14313 results for ""Pennsylvania+German"+ACS+study+'Socius'+open+access"

in 19.00 milliseconds.

• The International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics Genome Wide Association Study of Familial Prostate Cancer

  Initially, the ICPCG focused largely on high-risk prostate cancer pedigrees using linkage analysis. However, association studies have also been informative to find prostate cancer susceptibility variants in the genome. We hypothesize that genome-wide (GW) association studies of familial cases of prostate cancer will have the power to identify rarer and perhaps less penetrant risk variants associated with prostate cancer than have been identified to date. Our approach will be to examine evidence for association in selected, independent cases from high-risk pedigrees; we hypothesize that they represent a more homogeneous set of cases with potentially different associations. Use of the 5M plus exome SNP platform will allow us to include in our search more rare variants in our search than have ever been investigated for prostate cancer. Aim 1. Identify a set of independent prostate cancer cases selected from ICPCG high-risk prostate cancer pedigrees that have 3 or more related prostate cancer cases and have an average age at diagnosis ≤ 75 years. Identify appropriate matched controls from participating ICPCG groups/ populations. Aim 2. Perform GW SNP genotyping with the Illumina 5M plus exome SNP set on the set of independent prostate cancer cases and controls described in Aim 1. Aim 3. Perform association analyses appropriately matching controls for different ICPCG populations and groups. There will be a two-stage design for confirmation. Aim 4. Test reported associations using the extensive sample set available to us by collaboration with the PRACTICAL consortium that has access to 50 000 DNA samples from 34 groups internationally (over 7,000 of whom are positive for prostate cancer family history).

  Study phs000733

• Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort) - Imaging

  The Framingham Heart Study (FHS) is a population-based, observational cohort study initiated in 1948 to prospectively investigate the determinants of cardiovascular disease to guide public health prevention. The FHS began by recruiting an Original Cohort of 5,209 men and women between the ages of 30 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, who had not yet developed overt symptoms of cardiovascular disease or suffered a heart attack or stroke. The Original cohort Exam 1 took place between 1948 and 1953. Since that time the cohort has had a total of 32 biennial exams (ending in 2014) and event follow-up through 2022. In 1971, the FHS added the Offspring cohort, comprising 5124 children whose parents were enrolled in the Original cohort and the spouses of the children. This cohort on average has been examined every three to four years. However, there was an eight year gap between Exam 1 and Exam 2 and a seven year gap between Exam 7 and Exam 8. The latest exam (10) was completed in 2022. In 2002, the transgenerational FHS design was facilitated with the recruitment of 4095 children of the Offspring cohort (Third Generation), and 103 spouses of the Offspring who were not previously enrolled in the study (New Offspring Spouses, NOS). These cohorts have completed 3 exams through 2019. To reflect the changing demographic characteristics of the greater Framingham community, the FHS additionally recruited and enrolled 2 cohorts comprising racial and ethnic minority groups, termed Omni-1 and Omni-2, (n = 506 and 410, respectively) in 1995 and 2002, respectively. These cohorts included individuals of African American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Native American, and Pacific Islander descent. The OMNI-1 cohort have completed 5 exams through 2022. The OMNI-2 cohort have completed 3 exams through 2019. Data available for request include Echocardiogram images, available from the following exams in each cohort. Original Cohort: exams 18-32; Offspring cohort: exams 3-10; Third Generation, NOS and OMNI-2 cohorts: exams 1-3; OMNI-1 cohort: exams 1-5.CT image data at one or two timepoints were added for 4427 participants in the offspring, third generation, and OMNI1 and OMNI2 cohorts.Summary level phenotypes for the Framingham Cohort study participants can be viewed at the top-level study page phs000007 Framingham Cohort. Individual level phenotype data and molecular data for all Framingham top-level study and substudies are available by requesting Authorized Access to the Framingham Cohort study phs000007.

  Study phs003593

• Framingham Cohort

  Startup of Framingham Heart Study. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and serious illness in the United States. In 1948, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) -- under the direction of the National Heart Institute (now known as the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NHLBI) -- embarked on a novel and ambitious project in health research. At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for CVD had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the century and had become an American epidemic. The objective of the FHS was to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to CVD by following its development over a long period of time in a large group of participants who had not yet developed overt symptoms of CVD or suffered a heart attack or stroke. Design of Framingham Heart Study. In 1948, the researchers recruited 5,209 men and women between the ages of 30 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, and began the first round of extensive physical examinations and lifestyle interviews that they would later analyze for common patterns related to CVD development. Since 1948, the subjects have returned to the study every two years for an examination consisting of a detailed medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests, and in 1971, the study enrolled a second-generation cohort -- 5,124 of the original participants' adult children and their spouses -- to participate in similar examinations. The second examination of the Offspring cohort occurred eight years after the first examination, and subsequent examinations have occurred approximately every four years thereafter. In April 2002 the Study entered a new phase: the enrollment of a third generation of participants, the grandchildren of the original cohort. The first examination of the Third Generation Study was completed in July 2005 and involved 4,095 participants. Thus, the FHS has evolved into a prospective, community-based, three generation family study. The FHS is a joint project of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Boston University. Research Areas in the Framingham Heart Study. Over the years, careful monitoring of the FHS population has led to the identification of the major CVD risk factors -- high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity -- as well as a great deal of valuable information on the effects of related factors such as blood triglyceride and HDL cholesterol levels, age, gender, and psychosocial issues. Risk factors have been identified for the major components of CVD, including coronary heart disease, stroke, intermittent claudication, and heart failure. It is also clear from research in the FHS and other studies that substantial subclinical vascular disease occurs in the blood vessels, heart and brain that precedes clinical CVD. With recent advances in technology, the FHS has enhanced its research capabilities and capitalized on its inherent resources by the conduct of high resolution imaging to detect and quantify subclinical vascular disease in the major blood vessels, heart and brain. These studies have included ultrasound studies of the heart (echocardiography) and carotid arteries, computed tomography studies of the heart and aorta, and magnetic resonance imaging studies of the brain, heart, and aorta. Although the Framingham cohort is primarily white, the importance of the major CVD risk factors identified in this group have been shown in other studies to apply almost universally among racial and ethnic groups, even though the patterns of distribution may vary from group to group. In the past half century, the Study has produced approximately 1,200 articles in leading medical journals. The concept of CVD risk factors has become an integral part of the modern medical curriculum and has led to the development of effective treatment and preventive strategies in clinical practice. In addition to research studies focused on risk factors, subclinical CVD and clinically apparent CVD, Framingham investigators have also collaborated with leading researchers from around the country and throughout the world on projects involving some of the major chronic illnesses in men and women, including dementia, osteoporosis and arthritis, nutritional deficiencies, eye diseases, hearing disorders, and chronic obstructive lung diseases. Genetic Research in the Framingham Heart Study. While pursuing the Study's established research goals, the NHLBI and the Framingham investigators has expanded its research mission into the study of genetic factors underlying CVD and other disorders. Over the past two decades, DNA has been collected from blood samples and from immortalized cell lines obtained from Original Cohort participants, members of the Offspring Cohort and the Third Generation Cohort. Several large-scale genotyping projects have been conducted in the past decade. Genome-wide linkage analysis has been conducted using genotypes of approximately 400 microsatellite markers that have been completed in over 9,300 subjects in all three generations. Analyses using microsatellite markers completed in the original cohort and offspring cohorts have resulted in over 100 publications, including many publications from the Genetics Analysis Workshop 13. Several other recent collaborative projects have completed thousands of SNP genotypes for candidate gene regions in subsets of FHS subjects with available DNA. These projects include the Cardiogenomics Program of the NHLBI's Programs for Genomics Applications, the genotyping of ~3000 SNPs in inflammation genes, and the completion of a genome-wide scan of 100,000 SNPs using the Affymetrix 100K Genechip. Framingham Cohort Phenotype Data. The phenotype database contains a vast array of phenotype information available in all three generations. These will include the quantitative measures of the major risk factors such as systolic blood pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, fasting glucose, and cigarette use, as well as anthropomorphic measures such as body mass index, biomarkers such as fibrinogen and CRP, and electrocardiography measures such as the QT interval. Many of these measures have been collected repeatedly in the original and offspring cohorts. Also included in the SHARe database will be an array of recently collected biomarkers, subclinical disease imaging measures, clinical CVD outcomes as well as an array of ancillary studies. The phenotype data is located here in the top-level study phs000007 Framingham Cohort. To view the phenotype variables collected from the Framingham Cohort, please click on the "Variables" tab above. The Framingham Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" section of this top-level study page phs000007 Framingham Cohort. phs000342 Framingham SHARe phs000282 Framingham CARe phs000363 Framingham SABRe phs000307 Framingham Medical Resequencing phs000401 Framingham ESP Heart-GO phs000651 Framingham CHARGE-S phs000724 Framingham DNA Methylation phs001610 Framingham T2D-GENES phs002558 Framingham ADSP phs002559 Framingham BRIDGET phs002560 Framingham Cholesterol phs002611 Framingham Post-Mortem Brain Tissue phs002938 Framingham Molecular QTL The unflagging commitment of the research participants in the NHLBI FHS has made more than a half century of research success possible. For decades, the FHS has made its data and DNA widely available to qualified investigators throughout the world through the Limited Access Datasets and the FHS DNA Committee, and the SHARe database will continue that tradition by allowing access to qualified investigators who agree to the requirements of data access. With the SHARe database, we continue with an ambitious research agenda and look forward to new discoveries in the decades to come.

  Study phs000007

• Serrated Colorectal Cancer: An Emerging Disease Subtype

  This dataset represents two combined study populations. Serrated Colorectal Cancer: An Emerging Disease Subtype (called the Advanced Colorectal Cancer of Serrated Subtype Study or ACCESS Study) was a grant awarded to investigate a newly-recognized, biologically-distinct subtype of colorectal cancer (CRC) called “serrated CRC.” The objective of this project was to characterize factors related to the genetic predisposition, clinical presentation, and prognosis of serrated CRC. The study recruited incident invasive CRC cases diagnosed between April 2016 and December 2018, aged 20-74 years at diagnosis. Cases were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry serving 13 counties in western Washington State. Eligibility for all individuals was limited to those who were English-speaking and could consent. Participation included completing a baseline epidemiologic questionnaire shortly after diagnosis, optional donation of a saliva sample for genetic analysis, and optional consent to release of medical records and tissue specimens related to their diagnosis. Tumor specimens were tested for serrated CRC-defining molecular characteristics. Further, we have vital status on all participants and cause of death on those that have died since enrollment. Hormones and Colon Cancer: Epigenetic Subtypes, Risks, and Survival (called the Post-Menopausal Hormones Study or PMH Study) was a grant awarded to investigate the impact of post-menopausal hormone use on colon cancer risk, tumor molecular characteristics, and outcomes. Eligible cases were females, newly diagnosed with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma between October 1998 and February 2002, aged 50 to 74 years. Cases were residents of 10 out of the 13 counties in western Washington State served by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. Eligibility for all individuals was limited to those who were English-speaking with available telephone numbers, in which they could be contacted. Unrelated population-based controls were randomly selected according to age distribution (in 5-year age intervals) of the eligible cases by using lists of licensed drivers from the Washington State Department of Licensing (for individuals aged 50 to 64 years) and rosters from the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, for individuals older than 64 years). Participation included completing a baseline epidemiologic questionnaire, optional donation of a saliva sample for genetic analysis, and (for cases only) optional consent to release of medical records and tissue specimens related to their diagnosis. Tumor specimens were tested for epigenetic and other molecular characteristics. The ACCESS study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NCI/NIH) (R01CA196337, PI: Newcomb, PA), as was the PMH Study (R01CA076366, PI: Newcomb, PA). Additional support for the PMH Study came from the Seattle site of the Colon Cancer Family Registry (SCCFR) (U01CA167551, PI: Jenkins, M, and U01/U24CA074794, PI: Newcomb, PA). Additional support for case ascertainment was provided by the Cancer Surveillance System of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, which is funded by Contract Number HHSN261201300012I; NCI Control Number: N01 PC-2013-00012; Contract Number HHSN261201800004I; and NCI Control Number: N01 PC-2018-00004 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the State of Washington. This research was also supported by the Genomics and Bioinformatics, Comparative Medicine, Specialized Pathology, Collaborative Data Services, and Experimental Histopathology Shared Resources of the Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium (P30 CA015704).Tumor marker testing was performed using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic tumor tissue specimens, and DNA extracted from those specimens. Testing for microsatellite instability (MSI) was based on either a 10-gene panel (BAT25, BAT26, BAT40, MYCL, D5S346, D17S250, ACTC, D18S55, D10S197, BAT34C4) or a 4-marker immunohistochemistry panel of DNA mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2). CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) testing was based on a validated quantitative DNA methylation assay using a five-gene panel (CACNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1) or eight-gene panel (CACNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1, MLH1, CRABP1, CDKN2A). Somatic p.V600E BRAF mutation status was tested for using a fluorescent allele-specific PCR assay. KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13 were also assessed through forward and reverse sequencing of amplified tumor DNA. DNA was extracted from blood/saliva samples using conventional methods. The genotyping panel completed was the Build37 OncoArray500K-C, including 1%-6% blinded duplicates to monitor the quality of the genotyping. Quality control procedures were performed to 1) make sure that there were no patterns of missing data by batch, study, or plate, 2) check for gender discrepancies and kinship, 3) complete Principal Component Analysis, and 4) test for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE). Samples were excluded based on call rate, heterozygosity, unexpected duplicates, gender discrepancy, and unexpectedly high identity-by-descent or unexpected genotypic concordance (>65%) with another individual. In addition, variants were excluded based on call rate (98%), lack of HWE in controls (P

  Study phs002171

• Human Skin Cancer Atlas, Medical University of Vienna Data Access Policy

  Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) play a key role in cancer progression and treatment outcome. Here, we elucidate the yet unresolved intra-tumoral CAF variety in three skin cancer types at molecular and spatial single-cell resolution in a large cohort. We show that two out of three CAF subtypes contribute to tumor immune surveillance with distinct mechanisms. Matrix CAFs (mCAFs) ensheath tumor nests and synthesize extracellular-matrix to prevent T cell invasion. Immunomodulatory CAFs (iCAFs), which express proinflammatory and immunomodulatory factors, are only detected in high abundance in aggressive tumors. Strikingly, iCAFs but not tumor cells are (apart from immune cells) the exclusive cell type producing chemokines and, thus, play a key role in immune cell recruitment and activation. Mechanistically, we show that cancer cells transform adjacent healthy fibroblasts into cytokine-expressing iCAFs, which subsequently recruit immune cells and modulate the immune response. In conclusion, targeting CAF variants holds promise for improved efficacy of immunotherapy.

  Dac EGAC50000000154

• Single cell transcriptional characterization of human megakaryocyte lineage commitment and maturation

  Single cell RNA-sequencing of sternal bone marrow reciding Hematopoietic Stem Cells (HSCs) and Megakaryocytes (MKs) from individuals undergoing elective open heart valve replacement. HSCs were defined as Lineage-, CD34+, CD38-, CD45RA-, CD90+, CD49f+ cells. MKs where CD41a+, CD42b+ and ploidy was determined with Hoechst. A sternal bone marrow scraping was taken directly following median sternotomy using a Volkmann’s spoon. The sample was collected into an EDTA Vacutainer tube containing 1.8mg/ml EDTA. 4mL of Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (PBS, Sigma) containing 10% human serum albumin (HSA, Gemini Bio Products) was added and the whole volume was resuspended by pipetting 2-3 times. The sample was then put on metallic thermal beads (ThermoFisher Scientific) at a temperature between 0-4°C and transported to the University of Cambridge for further processing. For HSC isolation the cells were stained with the following antibody cocktail: PECy5 conjugated anti-lineage specific antibodies: CD2 (BD), CD3 (BD), CD10 (BD), CD11b (BD), CD11c (BD), CD19 (BD), CD20 (BD), CD56 (BD), biotinylated CD42b (Pab5, NHS Blood and Transplant, International Blood Group Reference Laboratory [IBGRL]), biotinylated GP6 (Pab5, NHS Blood and Transplant, International Blood Group Reference Laboratory [IBGRL]) used in combination with PECy5 conjugated streptavidin (Biolegend). Alexa Fluor 700 conjugated anti-CD34 (BD), PerCP-Cy5.5 conjugated anti-CD38 (BD), Pacific Blue conjugated anti-CD45RA (Invitrogen), PECy7 conjugated anti-CD90 (BD),PE conjugated anti-CD49f (BD). After staining cells were kept at 4°C before sorting using a FACS Aria Fusion flow sorter (BD). Single HSCs defined as Lineage-, CD34+, CD38-, CD45RA-, CD90+, CD49f+ cells were sorted by FACS directly into individual wells of a 96-well plate. Index sort data was collected for each single cell. For MK isolation the cells were stained for surface MK markers with mouse anti-human CD41a APC conjugated antibody (BD) and mouse anti-human CD42b PE conjugated antibody (BD) and for ploidy analysis with 1ug/ml Hoechst 33342 (Invitrogen). After incubation at 37°C for 30 minutes, the cells were kept at 4°C before sorting using a FACS Aria Fusion flow sorter (BD). Single cells and MK pools of 20 cells were sorted by FACS according to ploidy level using a 100uM nozzle directly into individual wells of a 96-well plate. cDNA synthesis and poly(A) enrichment was performed following the G&T-seq protocol (Macaulay et al. 2015), a variation of the Smart-seq2 protocol1. ERCC spike-in RNA (Ambion) was added to the lysis buffer in a dilution of 1:4,000,000.

  Dataset EGAD00001006677

• Exploration of CNV’s and SNV’s in cancers with well-known genetic rearrangements: Identification of additional genetic changes in rearrangements-driven cancer

  Specific cancers are well known to have specific gene rearrangements. Representative cancer is chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) which is famous for BCR/ABL gene rearrangements. By the way, also genetic rearrangements are not infrequently found in acute leukemia, and those include CBFB/MYH11 rearrangements, PML/RARA rearrangements, AML/ETO rearrangements, and BCR/ABL rearrangements. The situation is same is for lung adenocarcinoma of non-smokers and prostate cancers, and ALK and RET gene rearrangements are recently found. However, not all these rearrangements are sufficient to develop cancer, and it is suggested that some genetic aberrations are required for the development and progression of cancer in addition to these genetic rearrangements. In this study, we have a plan to explore the existence of additional genetic changes including single nucleotide variants (SNV’s) and copy number variations (CNV’s) in cancers with specific genetic rearrangements so as to define additional genetic changes that confer full oncogenic potential to cancer cells. So as to look at SNV’s and small indels, we are going to use whole exome sequencing (WES) data. And as for CNV’s, we are going to use array-CGH data. Also, to check the functionality of these genetic changes, we are going to use whole transcriptome data (WTS). In addition, in samples with whole genome sequencing (WGS ) data, we are going to explore genetic changes in intronic regions also. In fact, we sequenced 10 AML samples which are known to have specific genetic rearrangements. Analysis of these WGS, WES and WTS data are under the way. If we have a chance to access WES, array-CGH and WTS data of other cancer samples with specific genetic rearrangements, we would be able to compare additional genetic changes required for oncogenesis in cancer cells with various genetic rearrangements. We hope this result will enlighten our understanding of cancer genetics further.

  Study EGAS00001000673

• Programmatic submission based on XML

  Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics: Exome Sequencing of Orofacial Cleft Families

  Orofacial Clefts (OFCs) are genetically complex structural birth defects caused by genetic factors, environmental exposures, and their interactions. OFCs are the most common craniofacial anomalies in humans. Affect about 1 in 800 newborns, OFCs are also one of the most common structural birth defects worldwide. OFCs can impose a substantial personal cost resulting from the associated emotional and financial burden. On average a child undergoes 6 surgeries, spends 30 days in hospital, receives 5 years of orthodontic treatment, and participates in ongoing speech therapy, leading to an estimated total lifetime treatment cost of about $200,000. Individuals born with an OFC have higher infant mortality (especially in developing countries with limited access to care), higher mortality rates at all other stages of life, increased incidence of mental health problems, and higher risk for other disorders (notably including breast, brain, and colon cancers). Prior genetic studies have focused on the contribution of common genetic variants through genome-wide linkage and association studies. These studies have revealed a significant etiologic heterogeneity. One promising approach to dissect the etiology of OFCs into focus on subclinical phenotypic features present in the non-cleft family members of affected individuals. These subclinical features are subtle phenotypic features that may represent mild manifestations of the same risk genes; thus, their inclusion in family-based studies may clarify the inheritance patterns in OFC families. In this project, we conducted whole exome sequencing in multiplex families with both overt OFCs and subclinical phenotypes to identify high-impact genes causing OFCs.

  Study phs001675

• A panel of reference haplotypes for imputing complement component 4 (C4) gene structural variation

  Neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders have substantial epidemiological correlations (Benros et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2013, PMID: 23760347) and broad, genome-wide patterns of shared genetic risk (Pouget et al., Hum Mol Genet, PMID: 31211845; Tylee et al., Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2018, PMID: 30325587). Some cases of psychosis involve autoantibodies against the NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, or other synaptic proteins (reviewed in Dalmau et al, Lancet Neurol 2011, PMID: 21163445). The related autoimmune conditions lupus and Sjogren&#39;s Syndrome also involve the development of autoantibodies. The possibility that neuropsychiatric disorders can have molecular mechanisms in common with autoimmune disorders - for example, that psychosis involves an inflammatory or autoimmune component in some patients, or that immune molecules are re-used in the brain to underlie other important biological activities (Stevens et al., Cell 2007, PMID: 18083105) - could open novel therapeutic possibilities for neuropsychiatric disorders. At a genetic level, the strongest genetic associations of schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren&#39;s Syndrome to common genetic variation involve associations to genetic markers in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) locus. Bipolar disorder in some studies also associates with variation in or near the MHC locus, though less strongly than schizophrenia does. Intriguingly, the same specific SNPs appear to associate strongly with schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren&#39;s; these strongly associating SNPs span a genomic segment that includes the HLA class II genes (which have an important role in antibody production) and the complement component 4 (C4) genes. The specific genes and alleles responsible for these associations need to be completely defined, and the extent to which they represent shared or distinct genetic influences in neuropsychiatric and autoimmune illnesses needs to be clarified. The complement component 4 (C4A and C4B) genes are present in the MHC locus, between the class I and class II HLA genes. C4A and C4B commonly vary in genomic copy number and encode complement proteins with distinct affinities for molecular targets. The complex genetic variation at C4 - arising from many alleles with different numbers of C4A and C4B genes - has been challenging to analyze in large cohorts. We recently developed an approach to this problem based on imputation: people share long haplotypes with the same combinations of SNP and C4 alleles, such that C4A and C4B gene copy numbers can be imputed from SNP data (Sekar et al., Nature 2016, PMID: 26814963). In the current work, to analyze C4 in large cohorts, we developed a way to identify C4 alleles from whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, then analyzed WGS data from 1,234 individuals to create a large multi-ancestry panel of 2,530 reference haplotypes of MHC SNPs and C4 alleles that can then be imputed into still-larger cohorts for which SNP data are available. With this dbGaP submission, we make this reference panel available for other studies. Protocols and software for imputing C4 alleles into genome-wide SNP data, and for performing molecular analyses on the C4 genes (such as direct measurement of copy number from genomic DNA), can be found on the McCarroll Lab web site (http://mccarrolllab.org/resources). We are also working to create additional reference panels for imputation of C4 alleles that will be based on still-larger and more diverse population samples; links to these will also be available on the McCarroll Lab web site as we create and validate them.

  Study phs001992