Biology subjects

Yarmolinsky, J.

Publications and source records attributed to Yarmolinsky, J..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2018

Mendelian randomization does not support serum calcium in prostate cancer risk

Background: Observational studies suggest that dietary and serum calcium are risk factors for prostate cancer. However, such studies suffer from residual confounding (due to unmeasured or imprecisely measured confounders), undermining causal inference. Mendelian randomization uses randomly assigned (hence unconfounded and pre-disease onset) germline genetic variation to proxy for phenotypes and strengthen causal inference in observational studies.\n\nObjective: We tested the hypothesis that serum calcium is associated with an increased risk of overall and advanced prostate cancer.\n\nDesign: A genetic instrument was constructed using 5 single nucleotide polymorphisms robustly associated with serum calcium in a genome-wide association study (N [≤] 61,079). This instrument was then used to test the effect of a 0.5 mg/dL increase (1 standard deviation, SD) in serum calcium on risk of prostate cancer in 72,729 men in the PRACTICAL (Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome) Consortium (44,825 cases, 27,904 controls) and risk of advanced prostate cancer in 33,498 men (6,263 cases, 27,235 controls).\n\nResults: We found weak evidence for a protective effect of serum calcium on prostate cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] per 0.5 mg/dL increase in calcium: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63-1.08; P=0.12). We did not find strong evidence for an effect of serum calcium on advanced prostate cancer (OR per 0.5 mg/dL increase in calcium: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.57-1.70; P=0.93).\n\nConclusions: Our Mendelian randomization analysis does not support the hypothesis that serum calcium increases risk of overall or advanced prostate cancer.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2017

Causal inference in cancer epidemiology: what is the role of Mendelian randomization?

Observational epidemiological studies are prone to confounding, measurement error, and reverse causation, undermining their ability to generate reliable causal estimates of the effect of risk factors to inform cancer prevention and treatment strategies. Mendelian randomization (MR) is an analytical approach that uses genetic variants to proxy potentially modifiable exposures (e.g. environmental factors, biological traits, and druggable pathways) to permit robust causal inference of the effects of these exposures on diseases and their outcomes. MR has seen widespread adoption within population health research in cardio-metabolic disease, but also holds much promise for identifying possible interventions (e.g., dietary, behavioural, or pharmacological) for cancer prevention and treatment. However, some methodological and conceptual challenges in the implementation of MR are particularly pertinent when applying this method to cancer aetiology and prognosis, including reverse causation arising from disease latency and selection bias in studies of cancer progression. These issues must be carefully considered to ensure appropriate design, analysis, and interpretation of such studies.\n\nIn this review, we provide an overview of the key principles and assumptions of MR focusing on applications of this method to the study of cancer aetiology and prognosis. We summarize recent studies in the cancer literature that have adopted a MR framework to highlight strengths of this approach compared to conventional epidemiological studies. Lastly, limitations of MR and recent methodological developments to address them are discussed, along with the translational opportunities they present to inform public health and clinical interventions in cancer.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2017

Circulating selenium and prostate cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis

In the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), selenium supplementation (causing a median 114 g/L increase in circulating selenium) did not lower overall prostate cancer risk, but increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes. Mendelian randomization analysis uses genetic variants to proxy modifiable risk factors and can strengthen causal inference in observational studies. We constructed a genetic risk score comprising eleven single-nucleotide polymorphisms robustly (P<5x10-8) associated with circulating selenium in genome-wide association studies. In a Mendelian randomization analysis of 72,729 men in the PRACTICAL Consortium (44,825 cases, 27,904 controls), 114 g/L higher genetically-elevated circulating selenium was not associated with prostate cancer (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.89-1.13). Concordant with findings from SELECT, selenium was weakly associated with advanced (including high-grade) prostate cancer (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.98-1.49) and type 2 diabetes (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.97-1.43; in a type 2 diabetes GWAS meta-analysis with up to 49,266 cases, 249,906 controls). Mendelian randomization mirrored the outcome of selenium supplementation in SELECT and may offer an approach for the prioritization of interventions for follow-up in large-scale randomized controlled trials.

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2016

MR-Base: a platform for systematic causal inference across the phenome using billions of genetic associations

Published genetic associations can be used to infer causal relationships between phenotypes, bypassing the need for individual-level genotype or phenotype data. We have curated complete summary data from 1094 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on diseases and other complex traits into a centralised database, and developed an analytical platform that uses these data to perform Mendelian randomization (MR) tests and sensitivity analyses (MR-Base, http://www.mrbase.org). Combined with curated data of published GWAS hits for phenomic measures, the MR-Base platform enables millions of potential causal relationships to be evaluated. We use the platform to predict the impact of lipid lowering on human health. While our analysis provides evidence that reducing LDL-cholesterol, lipoprotein(a) or triglyceride levels reduce coronary disease risk, it also suggests causal effects on a number of other non-vascular outcomes, indicating potential for adverse-effects or drug repositioning of lipid-lowering therapies.

epidemiology↗