Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

Submission FAQ

Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog. Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

Genomic Data Access Committee for Early and Late Onset Colorectal Cancer Study

This Data Access Committee (DAC) manages access to genomic data generated from the study "A Clinically and Genomically Annotated Early Onset Colorectal Cancer and Late Onset Colorectal Cancer." The study focuses on identifying the distinct genomic profiles of early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) compared to late-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) through whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of both tissue and blood samples. The DAC is responsible for reviewing and approving access requests from researchers who wish to utilize this data for non-commercial, academic purposes related to colorectal cancer research. The committee ensures that all data access is granted in compliance with ethical standards and that the data is used solely for the approved research objectives. Researchers requesting access to this data must provide a detailed research proposal, institutional review board (IRB) approval, and demonstrate relevant expertise in genomic research. All data will be stored in secure, encrypted environments, and any further sharing or use of the data requires additional DAC approval.

Dac EGAC50000000359

Accelerating Medicines Partnership-Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (AMP-RA/SLE)

This project is analyzing tissue and blood samples from people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and lupus to pinpoint genes, proteins, chemical pathways, and networks involved at a single cell level. This type of modular, molecular analysis will allow comparisons across the diseases and will provide insights into key aspects of the disease process. The project will identify differences between those RA patients who respond to therapies and those who do not, as well as provide a better systems level understanding of disease mechanisms in both RA and lupus. This knowledge is essential for the development of targeted therapies and for the application of existing and future therapies to appropriate patient populations. Additional datasets can be accessed through ImmPort (http://www.immport.org/immport-open/public/home/studySearch), accession: SDY997

Study phs001459

Accelerating Medicines Partnership-Rheumatoid Arthritis (AMP-RA/SLE)

This project is analyzing tissue and blood samples from people with RA and lupus to pinpoint genes, proteins, chemical pathways, and networks involved at a single cell level. This type of modular, molecular analysis will allow comparisons across the diseases and will provide insights into key aspects of the disease process. The project will identify differences between those RA patients who respond to therapies and those who do not, as well as provide a better systems level understanding of disease mechanisms in both RA and lupus. This knowledge is essential for the development of targeted therapies and for the application of existing and future therapies to appropriate patient populations. Additional datasets can be accessed through ImmPort (http://www.immport.org/immport-open/public/home/studySearch), accession: SDY998, SDY999.

Study phs001457

AmsterdamUMC Data Access Committee for the EPIC-CD study

The current data access committee reviews and assesses data requests of researchers that seek to gain access to data acquired as part of the EPIC-CD project as performed at the AmsterdamUMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Dac EGAC50000000097

Single molecule molecular inversion probe capture developed using the CIViC database

This study evaluated the use of the Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer database (CIViC) to develop an Open-sourced CIViC Annotation Pipeline (OpenCAP). OpenCAP is a resource that allows users to develop a clinical capture panel that can be linked back to clinical summaries within the CIViC database. This method for capture panel development and variant annotation was tested using 27 cancer samples from 5 tumor subtypes with original exome or genome sequencing. Specifically, using OpenCAP, 111 variants were identified as relevant for the capture panel and 2,027 smMIPs were designed to target these variants. The smMIPs panel design was employed on all samples to validate the capture panel design. When compared to original sequencing, the CIViC smMIPs capture panel demonstrated a 95% sensitivity for variant detection (n = 61 variants). Additionally, the CIViC smMIPs capture panel identified 182 additional clinically relevant variants that had been missed on original sequencing.

Study phs001890

FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

Blog fega-and-gdi

Single cell atlas of human glioma

We profiled 87 primary-recurrentpatient-matched paired GBM specimens with single-nucleus RNA and bulk-DNA sequencing and single-cell open-chromatin and spatial transcriptomics/proteomics assays. We found that recurrent GBMs are characterized by a shift to a mesenchymal phenotype in response to therapy

Dataset EGAD00001008811

AmsterdamUMC Data Access Committee for the MAPS study

The current data access committee reviews and assesses data requests of researchers that seek to gain access to data acquired from the MAping the Peritoneal immune System (MAPS) project as performed at the AmsterdamUMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Dac EGAC50000000096

Mechanisms_of_patient_response_to_Dabrafenib_in_Melanoma

Samples will be from the BRF113683 (BREAK-3) study which is a Phase III Randomized, Open-label Study Comparing GSK2118436 to Dacarbazine (DTIC) in Previously Untreated Subjects With BRAF Mutation Positive Advanced (Stage III) or Metastatic (Stage IV) Melanoma (n=250 enrolled)•NGS [Agilent capture (Sanger V2 panel): 360 genes and 20 gene fusions; Illumina HiSEQ Sequencing]•CNV: [via NGS or Affy SNP 6.0 or Illumina Omni (TBD)]Bioinformatics: Analysis will be performed using core Sanger informatics pipelines similar to those previously described (Papaemmanuil E et al. (2013) Blood. 22:3616 -3627). Briefly, copy number analysis will be performed using the ASCAT algorithm, and base substitutions, small insertions and deletions using the CAVEMAN and Pindel algorithms, respectively. Statistical approaches including generalized linear models will be used to predict clinical variables such as maximum clinical response and duration of response using genetic data. Sanger and EBI to conduct analysis; Raw data and correlation with clinical endpoints to be analyzed by both EBI/Sanger and GSK (unique pipeline analyses to increase call confidence)

Study EGAS00001000946

The genetic structure of Norway

The aim of the present study was to describe the genetic structure of the Norwegian population using genotypes from 6369 unrelated individuals with detailed information about places of residence. Using standard single marker- and haplotype-based approaches, we report evidence of two regions with distinctive patterns of genetic variation, one in the far northeast, and another in the south of Norway, as indicated by fixation indices, haplotype sharing, homozygosity and effective population size. We detect and quantify a component of Uralic Sami ancestry that is enriched in the North. On a finer scale, we find that rates of migration have been affected by topography like mountain ridges. In the broader Scandinavian context, we detect elevated relatedness between the mid- and northern border areas towards Sweden. The main finding of this study is that despite Norway’s long maritime history and as a former Danish territory, the region closest to mainland Europe in the south appears to have been the most isolated region in Norway, highlighting the open sea as a barrier to gene flow into Norway.

Study EGAS00001004826

Experimental PfSPZ Vaccine in Adults Without Malaria

The study was performed to evaluate whole-blood transcriptomic profiles via RNA-seq before, during, and after immunization with the PfSPZ Vaccine in malaria-naïve, healthy adults enrolled in VRC 312 (NCT01441167). VRC 312 was the second study of the PfSPZ Vaccine and the first study to evaluate intravenous (IV) administration of this vaccine. The study was an open-label evaluation of the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of the vaccine at successively higher administered by the IV route. The highest dosages were evaluated for protection against a malaria challenge after 4 to 6 vaccinations. The primary objectives of the study were related to the safety and tolerability of the vaccine at the 4 different dosage levels when administered IV; the secondary objectives were related to PfSPZ vaccine-mediated protection against Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) challenge at the 3 higher dosage levels, and the exploratory objectives were related to the immunogenicity of the PfSPZ Vaccine and defining an immune correlate of protection. To further determine potential molecular correlates of immunogenicity and/or protection, RNA-seq was performed on whole blood collected from subjects in all dose groups at time points before, during, and after immunization.

Study phs002422

EGA account management

How to manage your EGA account Welcome to the documentation page for creating an EGA user. The European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is a platform for archiving, managing, and sharing human genomic and phenotypic data. To submit, access, and manage requests for the data hosted on the EGA platform, users are required to register for an account. This documentation page provides step-by-step instructions for creating an EGA user account, as well as information on the different types of EGA user accounts and their associated privileges. You can check the EGA data flow for a better understanding. Manage EGA account step-by-step guide Contact Information Public Keys Password Authenticator Federated Identity Sessions Request an EGA account step-by-step guide Fill in this form.You cannot use a generic email account (e.g., Gmail). Make sure you use your institutional email account.Your email is by default your username.The criteria for a strong password is: It should contain between 8 and 32 charactersIt should contain at least one uppercase letterIt should contain at least one numberIt should contain at least one special characterYou will need to wait for the Helpdesk team to check your identity. Please allow two business days for this step.After the Helpdesk validation step, you will receive an email with a link to validate your institutional email.Click the link to verify your email. It will redirect you to the EGA website.As soon as your account has been validated, you will be able to start adding more information to your EGA profile. For that, you first need to log in using your credentials from step 1. Manage EGA account step-by-step guide As a logged-in user, go to your profile by clicking on Welcome > My Profile. To modify it, click the Edit button.You will see the following options: Contact Information In this section, you can modify the personal information of your EGA account. Public Keys Adding a public key is necessary for downloading data via Live Outbox distribution. If you don’t know how to generate your key, you can follow the instructions available on How do I create a key? Password In the Password tab, you can change your password anytime to ensure the security of your account. However, if you receive an email notifying you that your password was modified and you did not initiate the change, it could be a sign that your account has been compromised. In this case, you should immediately contact our Helpdesk team to report the issue and receive assistance in restoring your account security. Authenticator You can set your two-factor authentication (2FA) system for your EGA account as an identity and access management security method that requires two forms of identification to access resources and data. To obtain your code, please follow the instructions below, also available in the Authenticator tab in your profile. Sessions The Sessions tab displays a list of all devices where you are currently logged in as an EGA user. This includes any open sessions you have on your computer, phone, or other devices. By reviewing the list of active sessions, you can monitor the devices that have access to your account and ensure that there are no unauthorised logins. If you notice any suspicious activity, you can close the sessions from this page to immediately terminate access to your account from the unauthorised device.

Documentation how-to-manage-your-account

Cholesterol and Pharmacogenetics (CAP) Study

The Cholesterol and Pharmacogenetics Study was a 6-week open label, non-randomized study of 40mg/day simvastatin treatment in 335 black and 609 white (944 total) men and women. Plasma lipids and lipoproteins were measured on two occasions prior to treatment and at 4 and 6 weeks of treatment. The study was designed to test for genetic associations with baseline measurements and changes in response to simvastatin treatment. Whole genome genotyping was performed on 592 white CAP study participants in two stages. In Stage 1, 304 were genotyped for 314,621 SNPs to tag for common genomic variation. In Stage 2, 290 participants were genotyped, including 280 who were genotyped for 620,901 SNPs. Two samples were excluded due to gender discrepancies. More recently, CAP self-reported black participants were genotyped on Illumina Omni2.5Exome chips. PolyA-selected strand-specific RNA-seq libraries were generated in several batches from lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) derived from 268 white and 165 black CAP participants. The LCLs were exposed to sham buffer (control) or 2 uM activated simvastatin for 24 hours, producing a total of 866 100/101 bp paired end RNA-seq libraries sequenced on Illumina HiSeq 2000 machines.

Study phs000481

A phase II trial of the aurora kinase A inhibitor alisertib for patients with castration resistant and neuroendocrine prostate cancer: efficacy and biomarker evaluation

Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer that may develop de novo or as a mechanism of treatment resistance. N-myc is capable of driving NEPC progression. Alisertib inhibits the interaction between N-myc and its stabilizing factor Aurora-A, inhibiting N-myc signaling, and suppressing tumor growth. In this single arm, multi-institutional open label phase 2 clinical trial of alisertib, sixty men were treated with alisertib 50mg twice daily for 7 days every 21-days. Eligibility included metastatic prostate cancer and at least one: small cell neuroendocrine morphology; ≥50% neuroendocrine marker expression; new liver metastases without PSA progression; elevated serum neuroendocrine markers. The primary endpoint was six-month radiographic progression free survival. Pre-treatment biopsies were evaluated by whole exome and RNA-seq.

Study phs001666

Evolutionary Analysis of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Cells During Relapse After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

We investigated the molecular dynamics driving relapse of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) through an integrated analysis of whole exome, bulk transcriptome, bulk methylome and single cell transcriptional data from paired leukemic samples representing 19 patients. We found that their clinical kinetics corresponded to distinct genetic and epigenetic evolutionary trajectories and suggest that the selection pressures of the post-transplant, immunologic bottleneck are distinct from those imposed by chemotherapy.In order to discover cancer antigens derived from annotated and unannotated protein-coding regions of the genome, we carried out ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) and RNA-sequencing on CLL samples and isolated primary B cells from healthy donors. We discovered novel or unannotated open reading frames (nuORFs), their expression levels, as well as somatic mutations within them to predict potential neoantigens.

Study phs001998

DCCT/EDIC Epigenetics (DNA Methylation) Study

Metabolic memory (persistent benefits of early glycemic control on preventing/delaying diabetic complications development) was observed in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and follow-up Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, dbGaP phs000086.v3.p1, but mechanisms are unclear. We investigated the involvement of epigenetic DNA methylation (DNAme) by examining its associations with preceding glycemic history, and subsequent complications development over 18 years in blood DNAs of 499 randomly-selected DCCT/EDIC participants with type 1 diabetes. We found associations between DNAme near DCCT-closeout and mean-DCCT-HbA1c at 186 CpGs (FDR<15%, including 43 at FDR<5%), many located in complications-related genes. These CpGs are enriched in C/EBP motifs, enhancer/transcription regions in blood cells/progenitors, and open chromatin-states in myeloid cells. Remarkably, several CpGs in combination explain 68-97% of the mean-DCCT-HbA1c risk of complications development during EDIC. DNAme at key CpGs appears to mediate the association between hyperglycemia and complications in metabolic memory, through modifying myeloid cell enhancer activity.

Study phs002024

A Phase III Randomized Study of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab in Stage IV Squamous Cell Lung Cancer

Lung-MAP (S1400, NCT02785952) was a multicenter, open-label, phase III randomized clinical trial. The Lung-MAP-I substudy (S1400I) was conducted from December 2015 to April 2018, through the National Clinical Trials Network and led by the SWOG Cancer Research Network. The trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo+ipi) with nivolumab monotherapy (nivo) in patients with chemotherapy-pretreated, immunotherapy-naïve, advanced squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (sqNSCLC). Two hundred fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive nivo+ipi (n = 125) or nivo (n = 127). The clinical efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, duration of response, and best objective response by RECIST 1.1. Multi-omic translational analysis was performed in collaboration with the the CIMAC–Cancer Immunologic Data Commons (CIDC) Network using available tumor tissue samples and blood samples (n = 160) submitted for Lung-MAP screening and provided by the SWOG tissue bank.

Study phs003412

The Dutch Microbiome Project: Defining the (un)healthy gut microbiome

The Dutch Microbiome Project (DMP) data includes raw data generated by shotgun metagenomic sequencing of faecal samples of 8,208 Dutch individuals, processed microbiome data analysed using Biobakery2 tools (including taxonomy, pathway, virulence factors and antibiotic resistance gene profiles), and basic phenotypes (age and sex, BMI). Data is made available in two randomly assigned batches to facilitate the data access and maintenance. Access to this dataset requires a minimal access procedure (data access form at https://forms.gle/eHeBdXJMXbVvCJRc8 or email request to the data access committee (DAC) of this study, listed at DAC EGAC00001001996, https://ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001001996). This access procedure is to ensure that the data is being requested for research/scientific purposes only and thus complies with the informed consent signed by Lifelines participants, which specifies that the collected data will not be used for commercial purposes. Submitted data access forms will be evaluated by the DAC and Lifelines, and a response to requests will be given within two weeks. For requests from verified academic parties, access will be given without further delay. For requests from commercial parties, Lifelines will perform a pre-DPIA (Data Privacy Impact Assessment) to assess the risks of the proposed processing of personal data (e.g. purpose, storage, access, archiving, etc.) with respect to the GDPR (EU privacy laws) subject rights. Based on the outcome of the pre-DPIA, Lifelines will decide whether sharing data with the commercial entity is allowed and/or whether additional measures have to be taken.

Study EGAS00001005027

Data for Paper: Combining transcription factor binding affinities with open chromatin data for accurate gene expression prediction

mRNA, total RNA, small noncoding RNA, NOMe-Seq and DNase-Seq data from following samples (not every Sequencing Type for every sample): 01_HepG2_LiHG_Ct1 41_Hf01_LiHe_Ct 41_Hf02_LiHe_Ct 41_Hf03_LiHe_Ct 51_Hf03_BlCM_Ct 51_Hf04_BlCM_Ct 51_Hf03_BlEM_Ct 51_Hf04_BlEM_Ct 51_Hf03_BlTN_Ct 51_Hf04_BlTN_Ct Metadata available at deep.dkfz.de

Dataset EGAD00001002735

NEC

This multi-centre, non-randomized, open-label, phase II trial (NCT03016338), assessed niraparib monotherapy (cohort 1, C1), or niraparib and dostarlimab (cohort 2, C2) in patients with recurrent serous or endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR). Secondary outcomes were safety and objective response rate (ORR). Translational research was an exploratory outcome. Potential biomarkers were evaluated in archival tissue by immunohistochemistry and next generation sequencing panel. Feasibility of liquid biopsy by ctDNA was assessed.

Dataset EGAD00001010056

Best Endovascular vs. Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST CLI-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment to the effectiveness of endovascular treatment in adults with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are eligible for both treatment options. Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects more than 200 million people worldwide. A portion of those individuals develop chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). CLTI is associated with severe health outcomes. CLTI is defined by ischemic foot pain at rest, ischemic ulcerations, or gangrene. Treatment for CLTI includes revascularization to improve limb perfusion and limit the risk of amputation. However, the choice of surgery or endovascular therapy for revascularization varies greatly. The extent to which this variability affects clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI is unknown. The BEST-CLI trial was initiated to determine whether endovascular revascularization was superior to surgical revascularization in patients with CLTI. Participants A total of 1434 participants with a single segment of great saphenous vein comprised cohort 1. Of these, 718 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 716 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. A total of 396 participants needing an alternative conduit comprised cohort 2. Of these, 197 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 199 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. Design BEST-CLI was an international, randomized, open-label trial. Participants were assigned to one of two cohorts based on the availability of a single segment of great saphenous vein. Participants in both cohorts were randomly assigned to either surgery or endovascular therapy. Follow-up was performed at 30 days after the procedure, 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter up to 84 months after randomization. Telephone visits in lieu of clinic visits were planned at 30 months and every 12 months thereafter and at the end of the trial. Participants were followed for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause), quality of life, level of pain, and performance on the six-minute walk test. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events or death from any cause. A major adverse limb event was defined as above ankle amputation of the index limb or a major index-limb reintervention (new bypass, interposition graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). Conclusions Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. Farber A, Menard MT, Conte MS, et al. Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(25):2305-2316. PMID 36342173

Study phs003844

NHLBI's Collection of Datasets for General Research Use (Public Posting of Genomic Summary Results: Allowed)

This collection contains all of NHLBI's authorized individual-level genomic datasets currently in dbGaP that are approved for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model Data Use Certification Agreement. Genomic Summary Results (GSR) sharing is allowed (unrestricted) or not applicable. To request access to this study collection, select phs003132 in the dbGaP Authorized Access System.

Study phs003132

A Prospective Natural History Study of Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes of Children with SCID Disorders

Individuals with a recent or new diagnosis of severe combined immune deficiency (including infants who were identified by newborn screening) may be eligible to be enrolled on the PIDTC research study 6901. Speak to your doctor to determine if you or your child may be eligible. Protocol 6901 follows patients with SCID prospectively, meaning the 6901 study enrolls participants where there is a plan to receive a blood and marrow transplant, enzyme therapy, or gene therapy in the future. Patients are then followed according to a schedule set out by the study protocol after the procedure. The times the study requests follow up will be the same as when your doctor would want to be seeing you or your child as part of their regular ongoing medical care. Patients with "leaky SCID", reticular dysgenesis, and Omenn syndrome may also be eligible to participate in 6901. The 6901 research study does NOT dictate how your or your child's doctors should treat you or your child, as the PIDTC recognizes that there are many complex factors that go into this decision. The decision about how you or your child with SCID will be treated is made by your doctor. The 6901 study simply follows how you or your child do over time. There are no experimental therapies on this study. The 6901 study has been open since August 2010, and continues to be open and enrolling patients to the present day. The study plans to enroll approximately 250 patients with SCID. By studying new patients undergoing treatment for SCID, the goal is to learn more about: (1) outcomes from the treatment of SCID in the modern era of medicine, (2) what factors lead to the best long-term outcomes, such as best donor, conditioning regimen, timing of transplant, etc. and (3) what impact newborn screening and the early diagnosis of SCID has had on the long-term outcomes following BMT or gene therapy. A significant amount of information is also being gathered on how and when the immune system recovers after BMT, quality of life for long-term survivors, and about whether children develop normally after treatment. The 6901 study is the largest coordinated prospective study of patients with SCID ever performed. Information that we will learn, both now and in the future, will help doctors and other health professionals to better treat children with SCID. All hospitals within the PIDTC are enrolling patients with SCID on 6901, ensuring that the outcomes are reflective of what happens in the "real world" as opposed to at just one or two large centers.

Study phs001392

CIDR: NCI Genome Wide Predictors of Survival in Colorectal Cancer

CIDR/Molecular Correlates: This study genotyped archived blood samples from colorectal cancer cases participating in clinical trials. The goals of this project were to identify genetic variants associated with survival outcomes treatment and treatment-related severe adverse events among patients with colorectal cancer. Another goal was to examine the impact of adding information on germline genetic loci to existing prognostic models. MOSAIC: Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/ 5FU-LV in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer (MOSAIC). A randomized, open label efficacy trial to evaluate the FOLFOX regimen versus LV5FU2 in the adjuvant treatment of stage II and III colon cancer. The primary end point was disease-free survival. CPT.ES1.604: Randomized phase 3 study of weekly irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil (FUIRI) versus biweekly irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic CRC. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that a regimen without leucovorin (LV) (FUIRI) is not inferior to the standard FOLFIRI (response rate). 03-TTD-01: The purpose of this phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in continous infusion (5-FU CI) as first line treatment in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary outcome measure is time to disease progression. Secondary outcome measures are to determine safety of combination, objective response rate, time to onset of response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, one year survival time, and overall survival time. 03-TTD-01: The purpose of this phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in continous infusion (5-FU CI) as first line treatment in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary outcome measure is time to disease progression. Secondary outcome measures are to determine safety of combination, objective response rate, time to onset of response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, one year survival time, and overall survival time. N0147: Randomized phase III clinical trial for adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer patients enrolled at institutions across North America. Originally designed to compare three different chemotherapy regimens, and then later expanded to evaluate adding cetuximab to each original arm (leading to six total arms). Further modification later added pre-screening for KRAS mutation status, with the resulting goal to assess the potential benefit of cetuximab added to the modified sixth version of the FOLFOX regimen (mFOLFOX6) in patients with resected stage III wild-type KRAS colon cancer. Main outcome of interest is disease-free survival in patients with wild-type KRAS, while secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. N9741: Randomized phase III trial to compare the effectiveness of various combination chemotherapy regimens in treating patients who have advanced, recurrent, or metastatic colorectal cancer that cannot be treated with surgery or radiation therapy. C-08: A Phase III Clinical Trial Comparing Infusional 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) Every Two Weeks With Bevacizumab to the Same Regimen Without Bevacizumab For the Treatment of Patients With Resected Stages II and III Carcinoma of the Colon. The primary aim of the trial was to compare the relative efficacy of mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab with that of mFOLFOX6 alone in prolonging disease-free survival and the secondary aim was to compare the relative efficacy of mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab with that of mFOLFOX6 alone in prolonging survival.

Study phs001290

14305 results for ""Pennsylvania+German"+ACS+study+'Socius'+open+access"

in 16.10 milliseconds.