Despite significant progress in dissecting the genetic architecture of complex diseases by genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the signals identified by association analysis may not have specific pathological relevance to diseases so that a large fraction of disease-causing genetic variants is still hidden. Association is used to measure dependence between two variables or two sets of variables. GWAS test association between a disease and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (or other genetic variants) across the genome. Association analysis may detect superficial patterns between disease and genetic variants. Association signals provide limited information on the causal mechanism of diseases. The use of association analysis as a major analytical platform for genetic studies of complex diseases is a key issue that may hamper discovery of disease mechanisms, calling into the questions the ability of GWAS to identify loci-underlying diseases. It is time to move beyond association analysis toward techniques, which enables the discovery of the underlying causal genetic structures of complex diseases. To achieve this, we propose the concept of genome-wide causation studies (GWCS) as an alternative to GWAS and develop additive noise models (ANMs) for genetic causation analysis. Type 1 error rates and power of the ANMs in testing causation are presented. We conducted GWCS of schizophrenia. Both simulation and real data analysis show that the proportion of the overlapped association and causation signals is small. Thus, we anticipate that our analysis will stimulate serious discussion of the applicability of GWAS and GWCS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamG., and InouyeM.2015. Genomic risk prediction of complex human disease and its clinical application. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 33, 10–16.
2.
AltmanN., and KrzywinskiM.2015. Association, correlation and causation. Nat. Methods. 12, 899–900.
3.
AnnadaniY., RothfussJ., LacosteA. et al.2021. Variational causal networks: Approximate Bayesian inference over causal structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07635.
4.
AthanasiuL., MattingsdalM., KählerA.K., et al.2010. Gene variants associated with schizophrenia in a Norwegian genome-wide study are replicated in a large European cohort. J. Psychiatr. Res. 44, 748–753.
5.
BarrettJ., LorenzR., and OreshkovO.2019. Quantum causal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10726.
6.
BatesS., SesiaP.M., SabattiC., et al.2020. Causal inference in genetic trio studies. PNAS. 117, 24117–24126.
7.
BauschJ.2012. On the efficient calculation of a linear combination of chi-square random variables with an application in counting string vacua. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.2691.
8.
BenjumedaM., BielzaC., and LarrañagaP.2019. Learning tractable Bayesian networks in the space of elimination orders. Artif. Intell. 274, 66–90.
9.
BergenS.E., O'DushlaineC.T., RipkeS., et al.2012. Genome-wide association study in a Swedish population yields support for greater CNV and MHC involvement in schizophrenia compared with bipolar disorder. Mol. Psychiatr. 17, 880–886.
10.
BlackE., WangZ., and FredriksonM.2021. Consistent counterfactuals for deep models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03109.
11.
BlöbaumP., JanzingD., WashioT., et al.2019. Analysis of cause-effect inference by comparing regression errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06698.
12.
BoyleE.A., LiY.I., and PritchardJ.K.2017. An expanded view of complex traits: From polygenic to omnigenic. Cell. 169, 1177–1186.
13.
BrouillardP., LachapelleS., LacosteA., et al.2020. Differentiable causal discovery from interventional data, 21865–21877. In Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., et al. (eds): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Volume 33. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
14.
CaiR., QiaoJ., and ZhangK.2019. Causal discovery with cascade nonlinear additive noise models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09442.
15.
CallawayE.2017. Genome studies attract criticism: Geneticists question ability of genome-wide association studies to find useful disease links. Nature. 546, 463.
CharlesG., SgaierS.K., and HuangV.2020. The case for causal AI. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 18, 50–55.
18.
ChengD., LiJ., LiuL., et al.2020. Causal query in observational data with hidden variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.10269. Last viewed in 2020.
19.
ChoC.H., LeeH.J., WooH.G., et al.2015. CDH13 and HCRTR2 may be associated with hypersomnia symptom of bipolar depression: A genome-wide functional enrichment pathway analysis. Psychiatr. Invest. 12, 402–407.
20.
ClydeD.2017. Disease genomics: Transitioning from association to causation with eQTLs. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 271.
21.
CorreaJ.D., and BareinboimE.2020. A Calculus for stochastic interventions:causal effect identification and surrogate experiments, 10093–10100. In Conitzer, V. and Sha, F. (eds): Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Volume 34. The Hilton New York Midtown, New York, NY.
22.
CostasJ., Suárez-RamaJ.J., CarreraN., et al.2013. Role of DISC1 interacting proteins in schizophrenia risk from genome-wide analysis of missense SNPs. Ann. Hum. Genet. 77, 504–512.
23.
DengX., and ZhangZ.2021. Comprehensive knowledge distillation with causal intervention. In Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., et al. (eds): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 Pre-proceedings. NeurIPS. San Diego, CA, USA.
24.
FatemiS.H., FolsomT.D., and ThurasP.D.2011. Deficits in GABA(B) receptor system in schizophrenia and mood disorders: A postmortem study. Schizophr. Res. 128, 37–43.
HollandP.W.1986. Statistics and causal inference. JASA. 81, 945–960. Last viewed in 2021.
29.
HowellK.R., FloydK., and LawA.J.2017. PKBγ/AKT3 loss-of-function causes learning and memory deficits and deregulation of AKT/mTORC2 signaling: Relevance for schizophrenia. PLoS One. 12, e0175993.
30.
HowieB., FuchsbergerC., StephensM., et al.2012. Fast and accurate genotype imputation in genome-wide association studies through pre-phasing. Nat. Genet. 44, 955–959.
31.
HuS., ChenZ., NiaV.P., et al.2018. Causal inference and mechanism clustering of a mixture of additive noise models, 5212–5222. In Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., et al. (eds): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Volume 32. Montréal, Canada.
32.
HuY., WuY., ZhangL., et al.2021. A Generative dversarial framework for bounding confounded causal Effects. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 35, 12104–12112.
33.
HuangY., and ValtortaM.2012. Pearl's calculus of intervention is complete. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6831.
34.
IdeM., and LewisD.A.2010. Altered cortical CDC42 signaling pathways in schizophrenia: Implications for dendritic spine deficits. Biol. Psychiatr. 68, 25–32.
JanzingD., and SchölkopfB.2010. Causal inference using the algorithmic Markov condition. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 56, 5168–5194.
37.
JessonA., TigasP., van AmersfoortJ., et al.2021. Causal-BALD: Deep Bayesian active learning of outcomes to infer treatment-effects from observational data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02275.
38.
JiaoR., LinN., HuZ., et al.2018. Bivariate causal discovery and its applications to gene expression and imaging data analysis. Front. Genet. 9, 347.
39.
JonesM.P., WalkerM.M., and AttiaJ.R.2017. Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease. Med. J. Austalia. 207, 104–106.
40.
KahrilasI.J., and KahrilasP.J.2019. Reflux disease and idiopathic lung fibrosis: Association does not imply causation. Chest. 155, 5–6.
41.
KaplanD.2018. Causal inference for observational studies. J. Infect. Dis. 219, 1–2.
42.
KeN.R., BilaniukO., and GoyalA.2020. Learning neural causal models from unknown interventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01075.
43.
KossakowskiJ.J., WaldorpL.J., and van der MaasH.L.J.2021. The search for causality: A comparison of different techniques for causal inference graphs. Psychol. Methods. 26, 719–742.
44.
KreifN., and DiazOrdazK.2019. Machine learning in policy evaluation: New tools for causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00402.
45.
LampinenA.K., RoyN.A., DasguptaI., et al.2021. Tell me why!—Explanations support learning of relational and causal structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03753.
46.
LattimoreF., and OngvC.S.2018. A primer on causal analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01488.
47.
LeccaP.2021. Machine learning for causal inference in biological networks: Perspectives of this challenge. Front. Bioinform. 1, 746712.
48.
LeeC., MastronardeN., and van der SchaarM.2018. Estimation of individual treatment effect in latent confounder models via adversarial learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08943.
49.
LeiY., ZhuH., DuhonC., et al.2013. Mutations in planar cell polarity gene SCRIB are associated with spina bifida. PLoS One. 8, e69262.
50.
LiaoL., ChenY.L., and YangZ., et al.2020. Provably efficient neural estimation of structural equation models: An adversarial approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01290.
LippeP., CohenT., and GavvesE.2021. Efficient neural causal discovery without acyclicity constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10483.
53.
LiuA., LiuH., LiT., et al.2021. Disentangling observed causal effects from latent confounders using method of moments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06614.
54.
LiuF., and ChanL.2016. Causal inference on discrete data via estimating distance correlation. Neural Comput. 28, 801–814.
55.
Lopez-PazD.2016. From dependence to causation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.03300.
56.
LouizosC., ShalitU., MooijJ.M., et al.2017. Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models, 6446–6456. In Guyon, I., Von Luxburg, U., Bengio, S., et al. (eds): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Volume 30. Neural Information Processing, Long Beach, CA.
57.
MarsalaT.2015. Causality, Correlation and Artificial Intelligence for Rational Decision Making. World Scientific, Singapore.
58.
MisztakP., Pańczyszyn-TrzewikP., and Sowa-KućmaM.2018. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) as therapeutic target for depressive disorders. Pharmacol. Rep. 70, 398–408.
59.
MooijJ., PetersJ., JanzingD., et al.2016. Distinguishing cause from effect using observational data: Methods and benchmarks. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1–102.
60.
NowzohourC., and BühlmannP.2016. Score-based causal learning in additive noise models. Statistics. 50, 471–485.
61.
OngenH., BrownA.A., DelaneauO., et al.2017. Estimating the causal tissues for complex traits and diseases. Nat. Genet. 49, 1676–1683.
62.
Orho-MelanderM.2015. Genetics of coronary heart disease: Towards causal mechanisms, novel drug targets and more personalized prevention. J. Intern. Med. 278, 433–446.
63.
PearlJ.2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge.
64.
PearlJ.2019. The seven tools of causal inference, with reflections on machine learning. Commun. ACM. 62, 54–60.
65.
PetersJ., JanzingD., and SchölkopfB.2011. Causal inference on discrete data using additive noise models. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 33, 2436–2450.
66.
PetersJ., JanzingD., and SchölkopfB.2017. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. The MIT Press, Boston, MA.
67.
PetersJ., MooijJ., JanzingD., et al.2014. Causal discovery with continuous additive noise models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 2009–2053.
68.
PingaultJ.B., RichmondR., and SmithG.D.2021. Causal inference with genetic data: Past, present, and future. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 12, a041271.
69.
ProsperiM., GuoY., and SperrinM.2020. Causal inference and counterfactual prediction in machine learning for actionable healthcare. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 369–375.
RaitaY., CamargoC.A.Jr., LiangL., et al.2021. Big data, data science, and causal inference: A primer for clinicians. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 8, 678047.
72.
RamaswamyV.P., and SzeiderS.2021. Learning fast-inference Bayesian networks. In Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., et al. (eds): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 Pre-proceedings. NeurIPS, San Diego, CA, USA.
73.
RenR.J., WangL.L., FangR., et al.2011. The MTHFD1L gene rs11754661 marker is associated with susceptibility to Alzheimer's disease in the Chinese Han population. J. Neurol. Sci. 308, 32–34.
74.
RissanenS., and MarttinenP.2022. A Critical look at the consistency of causal estimation with deep latent variable models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06648.
75.
RosenbaumP.R., and RubinD.B.1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 70, 41–55.
76.
Sanchez-MartinP., RateikeM., and ValeraI.2021. VACA: Design of variational graph autoencoders for interventional and counterfactual queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14690.
77.
ScherrerN., BilaniukO., AnnadaniY., et al.2021. Learning neural causal models with active interventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02429.
78.
Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. 2014. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature. 511, 421–427.
79.
SchölkopfB., LocatelloF., BauerS., et al.2021. Toward causal representation learning. Proc. IEEE. 109, 612–634.
80.
ShajarisalesN., JanzingD., SchölkopfB., et al.2015. Telling cause from effect in deterministic linear dynamical systems, 285–294. In Bach, F. and Blei, D. (eds): Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). JMLR Org., Lille, France.
81.
ShiJ., LevinsonD.F., DuanJ., et al.2009. Common variants on chromosome 6p22.1 are associated with schizophrenia. Nature. 460, 753–757.
82.
ShpitserI., RichardsonT.S., and RobinsJ.M.2020. Multivariate counterfactual systems and causal graphical models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06017.
83.
SpirtesP., GlymourC., and ScheinesR.2000. Constructing Bayesian networks models of gene expression networks from microarray data. Proceedings of the Atlantic Symposium on Computational Biology, Duke University, USA.
84.
StroupT.S., McEvoyJ.P., SwartzM.S., et al.2003. The National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) project: Schizophrenia trial design and protocol development. Schizophr. Bull. 29, 15–31.
85.
SullivanP.F., KeefeR.S., LangeL.A., et al.2007. NCAM1 and neurocognition in schizophrenia. Biol. Psychiatr. 61, 902–910.
86.
SullivanP.F., LinD., TzengJ-Y., et al.2008. Genomewide association for schizophrenia in the CATIE study: Results of stage 1. Mol. Psychiatr. 13, 570–584.
87.
SuzukiT., IwataN., KitamuraY., et al.2003. Association of a haplotype in the serotonin 5-HT4 receptor gene (HTR4) with Japanese schizophrenia. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 121B, 7–13.
88.
SzékelyG.J., RizzoM.L., and BakirovN.2007. Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances. Ann. Stat. 35, 2769–2794.
89.
SzékelyG.J. and RizzoM.L.2009. Brownian distance covariance. Ann. Appl. Stat. 3, 1236–1265.
90.
ThiagarajanJ., NarayanaswamyV.S., and RajanD.2021. Designing counterfactual generators using deep model inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.14274.
91.
XiaK., LeeK.Z., BengioY., et al.2021. The Causal-neural connection: Expressiveness, learnability, and inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00793.
92.
XiongM.M.2018. Big Data in Omics and Imaging: Integrated Analysis and Causal Inference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
YaoL., ChuZ., LiS., et al.2021. A Survey on causal inference. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data. 15, 1–46.
95.
ZečevićM., DhamiD.S., and VeličkovićP.2021. Relating graph neural networks to structural causal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04173.
96.
ZenilH., KianiN.A., ZeaA.A., et al.2019. Causal deconvolution by algorithmic generative models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 58–66.
97.
ZhangV., SquiresC., and UhlerC.2021. Matching a desired causal state via shift interventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.01850.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
