ArticleBMC medicine2026
A biologically informed framework for instrument selection in dietary Mendelian randomization using chemosensory genetics.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refining Genetic Instruments for Dietary Intake Mendelian Randomization Using Phenome-Wide Association Studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparing genome-wide significant and chemosensory variants as instruments for dietary patterns in Mendelian randomization.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMendelian randomization (MR) is increasingly used to strengthen causal inference in nutritional epidemiology. However, dietary MR studies often rely on instruments selected from genome-wide association studies of self-reported intake based solely on statistical significance, increasing vulnerability to pleiotropy and reverse causation and potentially violating key MR assumptions. We aimed to develop and evaluate a biologically informed framework for selecting valid genetic instruments for dietary exposures, leveraging genes encoding taste and olfactory receptors that influence chemosensory perception and shape food preferences and dietary behaviour.
methodsWe prioritised 1,214 nonsynonymous variants (minor allele frequency ≥ 1%) across 30 taste and 295 olfactory receptor genes. Associations with 140 food-liking traits were tested in UK Biobank participants aged 37 to 73 years. Candidate variants were evaluated using a multi-stage filtering pipeline comprising replication in an independent younger cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, age 25), concordance between food liking and intake, exclusion of associations with socioeconomic status, assessment of food specificity accounting for linkage disequilibrium and co-consumption, and directionality testing to reduce reverse causation. Retained variants were used as instruments in MR analyses of cardiometabolic outcomes.
resultsWe identified 268 variants within 101 olfactory and 16 taste receptor genes associated with 96 food-liking traits. Filtering yielded 24 candidate instruments for 20 foods. The instrument for onion liking satisfied all pre-defined criteria for classification as high confidence. As an illustrative MR application, genetically proxied onion liking was associated with lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, with no evidence of effects on body mass index, glycaemic traits, or serum lipid levels.
conclusionsInstrument selection guided by chemosensory genetics provides a scalable strategy for dietary MR that can improve instrument credibility and reduce susceptibility to pleiotropy and reverse causation. However, this approach prioritises biological specificity at the cost of fewer available instruments. This framework supports more robust causal evaluation of diet-disease relationships and strengthens inference in nutritional epidemiology and public health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.