analyses lack the focused direction of biologically motivated approaches.
However, genome-wide analyses can still be helpful as supporting evidence. Imagine having multiple trains starting from different stations but all converging at the exposure station. If these trains consistently reach the disease destination, it strengthens the evidence for a causal link.
The key takeaway? Prioritize biologically motivated approaches whenever possible. While not always feasible, they offer more precise insights. Genome-wide analyses can be used cautiously for additional support, but their limitations must be considered.
Combining biological understanding with statistical expertise is essential for drawing accurate causal conclusions from Mendelian randomization. This collaboration across disciplines ensures we stay on the right track in understanding the true causes of disease.
Source:
Journal reference:
Burgess, S., & Cronjé, H. T. (2024). Incorporating biological and clinical insights into variant choice for Mendelian randomisation: examples and principles. eGastroenterology. doi.org/10.1136/egastro-2023-100042.
Post Disclaimer
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by "Prioritizing biologically motivated approaches in Mendelian randomization studies "and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date.
Legal Disclaimer
We do not claim to cure any disease which is considered’ incurable ‘ on the basis of scientific facts by modern medicine .The website’s content is not a substitute for direct, personal, professional medical care and diagnosis. None of the medicines mentioned in the posts ,including services mentioned at "medicineguide.us" should be used without clearance from your physician or health care provider.
Testimonials Disclaimer– : Results may vary, and testimonials are not claimed to represent typical results. The testimonials are real, and these patients have been treated with homeopathy treatment from our clinic . However, these results are meant as a showcase of what the best, Medicine can do with their disease contions and should not be taken as average or typical results.
