arXiv:1608.02990v3 [math.ST] 31 Jan 2017

Bayesian Mendelian Randomization
Carlo Berzuini1 , Hui Guo1 , Stephen Burgess2 , Luisa Bernardinelli3
Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK∗
2
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom
3
Department of Brain and Behavioural Sciences, University of Pavia, Italy
1

Keywords: Pleiotropy; Horseshoe Prior; Shrinkage Estimators; Egger Regression; Median Estimator; Causal Inference; Instrumental Variable Analysis; Invalid
Instruments; Instrument-Exposure Interaction; Metabolomics
Abstract
Our Bayesian approach to Mendelian Randomization uses multiple instruments to assess the putative causal effect of an exposure on an outcome.
The approach is robust to violations of the (untestable) Exclusion Restriction condition, and hence it does not require instruments to be independent
of the outcome conditional on the exposure and on the confounders of the
exposure-outcome relationship. The Bayesian approach offers a rigorous
handling of the uncertainty (e.g. about the estimated instrument-exposure
associations), freedom from asymptotic approximations of the null distribution and the possibility to elaborate the model in any direction of scientific relevance. We illustrate the last feature with the aid of a study of
the metabolic mediators of the disease-inducing effects of obesity, where
we elaborate the model to investigate whether the causal effect of interest
interacts with a covariate. The proposed model contains a vector of unidentifiable parameters, β, whose jth element represents the pleiotropic (i.e.,
∗

carlo.berzuini@manchester.ac.uk

1

not mediated by the exposure) component of the association of instrument j
with the outcome. We deal with the incomplete identifiability by assuming
that the pleiotropic effect of some instruments is null, or nearly so, formally
by imposing on β Carvalho’s horseshoe shrinkage prior, in such a way that
different components of β are subjected to different degrees of shrinking,
adaptively and in accord with the compatibility of each individual instrument with the hypothesis of no pleiotropy. This prior requires a minimal
input from the user. We present the results of a simulation study into the
performance of the proposed method under different types of pleiotropy and
sample sizes. Comparisons with the performance of the weighted median
estimator are made. Choice of the prior and inference via Markov chain
Monte Carlo are discussed.

1

Introduction

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method for testing and estimating the causal
effect of an exposure, X, on an outcome, Y in situations where the relationship
between these two variables is confounded, based on information from the genotyping of variants associated with the exposure [3] [8] [9]. The method assumes
that the genotypes are the result of a randomised experiment performed by Nature
during meiosis, and therefore their effect on the outcome is likely to mimick the
effect we would obtain through an intervention on the exposure. Standard MR
theory requires the instruments to be (i) associated with the exposure, (ii) independent of the outcome conditional on the exposure and on the confounders of the
exposure-outcome relationship, and (iii) independent of those confounders. Many
authors, e.g. Jones, Didelez and colleagues [13] [14] [18] call (ii) the Exclusion
Restriction condition.
Current, state-of-the-art, MR methods combine the strengths of multiple instrumental variants, Z = (Z1 , . . . , ZJ ), and are robust to violations of the Exclusion
Restriction condition (ii). Examples include the Egger regression and the median
estimator method [2] [4] [5], both of which work from the estimated coefficient,
βY Zj , of the regression of Y on each Zj , and the estimated coefficient, βXZj , of
the regression of X on each Zj . The Egger regression method interprets a linear
relationship between the {βY Zj } and the {βXZj } as evidence that an exogenous
change in X will cause a corresponding proportional change in Y , and allows
any proportion of the J instruments to violate the Exclusion Restriction condition
[1], whereas the median estimator assumes that only a minority of the instruments
2

violate that condition.
One limitation of the median and Egger estimators is that they both treat the estimated coefficient of the regression of X on each instrument as fixed, despite the
considerable uncertainty that may surround it. This confronts the user with a problematic trade-off between using all the available data information and excluding
the weakly associated variants.
This paper presents a Bayesian approach to MR that uses multiple instruments and
relaxes the Exclusion Restriction condition. Not only does this approach overcome the above mentioned limitations; it also offers the typical advantages of
Bayesian analysis, including a rigorous handling of the uncertainty, the freedom
from asymptotic approximations of the null distribution and the possibility of a
straightforward elaboration of the model in any direction of scientific relevance.
We illustrate the last feature in Section 5, with the aid of a study of the metabolic
mediators of the disease-inducing effects of obesity, where we elaborate the model
to investigate whether the causal effect of obesity on certain mediators interacts
with sex.
We start our journey in Section 2 by specifying the causal assumptions behind
the method. An additional assumption is introduced in Section 3.1. The model
proposed in Section 3 contains a vector of unidentifiable parameters, β, whose
jth element represents the pleiotropic (i.e., not mediated by the exposure) component of the association of instrument j with the outcome. In the same Section
we show that the incomplete identifiability can be dealt with by assuming that the
pleiotropic effect of some instruments is null, or nearly so. We do this by imposing on β the horseshoe shrinkage prior proposed by Carvalho and colleagues [7],
under which different components of β will be subjected to different degrees of
shrinkage, inferred from the data. The horseshoe prior requires a minimal input
from the user. This and other prior specifications are discussed in Section 3.2.
In Section 4 we perform a simulation experiment to assess the performance of the
method in the presence of different types of pleiotropy and with different sample
sizes, and to compare it with that of the weighted median estimator. The inference
is performed by sampling the model posterior distribution via the Hamiltonian dynamics Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques [22] [24] incorporated in the program Stan [25] [26]. Sensible initial values for the chains are obtained from estimates of the posterior means obtained via variational inference techniques [27].

3

This work restricts attention to the case where X and Y are continuous. The
discrete case is under investigation.

U
FX

Z

X

Y

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the assumptions at the basis of the proposed
method.

FX
Z1

Z2

Z1

U

X

Z2

Y

Z3

FX

X

U

Y

Z3
(a)

(b)

Figure 2: The three instruments in example (a) satisfy Condition 2, whereas instrument
Z3 in example (b) violates it.

4

2

Causal Assumptions

Let the symbol Z, with Z ≡ (Z1 , . . . , ZJ ), represent a set of instruments, and U
the set of (generally unknown) common causal influences of X and Y . Let the notation A ⊥⊥ B | C hereafter stand for ”A independent of B given C” [10]. Within
our method, Z qualifies as a set of instruments for assessing the putative causal
effect of X on Y if there exists a (possibly empty) set of observed variables W
such that, conditional on W , each instrument Zj satisfies the following conditions:
Condition 1 (relevance) the instrument is associated (not necessarily in a causal
way) with the exposure: Zj 6⊥⊥ X.
Condition 2 (confounder independence) the instrument is independent of the
confounders U : Zj ⊥⊥ U .
We say that the variables in Z unconditionally qualify as instruments within our
method if the above conditions hold with W empty. Conditioning on W will hereafter be taken as implicit in the notation. Condition 2 is untestable, as it involves
the unknown quantity U . Our method is robust to violations of the (untestable) Exclusion Restriction condition, Y ⊥⊥ Z | (X, U ), insofar as Z ⊥⊥ U remains valid.
In particular, the instruments are allowed to influence Y through pathways independent of U and X. This is an important generalisation, if one considers how
difficult it is to corroborate the Exclusion Restriction condition, whether on the
basis of empirical evidence or biological knowledge.
A general situation where the set of instruments Z unconditionally satisfies Condition 2 is depicted by the conditional independence graph of Figure 1 where, for the
time being, the reader is asked to ignore node FX . One can use the d-separation
rule [15], or moralisation [21], to check that this graph violates the Exclusion Restriction condition, due to the presence of a Z → Y arrow, but this condition is
not required by our method. Hence, if the assumptions in Figure 1 hold and Z is
associated with X, then Z unconditionally qualifies as an instrument for assessing
the causal effect of X on Y through our method. While the example of Figure 2(a)
is a special case of Figure 1, Figure 2(b) contains an instrument (Z3 ) that violates
Confounder Independence, which is not compatible with our method.
The node FX in Figure 1 represents an example of regime indicator [11] [12], and
tells us whether the value of X is set by a hypothetical exogenous intervention or
5

instead it arises from passive observation. Embodied in the graph is the relationship FX ⊥⊥ (U, Z), stating that an intervention on X will not affect Z or U – a sensible assumption if we accept that genetic variants cannot be causally affected by
changes in X. Also expressed in the graph is the assumption Y ⊥⊥ FX | (X, Z, U ),
stating that, conditional on Z and U , the distribution of Y given X does not depend on whether the value of X has been generated by passive observation or
intervention. This implies that the X → Y arrow in the graph, and the coefficient of X in a regression of Y on (X, Z, U ), can be interpreted causally. By
contrast, the method does not necessarily require the association between Z and
X (represented in the graph by the Z → X arrow) to be causal.

3
3.1

The Model
The Likelihood

Assume each sample individual is characterized by a complete set of observed
values for X, Y and Z ≡ (Z1 , . . . , ZJ ). According to the graph in Figure 1, the
conditional distribution P (X, Y, U | Z), factorizes as :
P (X, Y, U | Z) = P (U ) P (X | Z, U ) P (Y | X, Z, U ).

(1)

If we write N (a, b) for the normal distribution with mean a and variance b, our
assumed model has form
P (U ) = N (0, 1),
2
P (X | Z, U ) = N (ωX + αZ T + δX U, σX
),
T
P (Y | X, Z, U ) = N (ωY + θX + βZ + δY U, σY2 ),

(2)
(3)
(4)

or, equivalently,
P (X | Z) = ωX + αZ T + A,
P (Y | X, Z) = ωY + θX + βZ T + B.

(5)
(6)

2
2
with A ∼ N (0, δX
+ σX
) B ∼ N (0, δY2 + σY2 ) and cov(A, B) = δX δY . We

exclude a possible effect of (X, Z, U ) on the variance of Y . Equations (5–6)
2
2
contain the 2J + 6 parameters (ωX , ωY , τX2 ≡ δX
+ σX
, τY2 ≡ δY2 + σY2 , λ ≡
δX δY , θ, α, β), which we shall refer to as the structural parametrization. Of inferential interest among these is parameter θ of Equation (4), which can be interpreted in terms of change in Y due to an intervention on X. Not all of the
6

2J + 6 structural parameters are identified from the likelihood, for the following
reason. The conditional expectation E(X | Z) = ωX + αZ T and the conditional variance var(X | Z) = τX2 provide J + 2 conditions that make structural
parameters ωX , α, τX identifiable from the likelihood. The conditional expecta0
0
0
tion E(Y | X, Z) = ωY + θ X + β Z T provides additional J + 2 conditions:
0
0
0
ωY = ωY − ωX τλX , θ = θ + τλX and β = β − α τλX . A further condition is pro

2 
λ
vided by the conditional variance var(Y | X, Z) = 1 − τY τX
(τY2 ), for a
total of 2J + 5 conditions – insufficient to estimate the full set of 2J + 6 structural parameters. The information contained in the data identifies the structural
parameters ωX , α, τX , but fails to identify the remaining structural parameters,
(ωY , τY , λ, θ, β), including the parameter of inferential interest, θ. Full parameter identifiability is achieved in the unlikely, and therefore uninteresting, situation
where the values of the J components of β are supplied by external knowledge.
We tackle the problem from a Bayesian point of view, by designing a prior distribution that makes the posterior distribution proper. Let the symbol D denote the
data. Then it is helpful to express the posterior in the following product form:
π ≡ P (ω, τ, λ, θ, α, β | D)
= P (ωX , α, τX | D) P (ωY , θ, τY , λ | β, ωX , α, τX , D) P (β | ωX , α, τX , D)
Because β belongs to the unidentifiable subset of the model parameters, we have
P (β | ωX , α, τX , D) = P (β | ωX , α, τX ), which leads to
π = P (ωX , α, τX | D) P (ωY , θ, τY , λ | β, ωX , α, τX , D) P (β | ωX , α, τX ) (7)
The data allow us to learn about parameters ωX , α, τX (first term of the above
product) and, conditional on β, ωX , α, τX , they allow us to learn about the remaining parameters in the model (second term of the product), but they provide
no information about β and, in particular, about the possible dependence between
β and α. This is not a fatal flaw if we provide β with a suitable, scientifically
plausible, prior. One option consists of assuming β = 0. Reasons why we repute
this an untenable assumption have been previously discussed. Another option is to
impose inequalities based on the assumption that, say, the direct component of the
effect of Zj on Y is smaller in magnitude than the (indirect) effect mediated by X.
In this paper we adopt a different approach, that requires us to introduce a further
condition that is sometimes referred to as the Instrument Strength Independent of
Direct Effect (INSIDE) condition.
7

Condition 3 (INSIDE) The genetic associations with the exposure are independent of the direct effects of the genetic variants on the outcome: βj ⊥⊥ αj , for
j = 1, . . . , J
Under Condition 3, we shape the conditional prior P (β | ωX , α, τX ) = P (β) to
express our prior belief that some of its components are zero. This is discussed in
the next section.

3.2

The Prior

We shall now discuss the prior specifications for the parameters of model (2–4).
Of special interest is the prior we impose on the vector β. It is often assumed
in the MR literature that all the components of β are zero. We replace this with
the more realistic assumption that some of the components of this vector are zero,
and incorporate this in our model by imposing on β the horseshoe shrinkage prior
proposed by Carvalho [7]. With this prior, the components of β will be shrunk towards zero, but to different degrees inferred from the data: large components will
be only moderately shrunk, while small components will be heavily shrunk towards zero. The prior mechanism may be informally described as follows. Those
instruments whose effects on Y are irreconcilable with a no-pleiotropy model will
have large corresponding β parameters. Our prior will leave these parameters relatively unshrunk, so that those instruments will have little impact on the estimated
θ. By contrast, those instruments that are compatible with a no-pleiotropy model
and a low-variance outcome error probability will have their corresponding β parameters heavily shrunk towards 0, so that the estimate of theta will predominantly
depend on the information provided by these non-pleiotropic instruments.
We apply Carvalho’s horseshoe prior to β by writing:
p(βj | φj ) = N (0, φ2j ),
p(φj | γ) = Cauchy + (0, γ),
p(γ) = Cauchy + (0, 1),

(8)
(9)
(10)

for j = 1, . . . , J, where Cauchy + (0, a) denotes the half-Cauchy distribution on
the positive reals with scale parameter a. Crucially, in the above prior, each βj
is mixed over its own unknown φj . The parameters φj s control the local degrees
of shrinking, and are all independently drawn from a half-Cauchy prior with a
8

common, unknown global scale parameter γ, which controls the global degree of
shrinking. By virtue of (8), small values of φj cause βj to shrink towards zero,
whereas large values will prevent the estimate of βj from shrinking. Importantly,
the horseshoe prior is free from user-chosen hyperparameters.
The shrinkage for instrument j is measured by parameter κj = 1/(1 + φ2j ), called
the shrinkage weight, with κj = 0 (resp., κj = 1) indicating absence of (resp.,
near-total) shrinking. The shrinkage weights κj are inferred from the data. Equations (8– 10), with γ = 1, yield a horseshoe-shaped Beta(.5, .5) prior for κj ,
peaking at κj = 0 and κj = 1. The ability of our model to discriminate between
pleiotropic and non-pleiotropic instruments corresponds to the tendency of parameter κj to be, on average, lower for the non-pleiotropic than for the pleiotropic
instruments. In Section 4 we assess separation by a simulation experiment.
We are now going to discuss the prior specifications for the remaining model parameters. In our analyses, we have taken parameters ωX and ωY to follow a priori
independent uniform distributions. However, since these parameters are related to
the global means of two observed variables, one may be able to shape informative priors for ωX and ωY on the basis of external information. In our analyses
we took each αj , for j = 1, . . . , J, to be independently drawn from a normal
N (µα , σα2 ) population prior, with hyperparameters µα and σα subject to uniform
priors. However, under our Z ⊥⊥ U assumption one will often be able to shape an
informative prior for the α parameters (for example a prior that imposes on these
parameters specific signs) on the basis of external (Z, X) data. Parameters σX
and σY are only partially identifiable. We assigned these two parameters uniform
positive prior distributions, which did not cause mixing problems in our Markov
chain Monte Carlo exploration of the model posterior distribution. We completed
our prior specifications by taking the parameters ηX , ηY and θ to follow uniform
independent priors.
There are situations where some instruments can be safely assumed to exert no
pleiotropic effect. These instruments can be used to gather prior information about
2
2
the value of τX . By combining this information with the constraint τX2 = ηX
+σX
,
one may attempt to derive inequalities involving ηX and σX and use them to shape
an informative joint prior for these two parameters.

9

1.0
0.6
0.4

Shrinkage Weight

0.8

●

●

0.2

●

0.0

●

non−pleiotropic

pleiotropic
Type of Instrument

Figure 3: We have selected at random one of the datasets generated in the simulation
experiment of Section 4, and compared the distribution of the shrinkage parameter κj
over the set of the non-pleiotropic instruments (box on the left) with that over the set of
pleiotropic instruments (box on the right). As expected, the components of β associated
with the pleiotropic instruments have values of κj close to zero, which indicates that they
tend to be left unshrunk, whereas the components of β associated with the non-pleiotropic
instruments have values of κj closer to 1, which indicates that they are heavily shrunk.

10

4

Simulation Experiment

A simulation experiment was set up to comparatively assess the performance
of the proposed method and of the weighted median estimator (WME) [6] [2].
Throughout the experiment, we set the number of instruments, J, to be equal to
20, with the instrumental variables representing ”allele doses” (0, 1, 2), and we
took the effect of each instrument on both X and Y to be linear in the allele
dose. We imposed a pleiotropic effect on half of the instruments, the remaining instruments being treated as pleiotropic. We considered six simulation scenarios differing by type of pleiotropy (balanced, positive or negative) and sample size (100, 520). For each scenario, we simulated 1000 replicate datasets
by setting θ = 0 – the null hypothesis –, and further 1000 datasets by setting
θ = 0.35 – the alternative hypothesis. Each new simulation started with the
generation of a configuration of values of Z1 , . . . , Z20 for each hypothetical individual, these values being drawn from J independent trinomial distributions
that mimicked the joint distribution of real SNP loci. Conditional on such values, the simulation proceeded with the generation of a configuration of values
of (X, Y, U ) for each hypothetical individual, on the basis of Equations (2–4)
with δX ∼ N (−.05, .0025), δY ∼ N (−.1, .0025), ωY ∼ N (−3.7, .04), ωX =
3.3, σY = 0.1, σX = 0.1 and αj ∼ N (.034, .0031), βj ∼ N (.012ξ, .0025) , for
j = 1, . . . , 10, where ξ indicates balanced (ξ = 0), negative (ξ = −1) and positive
(ξ = 1) pleiotropy, and βj = 0 , for j = 11, . . . , 20.
Each simulated dataset was analyzed by using both the WME and the proposed
method. In the latter case, inference was based on Markov chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) samples from the posterior distribution defined by Equations (2–4) jointly
with the prior specifications of Section 3.2. These samples were generated by using the Hamiltonian dynamics MCMC techniques [22] [24] offered by the program Stan [26][25]. Initial values for the Markov chains were generated automatically in STAN based on approximate posterior mean estimates obtained via
variational inference techniques [27]. No Markov chain mixing problems were
encountered. The WME analysis of each dataset produced a point estimate and
a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval for θ. Analysis by our method
produced a posterior mean and a 95 percent Bayesian credible interval for θ.
The two methods were comparatively assessed in terms of (i) coverage under the
null, (ii) coverage under the alternative, (iii) power, (iv) bias under the null and
(v) bias under the alternative. The estimated coverage under the null (resp., alter-

11

native) was the proportion of simulations performed under the null (resp., alternative) where the credible/confidence interval for θ contained the value 0 (resp.,
0.35). Power was estimated as the proportion of simulations under the alternative
hypothesis where the credible/confidence interval for θ was contained by the positive real axis. Bias was estimated as the average signed difference between the
point estimate for θ and the corresponding true value of the parameter. A summary of the simulation results is given in Table 1. The proposed method appears
to outperform the WME in terms of coverage under the null, especially in the
presence of a larger sample size. It appears superior also in terms of coverage
under the alternative, when the sample is small. The two methods appear to offer
roughly the same power. As expected, in both methods, power appears to depends
on sample size. The differences in bias between the two methods are minimal.
Under the proposed method, coverage under the null appears to be slightly more
robust to positive pleiotropy than with the WME, when the sample is small.
In Figure 3 we have selected at random one of the datasets generated in this simulation experiment, and compared the distribution of the shrinkage parameter κj
over the set of the non-pleiotropic instruments (box on the left) with that over the
set of pleiotropic instruments (box on the right). As expected, the components
of β associated with the pleiotropic instruments have values of κj close to zero,
which indicates that they tend to be left unshrunk, whereas the components of
β associated with the non-pleiotropic instruments have values of κj closer to 1,
which indicates that they are heavily shrunk.

5

Sex-Dependent Causal Effect of Body Mass on Phenylalanine

A high body mass is associated with an increased risk of several chronic diseases.
A better understanding of the underlying biology requires that we identify the
metabolic mediators of this deleterious effect [23]. Within this perspective, Ho et
al [16] have analyzed data from 2383 Framingham offspring cohort participants,
and tested the association between the body mass index (BMI) and more than of
two hundred cardiometabolic traits and metabolites. As many as sixty metabolites
were found to be significantly (P < 0.00023) associated with BMI. The next step is
now to assess whether these associations are causal. We advocate a MR approach
to the problem, where BMI acts as exposure and the individual metabolites, in
turn, act as responses. SNPs associated with BMI are used as instruments to
12

.89 .001
.86 -.028
.89 .029
.57 .004
.54 -.32
.57 .029

.79 .875 -.002 .007
.80 .85 -.043 -.009
.77 .91 .038 .015
.93 .53
.03
.055
.92 .55 .009 -.02
.84 .65
.07
.06

Table 1: Results of a comparative assessment of the proposed and of the median estimator methods for causal effect estimation. Table rows correspond to six different simulation scenarios characterized by the presence of balanced (0), positive (+) or negative (−)
pleiotropy and by the sample size (520 vs 100). Throughout the simulation, the number
of instruments was kept equal to 20. Method performance was separately assessed under
each of the 6 scenarios on the basis of 2000 simulated datasets, in terms of coverage under
the null and under the alternative, power and bias. See main text for further details.
assess whether BMI is a causal influence on the metabolite of interest.
The idea can be effectively implemented by using our proposed method. To illustrate this, we shall now apply our method to the assessment of the putative causal
effect of BMI on one of the metabolites highlighted by the Framingham study:
the aromatic amino acid phenylalanine. This analysis we have carried out on the
basis of data from 520 unrelated individuals, aged 25–74 years, sampled from
a population-based Finnish cohort – the Dietary, Lifestyle and Genetic determinants of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (DILGOM) study[17]. The DILGOM
data contain information about the individuals’ serum metabonomes, combined
with the genome-wide profiles of genetic and transcriptional variation from blood
13

Bias under Alternative

.79
.77
.79
.88
.89
.81

Bias under Null

.025
.008
-.017
.3
-.024
.06

Power

Coverage under Alternative

.92 .9
.89 .9
.90 .86
.90 .92
.92 .91
.89 .92

Coverage under Null

Coverage under Null

520
520
520
100
100
100

Weighted median
estimator

Bias under Alternative

Sample Size

0
−
+
0
−
+

Bias under Null

Pleiotropy

1
2
3
4
5
6

Power

Scenario

Coverage under Alternative

Our method

W
(sex)
FX

U

Z
(98 independent
SNPs)

X
(BMI)

Y
(log-concentration
Phenylalanine)

Figure 4: Structure of the illustrative problem.

leukocytes of the same individuals. The data also contain individual-level measures of BMI, age and sex.
The first step of our analysis consisted of selecting a subset of 98 DILGOMgenotyped SNPs, based on a p ≤ 1 × 10−5 significance threshold for the SNP’s
association with BMI (more precisely, for the Wald test statistic for the regression
of BMI on the SNP), and on a maximum between-SNP linkage disequilibrium
score of ≤ 0.05. We let the genotypes of the 98 selected SNPs act as instruments
in our analysis, (Z1 , . . . , Z98 ), to be treated as continuous variables, with values
(0, 1, 2) corresponding to the number of minor alleles found at the SNP. We let
the variable BMI act as exposure, X, and the concentration of phenylalanine,
expressed on a log scale, act as outcome, Y . We incorporate in the analysis the
variable sex, denoted as W , taking value 0 for female and 1 for male. The resulting
problem structure is depicted in Figure 4.
The model specification (2-4) was modified to acknowledge the possible interaction between the effects of sex (W ) and BMI (X) on phenylalanine concentration (Y ). Such an elaboration was motivated by evidence [20] that sex and BMI
interact in their effects on coronary artery disease and other clinical outcomes.
The elaboration was straightforwardly implemented, as is often the case within
14

5

6

4

5

3

4

2

3

1

2

0

1
0

Posterior probability density

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

−0.4

THETA

−0.2

0.0

0.2

PSI_{YXW}

Figure 5: Marginal posterior densities for parameters θ and ψY XW of Equations (11),
based on the DILGOM data of Section 5

a Bayesian approach that keeps model specification and inference calculations
independent of each other. All we had to do was to modify Equations (2-4) into:
P (U ) = N (0, 1),
2
P (X | Z, U ) = N (ωX + αZ T + ψXW W + δX U, σX
),
(11)
T
P (Y | X, Z, U ) = N (ωY + θ(X + ψY XW W ) + βZ + ψY W W + δY U, σY2 ),
where the BM I × SEX interaction is represented by parameter ψY XW , so that
the causal effect of BMI on log-concentration of phenylalanine is represented by
0
θ in the female stratum, and by θ ≡ θ + ψY XW in the males.
We completed the model by specifying the priors as described in Section 3.2. We
sampled the model posterior distribution by running 10000 iterations of a (Hamiltonian dynamics) Markov chain. The last 5000 samples were used to approximate
the posterior marginal distributions and to obtain posterior means and credible
intervals for the parameters of interest. Figure 5 shows the obtained marginal posterior distributions for parameters θ and ψY XW of Equations (11). The parameter
0
θ was included in the model as a derived quantity, so as to obtain samples from its
marginal posterior distribution and to estimate its posterior mean and credible interval. The estimates for the parameters of interest are reported in Table 1. The 95
percent credible interval for ψY XW is contained by the positive real axis, which
15

0.15
0.10

●

●

0.05

●

●

0.00

●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●●● ●● ●
●●
●
●
● ●●● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●●
●●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●

●
●

●

●

●
●●

●

●
●

●
●

●
●

●
●

●

●

●●
●
●
●
●

●

●

●

●●
●

●
●

●

●

●

−0.05

SNP−PHE associations

●

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

SNP−BMI associations

Figure 6: In this plot, the black dots correspond to the instrumental SNPs in the analysis
of Section 5, the horizontal coordinates to the SNP’s coefficient in the exposure regression
(least-squares regression of BMI on that SNP), and their vertical coordinates to the SNP’s
coefficient in the response regression. The 95 percent credible intervals for the coefficients
are represented as dashed segments.

16

represents strong evidence of an interaction between the causal effects of BMI
and sex on the concentration of phenylalanine. The causal effect of BMI on the
log-concentration of phenylalanine was estimated to be 0.34 (95 percent credible
interval 0.21 to 0.47) in the females, and 0.2 (95 percent credible interval 0.098 to
0.3) in the males.
It would have been possible to examine the interaction by running separate analyses within the male and female strata, although and the cost of a loss of statistical
power. Figure 6 provides visual evidence of the causal effect of the BMI on phenylalanine. In this figure, each instrumental SNP appears as a black dot with the x
and y coordinates corresponding to the coefficients of the SNP in the exposure
and outcome regressions, respectively, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals are represented by dashed segments. The emerging linear relationship can
be interpreted to suggest that hypothetical perturbations of X would result in corresponding, proportional, perturbations in Y .
By repeating the analysis on a large set of metabolites, we may aim to a classification of obesity based on the values of the molecular mediators that are responsible
for its deleterious effects, for purposes of personalised medicine and drug target
discovery.

Parameter

Posterior
Mean

Standard
Deviation

95 Percent Credible Interval

θ
ψY XW
0
θ

0.34
-0.14
0.2

0.068
0.072
0.051

(0.21,0.47)
(-0.28,-0.0062)
(0.098,0.3)

Table 2: Point and interval estimates for some parameters of model (11), based on the
DILGOM dataset of Section 5. The causal effect of BMI on the log-concentration of
0
phenylalanine is represented by parameter θ in the female stratum, and by θ ≡ θ+ψY XW
in the males.

6

Discussion

Kang and colleagues [19] use the term ”invalid” (resp., ”valid”) to denote an instrument that violates (resp., obeys) the Exclusion Restriction condition. They
17

propose a LASSO-type procedure to identify the valid instruments from within a
set of candidate instrumental variables. The idea, further elaborated by Windmeijer and colleagues [28], is to obtain a sparse estimate of the vector representing
the pleiotropic effects by imposing on it an l1 penalty. The null elements of the estimated vector should then correspond to the valid instruments. In our framework,
we may construct a Bayesian analogue of Windmeijer’s approach by replacing
the horseshoe prior on β with a double-exponential prior. But this will make a big
difference to the posterior means when β is sparse. This is because our (horseshoe) prior presents superior tail robustness to the large signals introduced in the
β vector by the pleiotropic effects, and possesses the ability to shrink the components of β near zero much more forcefully than those far from zero, thanks to the
combined local and global shrinking. Our work differs from Windmeijer’s also
from the point of view of the method justification, which in the present paper is
based on Dawid’s decision-theoretic causal inference framework [12], rather than
on the notion of potential outcome.
A number of method issues await investigation. Of foremost importance is to
consider the method behaviour in the presence of collinearity of the instruments
in the outcome regression. Our prior on β should supply enough tail probability to
produce a posterior distribution which preserves the pattern of correlation between
the components of β.

Acknowledgments
The first two authors acknowledge partial support from the European Union’s
Seventh Framework Programme FP7-Health- 2012-INNOVATION, under grant
agreement number 305280 (MIMOmics). The DILGOM data resource exploited
in Section 5 has been funded by the Sigrid Juselius and Yrjõ Jahnsson Foundations
and by the Finnish Academy grants no. 255935 and 269517. Our analysis of these
data has benefitted from discussions with Drs. Xiaoguang Xu and Susana Conde.

References
[1] J Bowden, G Davey Smith, and S Burgess. Mendelian Randomization With
Invalid Instruments: Effect Estimation and Bias Detection Through Egger
Regression. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(2):512525, 2015.

18

[2] Jack Bowden, George Davey Smith, Philip C Haycock, and Stephen
Burgess. Consistent estimation in mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genetic Epidemiology,
40:304–314, 2016.
[3] S Burgess, A Butterworth, A Malarstig, and S. Thompson. Use of Mendelian
Randomisation to Assess Potential Benefit of Clinical Intervention. BMJ,
345:e7325, 2012.
[4] Stephen Burgess, Jack Bowden, Tove Fall, Erik Ingelsson, and Simon G
Thompson. Sensitivity analyses for robust causal inference from Mendelian
randomization analyses with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology (in
press), 2016.
[5] Stephen Burgess and Simon G. Thompson. Mendelian Randomization:
Methods for Using Genetic Variants in Causal Estimation. Chapman and
Hall, 2015.
[6] Han C. Detecting invalid instruments using l1-gmm. Econ Lett, 101:285–
287, 2008.
[7] Carlos M Carvalho, Nicholas G Polson, and James G Scott. The horseshoe
estimator for sparse signals. Biometrika, page asq017, 2010.
[8] G Davey Smith and S. Ebrahim. Mendelian Randomization: Can Genetic
Epidemiology Contribute to Understanding Environmental Determinants of
Disease? International Journal of Epidemiology, 32:122, 2003.
[9] G Davey Smith and G. Hemani. Mendelian Randomization: Genetic Anchors for Causal Inference in Epidemiological Studies. Hum Mol Genet,
23:89–98, 2014.
[10] A. P. Dawid. Conditional independence in statistical theory (with Discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B, 41:1–31, 1979.
[11] A. Philip Dawid. Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference.
International Statistical Review, 70:161–189, 2002. Corrigenda, ibid., 437.
[12] A. Philip Dawid. Statistical causality from a decision-theoretic perspective.
Ann. Rev. Statist. Appl., 2:273–303, 2015.

19

[13] Vanessa Didelez and Nuala A. Sheehan. Mendelian randomisation as an
instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Statistical Methods in
Medical Research, 16:309–330, 2007.
[14] Vanessa Didelez and Nuala A. Sheehan. Mendelian randomisation: Why
epidemiology needs a formal language for causality. In Federica Russo and
Jon Williamson, editors, Causality and Probability in the Sciences, volume 5
of Texts In Philosophy Series, pages 263–292. College Publications, London,
2007.
[15] D. Geiger, T. Verma, and J. Pearl. Identifying independence in Bayesian
networks. Networks, 20(5):507–534, 1990.
[16] JE Ho, MG Larson, A Ghorbani, S Cheng, MH Chen, M Keyes, EP Rhee,
CB Clish, RS Vasan, RE Gerszten, and Wang TJ. Metabolomic Profiles
of Body Mass Index in the Framingham Heart Study Reveal Distinct Cardiometabolic Phenotypes. PloS one, 11, 2016.
[17] M. Inouye, J. Kettunen, P. Soininen, K. Silander, S. Ripatti, L.S. Kumpula,
E. Hamalainen, P. Jousilahti, A.J. Kangas, S. Mannisto, M.J. Savolainen,
A. Jula, J. Leiviska, A. Palotie, V. Salomaa, M. Perola, M. AlaKorpela, and
L. Peltonen. Metabonomic, transcriptomic, and genomic variation of a population cohort. Molecular Systems Biology, 6:502513, 2010.
[18] E. M. Jones, J. R. Thompson, V. Didelez, and N. A. Sheehan. On the choice
of parameterisation and priors for the bayesian analyses of mendelian randomisation studies. Statistics in Medicine, 31(14):1483–1501, 2012.
[19] Hyunseung Kang, Anru Zhang, T. Tony Cai, and Dylan S. Small. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments and its application to
mendelian randomization. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
111(513):132–144, 2016.
[20] Robert C. Kaplan, M. Larissa Avils-Santa, Christina M. Parrinello, David B.
Hanna, Molly Jung, Sheila F. Castaeda, Arlene L. Hankinson, Carmen R.
Isasi, Orit Birnbaum-Weitzman, Ryung S. Kim, Martha L. Daviglus, Gregory A. Talavera, Neil Schneiderman, and Jianwen Cai. Body mass index,
sex, and cardiovascular disease risk factors among hispanic/latino adults:
Hispanic community health study/study of latinos. Journal of the American
Heart Association, 3(4), 2014.
20

[21] S. L. Lauritzen, A. P. Dawid, B. N. Larsen, and H. G. Leimer. Independence
properties of directed Markov fields. Networks, 20(5):491–505, 1990.
[22] N. Metropolis, A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, M. Teller, and E. Teller.
Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of
Chemical Physics, 21:1087–1092, 1953.
[23] Steven C. Moore, Charles E. Matthews, Joshua N. Sampson, Rachael Z.
Stolzenberg-Solomon, Wei Zheng, Qiuyin Cai, Yu Ting Tan, Wong-Ho
Chow, Bu-Tian Ji, Da Ke Liu, Qian Xiao, Simina M. Boca, Michael F.
Leitzmann, Gong Yang, Yong Bing Xiang, Rashmi Sinha, Xiao Ou Shu,
and Amanda J Cross. Human metabolic correlates of body mass index.
Metabolomics, 10:0, 2013.
[24] R. Neal. MCMC using hamiltonian dynamics. In Gelman A. Jones G. L.
Brooks, S. and X.L. Meng, editors, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte
Carlo, pages 116–162. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011.
[25] Stan Development Team. RStan, version 2.2. http://mc-stan.org/rstan.html,
2014.
[26] Stan Development Team. Stan: A C++ library for probability and sampling,
version 2.2. http://mc-stan.org/, 2014.
[27] M. J. Wainwright and M. I. Jordan. Graphical models, exponential families,
and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning,
1(1-2):1–305, 2008.
[28] Frank Windmeijer, Helmut Farbmacher, Neil Davies, and George
Davey Smith. On the use of the Lasso for Instrumental Variables Estimation with Some Invalid Instruments. Bristol economics discussion papers,
Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK, 2016.

21

