Back

Comparing genome-wide significant and chemosensory variants as instruments for dietary patterns in Mendelian randomisation

Hui, P. S.; Devlin, B. L.; Evans, D. M.; Hwang, L.-D.

2026-03-27 nutrition
10.64898/2026.03.26.26349354 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Diet is a modifiable risk factor for cardiometabolic disease, yet establishing causality remains challenging. Mendelian randomisation (MR) leverages genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to enable causal inference. Method: Using two-sample MR, we assessed the causal effects of four principal component-derived dietary patterns (DPs) - Unhealthy, Healthy, Meat-based, Pescatarian - on twelve cardiometabolic outcomes: body mass index, coronary artery disease, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, fasting glucose and insulin, and glycated haemoglobin. Two sets of IVs were employed: conventional genome-wide significant variants associated with each DP, rigorously filtered for pleiotropy and directionality; and biologically informed variants in chemosensory receptor genes, given the role of taste and smell perception in shaping food choices. Results: Using conventional IVs, the Pescatarian DP reduced fasting insulin ({beta}IVW = -0.10 pmolL-1 per SD increase in Pescatarian DP score, 95% Confidence interval [CI] [-0.15, -0.04]; P = 1.19x10-3), which survived multiple sensitivity analyses. Associations between the Unhealthy DP and elevated blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin were likely undermined by heterogeneity and pleiotropy, with insufficient IVs for robust sensitivity testing. Chemosensory receptors yielded null findings, reflecting insufficient power. Conclusion: Rigorously filtered conventional IVs supported the causal nature of well-established diet-disease relationships, demonstrating MR's utility in strengthening causal inference in nutritional epidemiology. Chemosensory IVs demonstrated limited utility for DPs, likely reflecting the heterogeneous and complex sensory profiles of overall diets. Future efforts should consider using guideline-based dietary scores to facilitate translation of findings.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.0%
2
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
3
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
5
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.7%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
11
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
12
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
14
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
16
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
19
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
20
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
22
Diabetes
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
25
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Obesity
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
28
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
29
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%