1217 results for ""initial+cohort"+"mid-2020s"+"consortium"+"scholarly+exchange"+"university""

in 14.10 milliseconds.

• Framingham Cohort

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

  Study phs000007

• Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium Registry (SCDIC Registry-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Objectives: To understand the barriers to care and other factors related to reduced healthcare utilization after the transition from pediatric to adult SCD care which may contribute to increased morbidity and mortality.Background: Fifty years ago, it was rare for individuals with SCD to live beyond childhood. Advances in care delivery and treatment have more than doubled the life expectancy of individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) since 1972. Beginning in the 1970s, measures such as newborn screening, prophylactic administration of penicillin, and immunization against bacterial infections decreased complications and morbidity, increasing the length and quality of life of children with SCD. Blood transfusions are currently the only proven way to prevent some of the major complications of SCD, especially recurrent stroke. They are also used frequently to help manage some of the acute complications of SCD. More recently, the use of hydroxyurea (HU) as a therapeutic agent to increase fetal hemoglobin has been shown to further reduce the debilitating symptoms of and improve survival in SCD. L-glutamine and crizanlizumab are additional treatments to reduce pain crises and voxelotor is approved to lower the risk of anemia and improve blood flow. In the absence of a widely accessible cure, treatment for SCD is usually aimed at avoiding crises, relieving symptoms, and preventing complications. Many of the advances in treatment have not translated into an increase in longevity or quality of life for adolescents and adults because of disparities in access to routine primary health care.Individuals with SCD experience a markedly increased mortality beginning in the second decade of life. The third and later decades of life are frequently associated with severe chronic pain progressive organ damage and frequent hospitalizations. The provision of evidence-based and expert opinion-based care in SCD is complicated by the difficulties that many patients experience in obtaining access to the health care system and in receiving long-term care from knowledgeable providers. A registry of 2,400 people with SCD was established to provide a rich resource to study the natural history of SCD and to understand barriers to care during the transition from pediatric to adult care. Participants: 2,438 participants with a confirmed diagnosis of SCD were enrolled into the registry over an 18-month period. At the time of enrollment, all participants were 15-45 years of age, English speaking, and without a bone marrow transplant.Design: The SCDIC Registry is a longitudinal observational cohort study. At enrollment, data collection included a medical record abstraction of clinical history, the most recent lab results, and a participant survey which included several patient reported outcomes from PROMIS, ASCQ-Me and NeuroQoL. Similar surveys were administered at annual follow-up. Four to five years after enrollment, a second record abstraction was completed with all clinical events that occurred since enrollment and another set of recent labs. There were many research questions proposed to be answered with the study data thus there was no primary outcome.Conclusions: As noted previously, there were no primary outcomes determined at the start of the study. Research questions included examination of co-morbidities, healthcare utilization, and patient reported outcomes. Key findings from the Registry include:Executive dysfunction, learning difficulties, and poor comprehension significantly associated with poor activities of daily living skills. Executive dysfunction also associated with HU non-adherence. Continuing HU after conception increased odds of miscarriage or stillbirth compared to women who were not using HU. Continuing HU after conception increased odds of low birth weight in infants. Compared to adolescents, young adults had significantly more severe pain, organ dysfunction, mental health disorders, sleep problems, and barriers to medical care. Young adults were significantly less likely to see a sickle cell specialist in the past 2 years. Females had higher pain frequency and severity, more pain episodes, anxiety, depression, hospitalizations, and higher fetal hemoglobin levels. Males had more respiratory, musculoskeletal, genitourinary, and cardiovascular complications, more skin ulcers, and more use of HU. Among 128 subjects that died during the study period, iron overload, pulmonary hypertension, and depression, were significant predictors of the risk of death in multivariate analyses.

  Study phs004203

• Gene Expression and Regulatory Networks in Human Leukocytes - Immunological Variation Consortium

  Profiling of gene expression with microarrays holds great potential for human health, for illuminating disease pathways or providing biomarkers to monitor disease or its resolution. Using high-throughput approaches for genotyping, immunophenotyping and gene expression analysis, the project will examine the basis for the control of gene expression in human immune cells, and how it is influenced by natural genetic variation or aging. In practice, the project will combine several cross-informative approaches: 1) Building on the established sample/data pipelines and robust protocols of the Immunological Genome (ImmGen) project, and on established cohorts of ethnically diverse healthy volunteers at hand, microarray techniques will be used to generate whole-genome expression profiles from purified naive CD4+ lymphocytes and monocytes from 600 healthy volunteers. A dense genetic map will be established for all donors. The results will elucidate how variation in the human genome affects the expression of immune genes, of key importance in understanding gene variants that bring susceptibility to immune or inflammatory disease. Computational analysis of these rich data will allow the reconstruction of regulatory connections between genes, helping to establish general modules and those specific of a given immune cell type. These data will be complemented by an orthogonal data group, generated from a restricted subset of 10 individuals, in which we will profile a larger set of 28 carefully delineated cell populations that exist in human blood. This work will also benefit from powerful interspecies comparison with similar experiments being performed in mice by ImmGen. 2) In addition, RNA from the same set of 28 defined cell populations will be probed with microarrays that explore other aspects of the transcriptome: i) microRNAs and other non-coding RNAs; ii) exon or splice junction arrays that will establish a map of differential splicing in human blood leukocyte. 3) The composition and reactivity of blood cells from the same donors will be established at the time of sample collection using high-throughput flow cytometry, correlating immune phenotypes with gene expression and genetic variation. 4) Genetic variability conditions the baseline levels of gene expression, but also the responsiveness to activating challenges. With samples from the same donors, NanoString technology for transcript counting will be used to analyze the transcriptional response of defined gene sets, representing response signatures of T or dendritic cells, for a fine-grained dissection of responses to different triggers (different bacterial ligands for dendritic cells, different cytokine environment for T cells). In keeping with the resource aspect of this project, all data and interpretations will be made publicly available rapidly upon curation, allowing public querying and browsing of the data, by using and evolving the existing web architectures of the ImmGen project, of the Broad Institute, and of international repositories. RELEVANCE: Exploration with DNA chips of the genome's expression microarrays holds great potential for human health, to better understand disease and to serve as diagnostic tools. Using a combination of high-throughput genomic techniques and computational biology, we will perform a broad exploration of gene expression in human blood cells across groups of African-American, Asian and European ancestry, asking how these profiles are affected by genetic variation or by age. These results will provide an invaluable reference benchmark for the interpretation of genetic and immunological studies. Additionally, over 90% of genetic variants associated with complex human traits map to non-coding regions, but little is understood about how they modulate gene regulation in health and disease. One possible mechanism is that genetic variants affect the activity of one or more cis-regulatory elements leading to gene expression variation in specific cell types. To identify such cases, in a second study we analyzed ATAC-seq and RNA-seq profiles from stimulated primary CD4+ T cells in up to 105 healthy donors. We found regions of accessible chromatin (ATAC-peaks) are co-accessible at kilobase and megabase resolution. 15% of genetic variants located within ATAC-peaks affected the accessibility of the corresponding peak (ATAC-QTLs). ATAC-QTLs have the largest effects on co-accessible peaks, are associated with gene expression, and are enriched for autoimmune disease variants. Our results provide insights into how natural genetic variants modulate cis-regulatory elements, in isolation or in concert, to influence gene expression. In another study we analyzed RNA-seq profiles from primary CD4+ T cells of two healthy donors at six time points from 0 to 72 hours after stimulation with bead-bound antibodies against CD3 and CD28.

  Study phs000815

• 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

• Lung Tissue Research Consortium (LTRC-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. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from LTRC include DNA, Plasma, Serum, Tissue - FFPE Cassettes, Tissue – RNALater Frozen, and Tissue - Snap Frozen. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: The LTRC was a biobank resource established by the NHLBI to collect and distribute lung tissue, blood samples, clinical data, and radiographic studies from participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), other related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIP) and interstitial pneumonias associated with connective tissue diseases who undergo medically-indicated lung resection. All tissue and blood specimens and clinical data were banked centrally and stored for distribution to external investigators who have approved study proposals to investigate the pathogenesis or management of lung diseases. The ultimate goal of this program was to enable research that illuminates the pathobiology of lung diseases and leads to novel interventional treatments for these conditions. Background: Chronic lung diseases are a main cause of death and disability in the United States. COPD affects over 14 million individuals in the United States and represents the third leading cause of mortality. Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor. However, only one of six individuals who smoke develops COPD. This could imply either an individual susceptibility or an additional immunologic or infectious injury to lung cells. Current treatments offer symptomatic relief, but do not prevent disease progression. Better understanding of disease pathogenesis, including the potential roles of lung parenchymal cell apoptosis, immunologic injury, and inflammation may lead to therapies that improve survival and quality of life. Interstitial pneumonias, including IPF and those associated with connective tissue disease, are less common than COPD, but for many of these diseases there are poor outcomes. For example, IPF has a 50% survival rate 2-3 years following diagnosis, and currently no treatment exists which prolongs survival. The prevalence of IPF is approximately 28 cases per 100,000. The underlying histology of IPF is usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), which can also occur in connective tissue diseases. The incidences of other interstitial pneumonias such as non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) or acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP) are less frequent but also occur as an expression of interstitial lung disease in the connective tissue diseases. Moreover, there is significant crossover of these three interstitial pneumonias so that cases of IPF/UIP may also reveal fibrotic NSIP and be complicated by episodes of AIP. This implies common injuries but dissimilar histological responses. All of these processes are characterized by epithelial injury, uncontrolled fibroproliferation and the deposition of collagen, irrespective of the histology. It is clear that a better understanding of the genesis of the interstitial pneumonias is required before effective interventions can be developed. Participants: A total of 4,486 participants were enrolled, and lung tissue was obtained from 3,333 of these participants.Design: Written informed consent of each participant was required before any LTRC procedure was performed. Phenotypic data were then obtained that included recording of relevant medical information, a limited exposure history, radiological evaluation, and pulmonary physiological and lung function testing. Questionnaires were administered to determine the extent of symptoms, associated medical illnesses, smoking, environmental and occupational exposures, and quality of life. Laboratory testing included pulmonary function testing, a six-minute walk test, and chest x-ray CT. Blood specimens were collected both for defining the clinical phenotype of donors and to obtain serum, plasma, and DNA for later investigative purposes. At the time of surgery, lung tissues were collected and processed for long-term storage. The LTRC collected only the 'non-tumorous' portions of lung tissue from surgical procedures performed for primary or metastatic lung tumors and received those specimens only after the local pathologist had procured all tissue required for clinical care. Samples of appropriate size were cut and placed in formalin, RNAlater, glutaraldehyde, or liquid nitrogen within 30 minutes of excision (approximately 5% of cases exceeded this target time). Blood and tissue specimens were subsequently shipped to a central Tissue Repository for further processing and long-term storage. A Radiology Center provided quality control and quality assessment of CT data. A Data Coordinating Center managed study operations and maintained a repository of study data. Conclusions: LTRC established a biospecimen collection that is unique in its size, diseases included, standardization of methods, and extent of phenotypic data, serving as a valuable resource to facilitate research on the pathobiology of lung diseases.

  Study phs003913

• 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

• 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