72 results for ""developer+diary"+"autumn"+game+'developer+diary'+'autumn'+'download'"

in 29.83 milliseconds.

• A Genomic Atlas of Systemic Interindividual Epigenetic Variation in Humans (GTEx)

  Methylation of cytosines in CpG dinucleotides is an epigenetic mechanism with essential roles in mammalian development. To explore its functions in cellular differentiation, unbiased analysis of CpG methylation by whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) has been used to characterize epigenetic differences among different human tissues and cell types. Meanwhile, human interindividual variation in DNA methylation that is not cell-type specific has attracted relatively little attention. Systemic interindividual epigenetic variation is important, however, because like genetic variation it is a potential determinant of phenotypic variation and can be assessed in any easily obtainable DNA sample. Since systemic epigenetic variants originate in the preimplantation embryo, their establishment can be influenced by periconceptional environment, and potentially provide information about lifetime risks relevant to global health, obesity, and cancer. We elucidated systemic interindividual variation in CpG methylation in the human genome. We studied brain, heart, and thyroid tissues (representing all three germ layer lineages) from each of 10 donors in the NIH Gene-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We performed deep whole genome bisulfite sequencing for these 30 samples, achieving a sequencing depth of over 50x coverage per sample. We identified 9,926 correlated regions of systemic interindividual variation (CoRSIVs). These regions, comprising just 0.1% of the human genome, often correlate with one another over long genomic distances, are associated with transposable elements and subtelomeric regions, conserved across various human ethnic groups, and particularly sensitive to periconceptional environment. While genetic variation appears to influence methylation at most CoRSIVs, many show no evidence of genetic influence, suggestive of 'pure' epigenetic variation. At CoRSIVs, interindividual variation in DNA methylation in an easily biopsied tissue predicts expression in other tissues, and genes associated with these loci are implicated in a range of human disorders. In addition to charting a previously unrecognized molecular level of human individuality, this atlas of human CoRSIVs provides a resource for future population-based investigations into how interindividual epigenetic variation modulates risk of disease.Version 2 now also includes Target Capture Sequencing of CoRSIVs in 808 tissues (188 GTEx Donors). Focusing on the CoRSIVs identified by analyzing WGBS data, a Target Capture Bisulfite sequencing assay was developed. Using the genotype data of 188 GTEx donors, we assessed mQTL by capturing a 1MB region at each CoRSIV and quantifying methylation by Bisulfite-seq. The Target Capture Bisulfite sequencing data will be available to download via the AnVIL project.

  Study phs001746

• Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: To determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Background: Heart failure is a common disorder. Standard treatment for HF includes diuretics to control fluid, and drugs called "neurohormonal antagonists" (such as beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors) to help the heart work more efficiently. The natriuretic peptides, specifically NT-pro-BNP, are biomarkers that reflect HF severity and are significantly associated with adverse outcomes in HF. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels (“guided therapy”) with inconsistent results.Participants: A total of 894 participants were enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Canada, with 446 randomized to the NT-pro-BNP-guided strategy treatment group and 448 randomized to the usual care treatment group.Design: GUIDE-IT was a multicenter randomized clinical trial with participants randomized to either the NT-pro-BNP-guided therapy strategy or usual care. Given the nature of the study intervention, treatment assignment was not blinded. For participants randomized to the NT-pro-BNP-guided strategy, clinicians were instructed to titrate HF therapy to target an NT-pro-BNP level After an initial visit at 2 and 6 weeks, visits occurred every 3 months throughout the remainder of the study. After therapy adjustment for HF (whether driven by NT-pro-BNP levels or clinical reasons), participants had a 2-week follow-up visit for reassessment. All participants in either group also had blinded NT-pro-BNP concentrations measured in a core laboratory at each study visit. The primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events. Conclusions: The guided strategy intervention was stopped in July of 2016 (median follow-up of 15 months) after the study met prespecified inefficacy criteria. Compared to usual care, a strategy of NT-pro-BNP-guided therapy was not more effective in improving time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality in high-risk participants with HFrEF.

  Study phs003621

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network - Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (PETAL VIOLET-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL VIOLET include Plasma and Whole Blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Specimens may not be used to produce commercial products.Objectives: To evaluate the effect of short-term vitamin D supplementation on mortality among critically ill patients with a vitamin D deficiency.Background: Observational data indicate that vitamin D deficiency is common among critically ill patients and constitutes a potentially modifiable risk factor associated with longer lengths of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), lung and other organ injury, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and death. In a previous phase 2 trial, vitamin D supplementation administered to vitamin D-deficient, critically ill patients was associated with lower observed mortality than placebo at 28 days and at 6 months. Because of the need for a larger, phase 3 trial, the PETAL-VIOLET study was initiated to determine if early administration of high-dose vitamin D3 would reduce all-cause mortality among critically ill patients with a vitamin D deficiency.Participants: 1360 patients underwent randomization, 690 were assigned to the vitamin D group and 668 were assigned to the placebo group. Of the 1078 patients confirmed to have a vitamin D deficiency by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS), 538 had been assigned to the vitamin D group and 540 had been assigned to the placebo group.Design: PETAL-VIOLET was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Patients were enrolled within 12 hours after the clinician's decision to admit the patient to the ICU from the emergency department, hospital ward, operating room, or outside facility. Patients were tested for vitamin D deficiency, with a threshold of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 20 ng per milliliter. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, stratified according to site, to receive either a single enteral (administered orally or through a nasogastric or orogastric tube) dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo, in liquid form, administered within 2 hours after randomization.Conclusions: After the first interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be stopped for futility.A single 540,000 IU enteral dose of vitamin D3 administered early during critical illness rapidly corrected vitamin D deficiency but did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to mortality or other clinically important end points.

  Study phs003879

• Jackson Heart Study (JHS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Related Studies: Other Jackson Heart Study data available include: Imaging studies (JHS-Imaging), Genetics and genomics (The Jackson Heart Study, phs000286.v7.p2), and Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R-JHS, phs002907.v1.p1): Jackson Heart Study (phs002907.v1.p1).Available Data: Data available for request include Jackson Heart Study visit 1-3 examination cycles, collated annual follow-up communication data through 2016, and follow-up for mortality, heart disease, and stroke events through 2014.Objectives: The objectives of the Jackson Heart Study are to: 1) investigate the associations of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors with the incidence atherosclerotic events and health outcomes in an African American cohort; and 2) increase access to and the participation of African American populations and scientists in biomedical research and professions.Background: It has long been recognized that African Americans share a disproportionate burden of deleterious health outcomes including diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease and early onset of cardiovascular disease. The Jackson Heart Study was initiated in 2000 to explore potential mechanisms and mediators of health outcomes in a large African American cohort. In addition, the JHS conducts a variety of community education and outreach activities to promote healthy lifestyles to reduce disease risk burden and student training programs to promote and support public health research.Participants: African American men and women, age 35-84 at entry. Of the 5306 cohort members enrolled in the study, the data repository contains data from 3,883 that provided informed consent to share their data with investigators not affiliated with the study.Design: Participants were enrolled in the study from 2000-2004 from urban and rural areas of three counties (Hinds, Madison and Rankin) in the Jackson, MS metropolitan statistical area. Participants were enrolled from each of 4 recruitment pools: a random sample component (17%), volunteer component (30%), currently enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study (31%), and secondary family members (22%). Recruitment was limited to non-institutionalized adult African Americans age 35-84 years, except in the family cohort where those age ≥21 years were eligible. The final cohort of 5,306 participants includes 6.59% of all African American residents aged 35-84 (N=76,426, US Census 2000). Data collection at the baseline exam included a medical history, physical examination, blood/urine analytes and interview questions on areas such as: physical activity; stress, coping and spirituality; racism and discrimination; socioeconomic status; and health care access.The current release of the Jackson Heart Study includes data collected at baseline, exam 2 (2005-2008), and exam 3 (2009-2013). Annual follow-up and surveillance of clinical cardiovascular events is ongoing.

  Study phs003740

• The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Human Genetics Resource Center: DNA and Cell Line Repository (the NINDS Repository): Motor Neuron/Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Study

  The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Human Genetics Resource Center: DNA and Cell Line Repository (the NINDS Repository), banks phenotypic data and biological samples, including from individuals with motor neuron disease, in order to facilitate gene discovery in neurological disorders. Those samples are used in a number of studies, and genotyping data from studies using this resource are encouraged to be shared via dbGaP. Many studies have already shared data in this fashion, which in turn, can be linked back to the biologicals banked at the NINDS Repository. Motor Neuron Disease is characterized by selective degeneration of the motor neurons of the spinal cord, brainstem, or motor cortex. Clinical subtypes are distinguished by the major site of degeneration. In Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), there is involvement of upper, lower, and brainstem motor neurons. In progressive muscular atrophy and related syndromes, the motor neurons in the spinal cord are primarily affected. With progressive bulbar palsy, the initial degeneration occurs in the brainstem. In primary lateral sclerosis, the cortical neurons are affected in isolation (Adams et al, Principles of Neurology, 6th ed, p 1089). The Motor Neuron Disease Collection of DNA and cell lines in the NINDS Repository is largely Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis cases (others include progressive muscular atrophy, primary lateral sclerosis, progressive bulbar palsy, Kennedy's disease). Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is the most common form of motor neuron disease (MND). Although ALS is the most common MND, it is still a relatively rare disease with an incidence of around 1.6 per 100,000 in the United States. It is currently incurable and treatment is largely limited to supportive care. Family history is associated with an increased risk of ALS, and many Mendelian causes have been discovered (including SOD1). However, most forms of the disease are not obviously familial. It is suspected that the sporadic forms of neurodegenerative disorders are caused by multiple genetic variants that individually make relatively weak contributions to risk. There is also an associated Control collection (see dbGaP and Coriell). Studies in motor Neuron Disease may use cases from the NINDS repository, controls from the NINDS repository, as well as cases, and controls, from other sources. A subset of subjects from The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Human Genetics Resource Center: DNA and Cell Line Repository (the NINDS Repository): Motor Neuron/Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Study was utilized in the Genome-wide genotyping in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and neurologically normal controls: first stage analysis and public release of data study. Note: The publication Chio et al., 2009 states that "Raw sample-level genotype data from the initial GWAS study ... are available for download through the dbGAP portal (phs000006.v1.p1)". Instead, please follow this link: phs000101.v1.p1.

  Study phs000006

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network - Reevaluation of Systemic Early Neuromuscular Blockade (PETAL ROSE-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL ROSE include Plasma, DNA, Whole Blood, and Urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent.Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of early neuromuscular blockade with concomitant heavy sedation as compared with a strategy of usual care with lighter sedation targets in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.Background: It has been well established that the approaches used for the application of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can affect survival and outcomes after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). A large, multicenter trial conducted a decade before this study reported that the early administration of a 48-hour infusion of neuromuscular blockade in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen [Pao2] to the fraction of inspired oxygen [Fio2] of Participants: There were 1006 participants.Design: PETAL-ROSE was a multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial of patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 48 hours of continuous neuromuscular blockade with concomitant deep sedation (intervention group) or to receive usual care without routine neuromuscular blockade and with lighter sedation targets (control group).Patients in the intervention group who were not under deep sedation at baseline were deeply sedated within 4 hours after randomization. Subsequently, patients in this group received an intravenous bolus of 15 mg of cisatracurium, followed by a continuous infusion of 37.5 mg per hour for 48 hours. After the 48-hour trial intervention period, decisions regarding further use of neuromuscular blockade, including the choice of agent, were left to the discretion of the treating clinician. Neuromuscular blockade could be stopped early if the patient met the criteria for freedom from mechanical ventilation (Fio2 ≤0.40 and PEEP ≤8 cm of water) for at least 12 hours. All patients were treated with a strategy of low tidal volume ventilation within 2 hours after randomization and a high PEEP strategy for up to 5 days after randomization. Assessors who were unaware of the group assignment interviewed surviving patients or their proxies at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary end point was in-hospital death from any cause at 90 days (in-hospital was defined as the time in the trial hospital plus transfer to another hospital, including the time in long-term acute care facilities). Conclusions: After the second interim analysis, the decision to stop the trial for futility was made independently by the data and safety monitoring board.In critically ill patients identified shortly after the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe ARDS, the addition of early continuous neuromuscular blockade with concomitant deep sedation did not result in lower mortality than a usual-care approach to mechanical ventilation that included lighter sedation targets.

  Study phs003878

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation on Helicopter Study (PROHS) (ROC-PROHS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: To observe if patients with severe traumatic injuries evacuated to level 1 trauma centers on air ambulances who received prehospital red blood cells and/or plasma had decreased in-hospital mortality compared to patients who received only crystalloids.Background: Injury is the leading cause of death in adults and children between the ages of 1 and 44 years. However, approximately 40% of in-hospital deaths among injured patients involve massive truncal hemorrhage that is considered potentially salvageable. Multiple retrospective military and civilian studies have reported that transfusion involving blood component ratios approaching whole blood are associated with significant decreases in 24-hour and 30-day mortality among injured patients. Furthermore, prehospital transfusion (PHT) studies from military and civilian hospitals have shown that prehospital transfusion of plasma and red blood cells (RBCs) is not only feasible, but associated with improved coagulation status on arrival. Prehospital resuscitation practices in the US differ significantly in approach, with most systems using crystalloids while a few offer RBCs or a combination of plasma and RBCs. No large multicenter civilian studies have evaluated the use of prehospital plasma and RBCs in severely injured patients compared to crystalloids.Participants: A total of 25,118 trauma patients were admitted during the 10 month enrollment period to the nine participating centers, of which 2341 arrived by helicopter, and 1058 met the highest risk criteria. Of the high risk sub-set, 585 arrived on helicopters with blood products available and 473 patients arrived via helicopters without blood available. One hundred forty two patients (24%) of those transported on helicopters with blood products available actually received PHT and 916 patients did not.Design: PROHS was a multicenter, prospective pragmatic, observational study of prehospital resuscitation approaches. There were no study guidelines dictating resuscitation practice (i.e., use of blood products or end of resuscitation). Of the 9 participating Level I trauma centers, 5 had helicopter systems with plasma and/or RBCs while the other 4 had helicopter systems that used only crystalloid resuscitation. All patients arriving to the participating center's trauma emergency department via helicopter directly from the scene were screened and had initial data collected. Of that group, all patients who met the highest risk category or received blood during transport were followed by direct observation during the initial resuscitation period and then indirectly through medical chart review until hospital discharge or 30 days after admission (whichever occurred first).The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality at 3 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days. Other outcome measures included length of hospital stay, number of ICU days, number of ventilator days, blood product usage, GOSE score at discharge, number of patients with complications, and number of patients who required hemostatic devices. Conclusions:Because of the unexpected imbalance in injury severity between systems with and without blood products on helicopters, all analyses were inconclusive. With few units transfused to each patient and small outcome differences between groups, large randomized studies will be required to detect significant survival differences in this important population.

  Study phs003826

• New set of services for all users unveiled at the EGA

  The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) releases today a brand-new website as well as a set of improved services for users, comprising a revamped Submitter Portal with an improved API and data brokering functionality for submitters, as well as a new DAC Portal for Data Access Committee members to easily manage data access requests. The EGA team has been working hard over the past months on these improvements that will provide a better experience for the users. Discover them below! Visit our new EGA website and check the new functionalities and updated guides Our new website is live, with a fresh look and updated features to discover all the novelties. The homepage now includes three pathways to guide our users, depending on whether they want to deposit, download or manage data within the Archive. One of the most outstanding developments is the introduction of a streamlined process for requesting access to data: EGA Users can now directly request access to their preferred datasets through the website using their EGA accounts. Additionally, users can customise their profile, oversee active sessions, and manage the public keys, essential for our latest array of services, alongside a range of other features. Another major change is our new Help Desk contact method: a built-in website form tailored for user inquiries. This system, called "Need Help?", can be easily located on the top right-hand side of the website. It will encompass both EGA and Federated EGA node users' requests. We will detail its use soon, so stay tuned. Register your metadata to the EGA easily with our new Submitter Portal The new Submitter Portal makes the submission process quicker and more intuitive. The process is currently divided into sections that the user will know beforehand by taking the tour that the EGA team has created to guide users through the Portal before starting the first submission. Do not complete your data submissions alone! Our Submitter Portal now includes a collaboration mode so that every submission can be completed by authorised collaborators with an EGA Profile. There are a lot more features that we will be detailing from now on in incoming posts. A new platform for Data Access Committee Members The new DAC Portal brings novelties for individuals engaged in governance, legal, technical, operational roles, or those acting as data stewards. DAC members will be able to easily manage DACs, policies, and data access requests with the new Portal. Take the tour now to check them out! Help us improve the services completing the EGA Survey As part of our ongoing journey to improve your experience, we have created an EGA User Survey. This questionnaire covers a wide range of aspects such as user experience, support and data accessibility, among others. Participate now and take the opportunity to suggest your own improvements. Help us enhance your experience in this new era for the EGA. Subscribe to the EGA Mailing List and stay tuned In the next weeks we will share more information about the possibilities of the new services. You can easily join the EGA Mailing List to receive all the updates.

  Blog new-set-of-services-at-EGA

• T2D-GENES Project 2: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies

  The Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Consortium is a collaborative international effort to identify genes influencing susceptibility to T2D in multiple ethnic groups using next generation sequencing. T2D-GENES Project 2 is a complex pedigree-based study designed to identify low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D, using whole genome sequence (WGS) information from 1,043 individuals in 20 Mexican American T2D-enriched pedigrees from San Antonio, Texas. The major objectives of this study are to identify low frequency or rare variants in and around known common variant signals for T2D, as well as to find novel low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D. The sampled individuals are obtained from two studies: the San Antonio Family Heart Study (SAFHS) and the San Antonio Family Diabetes/Gallbladder Study (SAFDGS), collectively referred to as the San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS). The strategy is to sequence approximately 600 individuals at an average of 50x coverage across the entire genome, then impute genome wide genotypes for about 440 additional family members. The 600 sequenced individuals are specifically chosen for their value in imputing sequence information into other family members. By studying large pedigrees, we expect to find multiple individuals carrying each genetic variant, even if this variant is very rare in the population at large. Thus, a pedigree-based approach provides an excellent opportunity for identifying rare novel variants influencing risk of T2D and quantitative variation in T2D-related phenotypes. The whole genome sequencing has been done commercially by Complete Genomics, Inc. (CGI). The final data set includes whole genome sequence data for 607 individuals. After quality control, 585 sequenced individuals provide data for family based imputation, using Merlin linkage analysis software, into approximately 440 additional family members for whom chip based genotypes are available to indicate which parental haplotype is transmitted. Extensive phenotype data is provided for 1048 individuals. These include 5 sequenced individuals who do not belong to any of the 20 large pedigrees. Phenotype information was collected between 1991 and 2011 in the two contributing longitudinal studies. SAFHS participants may have information from up to 5 visits, and SAFDGS participants may have up to 4 visits. The clinical variables reported are coordinated with T2D-GENES Project 1 (multi-ethnic exome sequencing) and include T2D status and age at diagnosis, glycemic traits (fasting and 2 hour glucose and insulin), blood pressure, blood lipids (total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, calculated LDL cholesterol and triglycerides), clinical chemistry (cystatin c, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody titer (GadAb), creatinine, adiponectin and leptin). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was not measured for these individuals and insulin C-peptide is not included in this data set. Additional phenotype data include the medication status at each visit, classified in four categories as any current use of diabetes, hypertension or lipid-lowering medications, and, for females, current use of female hormones. Anthropometric measurements include age, sex, height, weight, hip circumference, waist circumference and derived ratios. Each phenotype variable has an initial summary column containing the most recent non-missing measurement for each individual, followed by the five potential time points for each individual, the number of non-missing measurements, and the age and year for the most recent non-missing measurement. For historical reasons, the order in which variables are presented on the dbGaP web site differs from their order in the data download file. When reading the comment fields for each variable, please note that commas are omitted to support data exchange in .csv format.

  Study phs000462

• Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.ObjectivesThe HF-ACTION study examined whether exercise training reduces a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure symptoms. Background Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing cardiovascular syndrome that is the end result of many cardiovascular disorders. Although evidence-based drug and device therapies decrease mortality, hospitalizations, and HF symptoms and improve quality of life, many patients treated with these regimens often remain burdened by dyspnea and fatigue, diminished exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life, recurrent hospitalizations, and early mortality. Whereas rest was traditionally recommended for HF patients, there has been evidence that physical deconditioning may play a key role in the progression of symptoms and poor outcomes. Previous studies have shown positive effects of exercise training on exercise capacity, quality of life, and biomarkers and suggest that exercise training might improve survival and decrease HF hospitalizations. Nonetheless, there remains a safety concern regarding exercise training in HF and a large scale, multicenter, controlled clinical trial was needed to provide definitive clinical outcome data. Participants A total of 2,331 participants were randomized. 2,130 consented to share data with non-commercial entities, and 1,753 consented to share for commercial purposes. Design All participants underwent baseline cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Test results were reviewed by investigators to identify significant arrhythmias or ischemia that would prevent safe exercise training, to determine appropriate levels of exercise training, and to establish training heart rate ranges. Demographics, socioeconomic status, past medical history, current medications, physical exam, and the most recent laboratory tests were obtained prior to randomization. All participants received detailed self-management educational materials which included information on medications, fluid management, symptom exacerbation, sodium intake, and physical activity. Participants randomized to the exercise training arm first participated in a structured, group-based, supervised exercise program, with a goal of 3 sessions per week for a total of 36 sessions in 3 months. The primary exercises were walking, treadmill, or stationary cycling. Exercise was initiated at 15 to 30 minutes per session at a heart rate corresponding to 60% of heart rate reserve, and was increased after 6 sessions to 30 to 35 minutes duration and 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants began home-based exercise after completing 18 supervised sessions and were to fully transition to home exercise after 36 supervised sessions. The target training regimen for home exercise was 5 times per week for 40 minutes at a heart rate of 60% to 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants randomized to the usual care group were not provided with a formal exercise prescription. To provide comparable levels of attention from study personnel, all participants were called every 2 weeks for the first 9 months, monthly until 24 months of follow-up, and quarterly thereafter. Participants returned for clinic visits every 3 months for the first 2 years of participation and yearly thereafter for up to 4 years. Follow-up assessments included cardiopulmonary exercise testing, a 6-minute walk test, and a physical activity questionnaire. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Conclusions After adjustment for highly prognostic predictors of the primary end point, exercise training was associated with modestly significant reductions for both all-cause mortality or hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

  Study phs003599

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Neither for Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Due to Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia (ALPS)(ROC-ALPS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP. Objective To compare the effects of amiodarone, lidocaine, and placebo on survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Background Ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) are common causes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but are considered the most responsive to shock and therefore the most treatable. Nonetheless, most defibrillation attempts do not result in sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and VF or VT may persist or recur after shock. There is also evidence that longer durations of VF or VT are associated with decreases in the likelihood of resuscitation. Amiodarone and lidocaine are commonly used to promote successful defibrillation of shock-refractory VF or VT and prevent recurrences. Previous trials have shown amiodarone to be more effective than placebo or lidocaine for return of spontaneous circulation and survival at hospital admittance. This study sought to further extend the research and examine whether amiodarone would improve survival to hospital discharge and neurologic outcomes, as compared to placebo or lidocaine. Participants 3,026 eligible participants were enrolled, with 974 assigned to amiodarone, 993 assigned to lidocaine, and 1,059 assigned to placebo. An additional 1,627 participants that received a study intervention, but did not meet eligibility criteria, were included in analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Design The study interventions (amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline) were packaged in indistinguishable sealed kits and randomly distributed in to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by participating site and agency. Each kit contained three syringes, and each syringe held 3 ml of colorless fluid containing 150 mg of amiodarone, 60 mg of lidocaine, or normal saline. Participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated in accordance with local EMS protocols, in compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. If VF or VT persisted or recurred after one or more shocks, eligible participants received a vasopressor and the masked kit containing amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo. Approximating current clinical practice, the initial dose consisted of two syringes administered by rapid bolus. If the estimated body weight of the patient was less than 100 lbs., then one syringe was used. If VF or VT persisted, standard resuscitation measures, additional shocks, and an additional syringe of the study drug were administered. At that point the trial interventions were completed and standard interventions for advanced life support were employed. Upon arrival at the hospital, providers were notified of the patient's enrollment in the trial and encouraged to provide usual care in accordance with AHA guidelines, including open-label amiodarone or lidocaine if necessary. Components of hospital care were monitored but not standardized by the trial protocol. Participants, providers, and trial personnel were blinded to the trial drug assignments, with the exception of treating physicians if emergency un-blinding was required for care. Data from pre-hospital patient care records, CPR process measures, and hospital medical records were collected. The primary outcome of the trial was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurologic status at discharge, defined as a score on the modified Rankin scale of 3 or less. Conclusions Neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival to hospital discharge or favorable neurologic outcome, as compared to placebo, among participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.

  Study phs003784

• Security Overview

  Security Overview The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) houses consented human data under controlled access. Access decisions are handled by the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC), which autonomously manages requests through the DAC Portal. This document provides an overview of EGA’s practices in ensuring the security of data stored at EGA. As security is a prime concern of the EGA, the EGA is a member of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) Data Security work stream. The EGA contributes and helps develop the recommendations outlined the GA4GH Security Technology Infrastructure document, which defines guidelines, best practices, and standards for building and operating an infrastructure that promotes responsible data sharing in accordance with the GA4GH Privacy and Security Policy. Explore the EGA dataflow to gain deeper insights! Accessing data in the EGA involves several steps. First, users need to create an EGA account. Once logged in, they can request access to data controlled by a DAC through the EGA website (see documentation). The DAC oversees these requests through the DAC Portal, and if approved, grants the necessary permissions to the user's EGA account, allowing them to access and download all relevant data and metadata for the requested dataset(s). The key points of EGA security strategy are: 1 Regular Risk Assessment The EGA regularly identifies and assesses risk related to the following: Breach of confidentiality,Breach of privacy or autonomy,Malicious or accidental corruption or destruction of data archived at EGA,Disruption of services provided by the EGA. 2 Risk mitigation The EGA implements and maintains safeguards to minimise the risks identified above in accordance with the 6 control objectives listed in Appendix 1 and outlined in the GA4GH Security and Infrastructure document.If a breach is discovered, the EGA applies a defined protocol to minimise damage. 3 Identity and authorisation management The EGA authenticates the identity of individuals or software accessing controlled access data held at the EGA.The EGA ensures an appropriate level of assurance (LoA) is applied to the identity consistent with the risk associated with that individual, such as multi-factor authentication for DACs.The EGA provides the minimum access rights and privileges consistent with the user’s identity, allowing access consistent with the GA4GH Privacy and Security Policy, as determined by the appropriate DAC. 4 Audit Logs The EGA maintains a set of logs recording: Changes to user access rights,Data access requests,Resource usage. 5 Cryptography, communication security, and data integrity The EGA ensures data transmission integrity using a hash function.All data transmitted to or from the EGA is end-to-end encrypted.All data at EGA is stored using strong encryption.Encryption keys are not stored in the same system as the encrypted data.All data archived at EGA must be accompanied by a signed submission statement ensuring appropriate consent or ethical approval has been obtained, and is in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The EGA has a defined protocol defining the response in the event of a security breach, and is continuing to work with the GA4GH Data Security Work Stream to help define best practice and associated standards for breach responses. Appendix 1 GA4GH Control Objectives Control Objective 1: Implement technology safeguards to minimise the risk of unauthorised access, use, or disclosure of confidential and private data.Control Objective 2: Implement technology safeguards to minimise the risk of discovery, access, and use of individuals’ clinical and genomic data, and individual identities, other than as authorised by applicable jurisdictional law, institutional policy, and individual consents.Control Objective 3: Implement technology safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental or malicious corruption or destruction of data.Control Objective 4: Implement technology safeguards to minimise the risk of disruption, degradation, and interruption of services enabling access to data.Control Objective 5: Implement technology safeguards to minimise the risk of potential security attacks and misuse of authorised accesses and privileges.Control Objective 6: Implement technology safeguards to promptly detect the failure to attain the above control objectives and to respond with proper countermeasures.Appendix 2Refer to the document below to learn more about EGA long-term data preservation policy and procedures at EMBL-EBI.Long-term data preservation

  Documentation about/security

• Transdisciplinary Research Into Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) - Exome Plus Targeted Sequencing

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani's lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, > 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation Using an Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed Analysis (PRIMED) (ROC-PRIMED-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine two different treatments during a cardiac arrest that occurs outside of the hospital and whether either or both treatments would increase the number of people who lived to hospital discharge with satisfactory functional status. The first treatment involved using a device called the Impedance Threshold Device (ITD). The other treatment involved the amount of CPR given before the emergency medical services (EMS) providers first looked at the heart rhythm to determine if a shock is needed.Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a common and lethal problem with a low survival rate, leading to an estimated 330,000 deaths each year in the United States and Canada. The traditional approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has been to emphasize early analysis of cardiac rhythm, with delivery of defibrillatory shocks, if indicated, as quickly as possible. It has been suggested, however, that many participants may benefit from a period of CPR before the first analysis of rhythm.The impedance threshold device (ITD) is designed to enhance venous return and cardiac output during CPR by increasing the degree of negative intrathoracic pressure. Previous studies have suggested that the use of an ITD during CPR may improve survival rates after cardiac arrest. This effect is achieved by preventing the passive inflow of air into the chest during chest recoil between chest compressions without impeding active ventilation. The ITD has been found to improve hemodynamics, the perfusion of vital organs, and neurologically intact survival in studies in animals. The results of small, short-term clinical trials have suggested that the ITD can increase systolic blood pressure during resuscitation and improve short-term survival rates. Participants: In the ITD study, 4,345 participants were assigned to sham ITD and 4,373 to active ITD, while in the early versus later rhythm analysis, 5,290 participants were assigned to early cardiac rhythm analysis, and 4,643 were assigned to later cardiac rhythm analysis. This study qualified for exception from informed consent required for emergency research.Design: Most participants were enrolled simultaneously in both the early analysis versus later analysis component and the active ITD versus sham ITD component of the trial.The use of an active ITD was compared with that of a sham ITD in participants at 10 ROC sites in the United States and Canada. Participants, investigators, study coordinators, and all care providers were unaware of the treatment assignments. EMS personnel were trained in ITD function, proper use of the ITD, and all aspects of protocol implementation, with an emphasis on the optimal performance of CPR according to local guidelines. The first EMS responders to arrive at the scene of the arrest who were equipped with a randomly assigned ITD (active or sham) attached the device between the ventilation bag and face mask or between the bag and an advanced airway. Responders were encouraged to implement use of the device within 5 minutes after their arrival or as soon as clinically possible. Each of the 10 participating ROC centers was also divided into approximately 20 clusters. All episodes of cardiac arrest in a cluster were randomly assigned to one CPR strategy; after a set period of time, ranging from 3 to 12 months, all episodes in that cluster were then assigned to the other strategy. Participants in the early-analysis group were assigned to receive 30 to 60 seconds of chest compressions and ventilations (sufficient time to place defibrillator electrodes) before electrocardiographic (ECG) analysis, and those in the late-analysis group were assigned to receive 3 minutes of chest compressions and ventilations before ECG analysis. The start and stop times for CPR were recorded by the responders, and the information was supplemented by the recording of defibrillator time. Conclusions: All 10 sites halted enrollment in November 2009 when the data and safety monitoring board recommended termination because interim analysis showed that the findings were not likely to change with continuation of the study. Neither use of the ITD nor the amount of CPR given before cardiac rhythm analysis significantly improved survival with satisfactory function (i.e., a score of ≤3 on the modified Rankin scale) among participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving standard CPR. There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes, including rates of return of spontaneous circulation on arrival at the emergency department, survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge.

  Study phs003825

• 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

• Submission FAQ

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

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• GAW16 Framingham and Simulated Data

  Important links to apply for individual-level data Genetic Analysis Workshop Instructions to Request Authorized Access Data Use Certification Requirements (DUC) Apply here for controlled access to individual level data Research Use Statement Questions regarding GAW16 should be directed to Vanessa Olmo at vanessa@business-endeavors.com. Problem 2: Description of the Framingham Heart Study In GAW16, we use data drawn from the Framingham Heart Study. The Framingham Heart Study — under the direction of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NHLBI — began in 1948 with the recruitment of adults from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century and had become an American epidemic. The Framingham Heart Study is now conducted in collaboration with Boston University. The objective of the Framingham Heart Study was to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to CVD by following its development over a long period of time in a large group of participants who had not yet developed overt symptoms of CVD or suffered a heart attack or stroke. Between 1948 and 1953 the researchers recruited 5,209 subjects (2,336 men and 2,873 women) between the ages of 29 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts and began the first round of extensive physical examinations and lifestyle interviews that they would later analyze for common patterns related to CVD development. Subjects were recruited from lists of addresses recorded for the town. Two out of every three households were approached for participation in the study. While there was no intention to recruit families for family studies, the plan was to recruit all household members in the ages 30-60 within each house that was selected for study. Hence, many biologically related individuals were recruited, including 1644 spouse pairs. Since 1948, these participants have returned to the study every two years for a detailed medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Now in 2008 at 60 years of follow up, there remain about 500 participants from this cohort. Between 1971 and 1975 the study enrolled a second-generation group — 5,124 of the original participants' children and the spouses of these children — to participate in similar examinations. 2,616 subjects are offspring of the original spouse pairs and 34 are stepchildren. A total of 898 offspring are children of cohort members where only one parent was a study participant and 1,576 are spouses of the offspring. The Offspring Cohort has been followed every four years through 2001 (except between Exams 1 and 2 with an intervening 8 years) using protocols similar to those used for study of the Original Cohort. Between 2002 and 2005 the study enrolled the third generation (Gen3) of the Framingham Heart Study - 4095 offspring of the second generation. None of their spouses were recruited. An additional 103 parents of this third generation, who were not recruited between 1971 and 1975, were also recruited at this time. The latter group is not included in the GAW16 data. With the recruitment of this third generation, the study has increasingly focused on genetic factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease and its associated risk factors. To date, there is only one examination of this generation of participants. A description of the recruitment of this third generation and comparison with the earlier generations at their initial recruitment is presented in Splansky GL et al., 2007. Further information on the Study can be found at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/index.html. Genome-wide Dense SNP Scan in Framingham Heart Study Genetic studies did not begin in the FHS until the 1990s. In the late 1980s and through the 1990s DNA was extracted from blood samples of surviving FHS participants. In 2007, the FHS entered a new phase with the conduct of genotyping for the FHS SHARe (SNP Health Association Resource) project, for which dense SNP genotyping was performed using approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip® Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel) in 10,775 samples (some duplicates) from the three generations of subjects (including over 900 pedigrees). Affymetrix conducted all genotyping for the FHS SHARe project, using the 250K Sty, 250K Nsp, and the supplemental 50K platforms. Eighty-nine percent of the DNA samples were collected during the 1990s. To maximize the power of the study, we also extracted DNA from 1133 blood samples, drawn from subjects who had no DNA, to include in the SHARe project. These samples had been sitting in our refrigerators for some time, a few as far back as the 1970s. We refer to these DNA samples as the legacy samples. These samples had a higher failure rate in the genotyping process (40%) than the other eighty-nine percent (3%). Affymetrix invoked its own criteria for a sample to succeed in genotyping. All non-legacy samples must succeed on all three platforms, while legacy samples needed to pass on at least one platform. When a sample failed, additional attempts were made. Samples that repeatedly failed 2-4 times were called failures. Other samples failed due to issues of genotyped sex identification not matching our records or low SNP concordance among SNPs common across arrays or contamination. Eighty-nine percent of the legacy samples for which genotyping results are available passed all three platforms. The genotyping data from the 10,043 samples from 9354 subjects that passed the Affymetrix criteria were additionally checked for gender consistency and consistency with family structure, resulting in genotyping data for 9,274 participants in FHS SHARe. Genotype calls were made with the BRLMM algorithm. The SHARe database is housed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information database of genotypes and phenotypes (NCBI dbGaP) and contains all ~550,000 SNPs. This genome-wide dense SNP scan and a subset of phenotypes from the Framingham Heart Study are the focus of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16. Further information on the specific variables in the Problem 2 dataset can be found by clicking on the Documents tab at the top of the page. Problem 3: Description of the Simulated Data Set The focus of this simulation is gene discovery in genome-wide association scans (GWAS). The Framingham Heart Study data set (distributed as "Problem 2") is the basis for the FHS* simulated data. The pedigree structures are derived from the data distributed for Problem 2, and we distribute an accompanying triplet file (triplet_sim) containing person ID, father ID, mother ID, to ensure the identical subjects, pedigrees, and singletons are used in the simulated data analysis. Consistent with standard practice, founders and singletons are designated as subjects with both fshare and mshare equal to zero (missing). The simulated data includes a total of 6,479 subjects with both phenotype and genotype data, in 942 pedigrees distributed among 3 generations and 188 singletons. Data inclusion is consistent with the subjects' consent for use by both for-profit and not-for-profit researchers. The genotypes for all Problem 3 replicates are fixed as measured and distributed for Problem 2 for both the genomewide scan and the additional candidate gene SNPs, for a total of approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip® Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel). Thus, to analyze the Problem 3 simulated data you also will need to download the Problem 2 genotypes. Note that there are slight discrepancies in counts between Problems 2 and 3 due to a change in consents between the two datasets. Several phenotypes that contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD) were simulated for all individuals with genotypes across three different time points, 10 years apart. All genotyped individuals have complete data; the effects of missing values can be investigated by user-specified missing value patterns. There are 200 longitudinal datasets created, based on the generating model, and each replication is found in a separate dataset. We suggest that if only one replication is to be analyzed, that it be replication 1 to enable more precise comparisons among analytical approaches. The 'shareid' will allow you to merge the simulated phenotype data with the Problem 2 genotype data, and reconstruction of the pedigrees using the distributed 'triplet_sim' file or for larger families' relationships with the triplet distributed with the Problem 2. The simulated data problem is further described in the associated readme file, and a data dictionary is provided defining all the variables. For disclosure of the generating model for these data, please contact Jean MacCluer at jean@sfbrgenetics.org.

  Study phs000128

• 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

• ELLIPSE Prostate Cancer Meta-Analysis and Genotyping

  The ELLIPSE Consortium is an international effort to discover risk loci for prostate cancer. It includes the meta-analysis of existing GWAS data as well as novel GWAS, exome, and iCOGS genotyping. The GWAS meta-analysis includes the following cases and controls from studies of European ancestry: UK GWAS stage 1 (Illumina Infinium HumanHap 550 Array: 1854 cases and 1894 controls), UK GWAS stage 2 (Illumina iSELECT: 3706 cases and 3884 controls), CAPS1 (Affymetrix GeneChip 500K: 474 cases and 482 controls), CAPS2 (Affymetrix GeneChip 5.0K: 1458 cases and 512 controls), BPC3 (Illumina Human610 Illumina: 2068 cases and 3011 controls), PEGASUS (HumanOmni2.5: 4600 cases and 2941 controls). The OMNI 2.5M genotyping was conducted for 977 prostate cancer cases from UKGPCS. The Exome SNP array genotyping was conducted for 4741 subjects from UKGPCS. The iCOGs genotyping was conducted for 10366 subjects which includes the Multiethnic Cohort (n=1648) and UKGPCS (n=8718). Below is a description of each study that contributed to the meta-analysis of men of European ancestry. Information about the studies that contributed to the multiethnic meta-analysis can be found on the associated study page and also in Conti et al (Nature Genetics, PMID:33398198).&nbsp;&nbsp; UK GWAS Stage 1 (UK1) and Stage 2 (UK2): The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS) was first established in 1993 and is the largest prostate cancer study of its kind in the UK, involving nearly 189 hospitals. We are based at The Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey, and collaborate with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Our aim is to find genetic changes which are associated with prostate cancer risk. Our target is to recruit 26,000 gentlemen into the UKGPCS by 2017. Men are eligible to take part if they fit into at least one of the following groups: They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at 60 years of age or under (up to their 61st birthday). They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a first, second or third degree relative where at least one of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 years of age or under. They are affected and have 3 or more cases of prostate cancer on one side of their family. They are a prostate cancer patient at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We have to date recruited around 16,000 men on whom we have germline DNA and clinical data at diagnosis. The UK GWAS is based on genotyping of 541,129 SNPs in 1,854 individuals with clinically detected (non-PSA-screened) prostate cancer (cases) and 1,894 controls. 43,671 SNPs showing strong evidence of association in stage 1 were followed up by genotyping a further 3,268 cases and 3,366 controls from UK and Melbourne in stage2. CAPS1 and CAPS2: The CAPS (Cancer of the Prostate in Sweden) study represents a large Swedish population-based cancer study, comprising 3,161 cases and 2,149 controls, recruited between 2001 and 2003. Biopsy confirmed prostate cancer cases were identified and recruited from four out of six regional cancer registries in Sweden, diagnosed between July 2001 and October 2003. Clinical data including TNM stage, Gleason grade and PSA levels at time for diagnosis were retrieved through record linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Registry. Control subjects, who were recruited concurrently with case subjects, were randomly selected from the Swedish Population Registry and matched according to the expected age distribution of cases (groups of 5-year intervals) and geographic region. Whole blood was collected from all individuals for extraction of genomic DNA. A GWAS was conducted in two parts. In the first phase (CAPS1) 498 cases and 502 controls were genotyped, in the second phase 1,483 cases and 519 controls were genotyped. Genotyping was performed using the GeneChip Human Mapping 500K (CAPS1) and 5.0K (CAPS2) Array Set from Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA). The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, BPC3: BPC3 was a consortium of prospective cohort studies investigating genetic and gene-environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer. Each study selected cases and controls for this study as described below. The clinical criteria defining advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) were either obtained from medical records or cancer registries. The Gleason score source was either surgical specimens (radical prostatectomy or autopsy) or the diagnostic biopsy (needle biopsy or TURP). When multiple Gleason scores were available the surgical value was used. PLCO was removed from the analysis as the samples were included in the Pegasus GWAS described below. In total 2,473 advanced prostate cancer cases and 3,534 controls were included in the analysis following QC. ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: ATBC was a randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial to investigate whether &#945;-tocopherol or &#223;-carotene supplementation reduced the incidence of lung or other cancers in male smokers. Between 1985 and 1988, 29,133 men ages 50 to 69 years were enrolled in the trial from Finland and randomized to supplementation (50 mg &#945;-tocopherol, 20mg &#223;-carotene, or both) or placebo. Men with a prior history of cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ, were excluded from participating. Incident cancer cases are identified through linkage with the Finnish Cancer Registry, which has ~100% ascertainment of cancer cases nationwide. Cases included 249 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) from 1985 to 2003 with DNA available. Controls were 1,271 men selected previously for a GWAS of lung cancer in ATBC without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. CPSII, Cancer Prevention Study II: CPSII is a cohort study started in 1982 to investigate the relationship between dietary, lifestyle and other etiologic factors and cancer mortality. Approximately 1.2 million men and women enrolled in the study from 50 states in the U.S. In 1992, a subset of these participants (n= ~184,000) were enrolled in the CPSII Nutrition Cohort to examine the relationship between dietary and other exposures and cancer incidence. Blood samples were drawn from approximately 39,376 members of the Nutritional Cohort from 1998 to 2001, and buccal cells were collected from 69,467 members from 2001 to 2002. Cancer cases are identified by self-report through follow-up questionnaires followed by verification through medical records and/or linkage to state cancer registries as well as death certificates. A total of 660 advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) with a source of DNA were identified for this study. Controls were 660 men matched on ethnicity, date of birth, sample collection date and DNA type. EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: EPIC is a prospective study designed to investigate both genetic and non-genetic risk factors for different forms of cancer. Study participants were almost all white Europeans. Approximately 500,000 individuals (150,000 men) in EPIC were recruited between 1992 and 2000, from 23 centers in 10 European countries. Overall approximately 400,000 subjects also provided a blood sample at recruitment. The methods of recruitment and details of the study design are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, study participants completed an extensive questionnaire on both dietary and nondietary data at recruitment. The present study includes subjects from advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) matched to controls based on study center, length of follow-up, age at enrollment (&#177; 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (&#177; 1 hour). The advanced prostate cancer subjects were from 8 of the 10 participating countries: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). France and Norway were not included in the current study because these cohorts only included female subjects. All participants gave written consent for the research and approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board from all local institutions in the regions where participants had been recruited for the EPIC study. HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study: HPFS began in 1986 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study of 51,529 United States male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians 40 to 75 years of age. The baseline questionnaire provided information on age, marital status, height and weight, ancestry, medications, smoking history, disease history, physical activity, and diet. At baseline the cohort was 97% white, 2% Asian American, and 1% African American. The median follow-up through 2005 was 10.5 years (range 2-19 years). Self-reported prostate cancer diagnoses were confirmed by obtaining medical and/or pathology records. Prostate cancer deaths are either reported by family members in response to follow-up questionnaires, discovered by the postal system, or the National Death Index. Questionnaires are sent every two years to surviving men to update exposure and medical history. In 1993 and 1994, a blood specimen was collected from 18,018 men without a prior diagnosis of cancer. Prostate cancer cases are matched to controls on birth year (+/-1) and ethnicity. Controls are selected from those who are cancer-free at the time of the case&#8217;s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.&nbsp;&nbsp; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort: The Multiethnic Cohort Study is a population-based prospective cohort study that was initiated between 1993 and 1996 and includes subjects from various ethnic groups - African Americans and Latinos primarily from Californian (great Los Angeles area) and Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, and European Americans primarily from Hawaii. State drivers&#8217; license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter&#8217;s registration files were used, and, in California, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) files were used to identify additional African American men. All participants (n=215,251) returned a 26-page self-administered baseline questionnaire that obtained general demographic, medical and risk factor information. In the cohort, incident cancer cases are identified annually through cohort linkage to population-based cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in Hawaii and Los Angeles County as well as to the California State cancer registry. Information on stage and grade of disease are also obtained through the SEER registries. Blood sample collection in the MEC began in 1994 and targeted incident prostate cancer cases and a random sample of study participants to serve as controls for genetic analyses. PHS, Physicians Health Study:PHS was a randomized trial of aspirin and &#223; carotene for cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 U.S. male physicians ages 40-84 years at randomization; none had a cancer diagnosis at baseline. The original trial ended, but the men are followed. From 1982 to 1984, blood samples were collected from 14,916 physicians before randomization. Participants are sent yearly questionnaires to ascertain endpoints. Whenever a physician reports cancer, we request permission to obtain the medical records, and cancers are confirmed by pathology report. We obtain death certificates and pertinent medical records for all deaths. Follow-up for nonfatal outcomes in PHS is over 97% complete, and for mortality, over 99%. PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial:PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 754 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) from either arm of the trial. Of these cases, 317 were genotyped previously as part of Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS), a GWAS for prostate cancer. Controls included 1,491 men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer from the screening arm of the PLCO trial. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in genetic etiology studies of cancer and other traits. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the ten centers and the National Cancer Institute. PLCO was removed from the meta-analysis of the BPC3 studies as a consequence of PEGASUS below. PEGASUS, Prostate cancer Genome-wide Association Study of Uncommon Susceptibility loci: Pegasus is a genome-wide association nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 4,598 men of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer from either arm of the trial and controls included 2,941 men of European ancestry without a diagnosis of cancer from the screening arm, matched on age and year of randomization. All subjects provided informed consent, and the study approved by the institutional review board at the National Cancer Institute. Funding:This work was supported by the GAME-ON U19 initiative for prostate cancer (ELLIPSE): U19 CA148537. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233, U01-CA98710, U01-CA98216, and U01-CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). The ATBC study and PEGASUS was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004 and HHSN261201000006C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. CAPS: The Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant: K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant: 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the S&#246;derberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;r&#8217;s Minne, Karlsson&#8217;s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skillful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. Hans Wallinder at Aleris Medilab and Sven Gustafsson at Karolinska University Laboratory are thanked for their good cooperation in providing historical laboratory results. UKGPCS would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grants: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Cancer UK), The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758.&nbsp;

  Study phs001120

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• 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

• Oncoarray Consortium - Lung Cancer Studies

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics: All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four substudies. The substudies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study is a randomized primary prevention trial including 29,133 male smokers enrolled in Finland between 1985 and 1993. Participants ranged between ages of 50 to 69 at enrollment and were randomized in a factorial design to take either 50 milligrams of d-alpha tocopheryl acetate (Vitamin E), 20 mg of all-trans-beta-carotene, both or placebo. The study continued to monitor cancer incidence through 2012 and total mortality through December 2013. The CAncer de PUlmon en Asturias Study (CAPUA) is a hospital-based case-control study conducted in Asturias, Spain by the University of Oviedo. Lung cancer cases were recruited in three main hospitals of Asturias, following an identical protocol from 2002 to 2012. Eligible cases were incident cases of histologically confirmed lung cancer between 30 and 85 years of age and residents in the geographical area of each participating hospital. Controls were selected from patients admitted to those hospitals with diagnoses unrelated to the exposures of interest and individually matched by ethnicity, gender, age (&#177; 5 years) and hospital. Epidemiologic data were collected personally through computer-assisted questionnaires by trained interviewers during the first hospital admission. Structured questionnaires collected information on sociodemographic characteristics, recent and prior tobacco use, environmental exposure (air pollution and passive smoking), diet, personal and family history of cancer, and occupational history from each participant. Peripheral blood samples (or mouthwash samples when they refused to donate blood) were collected from all participants. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Canadian Screening Study includes the nested case-control samples from 3 screening programs: IELCAP-Toronto: Ever smokers of more than 10 pack-years age 50 and above were eligible for the I-ELCAP screening program since 2003, and a total of 4782 individuals have been enrolled in the Greater Toronto Area. Participants were administered a LDCT scan along with a standard study questionnaire at baseline. Blood samples were systematically collected at baseline since 2006. Participants who had an abnormality in a CT scan were followed up every 1 to 2 years. The screening program was organized by the Princess Margaret Hospital. PanCan: Ever smokers between the ages of 50-75 with no previous history of invasive cancer are eligible to participate in the study. The study was carried out across Canada in Vancouver, Calgary, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax, and St. John's. A total of 2537 smokers have been screened from 2008 to 2011. All study participants completed a detailed questionnaire, spirometry, collection of blood specimens for biomarker measurement and LDCT at baseline. All participants are followed for a minimum of 3 years. On yearly follow up, an updated shorter questionnaire is administered, blood is collected and CT scans are performed. Blood samples are available from all 2537 individuals. BCCA Screening Program: From 1990 to 2007, 4274 smokers above 40 years old who had smoked 20 pack-years or more were enrolled at BCCA. Upon enrollment, subjects completed a questionnaire for their lifestyle and medical history. Baseline spirometry was conducted using a flow-sensitive spirometer in accordance with the American Thoracic Society recommendations. Since 2000, a LDCT was obtained in 2440 individuals. The participants were followed prospectively to determine whether they developed lung cancer. A total of 9759 individuals participated in the CT screening program in Canada from these 3 programs. The samples included in this project is based on a subset of nested lung cancer case-control pairs based on 1:2 ratio. The Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the cancer prevention efficacy and safety of a daily combination of 30 mg of beta-carotene and 25,000 IU of retinyl palmitate in 18,314 persons at high risk for lung cancer. CARET began in 1985, and the intervention was halted in January 1996, 21 months ahead of schedule, with the twin conclusions for definitive evidence of no benefit and substantial evidence of a harmful effect of the intervention on both lung cancer incidence and total mortality. CARET continued to follow and collect endpoints on their participants through 2005. Pathology reports and medical records were reviewed to confirm cancer endpoints, and death certificates obtained to capture cause of death. During the active intervention phase of CARET, serum, plasma, whole blood, and lung tissue specimens were collected on participants. These biospecimens make up the CARET Biorepository. For the OncoArray Project, CARET provided DNA extracted from whole blood of lung cancer cases and controls matched on age at baseline (&#177; 4 years), sex, race, baseline smoking status, history of occupational asbestos exposure (asbestos vs heavy smoker), and year of enrollment (2-year intervals). The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study is a multi-center cohort study involving 521,000 study participants from 10 European countries. The current study involved EPIC participants from 7 countries (Greece, Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy), including 1223 incident lung cancer cases and 1249 smoking matched controls. The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative is a study conducted by the Markey Cancer Center Cancer Center and the University of Kentucky using a population-based, case-control framework to study the extraordinarily high rates of lung cancer in Southeastern, Appalachian Kentucky. Cancer cases were recruited from the Kentucky Cancer Registry at the time of diagnosis and controls were recruited from a random digit dialing process from the same region. Study accrual began in January 5, 2012 and completed on September 5, 2014 and 520 subjects were recruited in a 4:1 ratio of controls: cases from Appalachian Kentucky. Of the 520 subjects recruited, 231 are included in the OncoArray analysis, including all 93 cancer cases, and 123 controls. Newly diagnosed lung cancer cases and controls underwent blood, toenail (for trace element analysis), urine, buffy coat, water, soil, and radon collection, residence GPS mapping, as well as an extensive epidemiologic, occupational, and health history questionnaire (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01648166). The Harvard Lung Cancer Study (HLCS) is a case-control study based at Mass General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, Massachusetts from 1992 to 2004. Details of the study were described previously. Briefly, eligible cases included any person over the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of primary lung cancer that was further confirmed by an MGH lung pathologist. Controls were recruited from the friends or spouses of cancer patients or the friends or spouses of other surgery patients in the same hospital. Potential controls were excluded from participation if they had a diagnosis of any cancer (other than non-melanoma skin cancer). Interviewer-administered questionnaires, a modified version of the standardized American Thoracic Society respiratory questionnaire, collected information on demographics, medical history, family history of cancer, smoking history, and a detailed work history, including job titles and tasks. Genome-wide genotype data were first generated using Illumina Human 610-Quad BeadChips and then imputed by MACH against the 1000 Genome Project dataset (http://browser.1000genomes.org/index.html). The Institutional Review Board of MGH and the Human Subjects Committee of the Harvard School of Public Health approved the study. The Israel study (NICCC-LCA) is an ongoing case-control study of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases of any histology and population age/sex/ethnicity-matched "healthy" controls. All participants undergo face-to-face interviews, provide a venous blood sample (separated into DNA, Sera, lymphocytes) after signing an IRB-approved form. Histology reports, FFPE blocks and clinical follow-up are available for most cancer cases. The MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Study. Lung cancer cases and frequency-matched controls were ascertained from a large ongoing case-control study at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) since 1991. Detailed study description was provided previously (Spitz et al 2007). In brief, cases were newly-diagnosed and histologically confirmed lung cancer patients recruited from UTMDACC. Controls were healthy individuals without a history of cancer (except for nonmelanoma skin cancer) and recruited from the Kelsey-Seybold Clinics, the largest private multispecialty physician group in the Houston metropolitan area. Controls were frequency-matched to cases on age (&#177;5 years), sex, and race/ethnicity. After providing written informed consent, each study participants completed an in-person interview by staff interviewers to collect information on demographics, smoking status, etc. Blood samples were also drawn from all the study participants. This study was approved by institutional review boards of UTMDACC and Kelsey-Seybold Clinics. The Malm&#246; Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) is a population-based prospective cohort study that recruited men and women aged at 44 to 74 years old of living in Malm&#246;, Sweden between 1991 and 1996. The main goal of the MDCS is to study the impact of diet on cancer incidence and mortality. It consists of a baseline examination including dietary assessment, a self-administered questionnaire, anthropometric measurements and collection of blood samples. A total of 165 incident lung cancer cases and 174 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study includes 215,251 men and women aged 45-74 years at recruitment, primarily from five ethnic/racial groups - African Americans and Latinos mostly recruited from CA (mainly from Los Angeles County) and Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiians and whites (mostly recruited from HI). The cohort was assembled in 1993-1996 by mailing a self-administered questionnaire to persons identified primarily through driver's license files. The baseline questionnaire obtained information on demographics, anthropometry, smoking history, medical and reproductive histories, family history of cancer, diet and physical activity. Incident cancer cases are identified by regular linkage with the State of California Cancer Registry and the Hawaii Tumor Registry, both members of the SEER Program of the NCI. In 2001-2006, a prospective biorepository was assembled by collecting a pre-diagnostic blood specimen from 67,594 surviving MEC members. At the time of blood collection a short questionnaire was administered that included information on smoking during the previous 15 days. For this study, cases were all lung cancer cases incident to blood draw and diagnosed before December 2012. For each case, a control was selected among unaffected MEC participants who were alive at time of the case's diagnosis and matched on study site, sex, race/ethnicity, age (age at diagnosis for cases; age at blood collection for controls), and date of blood collection. The Mount-Sinai Hospital-Princess Margaret Study (MSH-PMH) was conducted in the greater Toronto area from 2008 to 2013. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of the University of Toronto. Controls were selected randomly from individuals registered in the family medicine clinics databases and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were centrally reviewed by the reference pathologist, a member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) committee, and a second pathologist in the University Health Network. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The New England Lung Cancer Study (NELCS) is a population-based case-control study of lung cancer among residents of Northern and Central New Hampshire counties and the bordering region of Vermont. Cases with histologically confirmed primary incident lung cancer were identified from 2005 to 2007 using the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) Tumor Registry. Control participants were identified using a commercial database and matched to lung cancer cases within 5-year age groups, sex and county. Genomic DNA was isolated from blood or buccal specimens provided by consenting participants. The study complied with requirements of the Dartmouth College's Committee for Protection of Human Subjects. The Nijmegen Lung Cancer Study. The Netherlands patients with lung cancer were identified through the population-based cancer registry of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Patients who were diagnosed in one of three hospitals (Radboud University Medical Center, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital in Nijmegen, and Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem) since 1989 and who were still alive at April 15th, 2008 were recruited for a study on gene-environment interactions in lung cancer. 458 patients gave informed consent and donated a blood sample. This case series was expanded with 94 patients to a total of 552 by linking three other studies to the population-based cancer registry in order to identify new occurrences of lung cancer among the participants of these other studies. All three other studies (i.e., POLYGENE, the Nijmegen Biomedical Study, and the Radboudumc Urology Outpatient Clinic Epidemiology Study) were initiated to study genetic risk factors for disease and participants to these studies gave general informed consent for DNA-related research and linkage with disease registries. Information on histology, stage of disease, and age at diagnoses was obtained through the cancer registry. Lifestyle information was collected through a structured questionnaire and whole blood for DNA isolation was collected by the regional thrombosis services. The cancer-free controls (46% males) were selected from participants of the "Nijmegen Biomedical Study" (NBS), an age- and sex-stratified random sample of the general population of the municipality of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. All participants provided extensive lifestyle information by structured questionnaires and blood samples for DNA isolation, serum and plasma. All controls are of self-reported European descent. The study protocols of the NBS were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Radboudumc and all study subjects signed a written informed consent form. The Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study (NSHDS) encompasses several prospective cohorts. The current study involves participants from the V&#228;sterbotten Intervention Project (VIP), a sub-cohort within NSHDS. VIP is an ongoing prospective cohort and intervention study intended for health promotion of the general population of the V&#228;sterbotten County in northern Sweden. VIP was initiated in 1985 and all residents in the V&#228;sterbotten County were invited to participate by attending a health check-up at 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Participants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire including various demographic factors such as education, smoking habits, physical activity and diet. In addition, height and weight were measured and participants were asked to donate a fasting blood sample for future research. A total of 243 incident lung cancer cases and 266 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. Norway National Institute of Occupational Health Study. Early-stage NSCLC cases and healthy controls at the time of enrollment were Caucasians of Norwegian origin and were recruited from the same geographical region (Western Norway). The patients were enrolled in the study, whenever practically feasible among patients admitted for lung cancer at the Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. The informed written consents covering analysis of molecular and genetic markers was signed by the patients prior to surgery. Only patients with histologically confirmed early-stage NSCLC were included in our study. The subjects included in this project are a subgroup recruited into the project "lung cancer genetics" at NIOH. The controls were recruited from the same geographical region of Western Norway and frequency-matched with cases on cumulative smoking dose (pack-years). Pack-years smoked [( 20 cigarettes per day) x years smoked] were calculated to indicate the cumulative smoking dose. The Cases and controls were interviewed using similar questionnaires and were categorized as never smokers, ex-smokers or current smokers. Never smokers are subjects indicating having smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their life time. Ex-smokers were defined as those having quitted at least 1 year before sampling, and current smokers were those indicating that they were smokers at the time of sampling. The project has been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Southern Norway in accordance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. The ethical approval covered access to the NSCLC databank. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) Study, a randomized trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of screening in reducing cancer mortality, recruited approximately 155,000 men and women age 55 to 74 years from 1992 to 20014. Screening for lung cancer among participants in the intervention arm included a chest x-ray at baseline followed by either three annual x-rays (for current or former smokers at enrollment) or two annual x-rays (for never smokers); participants in the control arm received routine health care. Screening-arm participants provided data on sociodemographic factors, smoking behavior, anthropometric characteristics, medical history, and family history of cancer, as well as blood samples annually for the first 6 years of the study (baseline T0 and T1 through T5). Lung cancers were ascertained through annual questionnaires mailed to the participants, and positive reports were followed up by abstracting medical records or death certificates. Follow-up in the trial as of July 2009 was 96.7%. Patients were excluded because of missing baseline questionnaire, previous history of any cancer, diagnosis of multiple cancers during follow-up, missing smoking information at baseline, missing consent for utilization of biologic specimens for etiologic studies, or unavailability/insufficient quantity of serum or DNA specimens. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT) is an ongoing study conducted in Sheffield from 2006 and due to complete recruitment in 2016. The study recruited pathologically confirmed lung cancer cases diagnosed at age 60 years or younger and family matched controls. Lung cancer cases diagnosed at ages older than 60 years were recruited if they reported a family history of lung cancer. The cases and matched controls were recruited through several major cancer treatment centers, however, the majority were recruited in North Trent. All participants completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire which included questions about occupational exposures, education, medical history and family history of cancer and lung disease. Participants also donated blood samples for DNA extraction. The ReSoLuCENT study has been funded by the Sheffield Hospitals Charity, Sheffield ECMC and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. First degree relatives were removed from the sample deposited to dbGaP. The Roy Castle Lung Study of Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) is a case-control and cohort study which has recruited over 11,500 individuals since 1996 from the Liverpool region in the UK. Detailed epidemiological and clinical data is collected with associated specimens (i.e. tumor tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire at recruitment, with repeat questionnaires at intervals; updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Health and Social Care Information Center (including Office of National Statistics mortality data, Cancer Registry and Health Episode Statistics). The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The lung tumors were reviewed by the reference pathologist. The Seoul Bundang Lung Cancer Study was conducted between 2005 and 2010 to discover genetic and environmental factors related with lung cancer development. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the Seoul National University Hospital in Bundang. Controls were selected randomly from individuals participated in health check-up program and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were reviewed by the pathologists in the hospital. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) consisted of 18,244 men in Shanghai, China, who were 45-64 years old at the time of enrollment during 1986-1989. Approximately 80% of eligible men participated in the study. At the time of recruitment, each cohort subject was interviewed in-person by a trained nurse interviewer using a structured questionnaire that included background information, history of tobacco and alcohol use, current diet, and medical history. At the completion of the interview, the nurse collected a 10 ml blood and a single void urine specimen from the study participant. The buccal cell samples were collected from all surviving cohort members (~15,000) in the 2001-2002 follow-up interviews. The cohort has been followed for the occurrence of cancer and death through routine ascertainment of new cases from the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry and Shanghai Vital Statistics Units. To maximize the cancer findings and minimize the loss of follow-up, we contacted each surviving cohort member annually. Retired nurses visit the last known address of each living cohort member and record details of the interim health history of the cohort member. As of December 31, 2014, cumulatively 612 (3.4%) original subjects were lost to follow-up, and 574 (3.1%) refused to our continued follow-up interview. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Shanghai Cohort Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. Briefly, 516 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available serum samples as of 12/31/2006. For each case, we randomly selected one control subject from all cohort members who were free of cancer and alive at the time of cancer diagnosis of the index case. Controls were matched to the index case by age at enrollment (&#177;2 years), date of biospecimen collection (&#177;1 month) and neighborhood of residence at recruitment, and smoking status (current, former and never smokers) as established previously for other studies. For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (&lt;10 vs &#8805;10 years). One serum vial per subject was retrieved from biorepository and all serum samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements. DNA samples of 250 lung cancer cases and 250 matched controls were available for the present study. The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) cohort consisted of 63,257 Chinese men and women in Singapore when they were 45-74 years old at the time of enrollment between April 1993 and December 1998. At recruitment, each study subject was interviewed in person by a trained interviewer using a structured questionnaire that emphasized current diet assessed via a validated, 165-item food frequency questionnaire. The questionnaire also requested information on demographics, lifetime use of tobacco, incense use, current physical activity, usual sleep duration, reproductive history (women only), occupational exposure, medical history, and family history of cancer. Blood or buccal cell, and spot urine samples were collected first from a random 3% sample of cohort participants in April 1994, and extended to all surviving cohort participants starting in January 2000. Overall approximately 60% of eligible cohort participants donated biospecimens. The cohort has been passively followed for death and cancer occurrence through regular record linkage with the population-based Singapore Cancer Registry and the Singapore Registry of Births and Deaths. Migration out of Singapore, especially among housing estate residents, was negligible. As of latest update, only 55 individuals from this cohort were known to be lost to follow-up due to migration and other reason. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Singapore Chinese Health Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. As of 12/31/2011, 422 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available prediagnostic plasma samples. For each case, one control subject was randomly selected from all eligible cohort members who were alive and free of cancer on the date of cancer diagnosis of the index case. The control subject was individually matched to the index case by gender, dialect group (Hokkien, Cantonese), age at enrollment (&#177;3 years), date of baseline interview (&#177;2 year), date of biospecimen collection (&#177;6 months), and smoking status (current, former, and never smokers). For current smokers, cases and controls were further matched by number of cigarettes per day (&lt;15, &#8805;15 cigarettes/day). For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (&lt;10, &#8805;10 years). One plasma aliquot per subject was retrieved from the biorepository and all plasma samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements, and one aliquot of DNA per subject for the present study. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) L2 Study. Lung cancer cases and controls were recruited through a multicentric case-control study coordinated by the IARC in Russia, Poland, Serbia, Czech Republic, and Romania from 2005 to 2013. Cases were incident cancer patients collected from general hospitals. Controls were recruited from individuals visiting general hospitals and out-patient clinics for disorders unrelated to lung cancer and/or its associated risk factors, or from the general population. Information on lifestyle risk factors, medical and family history was collected from subjects by interview using a standard questionnaire. All study participants provided written informed consent. The current study included 1,133 lung cancer cases and 1,117 controls genotyped on the Oncoarray. The Washington State University Lung Cancer Study is a hospital case-control study of 511 subjects with newly-diagnosed (within 1 year of diagnosis) lung cancer and 820 race-, sex- and age-matched controls. Lung cancer cases were recruited from lung cancer clinics within the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center while controls were recruited from the Lifetime Cancer Screening Center, a H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center affiliate. None of the controls were diagnosed with any form of cancer at the time of screening. Detailed questionnaire data and oral buccal cells were collected for all subjects. The Total Lung Cancer (TLC) Study is a hospital-based study that included 458 lung cancer patients recruited for Moffitt Cancer Center's Total Cancer Care&#8482; protocol between April 2006 and August 2010. Total Cancer Care&#8482; is a multi-institutional observational study of cancer patients that prospectively collects self-reported demographic and clinical data, medical record information and blood samples for research purposes. All patients used in this cohort were recruited from the Thoracic Oncology Clinic at the Moffitt Cancer Center. The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study (BioVU) is a case-control study nested within the Vanderbilt University Medical Center biobank, BioVU. BioVU is a biorepository of DNA extracted from blood drawn from patients seeking routine clinical care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and linked to de-identified electronic health records for research purposes. Lung cancer cases and controls were identified from BioVU participants in February 2014. Lung cancer cases were identified from the Vanderbilt tumor registry. All specimens undergo pathologic review for determination of morphology. Coding of histology was based on SEER Program Coding Guidelines. Controls were randomly selected from BioVU participants, excluding cancer patients, and were matched to cases on age (&#177; 5 years), sex, and race. Relevant covariates were identified from electronic health records using natural language processing. Genomic DNA was extracted based on a standard protocol.

  Study phs001273