Investigating causality in the association between DNA methylation and type 2 diabetes using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomisation.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Several studies have identified associations between type 2 diabetes and DNA methylation (DNAm). However, the causal role of these associations remains unclear. This study aimed to provide evidence for a causal relationship between DNAm and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We used bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomisation (2SMR) to evaluate causality at 58 CpG sites previously detected in a meta-analysis of epigenome-wide association studies (meta-EWAS) of prevalent type 2 diabetes in European populations. We retrieved genetic proxies for type 2 diabetes and DNAm from the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) available. We also used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, UK) when associations of interest were not available in the larger datasets. We identified 62 independent SNPs as proxies for type 2 diabetes, and 39 methylation quantitative trait loci as proxies for 30 of the 58 type 2 diabetes-related CpGs. We applied the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing and inferred causality based on p<0.001 for the type 2 diabetes to DNAm direction and p<0.002 for the opposing DNAm to type 2 diabetes direction in the 2SMR analysis. RESULTS: We found strong evidence of a causal effect of DNAm at cg25536676 (DHCR24) on type 2 diabetes. An increase in transformed residuals of DNAm at this site was associated with a 43% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.15, 1.78, p=0.001) higher risk of type 2 diabetes. We inferred a likely causal direction for the remaining CpG sites assessed. In silico analyses showed that the CpGs analysed were enriched for expression quantitative trait methylation sites (eQTMs) and for specific traits, dependent on the direction of causality predicted by the 2SMR analysis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We identified one CpG mapping to a gene related to the metabolism of lipids (DHCR24) as a novel causal biomarker for risk of type 2 diabetes. CpGs within the same gene region have previously been associated with type 2 diabetes-related traits in observational studies (BMI, waist circumference, HDL-cholesterol, insulin) and in Mendelian randomisation analyses (LDL-cholesterol). Thus, we hypothesise that our candidate CpG in DHCR24 may be a causal mediator of the association between known modifiable risk factors and type 2 diabetes. Formal causal mediation analysis should be implemented to further validate this assumption.

Interpretation of Mendelian randomization using a single measure of an exposure that varies over time.

BACKGROUND: Mendelian randomization (MR) is a powerful tool through which the causal effects of modifiable exposures on outcomes can be estimated from observational data. Most exposures vary throughout the life course, but MR is commonly applied to one measurement of an exposure (e.g. weight measured once between ages 40 and 60 years). It has been argued that MR provides biased causal effect estimates when applied to one measure of an exposure that varies over time. METHODS: We propose an approach that emphasizes the liability that causes the entire exposure trajectory. We demonstrate this approach using simulations and an applied example. RESULTS: We show that rather than estimating the direct or total causal effect of changing the exposure value at a given time, MR estimates the causal effect of changing the underlying liability for the exposure, scaled to the effect of the liability on the exposure at that time. As such, results from MR conducted at different time points are expected to differ (unless the effect of the liability on exposure is constant over time), as we illustrate by estimating the effect of body mass index measured at different ages on systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Univariable MR results should not be interpreted as time-point-specific direct or total causal effects, but as the effect of changing the liability for the exposure. Estimates of how the effects of a genetic variant on an exposure vary over time, together with biological knowledge that provides evidence regarding likely effective exposure periods, are required to interpret time-point-specific causal effects.