690 results for ""PhD+2001"+"Professor+of+Bioinformatics"+2012+18000+citations+profile"

in 36.97 milliseconds.

• Implementation of the GDPR

  Data Protection 1 About the EGA The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) was formally launched in 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), to address an identified need for archiving and sharing the results of genome-wide association studies from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. In late 2012, with the signing of a memorandum of understanding (and subsequent formal agreement in 2016) between EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), the EGA formally became a joint project of the two institutes. The two institutes work together to support the EGA services, including supporting submissions, web site, strategic leadership, and data infrastructure developments. 2 EMBL-EBI & GDPR The EGA is co-managed by EMBL-EBI and CRG. EMBL-EBI is an international organisation established by treaty and has certain privileges and immunities (e.g. exemptions from the application of national law) and also may self-regulate its activities (e.g. establish its own institutional legal framework) within the framework of its founding act of 1973. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union (EU) regulation that legislates how organisations can share and process personal data of EU citizens. EMBL places great value in maintaining collaboration with researchers who are subject to GDPR. For that reason, it is of utmost importance for EMBL to handle data received from those collaborators in a secure and responsible manner. Mindful of its public mandate and the sensitivity of the data it handles, EMBL has always ensured a high level of data protection in its activities. Since the introduction of GDPR in May 2018, EMBL has established its internal policy on General Data Protection (IP68), exercising its right to self-regulate its operations,., IP 68 establishes a robust personal data protection framework that provides for data protection principles, enforceable data subject rights and oversight and redress mechanisms offering a level of protection comparable with GDPR. 3 CRG & GDPR The Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) is an international biomedical research institute of excellence, created in July 2000 and mainly participated by the Catalan Government. It is a non-profit foundation and its mission is to discover and advance knowledge for the benefit of society, public health and economic prosperity. The CRG is a CERCA center. CERCA is the collective organisation for all research centres of excellence in Catalonia. CERCA ensures these centres develop successfully by promoting synergies and strategic cooperation improving their visibility and the impact of their research and promoting the dialogue amongst both public and private stakeholders. As a legal entity based in Spain and operating within the EU, the CRG ensures the compliance with the GDPR and the legal regulations on personal data protection applicable at the national level, as well as any other legislation that may replace, modify or supplement the above-mentioned in terms of personal data protection. 4 EGA & GDPR EGA GDPR Schema 4.1 Genetic and phenotypic data Within GDPR, there are two main actors: data controllers and data processors. Data controllers are persons or entities which determine the purposes and means that the personal data may be processed, e.g. companies, researchers, or universities. For EGA, the data controller is ultimately the data producer and the submitter(s) who submit the data to EGA. The data controller also creates a Data Access Committee (DAC) who will decide on data access permissions at EGA. Data processors are the persons or entities which process the data on behalf of a data controller. With regard to GDPR, EGA is a data processor as it processes data as instructed by the data controller. GDPR applies to any organisation which accesses personal data from an individual within the EU. Under GDPR, personal data is defined as any data that is identifiable, including names and email addresses as well as health-related and genetic data. EGA does not accept personally identifiable data except genetic and phenotypic data, so all other data submitted to EGA, such as names and addresses, must be pseudonymised. GDPR requires that data controllers implement data protection principles, such as data minimisation, to minimise the risk of data leakage, and protect the rights of the data subjects. As a data processor, EGA has a set of security policies that are followed to minimise the risk of unauthorised data access or data loss. In its role as a data processor, EGA requires all submitters to sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) when the submission account is first created. This agreement is only required to be signed once per submitter, and will remain valid for future submissions to EGA. 4.2 Other personal data The EGA also collects personal data as part of our interactions with submitters, data access committees, and researchers accessing data distributed by EGA. The below privacy notices explain what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Privacy Notices for EGA Title Version Last Updated EGA Data Access Committee Account Privacy Notice for EGA Data Access Committee Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA User Account Privacy Notice for EGA User Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Helpdesk Service Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Website Service Privacy Notice for EGA Website Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 Documentation Title Version Description EGA Security Overview Security Document 1.1 The EGA Security Document provides an overview of EGA’s practices in ensuring the security of data stored at EGA. EGA Data Processing Agreement Data Processing Agreement 1.5 The Data Processing Agreement must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please note that this document is non-negotiable. Authorised Submitters Authorised Submitters Formulary 1.0 The Authorised Submitters Form must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please list all those that should have access to the submission account in order to submit to the EGA should be detailed here. Dispute Resolution Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, the DPA (including the enforceability or breach thereof, any question regarding its existence, validity or termination) or relating to the EGA Service shall be resolved using the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of EGA including those related to Data Protection. The EGA’s internal dispute resolution mechanism has the following procedure: EGA OPERATIONAL PHASE: Meetings between EGA staff and the Data Controller.LEGAL MANAGEMENT PHASE: Meetings between legal teams of EMBL, CRG and the Data Controller. DIRECTION MANAGEMENT PHASE: Negotiation between the legal representatives of EMBL, the CRG and the Data Controller. If the internal dispute resolution mechanism doesn’t resolve the controversy or claim the next phase is:ARBITRATION PHASE: Resolution by arbitration under the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules (“Rules”).

  Documentation about/privacy-notice

• Unrelated Donor Reduced Intensity Bone Marrow Transplant for Children with Severe Sickle Cell Disease (BMT CTN-0601-BioLINCC)

  ObjectivesThe primary objective is to determine event-free survival (EFS) at 1 year after unrelated donor (URD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) using bone marrow (BM) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).BackgroundSickle cell disease (SCD), also known as sickle cell anemia, is an inherited blood disease that can cause organ damage, stroke, and intense pain episodes. Children with sickle cell disease experience organ damage, impaired quality of life, and premature mortality. A blood stem cell transplant is a treatment option for someone with a severe form of the disease. Prior to undergoing a transplant, people typically receive a conditioning regimen of high doses of chemotherapy and other medications to prepare the body to accept the transplant. This type of conditioning regimen is known as a myeloablative conditioning regimen, but it can result in toxicities and sterility. A conditioning regimen that uses lower doses of chemotherapy and medications may be safer for transplant recipients. This type of regimen is known as reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen. RIC has a more favorable toxicity profile but is associated with higher rates of graft rejection (GR), especially with graft sources such as umbilical cord blood This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of blood stem cell transplants, using bone marrow from unrelated donors, in children with severe SCD who receive a RIC regimen prior to the transplant.SubjectsPatients 3.0-19.75 years old with symptomatic SCD AND one or more of the following complications: (1)-(i) a clinically significant neurologic event (stroke) or any neurologic defect lasting > 24 hours and accompanied by an infarct on cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); OR, (ii) patients who have a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity that exceeds 200 cm/sec by the non-imaging technique (or TCD measurement of >185 cm/sec by the imaging technique) measured at a minimum of 2 separate occasions one month or more apart; OR, (2) Minimum of two episodes of acute chest syndrome within the preceding 2-year period defined as new pulmonary alveolar consolidation involving at least one complete lung segment (associated with acute symptoms including fever, chest pain, tachypnea, wheezing, rales, or cough that is not attributed to asthma or bronchiolitis) despite adequate supportive care measures; OR, (3) History of 3 or more severe pain events (defined as new onset of pain that lasts for at least 2 hours for which there is no other explanation) per year in the 2 years prior to enrollment despite adequate supportive care measures (if patients are receiving hydroxyurea and compliant with therapy, being symptomatic is an indication for transplantation; however, if patients decline hydroxyurea or non-compliant with this therapy, they would still remain eligible for study if pain criteria as described above are met). Lansky/Karnofsky performance score must be ≥ 40. Hemoglobin S must be ≤ 45%. Patients must have an unrelated adult bone marrow donor who is HLA-matched at 8 of 8 HLA-A, -B, -C and -DRB1 at high resolution using DNA-based typing. Patients with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis of the liver, with uncontrolled bacterial, viral, or fungal infection in the past month, or seropositivity for HIV are excluded. Patients with HLA-matched family donors, or who have received prior HCT, and females who are pregnant or breast feeding are excluded. Thirty patients were enrolled on this study and of these, 29 patients met the criteria and proceeded to the study transplant.DesignParticipants attended a study visit prior to the transplant to undergo a blood collection, neurocognitive testing to measure learning and brain function, magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Questionnaires to assess quality of life were also completed. All patients received erythrocyte transfusions before transplant. Twenty-two days (-22) before the transplant, participants began receiving a reduced intensity conditioning regimen of chemotherapy and medications. On days -21, -20, and -19 participants weighing 10 kg or more received 10 mg, 15 mg, and then 20 mg of Alemtuzumab intravenously (IV) followed by 30 mg/m2/day IV on days -8 through -4 of Fludarabine. Eight days (-8) before the transplant, participants were admitted to the hospital to continue the conditioning regimen which included 140 mg/m2 IV of Melphalan on day -3. Participants received the bone marrow transplant on day 0. Prophylaxis for GVHD consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) administered from day -3 through day 100 after graft infusion, with subsequent taper through day 180; methotrexate 7.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 6; and methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg per day from days 7 through 28, with subsequent taper by 20% per week. One week after the transplant continuing until the WBC is normal, participants received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). After leaving the hospital, participants attended study visits weekly during weeks 1 to 8, at day 60, weekly during weeks 9 to 14, at Day 100, at month 6, and at years 1 and 2. At all study visits, a blood collection, medical history review, and physical exam occurred. In addition, at day 100, month 6, and years 1 and 2, questionnaires to assess quality of life were completed. At select visits the following procedures were conducted: lung function testing, heart function testing, MRA and MRI scans, and neurocognitive testing.The primary outcome was 1-year EFS. Death, disease recurrence or graft rejection by 1 year were considered events for this endpoint.ConclusionsThe trial met its prespecified 1-year EFS, and significantly improved HRQL was reported posttransplant. However, although the Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) provided successful engraftment in most patients, the regimen cannot be considered safe for widespread adoption without modification due to the regimen-related toxicity (RRT) and high rate of chronic GVHD, which was the predominant cause of mortality.

  Study phs003470

• Characterization_of_individual_foci_of_multicentric_multifocal_breast_cancer_using_targeted_next_generation_sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the “quadrants” of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients’ survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Study EGAS00001000407

• Genome-Wide Association Study of HCC in Non-Asian USA Population

  This GWAS of HCC relied on existing biological and data resources from 7 USA sites and one Canadian site which allows for the integration of genetic and environmental data. Total of 2199 case patients and 1103 non cancer controls were genotyped. Case patients are defined as patients with pathological or radiological diagnosis of HCC with and without chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Study was restricted to Caucasian population without prior infection with chronic HBV infection. All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood. Study population of the participated sites are: Site-1: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center A hospital based-case-control study was initiated at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2000 and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Study design was previously described in detailed (1-3). Written informed consent for an interview and for a biological sample was obtained from each participant. At time of diagnosis prior to treatment exposure. Case patients were recruited from the population of patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were evaluated and treated at the institution's gastrointestinal medical and surgical oncology outpatient clinics. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC, U.S. residency, and the ability to communicate in English. Patients with concurrent or past history of other types of cancers were excluded. Control subjects were healthy spouses of patients with cancers other than liver, gastrointestinal, lung, or head and neck (smoking-related cancers) undergoing treatment at our institution. Eligibility criteria for control subjects were the same as those for patients, except that control subjects could not have ever had cancer. A short, structured questionnaire was used to screen potential control subjects on the basis of eligibility criteria. Control subjects and patients were recruited simultaneously. Case patients and control subjects were interviewed by well-trained interviewers who followed a written protocol to guide ascertainment and reduce surveillance, interviewer, and recall bias. No proxy interviews were conducted. The interviewers used a structured and validated questionnaire to collect information about demographic characteristics and potential risk factors for HCC such as personal smoking history, alcohol use, medical history, occupational history, and family history of cancer. Blood samples from cases and controls were tested for HBV and HCV. HCV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen were detected by use of a third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL). Important clinical information were retrieved from patients' medical records. Total of 1188 case patients and 278 controls from MD Anderson study were genotyped. Site-2: Mayo Clinic Case patients and controls included in the study from Mayo clinic were recruited as part of Mayo International Hepatobiliary Neoplasia Register and Biorepository. Only USA patients and controls were participated. All cases and controls signed informed consent indicating their willingness to participate in genetic studies. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from participants and retrieved from medical records. Total of 522 HCC case patients and 182 controls were genotyped in this study. Site-3: Toronto University Molecular Epidemiology of Hepatobiliary Tumors (HBT study, CAPCR 09-0289) is a hospital-based study that includes 1710 patients diagnosed with liver, bile duct or gallbladder adenocarcinoma (Hepatocellular carcinoma - HCC; cholangiocarcinoma - CCA; and gall bladder adenocarcinoma -GBCa) recruited at University Health Network (UHN) between 2009 and 2018. HBT study is a prospective study of cancer patients that collects self-reported demographic and epidemiological data, medical records/clinical information and blood samples for research purposes. Eligible patients recruited between 2009 and March 15 2016 were selected to participate in the Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GWAS in HCC, CAPCR 15-9943-CE), a sub-study of the HBT study. Eligible prospective patients recruited after March 15 2016 signed the Addendum to the HBT consent form and became eligible to participate in the GWAS in HCC study. Total of 271 cases and 21 controls were genotyped from Toronto University Site-4: University of Pittsburgh The design of the study has been described previously (4-6). Briefly, this population-based study enrolled 120 HCC patients and 230 matched controls from black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white residents of Los Angeles County who were between 18 and 74 years of age at diagnosis from January 1995 through December 2001. HCC Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. We sought to recruit up to two control subjects per case from the neighborhoods where HCC patients resided at the time of diagnosis, who were matched to the index case by sex, age (within 5 years), and race (Hispanic white, non-Hispanic white, black). Blood samples (plasma and buffy coat), medical and lifestyle factors were collected from all consenting participants. Total of 65 cases and 60 controls were genotyped in this study Site-5: South Western Dallas Under IRB approval, HCC Cases and controls were prospectively collected since 2015 from the outpatient Liver clinics from Parkland Health and Hospital System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, two large health systems in Dallas TX. A Total of 31 cases and 29 controls were genotyped from site 5. Site-6: Columbia University HCC patients from Columbia are those recruited as part of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Database Shared Resource which seeks to recruit all cancer patients for potential future studies. The PI is Dr. Katherine Crew AAAL5871. This resource collects sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical data on patients as well as a blood sample. Those who indicated on their consent form that they would participate in genetic studies were included. Total of 79 case patients with HCC were genotyped from Columbia University. Site-7: University of Michigan The study population included from University of Michigan were included from a prospective study of with chronic HCV infection recruited in Ann Arbor Patients who had under- gone liver transplantation, known coinfection with HIV, life expectancy <12 months due to extra-hepatic illnesses, or were receiving HCV treatment at enrolment, were excluded. Protocol, surveys, and data forms were developed where each enrolled patient completed the same questionnaire All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee at the University of Michigan. Detailed study description was previously published (7). Total of 44 cases and 347 controls were genotyped Site-8: Veteran Administration Medical Center in Houston This research including written informed consent form was jointly approved by Institutional Review Boards for the Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Study details have been previously published (8). Briefly, we prospectively recruited consecutive HCV-infected veterans prior to their previously scheduled HCV clinic visit at a large tertiary care VA medical center between May 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012. Patients completed a research assistant (RA) administered survey interrogating medical and risk factor history including lifetime alcohol use, had anthropometric measurements taken, and completed a fasting venipuncture for performance of the FibroSure-ActiTest as a measure of hepatic pathology. We restricted our current analysis to individuals who were: (1) White male veterans between 18 and 70 years; (2) had no history of HCC, liver transplant, decompensated liver disease including ascites, dementia, or psychosis; (3) were serologically-confirmed to have chronic HCV and to be negative for both HIV and active HBV infection; (4) were not currently receiving anti-HCV pharmacotherapy; and (5) had FibroSURE testing shown F3/F4 fibrosis consistent with cirrhosis.

  Study phs001744

• How to upload Crypt4GH files

  Uploading files Users who hold an ega-box-XXX account can upload files using either INBOX or FTP. Users who have a Submitter role associated with their email will only be able to upload files using INBOX. Before uploading your files, please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters in their naming convention, such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &. This can cause issues with the archiving process, leading to problems for end users. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited storage. To manage the available resources, we enforce a limit of 10TB per submission account at any one time. If you exceed this limit, a “permission denied” message will be displayed. This will prevent you from uploading more files, but connecting to your inbox.For submissions larger than 10TB, please perform uploads in 10TB batches: register all the metadata and then finalise the submission. Upload the next batch of files and repeat the same metadata registration and finalisation process until you have completed the file upload. Further information can be found in the SP documentation. INBOX FTP The INBOX is only compatible with files encrypted using the Crypt4gh tool Before uploading If you are not a registered EGA user, you will first need an EGA user account. Please note that it may take a few days for your account to be activated, as it needs to be vouched for by the EGA Helpdesk. Once your account is validated, you will be able to request a submitter role. [Optional] Meanwhile, you can create and add your public key to your EGA account profile. This option is not available for old submission accounts (e.g., ega-box-NNN). As soon as you have been granted a submitter role, you will be able to connect with your username and password to the EGA inbox using the SFTP protocol. If you have also registered a public key in your profile, you can also connect using this key. To upload files to your account, you can use the graphical user interface (GUI) or the command line. Graphical User Interface (GUI)We recommend using FileZilla, a free, open-source FTP client. However, you can use any other GUI that allows connecting over the SFTP protocol. For FileZilla as your GUI, follow these steps to upload files: Create a new connection in Site Manager (File > Site Manager) and select the following options (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer ProtocolHost: __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__Logon Type: Key fileUser: your EGA usernameKey file: Path/to/your/private_keyFigure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers.Click Connect, and you will log in remotely to your home directory. You can think of this folder as a storage "in the EGA cloud" in which you will add your files for the EGA. The uploading area has three folders:To-encrypt: Files uploaded in this folder will be encrypted automatically on the fly.Encrypted: Files uploaded in this folder must already be encrypted with Crypt4gh. Upload your files here if your connection is unstable or you have problems completing the upload into-encrypt.Etc: This folder contains two files that allow the server to show you your username and group instead of some internal numbers. Please do not upload files here; otherwise, you will obtain a permission denied error. Find the files you want to upload by browsing your local storage (left side of your screen in FileZilla). Select all the files you want to upload, then right-click on them and select Upload (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually uploading files to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can transfer data from their local storage to the "EGA cloud" by following the depicted steps Please note that regardless of which folder you upload your files in, both folders (to-encrypt, encrypted) will point to the same path (/) (Figure 3). Therefore, you will see your files in both folders. Figure 3: Both folders, to-encrypt and encrypted, point to the same path (/)" If your connection is unstable, please encrypt your files first using Crypt4gh. Then upload them to the ‘encrypted’ folder. The example above shows how to connect to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using the private key. However, if you prefer to log in using your credentials, you can do so. Please go to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)  for more information. SFTP command line To upload files securely to your private area of the EGA, you can use SFTP(Secure File Transfer Protocol) with your favorite FTP client. Here's what you need to know to get started: Connect to the target host __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__. This is the new hostname for the EGA SFTP service. Log in with your EGA username and key files (or password). Upload files to your private EGA inbox to ensure that only you can access the files. By following these steps, you can securely upload your files to the EGA for safe storage and sharing. Using the SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal and type sftp username@hostnameEnter your EGA passwordTo see a list of available SFTP commands, type helpsftp> put – Upload filesftp> get – Download filesftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’sftp> pwd – Display remote working directorysftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’sftp> lpwd – Display local working directorysftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directorysftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directoryType the "put" command to upload files. For example: put *.bamUse the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). After uploading- Once you have uploaded files to the inbox, please bear in mind that the checksum needs to be calculated, which can take up to two days. You will only be able to link your files to a run/analysis once the encrypted checksum has been calculated.- When linking your files to the 'Run' or 'Analysis', ensure that the file name matches the file path '/name' in the INBOX folder.- Please delete the files from your SFTP INBOX after all the runs/analyses have been registered and files are ingested (SP > Files > Files ingested). This will clear your inbox space an allow you to upload more files. This will also prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal inbox. Frequently Asked Questions Specific to the inbox What username should I use to log in to my inbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username.  If you have forgotten your registered username, please contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. How are checksums calculated in your inbox? If you encrypt the file beforehand and upload it to the "encrypted" folder, the unencrypted checksum will not be calculated until the file is ingested (i.e., until it is used in a run/analysis). If the file is uploaded to the "to-encrypt" folder, then both checksums are calculated.Please bear in mind that after files have been uploaded to the inbox, the checksum must be calculated, which can take from a few hours to two days.  Specific to using keys to authenticate Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/inbox

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• 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

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submission. To start a new submission click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only” or “Read & Write”). If you want to invite all the collaborators from a previous submission, you can add them by selecting said submission.In the event that the submission has been closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you will need to modify one of the objects in the submission, for example, copy and paste the title. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv and the sample will be created.Add single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols and machines. Experiments generate the connection between samples and study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample - file linkage. Upload the run.csv and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh. Add single run: select the file format, sample and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded in your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested please delete them from your SFTP INBOX before finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button, and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more file to a closed submission, you will need to re-open the submission where the dataset was registered. Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission id (EGA0XXX).  Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, you must edit any object within the submission. For example, you can copy and paste the title. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guidance of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal

• eMERGE Network's Multi-Center Pilot of Pharmacogenetic Sequencing in Clinical Practice

  eMERGE-PGx is a multi-site test of the concept that sequence information can be coupled to electronic medical records (EMRs) for use in healthcare. The promise of personalized medicine - health care guided by each individual&apos;s biological characteristics - is being fostered by increasingly powerful and economical methods to acquire clinically relevant biomarkers from large numbers of people. One therapeutic area that seems especially ripe for an early test of the personalized medicine concept is pharmacogenomics (PGx) - the idea that individual variation in drug response includes a genomic component. Drug response variation is an accepted feature of virtually all drug treatments, and contemporary molecular biologic tools continue to identify key genes mediating drug metabolism, transport, and targets. Importantly, common variation in these genes is an increasingly well-recognized contributor, sometimes with large effects, to variation in drug responses. As a result, recommendations for genotype-guided therapy are increasing. These evidence-based recommendations, if implemented in health care practice, could reduce adverse drug events and improve time to therapeutic response. Through eMERGE-PGx, we are developing strategies for the optimal implementation of genetic sequence data into the clinical environment with the ultimate goal of improving patient care. Site and participants include: Children&#39;s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children&#39;s Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. The PGx population selected for sequencing with the PGRNseq panel at CHOP is 1,650 children from CAG&#39;s biorepository with well-documented drug-related severe adverse events (SAEs) or EHR-based drug response profiles. SAEs were extracted from EPIC records and from CHOP&#39;s Adverse Event (AE) database, which documents every AE at CHOP. These AEs are classified by a medical review panel according to the causal relationship with the suspected drug into &#39;doubtful&#39;, &#39;possible&#39;, and &#39;probable&#39;. Individuals with events classified as probable, severe and objective, were selected for sequencing. The drugs more frequently associated with adverse events are antibiotics, antineoplastics, immunosuppressants and psychotropic drugs. This cohort constitutes 50% of the target population. The remaining subjects were selected using EHR-based algorithms that we have developed and validated at CAG for identifying patients not responding to ADHD medication (primarily atomoxetine) and patients refractory to antiepileptic treatment from responders. Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston&#39;s Children&#39;s Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): 811 CCHMC samples were obtained from children, adolescents or young adults exposed to medication or at risk for needing medication of study interest. 55% of participants were exposed to one or more opioids and their DNA source was a CCHMC study-specific biobank; while 27% of participants were at risk for needing an opioid for surgical pain management and were newly recruited. The remainder of the cohort was exposed to methylphenidate and their DNA samples were obtained from a CCHMC study-specific biobank. The focus of Boston Children&#39;s Hospital eMERGE PGx project is on individuals with epilepsy. Samples were taken from a current pharmacogenomics study already in place through which DMET analysis was run and used as confirmation for PGRN-Seq results. A total of 109 samples were sent for PGRN-Seq analysis at University of Washington. The remaining 141 epilepsy samples were from Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia and underwent testing with PGRN-Seq at CHOP. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All data are from Geisinger patients who consent to participate in the MyCode project. MyCode participants agree to provide biological samples for broad research use, including genomic analysis, and for linking of sample data to information in the participant&#39;s Geisinger health record. The consent also permits sharing of de-identified data for research purposes. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): Potential GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300). Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH&#39;s integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF,) or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if a participant had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) &#62; 1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): For this study, 750 subjects were selected and enrolled into PGx based on Vanderbilt&#39;s algorithm designed to enrich for patients who are most likely to receive one of three common drugs (Clopidogrel, Warfarin or Simvastatin) in the next 2-3 years. These patients were sent a letter of invitation and description of the PGx project. Follow-up phone calls were made, and interested subjects came in for a one time meeting to discuss the project and go through the informed consent with the research coordinator. If they were interested they signed the consent and HIPAA forms and gave blood. Subjects were chosen and enrolled into PGx independently of previous biobank participation. Mayo Clinic: The Right Drug, Right Dose, Right Time - Using Genomic Data to Individualize Treatment (The RIGHT Protocol) enrolled 1013 patients to test the hypothesis that prescribers could deliver genome-guided drug therapy at the point-of-care by using pharmacogenomic data preemptively integrated in the electronic medical record. Complete details regarding the study population have been previously described (Bielinski et al., 2014). Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt Sinai): Our study site is the Primary Care Associates (PCA) practice group of the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates (FPA) of the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. This practice has 12 physician providers. All patient encounters are documented and managed with EpicCare ambulatory electronic medical record. Active PCA Patients eligible for enrollment fulfilled the following criteria: a) age 50 or older receiving clinical care at Mount Sinai FPA PCA practice with at least one practice encounter within 18 months prior to commencement of enrollment; b) no history or current use of clopidogrel, warfarin, or simvastatin. Eligible patients were invited to participate through de novo recruitment by letter sent by their provider. Interested patients were screened for eligibility and enrolled to participate in the eMERGE PGX study on site by a dedicated research coordinator. In addition to de novo enrollment from clinical practice, patients of FPA PCA who had previously enrolled in Mount Sinai&#39;s BioMe Biobank program AND fulfilled eligibility criteria as stated under a) and b) were identified by chart review and samples sequenced at CIDR using PGRNseq platform (N=300). PGRNseq data from 291 samples passed stringent quality control and are included in the current data set. Furthermore, 56 of these patients carrying known and validated &#39;actionable&#39; variants affecting prescribing of clopidogrel, warfarin, and/or simvastatin were enrolled in the eMERGE PGX study following invitation through recontacting by the Principal Investigator of the BioMe Program. Northwestern University: Participants for this study were recruited from the General Internal Medicine (GIM) clinic at Northwestern Medical Group (NMG). Patients were selected for invitation to participate if they had been seen a minimum of two times over the last four years, having a high likelihood to receive a prescription for warfarin, Plavix, or a statin, and are seeing a physician who has agreed to allow their patients to be contacted for the study. We utilized an algorithm developed at Vanderbilt and tailored to our population which uses our EHR to estimate the probability that individuals will receive a prescription for warfarin, Plavix, or a statin in the next three years. Participants were sent a letter explaining the study prior to their GIM appointment and offered participation at the time of their visit. Participants were consented on-site and blood drawn after consent was obtained. The GIM clinic consists of 39 primary care physicians who provide approximately 80,000 patient encounters per year. As with any large primary care clinic, a significant proportion of patients in GIM clinic suffer from a variety of chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Over 50,000 individuals have been seen by GIM doctors in the past 5 years; 11,562 of these patients have evidence of a statin prescription in the EHR, 3,436 have evidence of a warfarin prescription, and 1,872 have evidence of a Plavix prescription. Vanderbilt University: The more than 1000 participants enrolled into Vanderbilt&#39;s eMERGE PGx study were newly recruited from the Cardiology and Internal Medicine Clinics and the Hillsboro Medical Group within Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Patients were selected based on a predictive algorithm estimating the patient&#39;s likelihood of receiving Clopidogrel, Warfarin, and/or Simvastatin. The algorithm identifies primarily older middle-aged patients, and the mean age of the study group is 74. The cohort is approximately 45% female with 75% of subjects self-identified as EA and 24% as AA. Subjects were consented in person by study personnel following a routine clinic visit and an introduction to the study staff by their doctor. VUMC is a comprehensive health care facility dedicated to patient care, research, and the education of health care professionals. Translational research into the causes and treatment of disease as well as studying fundamental biological properties is the primary focus of discovery at Vanderbilt. Clinical research is conducted in Vanderbilt University Hospital, the Nashville Veterans Administration Hospital, Meharry General Hospital and in their associated outpatient clinics. These hospitals and clinics, all associated with the Vanderbilt system, each have full time Vanderbilt faculty and medical housestaff and provide clinical care and participate in research programs. The Vanderbilt Clinic is comprised of more than 95 adult outpatient specialty practices and received over 1.5 million ambulatory visits in 2012-13. The Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute offers a comprehensive heart program offering diagnosis, medical treatment, minimally invasive therapies, surgical intervention and disease management, tailored to each individual&#39;s unique needs. All programs within the Vanderbilt Clinic have survival figures that surpass the national average.

  Study phs000906

• Distribution of data using Live Distribution

  Live Distribution Welcome to the documentation for using the Live Distribution feature for distributing data files securely through the EGA platform. This guide will walk you through the process of downloading encrypted files and decrypting them using Crypt4GH. Please follow the steps below to ensure a smooth experience. Before Downloading Create an EGA user. Make sure that you have the permissions to download the dataset of interest. In case you don’t have access, request access to the dataset. Add your Crypt4GH-compatible public key to your EGA account. Please allow a few hours for your public key to be synced with your profile. Afterwards, you will be able to connect to your EGA outbox using the SFTP protocol. Download Graphical User Interface (GUI) You can use any GUI that supports SFTP connections, such as FileZilla, an open-source FTP client. For Filezilla as your GUI, follow these steps to download files: Open FileZilla and access Site Manager (File > Site Manager). Create a new connection with the following settings (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer Protocol Host: __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ Logon Type: Key file User: your EGA username Key file: path/to/your/private_key Figure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the EGA outbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. Click Connect to access your Outbox. This folder serves as your storage space within the EGA cloud, containing files accessible for download in a secure way. Browse the remote directory on the right side of the FileZilla screen. Select the files you wish to download, right-click, and choose Download (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually downñoad files from __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can downñoad data from the EGA outbox to their local storage by following the depicted steps SFTP command line You can also use the SFTP command line to securely download files from the EGA Outbox. Using SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal window Enter the following command to connect: sftp username@hostname Enter your EGA password To see a list of available sftp commands type help sftp> put – Upload file sftp> get – Download file sftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’ sftp> pwd – Display remote working directory sftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’ sftp> lpwd – Display local working directory sftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directory sftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directory Type get command to download files. For example: get encrypted_file.c4gh Use the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). Convenient SSH settings Include the following settings in your SSH config file, located in ~/.ssh/config Host __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ EGA-outbox hostname __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ User username IdentityFile path/to/the/private/key Replace username and path/to/the/private/key with the appropriate settings, and you will be able to connect to the __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ simply using sftp EGA-outbox. How to decrypt Files archived at the EGA are encrypted based on Crypt4GH. Hence, to decrypt the files you need to install Crypt4GH. You can install a python implementation of it, with pip install crypt4gh or directly from the Github repository pip install git+https://github.com/EGA-archive/crypt4gh.git After installing Crypt4GH, decrypt files using the following command: crypt4gh decrypt --sk /path/private/key < encrypted_file.c4gh > decrypted_filename The command reads the encrypted file from stdin (with <) and output the decrypted version to stdout (with >). Replace encrypted_file.c4gh and decrypted_filename with the appropriate filenames but make sure to not use the same filename for both reading and writing because your SHELL would then truncate both files before you even read or write. Frequently Asked Questions What username should I use to log in to my outbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username, not your email address. Therefore, if you registered a username different from your email address when creating your EGA account, you must use that username to log in. If you have forgotten your registered username, please, contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. I see that some files in my dataset have 'unavailable' as extension. What should I do? Within your Outbox, you'll find a list of all the datasets available for download. Occasionally, certain files may be marked as "unavailable". These unavailable files can be identified by the "unavailable" extension added to their filenames (e.g. filename.fastq.gz.unavailable.c4gh). If you encounter an unavailable file that you need, please reach out to our Helpdesk. We'll promptly work on making the file accessible for download as soon as possible. Specific to using keys Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation access/download/files/live-outbox

• Detection of Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility Loci Using Genome-Wide Sequencing

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, whole genome sequencing, replicating and fine-mapping of genetic discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 6 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002 PMID:12015775; Campbell et al., 2014 PMID:25472679). At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. We restricted to samples that had blood DNA source. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1 on reference year and sex. Darmkrebs: Chancen der Verh&#252;tung durch Screening (DACHS): This German study was initiated as a large population-based case-control study in 2003 in the Rhine-Neckar-Odenwald region (southwest region of Germany) to assess the potential of endoscopic screening for reduction of colorectal cancer risk and to investigate etiologic determinants of disease, particularly lifestyle/environmental factors and genetic factors. Cases with a first diagnosis of invasive colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 10 codes C18-C20) who were at least 30 years of age (no upper age limit), German speaking, a resident in the study region, and mentally and physically able to participate in a one-hour interview, were recruited by their treating physicians either in the hospital a few days after surgery, or by mail after discharge from the hospital. Cases were confirmed based on histologic reports and hospital discharge letters following diagnosis of colorectal cancer. All hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients in the study region participated. Based on estimates from population-based cancer registries, more than 50% of all potentially eligible patients with incident colorectal cancer in the study region were included. Community-based controls were randomly selected from population registries, employing frequency matching with respect to age (5-year groups), sex, and county of residence. Controls with a history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Controls were contacted by mail and follow-up calls. The participation rate was 51%. During an in-person interview, data were collected on demographics, medical history, family history of CRC, and various life-style factors, as were blood and mouthwash samples. Routine formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from the patients enrolled were requested from the pathology institutes and used for tumor tissue analyses. This analysis includes participants with blood source DNA that were recruited up to 2010 in this ongoing study. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses' Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990 PMID:2090285). Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. Control participants were required to be free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978 PMID:248266). Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989-1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. White colorectal cancer cases with a family history of colorectal cancer (no history of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease, diverticulitis, Gardner's syndrome, Familial Polyposis) and successful genotyping from previous Peters GWAS were selected for this project. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Women's Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts: a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/d) or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS) examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed White cases of invasive colorectal cancer, or death from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from the March, 2011 database. Case priory lists are: 1) have positive family history of colorectal cancer; 2) randomly select cases until we get a total of n=800 cases. Control participants were required to be White, free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. Centrally denied cases of colorectal cancer were not allowed into the control pool. Case and control participants were subject to the following exclusion criteria: (1) had prior history of colorectal cancer at baseline; (2) had no available DNA (DNA searching as Nov 15, 2012); (3) cannot be deposited to dbGaP; (4) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (5) selected for WHI study M26 Phase II. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1. In order to get 2 cases with 1 control, cases were grouped by enrollment year (a total of 5 groups). For each year group, around 50% cases were selected to match controls. In total, 401 cases were selected to match controls. Matching was done on enrollment year, which was matched exactly. For additional information, see dbGaP: phs000200 and ClinicalTrials: NCT00000611.

  Study phs001554

• Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study - Imaging

  Objectives: The clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of three interventions. Specifically, it evaluated (1) the major health benefits and risks of estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone, (2) the effects of a low-fat eating pattern on risk of colorectal cancer, and (3) the efficacy of calcium with vitamin D supplementation for preventing hip and other fractures. The objective of the memory study was to determine whether estrogen plus progestin therapy protects global cognitive function, and evaluate the therapy's effect on the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The observational study is examining the relationship between lifestyle, socioeconomic, health, and other risk factors with cardiovascular, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporotic fracture outcomes. Secondary objectives include providing more reliable estimates of the extent to which known risk factors predict disease, more precise estimates of new occurrences of disease, and to provide a future resource for the identification of new or novel risk factors especially factors found in blood. Background: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing the major causes of death, disability, and frailty in postmenopausal women, specifically heart disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. The WHI is primarily composed of an observational study (OS), as well a clinical trial (CT) with three components: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HT), Dietary Modification, (DM) and Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation (CaD).Prior to the WHI, observational studies suggested that postmenopausal hormone therapy was associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Potential cardioprotection was based on generally supportive data on lipid levels in intermediate outcome clinical trials, trials in nonhuman primates, and a large body of observational studies suggesting a 40% to 50% reduction in risk among users of either estrogen alone or, less frequently, combined estrogen and progestin. Observational studies primarily examining unopposed estrogen preparations have suggested a 30% to 50% reduction in coronary events, and an 8% to 30% increase in breast cancer with extended use. Other research findings indicated that hormone therapy was also associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and increased bone density. The WHI HT trials were designed to test the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on risk for coronary heart disease and assess overall risks and benefits in predominantly healthy women. The Women's Health Initiative Memory Program (WHIMS) consists of a suite of studies which include cohorts of women who participated in the WHI HT trials. Postmenopausal women have a greater risk than men of developing Alzheimer's disease, but studies of the effects of estrogen therapy on Alzheimer's disease have been inconsistent. Additionally, observational studies have suggested that postmenopausal hormone treatment may improve cognitive function, but data from randomized clinical trials have been sparse and inconclusive. International comparisons and migration studies have suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer. Additionally, fairly consistent evidence existed for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer risk from within-country observational studies, although the protective effect of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake. The WHI DM trial was the first randomized trial to directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Osteoporosis is a major cause of injury, loss of independence, and death, and contributes to hip fractures. Observational evidence and data from previous randomized clinical trials suggest that calcium and/or vitamin D supplements may slow bone loss and reduce the risk of falls in postmenopausal and elderly women. However, evidence from trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of calcium and vitamin D supplementation with respect to hip and other fractures was limited at the time the WHI was initiated. In two prior randomized trials, calcium plus vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures among older women. When the WHI CaD trial was designed, guidelines recommended daily intakes of 800 to 1200 mg of calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis, which was not met by many American women. Therefore, the WHI CaD trial was designed to test the primary hypothesis that postmenopausal women randomly assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation would have a lower risk of hip fracture and, secondarily, of all fractures than women assigned to placebo. Subjects: Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 were eligible to participate. A woman was considered postmenopausal if she had experienced no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for women under 55 years of age), had had a hysterectomy, or had ever used postmenopausal hormones. Recruitment was carried out in 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998. The clinical trial components had additional specific inclusion or exclusion criteria.A total of 68,132 women were randomized into at least one component of the clinical trial. 27,347 women were enrolled in the hormone therapy component with 16,608 in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 10,739 in the unopposed estrogen trial, 48,835 women were enrolled in the diet modification component, and 36,282 women were enrolled in the calcium/vitamin D component. 7,479 women 65 years of age and older at baseline and that participated in the HT trial component were enrolled in the ancillary memory study. Women who were either ineligible or unwilling to participate in the clinical trial component were enrolled in the observational study. For example, many potential participants to the clinical trial component of the study were already undertaking a low fat diet or were using hormone replacement therapy. The effect of the selection process was that women enrolled in the observational study tended to have healthier lifestyles compared to those enrolled in the clinical trial. In total, 93,676 subjects were enrolled in WHI OS, with over 16% being members of a racial/ethnic minority group. The first WHI Extension Study enrolled 115,407 consenting participants from all components of the original WHI study for an additional five years of follow-up, from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, 93,567 women consented to continued follow-up. Design: The clinical trial component of the WHI included three randomized comparisons: hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Women could have been randomized into one, two or all three trials.The hormone therapy trial enrolled women to one of two double-blinded trials: estrogen (0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens daily) plus progestin (2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily) or estrogen alone. Women with a prior hysterectomy were eligible for the trial of unopposed estrogen. Women with an intact uterus at screening were initially also eligible for unopposed estrogen, but were reassigned to the trial of combined postmenopausal hormones beginning in 1995. Both trials randomized participants 1:1 to either hormone therapy or placebo. A 3-month washout period was required before baseline evaluation of women using postmenopausal hormones at initial screening. Study participants were contacted by telephone 6 weeks after randomization to assess symptoms and reinforce adherence. Follow-up contacts by telephone or clinic visit occurred every 6 months, with clinic visits required annually. The estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 after a mean 5.2 years of follow-up because health risks, including increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, exceeded benefits. The estrogen alone trial was stopped early in March 2004, because an increased risk of stroke was found with no benefit for coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome. The dietary modification trial evaluated the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable, and grain diet on preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group in the ratio of 2:3 for cost-efficiency. The intervention was an intensive behavioral modification program, using 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly sessions thereafter, led by specially trained and certified nutritionists. The program was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing total fat to 20% of energy intake, increasing vegetables and fruits to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals. Comparison group participants received a copy of the US Department of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other health-related materials but were not asked to make dietary changes. Dietary intake was monitored using the WHI food frequency questionnaire at 1 year and in a rotating one-third subsample every year thereafter. Women completed a medical update questionnaire every 6 months, and medical records were sought for all women reporting colorectal cancer. The primary outcome was invasive colorectal cancer incidence. Participants in the calcium/vitamin D trial were randomized 1:1 to either supplements or placebo. Active tablets contained 500 mg of elemental calcium (as calcium carbonate) and 200 IU of vitamin D3, to be taken twice daily with meals. The presence and severity of symptoms, safety concerns, and outcomes were ascertained at annual clinic visits and telephone or clinic visits at intervening six-month intervals. Risk factors for fracture were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and clinical examination. The primary outcome was incidence of hip fracture. Participants in the observational study attended a baseline examination and were re-examined three years later. Participants completed annual updates of exposures and clinical outcomes by mail. Final data were collected by mail during the close-out period in April 2004 to March 2005. The major clinical outcomes of interest were coronary heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporotic fractures, diabetes, and total mortality. Most outcomes were initially ascertained by self-report on an annual questionnaire and documented by hospital and related records. Charts with potential cardiovascular, cancer, and fracture outcomes were sent to the local physician adjudicator for evaluation and classification. Staff at the Clinical Coordinating Center coded and adjudicated all cancers of major interest in the study using standardized SEER guidelines. In 2005, WHI participants were invited to join the Extension Study for an additional five years of follow-up in order to collect long-term outcomes. Participants completed annual data collection forms primarily by mail, similar to the OS follow-up. Women reporting study outcomes were contacted by WHI field center staff to obtain additional details and medical records, which were evaluated by physician adjudicators. In 2010, the woman remaining were invited to join the next Extension Study. In the second extension, women were divided into two groups, one of which would have outcomes documented with medical records (the Medical Records Cohort, MRC), and the other would just be followed by self-report (the Self-Report Cohort, SRC). The MRC consists of women who were in the hormone therapy trials, and all African-American and Hispanic women. In 2012-2013, a subset of the MRC was identified for a potential in-home visit to collect blood and several objective measures of physical functioning. Conclusions: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin after an average 5.2 year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women (Rossouw et al., 2002, PMID:12117397). Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo (Rapp et al., 2003, PMID: 12771113), increased the risk for probable dementia, and did not prevent mild cognitive impairment (Shumaker, et al., 2003, PMID: 12771112). The use of conjugated equine estrogen increased the risk of stroke, decreased the risk of hip fracture, and did not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy after an average of 6.8 years of follow-up (Anderson et al., 2004, PMID: 15082697). Over approximately 8 years of follow-up, a low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (Beresford, et al., PMID: 16467233). Calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density; however, no significant difference was observed in hip fractures (Jackson, et al., 2006, PMID: 16481635). A recent review summarizes the conclusions from the WHI clinical trials with a focus on clinical practice (Manson, et al., 2024, PMID: 38691368).Description of ECG Imaging Data: Electric cardiograms (ECGs) were given to all clinical trial participants at baseline and in years 3, 6, and 9 of the original WHI study.EKG data consist of 12 lead 10 seconds ECGS sampled at 500Hz via GE ECG machines and process via GE MUSE system. The ECG waveform were directly exported from GE MUSE using MUSE export function in XML format, which include EKG waveform data as well as other ECG characteristics. Waveform data is in base64 encoded format, when it is decoded, it is a binary data that can be used to draw waveform graph. Many programming languages and data tools have built in functions to decode base64 strings. All the other necessary information is included in the LeadData section, total byte size, total sample size etc. (usually 1 sample is 2 bytes). See example below: encoded-data (base64 encoded string) JwAoAC0AKAAiACIAJAAkACQAIwAiACIAHgAcABwAGwAZABgAGAAYABcAEwAQABAAEAAL^/AAsADAAM... decoded-binary-data (1 sample is 2 bytes) 270028002D002800220022002400240024002300220022001E001C001C001B00 1900180018001800170013001000100010000B000B000C000C000D000D000D00 0A000A000A0009000600040004000700070005000500020... These binary values are integers (Y axis data of the graph), hence it is a straightforward process to draw the waveform graph. Acquisition dates have been redacted from this ECG data to comply with WHI policy. All acquisition dates within files and in file names have been set to January 1, 1900 (19000101) to comply with this policy.

  Study phs003824

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with &#62;261,000 consents that allow return of results to &#62;84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world&#39;s largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n&#62;450,000), specifically from &#62;100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n&#62;12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute&#39;s Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (&#60;1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode&#174; Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people&#39;s health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women&#39;s Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women&#39;s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA&#39;s integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level &#62;155 or &#62;120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients&#39; health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Colorectal Cancer with Focus of Rare and Less Frequent Variants

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies conducted in North America and Europe. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, replicating and fine-mapping of GWAS discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 20 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. The Black Women&#39;s Health Study (BWHS): Is the largest follow-up study of the health of African-American women (Cozier et al., 2004; Rosenberg et al., 1995) [PMID: 15018884; PMID: 7722208]. The purpose is to identify and evaluate causes and preventives of cancers and other serious illnesses in African-American women. Among the diseases being studied are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, uterine fibroids, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cardiovascular disease. The study began in 1995, when 59,000 black women from all parts of the United States enrolled through postal questionnaires. The women provided demographic and health data on the 1995 baseline questionnaire, including information on weight, height, smoking, drinking, contraceptive use, use of other selected medications, illnesses, reproductive history, physical activity, diet, use of health care, and other factors. The participants are followed through biennial questionnaires to determine the occurrence of cancers and other illnesses and to update information on risk factors. Self-reports of cancer are confirmed through medical records and state cancer registry records. Mouthwash-swish samples, as a source of DNA, were obtained from &#126;26,000 BWHS participants in 2002-2007. DNA was isolated from the mouthwash-swish samples at the Boston University Molecular Core Genetics Laboratory using the QIAAMP DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). All incident colorectal cancer cases with a DNA sample were included in the present analysis. Two controls per case, selected from among BWHS participants free of colorectal cancer at end of follow-up, were matched to cases on year of birth (&#43;/- 2 years) and geographical region of residence (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total 209 colorectal cancer cases and 423 controls were sent for genotyping. Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II): The Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease, is a prospective cohort designed to identify biomarkers and other factors associated with risk of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions (Kakourou et al., 2015) [PMID: 26220152]. 32,894 participants were recruited from May through October 1989 from Washington County, Maryland and surrounding communities. Colorectal cancer cases (n &#61; 297) and matched controls (n &#61; 296) were identified between 1989 and 2000 among participants in the CLUE II cohort of Washington County, Maryland. Colorectal Cancer Study of Austria (CORSA): In the ongoing colorectal cancer study of Austria (CORSA), more than 13,000 Caucasian participants have been recruited within the province-wide screening project &#34;Burgenland Prevention Trial of Colorectal Disease with Immunological Testing&#34; (B-PREDICT) since 2003 (Hofer et al., 2011) [PMID: 21422235]. All inhabitants of the Austrian province Burgenland aged between 40 and 80 years are annually invited to participate in fecal immunochemical testing and haemoccult positive screening participants are invited for colonoscopy. CORSA includes genomic DNA and plasma of colorectal cancer cases, low-risk and high-risk adenomas, and colonoscopy-negative controls. Controls received a complete colonoscopy and were free of colorectal cancer or polyps. CORSA participants have been recruited in the four KRAGES hospitals in Burgenland, Austria, and additionally, at the Medical University of Vienna (Department of Surgery), the Viennese hospitals &#34;Rudolfstiftung&#34; and the &#34;Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Sud&#34;, and at the Medical University of Graz (Department of Internal Medicine). 1403 colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal adenoma cases, and 1404 matched controls were selected for the study. Distribution of factors sex and age (5 year strata) were evenly matched between cases and controls. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2014) [PMID: 12015775; PMID: 25472679]. At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. A total of 360 cases and 359 controls were selected for this study. Czech Republic Colorectal Cancer Study (Czech Republic CCS): Cases with positive colonoscopy results for malignancy, confirmed by histology as colon or rectal carcinomas, were recruited between September 2003 and May 2012 in several oncological departments in the Czech Republic (Prague, Pilsen, Benesov, Brno, Liberec, Ples, Pribram, Usti and Labem, and Zlin). Two control groups, sampled at the same time of cases recruitment, were included in the study. The first group consisted of hospital-based individuals with a negative colonoscopy result for malignancy or idiopathic bowel diseases. The reasons for the colonoscopy were: i) positive fecal occult blood test, ii) hemorrhoids, iii) abdominal pain of unknown origin, and iv) macroscopic bleeding. The second control group consisted of healthy blood donor volunteers from a blood donor center in Prague. All individuals were subjected to standard examinations to verify the health status for blood donation and were cancer-free at the time of the sampling. Details of CRC cases and controls have been reported previously (Vymetalkova et al., 2014; Naccarati et al., 2016; Vymetalkova et al., 2016) [PMID: 24755277; PMID: 26735576; PMID: 27803053]. All subjects were informed and provided written consent to participate in the study. They approved the use of their biological samples for genetic analyses, according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The design of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. All subjects included in the study were Caucasians and comprised 1792 cases and 1764 matched controls. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years, whereas sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex. Early Detection Research Network (EDRN): The aim of the EDRN initiative is to develop and sustain a biorepository for support of translational research (Amin et al., 2010) [PMID: 21031013]. High-quality biospecimens were accrued and annotated with pertinent clinical, epidemiologic, molecular and genomic information. A user-friendly annotation tool and query tool was developed for this purpose. The various components of this annotation tool include: CDEs are developed from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Checklists and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACR) standards. The CDEs provides semantic and syntactic interoperability of the data sets by describing them in the form of metadata or data descriptor. A total of 352 colorectal case samples and 399 controls were selected for this study. Controls were matched to CRC cases based on age and sex. The EPICOLON Consortium (EPICOLON): The EPICOLON Consortium comprises a prospective, multicentre and population-based epidemiology survey of the incidence and features of CRC in the Spanish population (Fernandez-Rozadilla et al., 2013) [PMID: 23350875]. Cases were selected as patients with de novo histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease-related CRC, and cases where patients or family refused to participate in the study were excluded. Hospital-based controls were recruited through the blood collection unit of each hospital, together with cases. All of the controls were confirmed to have no history of cancer or other neoplasm and no reported family history of CRC. Controls were randomly selected and matched with cases for hospital, sex and age (&#43;&#45; 5 years). A total of 370 cases and 370 controls were selected for genotyping. Hawaii Adenoma Study: For this adenoma study, two flexible-sigmoidoscopy screening clinics were first used to recruit participants on Oahu, Hawaii. Adenoma cases were identified either from the baseline examination at the Hawaii site of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial during 1996-2000 or at the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii&#39;s Gastroenterology Screening Clinic during 1995-2007. In addition, starting in 2002 and up to 2007, we also approached for recruitment all eligible patients who underwent a colonoscopy in the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Gastroenterology Department. Cases were patients with histologically confirmed first-time adenoma(s) of the colorectum and were of Japanese, Caucasian or Hawaiian race&#47;ethnicity. Controls were selected among patients with a normal colorectum and were individually matched to the cases on age at exam, sex, race/ethnicity, screening date (&#43;&#45;3 months) and clinic and type of examination (colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy). We recruited 1016 adenoma cases (67.8% of all eligible) and 1355 controls (69.2% of all eligible); 889 cases and 1169 controls agreed to give a blood and 29 cases and 34 controls, a mouthwash sample. A total of 989 cases and 1185 controls were genotyped for this study. Columbus-area HNPCC Study (HNPCC, OSUMC): Patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at six participating hospitals were eligible for this study, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis were not eligible for this study. These six hospitals perform the vast majority of all operations for CRC in the Columbus metropolitan area (population 1.7 million). The institutional review board at all participating hospitals approved the research protocol and consent form in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Briefly, during the period of January 1999 through August 2004, 1,566 eligible patients with CRC were accrued to the study (Hampel et al., 2008) [PMID 18809606]. A total of 1472 colorectal cancer samples had enough blood DNA remaining to be sent for genotyping. Control samples were provided by the Ohio State University Medical Center%#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank. The Columbus Area Controls Sample Bank is a collection of control samples for use in human genetics research that includes both donors&#39; anonymized biological specimens and linked phenotypic data. The data and samples are collected under the protocol &#34;Collection and Storage of Controls for Genetics Research Studies&#34;, which is approved by the Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board at OSUMC. Recruitment takes place in OSUMC primary care and internal medicine clinics. If individuals agree to participate, they provide written informed consent, complete a questionnaire that includes demographic, medical and family history information, and donate a blood sample. 4-7 ml of blood is drawn into each of 3 ACD Solution A tubes and is used for genomic DNA extraction and the establishment of an EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell culture, cell pellet in Trizol, and plasma. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1. Matching was done on age at reference time (age_ref), race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Sex and race were matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race with 1&#58;1 ratio. Since controls are fewer than cases, one control is matched on 2 cases at most. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses&#39; Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990) [PMID: 2090285]. Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma 1 cm or larger in diameter and&#47;or with tubulovillous, villous, or highgrade dysplasia&#47;carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month&#47; year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. In total, 159 advanced adenoma cases and 109 controls were selected for genotyping. Leeds Colorectal Cancer Study (LCCS): Following local ethical approval, colorectal cancer cases were recruited from 1997 until 2012 in Leeds, UK through surgical clinics. Initially, funding was provided by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (subsequently the Food Standards Agency) and Imperial Cancer Research Fund (subsequently Cancer Research UK). Recruitment also occurred similarly in Dundee, Perth and York between the periods of 1997 and 2001 using the same protocol and the data and samples were combined. Pathologically confirmed cases were consented at outpatient clinics, providing information on known and postulated risk factors for colorectal cancer (diet, lifestyle and family history) as well as providing a blood sample for DNA. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing diverticular disease and an inability to complete the questionnaire. The General Practitioners of cases (all UK residents have a nominated General Practitioner to whom to refer initial medical queries) and these GPs were asked to send letters to other persons on their patient list of the same gender and born within 5 years of the case. Subsequently to enhance the number of controls, we systematically invited patients from selected GP practices. Diet was assessed in cases and controls using an extensive dietary and lifestyle questionnaire modified by that produced by the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer (EPIC). The frequency that each specific food items were eaten was recorded and we also obtained average fruit and vegetable consumption as a cross-check. In total, 1591 cases and 739 controls provided a DNA sample. The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I/II): The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I- colon and NCCCS II-rectal) were population-based case-control studies conducted in 33 counties of North Carolina. Cases were identified using the rapid case ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon (cecum through sigmoid colon) between October 1996 and September 2000 were classified as potential cases in the NCCCS I. The NCCCS II included patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, or rectum (hereafter collectively referred to as rectal cancer) between May 2001 and September 2006. Additional eligibility requirements were: aged 40-80 years, residence in one of the 33 counties, ability to give informed consent and complete an interview, had a driver&#39;s license or identification card issued by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (if under the age of 65), and had no objections from the primary physician in regards to contacting the individual. Controls, identified and sampled during the respective study dates, were selected from two sources. Potential controls under the age of 65 were identified using the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles records. For those 65 years and older, records from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used. Controls were matched to cases using randomized recruitment strategies. Recruitment probabilities were done using strata of 5-year age, sex, and race groups. Dietary information was collected using a modified version of the semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed at the National Cancer Institute. In addition, participants were asked about vitamin and mineral supplementation, special diets, restaurant eating, sodium use, and fats used in cooking. In NCCCS I, 515 colorectal cases and 687 matched controls were sent for genotyping. In NCCCS II, 796 colorectal cases and 823 controls were sent from the NCCCS II for genotyping. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age, race, and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Race and sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978) [PMID: 248266]. Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989 -1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed from which DNA was isolated from either buffy coat or buccal cells for genotyping. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of advanced adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through June 1, 2011. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma more than 1 cm in diameter and/or with tubulovillous, villous, or high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month/year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. A total of 272 cases and 236 matched controls were sent to CIDR for the advanced adenoma case-control set. Northern Swedish Health and Disease Study (NSHDS): Comprises over 110,000 participants, including approximately one third with repeated sampling occasions, from three population-based cohorts (Dahlin et al., 2010; Myte et al., 2016) [PMID: 20197478; PMID: 27367522]. The largest is the ongoing Vasterbotten Intervention Programme, in which all residents of Vasterbotten County are invited to a health examination upon turning 30 (some years), 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Extensive measured and self-reported health and lifestyle data, as well as blood samples for central biobanking in Umea, Sweden, are collected at the health exam. Leucocyte DNA samples for 1&#58;1-matched CRC case-control sets from the NSHDS, of which 878 samples are included in this study, have been selected for genotyping. This is in addition to 354 samples from the NSHDS previously analyzed as part of the multicenter EPIC cohort. Cancer-specific and overall survival data are available for all patients. For at least 425 patients, archival tumor tissue has been analyzed for the BRAF V600E mutation and by sequencing codon 12 and 13 for KRAS mutations, as well as for MSI screening status by immunohistochemistry and for an eight-gene CIMP panel using quantitative real-time PCR (MethyLight). Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI, OSUMC): OCCPI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01850654) is a population-based study of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in one of 51 hospitals throughout the state of Ohio from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The OCCPI was created to decrease CRC incidence in Ohio by identifying patients with hereditary predisposition (statewide universal tumor screening for newly diagnosed CRC patients), increase colonoscopy compliance for first-degree relatives of CRC patients, and encourage future research through the creation of a biorepository. The 51 Ohio hospitals participating in the OCCPI were selected to represent a cross-section of clinical centers in the state based on high reported volume of CRC patients, affiliation with a high volume hospital, or interest in participation. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained by the individual hospitals, Community Oncology Programs, or by ceding review to the OSU IRB. Written informed consent was obtained. A total of 2139 colorectal cases were genotyped. Patients were considered eligible for this study if they were age 18 or older at the time of enrollment, if they had a surgical resection (or biopsy if unresectable) in the state of Ohio demonstrating an adenocarcinoma of the colorectum from 1&#47;1&#47;13 - 12&#47;31&#47;16. Matched control samples were selected from the Ohio State University Medical Center&#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank in an identical way to the selection for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study (please refer to the description for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study). Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. In the observational (control) arm, buccal cells were collected via mail using the &#34;swish-and-spit&#34; protocol and participation rate was 65%. Details of this study have been previously described (Huang et al., 2016) [PMID&#58; 27673363] and are available online (http://dcp.cancer.gov/plco). For this study 1651 advanced adenoma cases and 1392 controls were selected for genotyping. Selenium and Vitamin E Prevention Trial (SELECT): The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial which explored using selenium and vitamin E alone and in combination to prevent prostate cancer in healthy men (Lippman et al., 2009) [PMID&#58; 19066370]. Secondary endpoints included the prevention of colorectal and lung cancers. SELECT was conducted at 427 sites and centers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico; 35,533 men 55 years and older (50 or older if African American) were randomized beginning August 22, 2001. Supplementation was discontinued on October 23, 2008 due to futility. 308 colorectal cancer cases and 308 matched controls were selected from the SELECT population and sent for genotyping. Screening Markers For Colorectal Disease Study and Colonoscopy and Health Study (SMS-REACH): Details on this study population were previously reported (Burnett-Hartman et al., 2014) [PMID&#58; 24875374]. Participants were enrollees in an integrated health-care delivery system in western Washington State (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington) aged 24-79 years who underwent an index colonoscopy for any indication between 1998 and 2007 and donated a buccal-cell or blood sample for genotyping analysis. Study recruitment took place in 2 phases, with phase 1 occurring in 1998-2003 and phase 2 occurring in 2004-2007. Persons who had undergone a colonoscopy less than 1 year prior to the index colonoscopy, persons with inadequate bowel preparation for the index colonoscopy, and persons with a prior or new diagnosis of colorectal cancer, a familial colorectal cancer syndrome (such as familial adenomatous polyposis), or another colorectal disease were ineligible. Patients diagnosed with adenomas or serrated polyps and persons who were polyp-free at the index colonoscopy (controls) were systematically recruited during both phases of recruitment. Approximately 75% agreed to participate and provided written informed consent. Based on medical records, persons who agreed to participate and those who refused study participation were similar with respect to age, sex, and colorectal polyp status. Study protocols were approved by the institutional review boards of the Group Health Cooperative and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle, Washington). A total of 575 cases and 508 matched were selected for the study. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age_ref, race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. The Women&#39;s Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts&#58; a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg&#47;d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg&#47;d] or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg&#47;d) and vitamin D (400 IU&#47;d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS)examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed cases of invasive colorectal cancers, or deaths from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from September 30, 2015 database. Controls were participants free of colorectal cancer (invasive or in situ) as of September 30, 2015. Potential cases and controls were excluded if they (1) were non-White; (2) had history of colorectal cancers at baseline; (3) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (4) DbGAP ineligible; (5) had &#60;1.25ug of DNA; (6) selected for WHI study M26 Phase I or II; (7) selected for WHI study AS224 and also included in the imputation project. A total of 578 cases and 104,429 controls met the eligibility criteria. Each case was matched with 1 control (1&#58;1) that exactly met the following matching criteria: age (&#43;&#45;5 years), 40 randomization centers (exact), WHI date (&#43;&#45;3 years), CaD date (&#43;&#45;3 years), OS flag (exact), HRT assignments (exact), DM assignments (exact), and CaD assignments (exact). Control selection was done in a time-forward manner, selecting one control for each case from the risk set at the time of the case&#39;s event. The matching algorithm was allowed to select the closest match based on a criteria to minimize an overall distance measure (Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized matching of cases to controls. Technical Report #56, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN. April 1995). Each matching factor was given the same weight. When exact matches could not be found, the matching criteria were gradually relaxed among unmatched cases and controls until all cases had found matched controls. Using the matching criteria specified above, 559 of the 578 eligible cases found exact matches. The matching criteria was then relaxed to &#58; Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, DM flag, CaD flag. 17 of the remaining 19 unmatched cases found matched controls. By matching on Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, the remaining 2 unmatched cases found their matches.

  Study phs001415

• HTAN MCL Pre-Cancer Atlas Pilot Project - Targeted Sequencing Development Study

  The HTAN-MCL Pre-Cancer Atlas Pilot Project (PCAPP) is the result of a collaboration between the seven members of the MCL consortium. Across four organ types, PCAPP's goal is to collect and profile pre-malignant lesions for gene expression, DNA mutations, single-cell gene expression and immune-environment. Most PML are small in size and only available come from formalin fixed paraffin embedded archived tissue. The primary goal of PCAPP is to 1) understand the logistical challenges of PML specimen collection, 2) document technical limitations of the assays that are specific to the PML and 3) overcome them to support the generation of a more comprehensive Pre-Cancer Atlas in the future. The current upload provides RNA and DNA sequencing from participants with DCIS who were studied at the University of San Diego and the University of Vermont. Description of the overall study: A. Background/Significance One of the critical barriers to developing new approaches for cancer detection and prevention is the lack of understanding of the key molecular and cellular changes that cause cancer initiation and progression. Unlike the extensive work that has been done profiling advanced stage tumors, few studies have comprehensively profiled the molecular alterations found in precancerous tissues. Premalignant lesions are currently characterized by histologic changes that precede the development of invasive carcinoma1,2.These lesions can often be identified in regions surrounding an invasive tumor or in biopsies taken from patients undergoing diagnostic evaluation for suspicion of cancer. Currently, limited metrics exist to identify lesions that will likely progress to carcinoma and require intervention from those that will naturally regress or remain stable3,4. Characterization of the molecular alterations in premalignant lesions and the corresponding changes in the microenvironment would hasten the development of biomarkers for early detection and risk stratification as well as suggest preventive interventions to reverse or delay the development of cancer. Our pilot study will establish the feasibility of transcriptomic, genomic and immune profiling of FFPE premalignant lesions from multiple organ sites, collected and profiled with uniform SOPs across multiple institutions within the MCL consortium. We will characterize the molecular alterations in precancerous lesions and the corresponding microenvironment in four major organ sites, in order to uncover the molecular and cellular determinants of premalignancy, and establish standardized sequencing and immunohistochemistry protocols on FFPE precancerous tissue. We will also evaluate the technical feasibility of single nuclei sequencing of small FFPE pre-cancer lesions. Successful completion of the proposed pilot study will set the stage for expansion and development of a comprehensive Pre-Cancer Atlas (PCA) as part of the NCI's moonshot.B. Specific Aims Aim 1: Collect premalignant lesions (PML) and their associated microenvironment via LCM from FFPE tissue across four organ sites (breast, lung, pancreas &amp; prostate). Aim 2: Perform bulk RNA and DNA seq on premalignant FFPE samples (and flash frozen tissue where available) and compare the genomic/transcriptomic alterations within and across organ sites. C. ApproachAim 1: Collect premalignant lesions (PML) and their associated microenvironment via LCM from FFPE tissue across four organ sites (breast, lung, pancreas &amp; prostate). MethodsI. Patient Population/Sample Collection: Overview of the sites collecting PML tissue from the respective organs is provided in Table 1 and a full description of the biospecimens to be obtained is described in detail for each organ type below. Table 1. Breakdown of cohort by tissue type and collection site.Organ siteBreastLungPancreasProstateType of PMLDCISAAH, Squamous Dysplasia/CISIPMNsPINCollection of PatientsUCSF/UCSDUVMBU*/UCLAVanderbilt/MoffittMDACC*JHUStanford*# of Patients201920 (10 of each type)20 (10 of each type)242020Total patients per Organ39402440Note: single nuclei/cell RNA-Seq will be performed on 4-5 FFPE samples from each of the organ types 1. DCIS lesions from breast tissue: DCIS lesions will be collected from 39 patients (20 from UCSF/UCSD &amp; 19 from UVM) with primary low or high-grade DCIS diagnosed from a breast core biopsy. Subsequent resected lumpectomy or mastectomy tissues will be prospectively sampled in the vicinity of the prior biopsy site using multiple approaches: 1) Live cells (heterogeneous mix) will be obtained as a cell scrape slurry from the lesion surface or by fine needle aspirate (FNA); 2) For a subset of specimens where size is sufficient, a block of breast tissue with DCIS will be fresh-frozen; 3) The remainder of the specimen will be taken for routine formalin-fixation and paraffin-embedding (FFPE). The FFPE sample will be annotated to identify the matched FFPE tissue block adjacent to the fresh-frozen sample and will be sectioned for use in bulk and single nuclei sequencing . We will dissect DCIS, adjacent normal and when available, associated carcinoma. In addition, when possible, normal tissue will be collected from a tissue block lacking lesions as well as collection of blood. A subset of patients (n = 5 | FFPE, flash frozen and fresh) will be sent to the Broad Institute for single nuclei/cell sequencing.2. AAH and squamous dysplastic/CIS lesions from airway and lung tissue: For squamous cell lung cancer, we will collect endobronchial biopsies from abnormal airway regions identified on autofluroscence bronchoscopy or identify PMLs in the margins of resected lung tissue. We will study 20 patients (5 each from BU/UCLA/Vanderbilt/Moffitt) with pre-invasive squamous lesions (moderate-severe dysplasia or carcinoma in situ (CIS)) identified on pathologic examination. LCM of the premalignant region and adjacent normal epithelium will be performed as well as the invasive tumor for those collected from the resection margin (n=5 from UCLA). On a subset of lesions collected at bronchoscopy (n=5), we will collect additional biopsies that will be flash frozen and fresh for single nuclei and cell sequencing, respectively, performed at the Broad Institute. In parallel to the work at the Broad, BU will perform single cell RNA-seq on these freshly cell sorted tissues (n = 5). Blood will be collected on all patients for genomic studies. For lung adenocarcinoma, we will collect resected FFPE lung tissues from 20 patients (10 from UCLA and 10 from Vanderbilt/Moffitt) with early stage lung adenocarcinoma that harbor atypical adenomatous (AAH) premalignant lesions in the resection margin. We will LCM multiple AAH regions (3-5 per patient) as well as adjacent regions of normal epithelium and invasive adenocarcinoma. In addition, blood will be collected on all patients for genomic studies. 3. IPMNs from pancreatic tissue: For pancreatic cancer PML, we will collect low and high grade lesions from 24 patients representing macroscopic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMN) (n=24) from surgically resected specimens along with blood samples. Archival FFPE specimens of microscopic PanIN lesions, occurring multi-focally adjacent to invasive PDAC, and archival IPMN lesions (with or without associated invasive cancer), along with the adjacent normal tissue, will undergo LCM and utilized for bulk DNA and RNA sequencing. If matched frozen tissues are available for a subset of these FFPE samples, we will bank for comparison of profiles. Because IPMNs are macroscopic lesions, they provide an opportunity for obtaining the samples fresh and therefore can be used for single cell sequencing (in contrast to PanINs). Therefore, 5 freshly obtained IPMNs will be used for the single cell RNA sequencing studies performed at both the Broad Institute and MDACC, and the matched FFPE and/or frozen sections from these lesions (obtained from the adjacent PML) will be sent to Broad Institute as a pilot to assess "single nuclei" RNA sequencing.4. PINs from prostate tissue: For prostate cancer PML, there will be 40 samples of Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (PIN) collected between the Stanford and JHU sites (20 cases per site). At the Stanford site, 20 prostate specimens detected by PSA screening who have/will undergo surgery (radical prostatectomy) for clinically localized disease will make up the final cohort. The age range of the participants would be 40-75, and we anticipate that 18 will be Caucasian, 1 Asian and 1 Latino or African American based on the practice demographics practice at Stanford. Clinical and MRI data will also be collected for these samples. We will collect low grade (e.g. Gleason score of 6/Grade group 1; n=10) and high grade (Gleason score 4+3=7 or higher/Grade group 3 or higher; n=10) PINs from FFPE samples that have prostate carcinoma. In addition to obtaining LCM archival samples of low and high grade PIN, we will also obtain normal prostatic epithelial from the peripheral, central and transition zones as well as multiple samples of prostate carcinoma in order to obtain the spectrum of Gleason grades in the carcinoma as needed. LCM samples will be used for bulk DNA and RNA sequencing. In addition, single cells will be dissected from FFPE samples to prepare single cell RNA seq libraries using techniques developed at Stanford, and FFPE tissue will be sent to the Broad for single nuclei sequencing. When available, flash frozen and fresh samples from these prostates will be archived and prepared for single nuclei and cell sequencing, respectively, at the Broad Institute and at Stanford (single cell only). JHU will also capture 10 cases (5 grade group 1 and 5 grade group 2) of high grade PIN, normal and invasive adenocarcinoma using frozen sections from fresh frozen tissues. When possible these will be from the same patients as the FFPE samples. Since frozen sections can be quite challenging to morphologically determine high grade PIN from normal epithelium, for these samples we will perform a number of additional tissue-based characterizations. These will include a multicolor combined basal cells (p63 and CK903) and PIN/carcinoma markers (AMACR) referred to in the cocktail as "PIN4", c-MYC (referred to as MYC) protein5, by IHC and mRNA by in situ hybridization (AM De Marzo, Q Zheng unpublished observations), telomere length by in situ hybridization6 and the 5'ETS/45S rRNA7. For these slides, the whole slides will be scanned with a Hammamatsu Nanozoomer with a 40x objective and regions of interest will be annotated as a guide for LCM.II. Laser-capture microdissection (LCM): FFPE tissue blocks will be sectioned at 7&#956;m thickness and serial sections will be stained with H&amp;E. LCM will be performed utilizing standard LCM systems, such as Leica LMD7000 and ArcturusXT at each site. Regions of premalignancy will be dissected and RNA/DNA will be extracted from microdissected cells using the Qiagen All Prep DNA/RNA FFPE Kit. Aim 2: Perform bulk RNA and DNA seq on premalignant FFPE samples and compare the genomic/transcriptomic alterations within and across organ sites. Rationale: There have been limited studies characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic landscape of premalignant lesions associated with breast, pancreatic, lung or prostate cancers. Characterizing the molecular determinants of premalignant disease that are unique and shared across multiple organs will enable new candidate biomarkers for early detection and novel therapeutic strategies for early intervention. MethodsBulk RNA-seq of LCM FFPE tissue: All participating sites will perform bulk RNA-seq in accordance with SOPs developed at BU. In brief, total RNA will be isolated from LCM'd lesion and associated microenvironment tissue using the Qiagen All Prep DNA/RNA FFPE Kit and quality will be assessed with the Agilent Bioanalyzer. Libraries will be generated with the Illumina TruSeq Access kit (for FFPE samples). They will be sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq2500 with 75base-pair paired-end reads. Quality of FASTQ files will be assessed with FastQC. Reads will be aligned to the human genome with STAR and gene-level and isoform-level expression will be quantified with RSEM. Splice junction saturation, transcript integrity, and biotype distributions will be calculated for each sample with RSeQC. DESeq2 and EdgeR will be used to identify associations between gene expression profiles and clinical variables while controlling for confounding covariates. BU will serve as an RNA-seq Core to assess reproducibility of FFPE RNA-seq methods across sites. We will perform RNA-seq according to the SOP listed above on a subset of samples for each organ type (total n ~ 20). Bulk seq of DNA from FFPE tissue: All participating sites will perform targeted or whole exome-seq (WES) in accordance with SOPs. In brief, DNA from laser captured material will be isolated using the Qiagen All Prep DNA/RNA FFPE Kit and undergo stringent quality control to ensure high quality input material for genomic profiling. Purified DNA (ideally 100-200 ng) will be used for library preparation and amplification, followed by next generation sequencing using standard protocols distributed by CDMG. Exome-seq methods are considered standardized, thus we will not need a DNA-seq Core to assess reproducibility across sites. We anticipate local centers will use Illumina paired end reads, following the following general approach. 1) DNA library preparation: Paired-end libraries will be prepared following the manufacturer's protocols (Illumina and Agilent), fragmented to 150-200 bp 2) Capture of targeted exome: Whole exome capture will be carried out using the protocol for Agilent's SureSelect Human All Exon kit. Purified capture products will be amplified using the SureSelect GA PCR primers (Agilent) for 12 cycles. 3) Sequencing will be carried out for the captured libraries using at least 100 bp paired-end reads. To achieve high level sensitivity and accuracy for detecting all the mutations in the whole exome, each sample will be sequenced at 200X mean depth. 4) Read mapping and alignment and variant analysis: Sequence short reads will be aligned to a reference genome (NCBI human genome assembly build 38) using BWA-MEM. Local realignment of aligned reads will be performed using Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK).Data QC: To ensure scientific rigor and consistency among sites in RNA and DNA processing we will include a preliminary analysis of steps in processing and analysis. Protocols for extraction of high quality RNA and DNA from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues, which will be used extensively in these studies continue to improve and may have variable implementation among the sites participating in this study. To evaluate consistency of preliminary steps in processing and downstream analyses, we will initially distribute slides from one large FFPE fixed cancer of origin from prostate, breast, lung and pancreatic cancer. Analysis of these samples will allow us to review the DNA and RNA characteristics (yield, purity and strand length) among sites. Downstream analysis of these same samples will also allow us to compare among sites the consistency of variant calls among centers. We will be able to identify if there are some times of calls (such as small insertion deletions) that are more variable among centers versus other types of calls (such as relative gene expression or single base pair substitutions) that we expect to be less variable and to characterize the reliability of findings across sites. We are also including a 5% blind duplicate analysis of RNA sequencing. Samples will be analysed by the participating genomics cores without knowledge of the phenotype. RNA seq and CNA analyses are normalized for batch effects. We will also compare the observed sex to the self-reported sex as based on RNA profiles and exome sequencing of X chromosome genes as another check for processing accuracy and sample management. D. References 1. Wacholder, S. Precursors in Cancer Epidemiology: Aligning Definition and Function. Cancer Epidemiol. Prev. Biomark. 22, 521-527 (2013). PMID: 23549395.2. Berman, J. J. Precancer: The Beginning and the End of Cancer. (Jones &amp; Bartlett Learning, 2011).3. Nasiell, K., Nasiell, M. &amp; Va&#263;lavinkov&#225;, V. Behavior of moderate cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet. Gynecol. 61, 609-614 (1983). PMID: 6835614.4. Merrick, D. T. et al. Persistence of Bronchial Dysplasia Is Associated with Development of Invasive Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila. Pa.) 9, 96-104 (2016). PMID: 26542061.5. Gurel, B. et al. Nuclear MYC protein overexpression is an early alteration in human prostate carcinogenesis. Mod. Pathol. Off. J. U. S. Can. Acad. Pathol. Inc 21, 1156-1167 (2008). PMID: 18567993.6. Meeker, A. K. et al. Telomere shortening is an early somatic DNA alteration in human prostate tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 62, 6405-6409 (2002). PMID: 12438224.7. Guner, G. et al. Novel Assay to Detect RNA Polymerase I Activity In Vivo. Mol. Cancer Res. MCR 15, 577-584 (2017). PMID: 28119429.

  Study phs002225