214 results for ""domain-specific+cell+profiling+archive"+accession+code"

in 10.51 milliseconds.

• Out with the Java, in with the Python - new EGA data download client unveiled

  We will shortly be deprecating the Java-based download client also known as API V2. The Java client began its life at the back end of 2014, and during its time has seen many developments that have served our users well. During its tenure, the Java client enabled distribution of over 6.5 million files totalling nearly 15 petabytes of data to researchers around the globe. Recent increases in genomic and phenotypic data file sizes, the number of datasets archived in the EGA, the number of users downloading data, and the diversity of download locations has meant that at times the Java client struggled to distribute data efficiently. In response, our team of developers have built a new download client with more robust features and better functionality and reliability. Enter stage left our shiny new API V3.1! The new API V3.1 will replace both API V2 and API V3. The download client for the new API V3.1 is written in Python, and the code is openly available on Github. This Python client makes https calls to the EGA AAI (https://ega.ebi.ac.uk:8443/) and to the EGA Data API (https://ega.ebi.ac.uk:8052), both of which must be accessible from the client location. In addition to general updates to improve performance, the API V3.1 has three new features enhancing the EGA distributions services. First, requested data are now downloaded over secure https connections rather than http, meaning that data can be delivered unencrypted. Instead of separately requesting, downloading, and decrypting data using the Java client, data can now be requested and downloaded using a single command without the need for decrypting. The API V3.1 also automatically verifies each file’s unencrypted md5 after download to ensure the file has downloaded correctly. Second, the new API supports segmenting and automatic resuming. To enable quicker download speeds, the API breaks files into up to four segments and downloads them in parallel. With the new resume feature, downloads - both segmented and continuous stream - will automatically resume if they encounter any errors or the connection is interrupted. These features result in both a faster and more reliable download experience. Finally, the new API V3.1 implements the GA4GH-compliant htsget protocol for supporting requests over genomic ranges. This exciting new feature means that for data files with accompanying index files (e.g. .crai for CRAM files) users can download specific regions of interest rather than the entire file saving both time and storage space. The new features of the Python-based API V3.1 represent significant improvements in security, speed, reliability, and flexibility that are sure to provide a better data download experience. To take full advantage of these features, users must update to Python 3.X. Considering the changes in the data structures with the new API, the upgrade to a new version of the Python client is also mandatory. Updating the client to the latest version can be achieved by running the following command: pip3 install pyega3 -U We are excited for users to try out the new features and take advantage of the multifariously growing EGA distribution services for human biomedical omics data. If you have any questions or feedback, please email the EGA Helpdesk team. We'd love to hear from you!

  Blog new-ega-data-download-client

• Advancing fast in the analysis of circulating tumour DNA

  In cancer patients, solid tumours also release DNA fragments into the blood, and they are called Circulating Tumours DNA (ctDNA). Nowadays, the standard procedure for cancer monitoring is analysis of surgically obtained biopsies. They generate a big amount of material, but the operation is highly invasive and provide medical doctors with a single-time snapshot of the tumours, which are often highly changeable. Analysis of ctDNA, on the other hand, can provide continuous information regarding the tumour itself without the need of invasive procedures. This is why interest in this method is growing, and with it, the need for its technological optimization. Guanhua Zhu and colleagues, at the Genome Institute of Singapore, developed a methodology to quantify ctDNA burden, which means to estimate the amount of tumours derived circulating DNA among all cell-free DNA in the blood of individuals. Their work, published in Nature Communications in april 2021 and summarized in a sketch below, uses state-of-the art methods to analyse cfDNA degradation patterns at promoters and exon regions, to discern it from the DNA coming from the tumours. The bright point of their approach is that simultaneously enable for profiling of actionable cancer mutations and quantitative estimation of ctDNA burden. Their sequencing data of ctDNA has been deposited in the EGA under the accession number EGAS00001004657. This study sums up to a total of 37 of cfDNA and 36 about ctDNA present up to date in the EGA archive. The existence of cfDNA was firstly described back in 2002, while the use of ctDNA analysis in the oncological field exploded only after 2016. The approach is rapidly evolving, moving in parallel with the ever-improving sequencing technologies. Especially, the possibility to obtain high quality sequences from minimal amount of material is a crucial factor. Being able to alleviate cancer patients of disturbing and often slow-recovery procedures, while at the same time improving the quality of diagnosis and disease monitoring seems like a lot to ask. Thankfully, we are blessed with brilliant and dedicated scientists from all around the world who collaborate to make this a reality, sharing their results, knowledge and data.

  Blog advancing-fast-in-the-analysis-of-circulating-tumour-dna

• Lineage Plasticity and Immune Cell Heterogeneity Are Coordinately Dysregulated Through Changes in FOXA1 Expression in Bladder Cancers with Squamous Differentiation

  We performed whole exome sequencing (WES) of paired, macrodissected regions of urothelial carcinoma (UC), not otherwise specified (NOS-UC) and squamous differentiation (SqD) from 21 bladder tumors in which distinct and separable NOS-UC and SqD regions were present (total 42 exomes, in addition to matched normal exomes). Mean tumor mutational burden (TMB) was higher in the SqD versus the NOS-UC regions. Consistent with the higher TMB, the SqD regions also had a higher neoantigen burden than the patient-matched NOS-UC regions. The SqD regions also exhibited higher karyotypic complexity with a higher median ploidy relative to the paired NOS-UC regions. Phylogenetic analysis of the WES data confirmed that the morphologically distinct regions of all 21 tumors arose from a shared precursor with a median of 68 (range 16 – 852) non-synonymous mutations shared between the NOS-UC and SqD regions, and the overall data were indicative of early branched evolution. As whole exome sequencing did not identify a shared mutational alteration or genomic signature unique to the SqD or NOS-UC components, we therefore performed expression profiling of separable SqD and NOS-UC regions of 12 bladder tumors from the WES cohort with RNA quality sufficient for whole transcriptome RNA-sequencing (RNAseq, total of 24 regions). Based on centroid clustering analysis of expression data, all 12 regions of SqD were basal-squamous subtype based on the TCGA molecular classification schema. Notably, 8 of the NOS-UC regions were also basal-squamous subtype, with only four pairs exhibiting discordant transcriptional subtypes (three NOS-UC regions were luminal-infiltrated, one luminal-papillary). To better quantify differences in the transcriptional profiles of the paired NOS-UC and SqD regions, we used single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) to assess for enrichment of luminal or basal-squamous gene expression. ssGSEA analysis revealed that the SqD regions expressed higher levels of basal-squamous genes based on the BASE47 gene set and UPK/KRT gene sets; whereas the matched NOS-UC regions expressed higher levels of luminal genes. These differences in the levels of expression of basal and luminal genes were observed even in cases in which both the NOS-UC and SqD regions were basal-squamous subtype based the TCGA molecular classification schema. Exomes from eight patients in this study have previously been deposited in dbGaP: accession number phs001783 as part of the study "Exome Recapture and Sequencing of Prospectively Characterized Clinical Specimens From Cancer Patients".

  Study phs002357

• Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia (COHRA) Genomic Studies of Oral Health and Disease

  The purpose of this project is to identify the genetic factors contributing to dental caries in children and adults. The datasets come from the Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia (COHRA), which has the long-term goal of determining the sources of oral health disparities in a high risk, Northern Appalachian population so that effective preventive interventions can be designed and targeted. The Specific Aims of this project are to perform genome-wide association scans of dental caries of the (1) primary dentition in children, and (2) permanent dentition in adults, to identify novel risk variants and to replicate previously nominated risk variants. This project brings together samples from three cohorts: COHRA1 is a cross-sectional cohort comprising members of 862 northern Appalachian families; approximately 80% of the cohort has been previously genotyped by the Center for Inherited Disease Research with support from NIDCR using the Illumina Quad W array (see dbGaP Study Accession: phs000095.v3.p1). Dental SCORE is a cross-sectional cohort comprising approximately 550 unrelated individuals who underwent the same data collection protocol as COHRA1. COHRA2 is an ongoing longitudinal cohort that recruited approximately 1100 northern Appalachian women during pregnancy, and followed them and their children through their children's early childhood; the current project period will continue data collect though age 6 of the child. Phenotypes for this project were derived from intra-oral examinations performed by trained and calibrated research hygienists. In brief, each tooth was recorded as present or absent, and each surface of each present tooth was scored for evidence of decay. From these data, dental caries indices were generated. This project contains two phases of genotyping: (1) collection of exome SNP Chip data for the previously genotyped COHRA1 samples, and (2) collection of whole-genome SNP Chip data for the remaining COHRA1 samples and all Dental SCORE and COHRA2 samples. These data will support efforts to test hypotheses regarding the causal relationships of risk factors contributing to the unusually high rates of caries formation in the Appalachian population. Ultimately, these data may inform the development of an integrated model of caries risk, in which the effects of genetics, oral ecology, diet, and other environmental/psychosocial factors and behaviors are modeled in concert to explain the disparities, including the high rate of caries onset before age 6. The gene-mapping Aims of this project, which seek to identify the genetic factors that contribute to caries risk, are a requisite step in realizing this integrated model.

  Study phs001591

• 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

• Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The primary aim of the RESTORE clinical trial was to determine whether critically ill children managed with a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol would experience fewer days of mechanical ventilation than participants receiving usual care. Background Ensuring the safety and comfort of critically ill infants and children supported by mechanical ventilation is integral to the practice of pediatric critical care. Although sedation therapy benefits young participants who cannot understand the imperative nature of invasive life-sustaining therapies, sedative use is also associated with untoward adverse effects. Specifically, opioids and benzodiazepines commonly used for pediatric sedation may impair bedside neurological assessment, depress spontaneous ventilation, and prolong mechanical ventilation. Over time, drug tolerance develops, which may precipitate iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome when sedation therapy is no longer necessary.Numerous studies in adult critical care support a minimal yet effective approach to sedation management. Sedation goals for mechanically ventilated adults have shifted from an unresponsive state to a calm, easily aroused, readily evaluated participant. Studies in adult participants evaluating targeted sedation, daily interruption and/or titration of sedation, pairing of spontaneous awakening with breathing, and no sedation have reported improved clinical outcomes, including decreased length of mechanical ventilation when compared with usual care. In contrast, few data inform sedation practices in pediatric critical care, and international studies describe significant practice variation. Given unique biobehavioral differences, knowledge generated in adult critical care may not translate to the care of critically ill children. The RESTORE study was conducted to test the effect of a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol on clinical outcomes in pediatric participants with acute respiratory failure. Participants There was a total of 2,449 participants (mean age: 4.7 years; range: 2 weeks to 17 years). Design The RESTORE study was a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 31 US PICUs. Intervention PICUs (17 sites; 1,225 participants) used a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning. Control PICUs (14 sites; 1,224 participants) managed sedation per usual care. The primary outcome variable was duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions Among children undergoing mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure, the use of a sedation protocol compared with usual care did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Exploratory analyses of secondary outcomes suggest a complex relationship among wakefulness, pain, and agitation (JAMA 2015; 313(4):379-89).

  Study phs003783

• Honolulu Heart Program (HHP-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from HHP include DNA, plasma, serum, and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: The initial objectives of the Honolulu Heart Program were to: 1) estimate morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke among Japanese men in Honolulu; 2) compare morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke among Japanese men in Japan, Honolulu, and San Francisco; 3) investigate relationships among risk factors, coronary heart disease, and stroke in Japanese men in Honolulu; 4) compare distributions of risk factors among men in Japan, Honolulu, and San Francisco, and relate similarities and differences in risk factors to the occurrence of disease in these areas and in other populations, including Framingham and Puerto Rico; 5) conduct an autopsy study, and to relate pathological findings to morbidity and mortality data; and 6) investigate relationships between risk factors and pathological evidence of atherosclerosis and its complications.Background: The Honolulu Heart Program was initiated in 1965 by the NHLBI as a prospective study of environmental and biological causes of cardiovascular disease among Japanese Americans living in Hawaii. This population was known to have low incidence of coronary heart disease and higher incidence of stroke. The study provided opportunities to investigate relationships among disease frequencies, pathologic findings, and disease predictors in the cohort and to compare the findings in this population with those in other populations, especially cohorts of Japanese men resident in Japan or the U.S.Participants: There were 8006 participants.Design: The study began in 1965 with the first examination of a cohort of 8,006 Japanese-American men residing on the island of Oahu, Hawaii who were born during the period 1900-1919. The first examination was completed in 1968 and was followed by the initiation of a second examination that same year. Three subsequent sub-examinations (Lipoprotein Exams I, II and III) were conducted between 1970 and 1982 to collect lipid measurements on a subset of those who participated in Exam II. The fourth examination of surviving members of the original cohort was conducted during 1991-93 and collected data on 3,741 men. Morbidity and mortality follow-up continues through grant and contract-supported efforts, and the current HHP dataset includes events through 1998.

  Study phs003907

• 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

• Gut microbiome dynamics unravelled with metagenomics sequencing

  It has been already several years since we discovered that microbial therapeutics like Faecal Microbiota Transplantation can be used to treat Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with great success. The concept has challenged us to test the limits of our knowledge with the perspective to improve health in the most diverse conditions like Parkinson disease, depression, autism and obesity, just to mention a few. Note: the figure belongs to the original paper and is owned by the authors. Allyson L.Bird and colleagues from Genentech Inc. (San Francisco) recently published an interesting study building up on the key concept that “As microbial therapeutics are increasingly being tested in diverse patient populations, it is essential to understand the host and environmental factors influencing the microbiome.” The authors of this work analysed 1359 gut microbiome samples using shotgun metagenomics sequencing.  The results of the comparison done between microbiota composition across the different groups showed that biological sex is the strongest driver of diversity, while aging (age range studied: 20–69) appears to be the second factor. As smartly outlined in the authors’ own graphical abstract (figure to the left), Bacteroidota species consistently increased with donors' age while Actinobacteriota species, including Bifidobacterium, decreased. This study also integrated data from oncological patients to draw cancer-related evidences. After correcting the biases for technical and geographic differences, they found that cancer patients show significantly altered gut bacterial communities compared with their healthy counterparts. Eg. E.coli was found to be increased in cancer patients together with Bacteroidota/Firmicutes ratios. By comparing sequential samples taken from the same donors (413) within short-distance time points, the authors found that in the short term, intra-individual differences were less than the inter-individual ones, indicating a certain community stability being the norm. One of the pivotal points from this interesting study is that the data proceeds from extremely well-defined and selected donors. Specifically, the data for 949 selected healthy donors came from the Milieu Intérieur (MI) Consortium and extensive metadata, including demographic variables, serological measures, dietary information, and systemic immune profiles, are available. This precise stratification allowed for the robust detection of smaller changes, compared to former works. All sequencing data has been deposited in the EGA archive under the accession number EGAS00001004437. Enjoy this amazing open access paper published in the Experimental Journal of Medicine on January 2021.

  Blog gut-microbiome-dynamics-unravelled

• TOPDECC-Trans-omics for Precision Dentistry and Early Childhood Caries: Genome-Wide Genotyping (CIDR) and Microbiome in the ZOE 2.0 Study

  The ZOE 2.0 study is a cross-sectional genetic epidemiologic investigation of early childhood oral health, conducted in a state-wide, community-based, multi-ethnic sample of 3-5-year-old preschool-age children in North Carolina, United States. Between 2016-2019, 8,059 children were enrolled and 6,404 of them underwent comprehensive oral-clinical examinations that provided usable data on dental caries (i.e., early childhood caries; ECC) phenotypes. Saliva samples and supragingival biofilm samples were collected by 10 trained and calibrated examiners during the clinical encounters that took place in enrolled children's preschool (Head Start) centers. Specifically, the study enrolled participants and conducted clinical examinations in 260 Head Start centers that belonged to 34 Head Start programs in NC. 6,262 participants provided clinical data and had extracted DNA that met quantity and quality criteria for high-density genotyping and 6,144 of them were retained in the genome-wide association study (GWAS). Additional information on oral health-related behaviors, risk factors and self-reported outcomes was collected prior to the conduct of the clinical exam using self-administered questionnaires completed by children's guardians. Height and weight measurements were used to derive measures of adiposity. A domestic water sample for fluoride concentration measurement was obtained after the clinical examination for approximately 25% of study participants, to provide a measure of environmental exposure to this known caries-preventive agent and this information was subsequently imputed to the entire cohort using a novel GIS-informed method. Supragingival biofilm samples for microbiome analyses were collected from all participating children. Biofilm samples from a pilot 5% (n=300) of the cohort were carried forward to WGS (metagenomics; MTG) and RNAseq (metatranscriptomics; MTX) analyses, and these sequence data are being released via the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) in this dbGaP accession: 300 participants with MTG, 297 of those with MTX. Of note, the 17 participants with MTG data did not have genotypes produced, therefore the study's released participant total count is 6161, including 6144 (with genotypes released) plus 17 (with no genotypes released but with MTG data in the SRA).The study's primary objective is to identify risk loci and gene sets/pathways for ECC and related traits (e.g., caries prevalence and severity) by conducting a trans-ethnic GWAS. Genotyping is based on the Infinium&#8482; Global Diversity Array and the TOPMed panel is used for imputation via the University of Michigan Imputation server. Secondarily, the ZOE 2.0 seeks to determine prevalence and severity of dental caries, other oral disease outcomes, and putative risk factors for dental caries in this low-income population-based sample of European-, African-, and Hispanic/Latino-American preschool-age children.

  Study phs002232