Connecting diet and disease: Using Mendelian randomisation to bridge the gap
Deslandes, B.; Corbin, L. J.; Goudswaard, L. J.; Sandu, M. R.; Lee, M. A.; Beynon, R. A.; McGeagh, L.; Smith, G. D.; Sattar, N.; Lean, M. E.; Taylor, R.; Lane, J. A.; Timpson, N. J.; Martin, R. M.; Richenberg, G.; Gunter, M. J.; Yarmolinsky, J.; Koumanov, F.; Gonzalez, J. T.; Richmond, R. C.; Vincent, E. E.
Show abstract
Establishing causality in nutrition research is challenging. While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide robust evidence, long-term dietary intervention studies with disease endpoints are often impractical. Short-term RCTs can instead identify intermediate traits that may lie on the causal pathway between diet and disease. Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an epidemiological approach that uses genetic variants as proxies for modifiable exposures to estimate the effects of lifelong differences in exposure on disease risk. However, the utility of MR is limited for complex dietary patterns because genetic variants typically reflect biological mechanisms rather than specific diets. We propose a two-step framework integrating dietary RCTs with MR to infer potential lifetime effects of dietary interventions. First, RCT data identify molecular traits altered by an intervention. Second, MR evaluates whether these traits are associated with long-term disease risk. We demonstrate this framework using the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT), which measured circulating proteins and diabetes remission. Using protein data alone, 216 of 4,601 proteins changed following the intervention (step 1), and 10 were associated with diabetes risk using MR (step 2). We then compared these MR estimates with observed protein-remission associations from DiRECT. The broad agreement between the two (r{approx}-0.645, R2=0.416) supports this framework as a useful approach for estimating long-term effects of dietary interventions.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A structural mean modelling Mendelian randomization approach to investigate the lifecourse effect of adiposity: applied and methodological considerations 91%
- Case-only analysis of gene-environment interactions using polygenic risk scores 90%
- A Hierarchical Approach Using Marginal Summary Statistics for Multiple Intermediates in a Mendelian Randomization or Transcriptome Analysis 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bias in nutrition-health associations is not eliminated by excluding extreme reporters in empirical or simulation studies 92%
- Mendelian randomization suggests a bidirectional, causal relationship between physical inactivity and obesity 91%
- Phenome-wide Mendelian randomization study of plasma triglycerides and 2,600 disease traits 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Methods for Mendelian Randomization Using Realistic Simulations and an Analysis of 38 Biomarkers for Risk of Type-2 Diabetes 92%
- An empirical investigation into the impact of winner's curse on estimates from Mendelian randomization 91%
- Bias in two-sample Mendelian randomization when using heritable covariable-adjusted summary associations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Two-stage Linear Mixed Model (TS-LMM) for Summary-data-based Multivariable Mendelian Randomization 91%
- GxE PRS: Genotype-environment interaction in polygenic risk score models for quantitative and binary traits 90%
- Multi-ethnic analysis shows genetic risk and environmental predictors interact to influence 25(OH)D concentration and optimal vitamin D intake 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Within-family studies for Mendelian randomization: avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases 92%
- Components of genetic associations across 2,138 phenotypes in the UK Biobank highlight novel adipocyte biology 92%
- Amino acid variability, tradeoffs and optimality in human diet 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.