Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

NHLBI TOPMed - NHGRI CCDG: The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Atrial Fibrillation Genetics Study

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, is the primary cause of many hospital admissions, and is associated with significant secondary morbidity by increasing the risk of stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. The incidence of AF is on the rise, and it is projected that by the year 2050 more than 10 million patients will be affected by AF in the United States alone. Anti-arrhythmic medications have limited success in maintaining sinus rhythm, are associated with side effects, and appear ineffective at reducing mortality compared to a strategy of rate control and anticoagulation. Given the significant morbidity associated with this common arrhythmia, surgical and catheter ablation techniques have been developed to treat AF. However, despite the incorporation of various strategies for ablation, long-term recurrence rates of AF remain higher than 25 percent after ablation. Current techniques for catheter ablation of AF include pulmonary vein isolation and complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation. However, the contribution of each strategy to long-term procedural success and the relative importance of each strategy for different patients remain unknown. Recent advances in cardiac imaging have allowed detailed analysis of left atrial myocardial anatomy. Parallel advances in molecular genetics have identified several candidate genes involved in familial and non-familial AF. However, the pathophysiology of AF generation and maintenance, and the potential contribution of such genetic or anatomic substrates for patient selection, and for target identification during catheter ablation have not yet been examined. Advances in molecular genetics and imaging, coupled with techniques for endocardial and epicardial mapping in the electrophysiology laboratory present an opportunity to significantly improve our understanding of (1) The relation of paroxysmal versus persistent AF with (a) structural left atrial changes (left/right atrial scar, wall thinning, pulmonary vein anomalies, and coronary sinus dilation) and with (b) candidate genetic variants. (2) The relation of candidate genetic variants with (a) structural left atrial changes and with (b) electrophysiologic properties (atrial effective refractory period (AERP) inhomogeneity, voltage abnormalities, trigger burden and location, C FAE extent and location), (3) The relation of structural left atrial changes with (a) CFAE location as targets for catheter ablation and with (b) reversible conduction block/myocardial injury after pulmonary vein isolation, and (4) Individualized endocardial targets for AF ablation based on candidate genes and anatomic substrates. The proposed study will improve our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of AF, and may improve current techniques for treatment of this important arrhythmia.

Study phs001598

A Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients Experiencing Musculoskeletal Adverse Events on NCIC CTG Trial MA.27 Evaluating Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer. A Collaboration Between the NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network and the RIKEN Yokohama Institute Center for Genomic Medicine.

Source of Patients The source of the patients for this genome-wide case control study was MA.27, which was conducted as a multi-cooperative group effort under the auspices of the NCI Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. The NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG) serves as the coordinating group, with participation by the NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). MA.27 involved postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected invasive breast cancer with surgical margins clear of invasive carcinoma and DCIS in the following TMN categories (AJCC Version 6): pT1, pT2, pT3; pNx, pN0, pN1, pN2, pN3 (only when the sole basis is presence of 10 or more involved axillary nodes); MO. The primary tumor must have been ER and/or progesterone receptor positive. Patients were stratified by lymph node status at diagnosis, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and trastuzumab use and were randomized to 5 years of adjuvant therapy with anastrozole or exemestane. The trial was activated on May 26, 2003, and reached its accrual objectives on July 31, 2008, after the randomization of 6827 North American patients, with the majority (79%) providing DNA and consent for genetic testing. Non-North American patients were also entered by the International Breast Cancer Study Group but they did not contribute DNA. From 2003 to December 21, 2004, patients also underwent a second randomization to celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo but, after the entry of 1,622 patients, this treatment was discontinued because of reports of increased cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib. Case Definition for Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Cases were defined to have had at least one of the following six MSAE): 1. pain - joint, 2. pain - muscle, 3. pain - bone, 4. arthritis, 5. joint - function, 6. musculoskeletal - other. Cases were required to have at least grade 3 toxicity, according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, or go off treatment for any grade of the six MSAEs; and were required to have had an MSAE within the first two years (i.e., a MSAE occurring after 2 years was not be considered a case). Subjects were excluded from the case group who met the case definition while on celecoxib or in the three months after stopping celecoxib but subjects were allowed to be cases if they developed their first MSAE more than three months after stopping celecoxib. Study Design The design was a nested matched case-control study with two controls selected for each case. Random matching from the potential control group (i.e., risk-set sampling such that controls had at least the same length of followup as the timing of the case event) was done by matching the case on the following factors: 1. treatment arm (exemestane vs. anastrozole, blinded), 2. prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), 3. age at start of treatment (+/- 5 years), 4. Celecoxib allocation (yes vs. no). Attempts were made to exactly match each case with two controls according to the above criteria. If, however, controls could not be exactly matched, "close" matching was used to define a distance between each case and all potential controls in an optimal matching algorithm. Race is a potential confounding factor, and 94% of the MA.27 population is Caucasian, 3% are Black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian, and 1% are of unknown race. Because there are so few non-Caucasian participants, was restricted to only Caucasians. Following identification of cases and controls, the list was sent to the CALGB Pathology Coordinating Office (PCO) at Ohio State University Medical Center for plating of the samples. Other patient factors that might influence the association of SNP genotypes with a MSAE, either as confounding factors or as effect modifiers, were included as investigational covariates. These include 1. body mass index (BMI), 2. bisphosphonate use, 3. fractures in past 10 years, 4. baseline ECOG performance status, 5. prior hormone replacement therapy, 6. prior adjuvant radiotherapy, and 7. prior taxane treatment. An Honest Broker Process was utilized to ensure patient confidentiality. Genotype Assays and Quality Control A GWAS was performed with the Illumina Human610-Quad at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine. The DNA for all of the samples were adjusted to a concentration of 50 to 100 ng/µL in a final volume of 50 µL. The 96-well plates were designed to have a unique distribution pattern with x duplicates per plate to evaluate genotype concordance. Samples with <98% call rate were removed from analyses. SNPs with ambiguous call will be excluded using the following criteria: 1. low signal intensity of each allele, 2. low cluster separation score, 3. SNP call rate <0.98, 4. SNPs with Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium p-value <0.001 were excluded. X-chromosome SNPs were used to validate female sex and quality control measures were examined across the different submitting centers. For all pairs of subjects, the percentage of matching genotypes were computed to screen for unexpected duplicate samples. All SNPs found to be associated with MSAE were subjected to visual inspection of the cluster plots to verify that the genotype clustering was adequate.

Study phs000210

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Controlled Study of the Clinical Effectiveness of Automated Real-Time Feedback on CPR Process Conducted at a Subset of ROC Sites (CPR) (ROC-CPR-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: A substudy of the ROC PRIMED trial, the ROC CPR trial sought to investigate whether real-time audio and visual feedback during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) outside a hospital increases the proportion of participants who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation.Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an essential link in the chain of survival for treating cardiac arrest. However, performance of CPR is highly variable both outside hospital and in hospital. Interruptions in chest compression, inadequate depth of chest compression, and high rates of ventilation adversely affect blood flow during chest compressions and can hinder resuscitation. Suboptimal CPR, particularly time spent without chest compressions (low chest compression fraction), can reduce survival of cardiac arrest patients.Current technology incorporated into a monitor-defibrillator can assess core components of CPR through the use of an accelerometer and impedance changes across the defibrillation electrodes. This technology can also provide real-time audiovisual feedback so that the rescuer is prompted to perform according to guideline specifications. Use of such feedback increases the likelihood of performing CPR in accordance with guidelines during training and simulation. Participants: There were 1586 participants: 771 treated without feedback and 815 with feedback.Design: CPR feedback was provided through proprietary Q-CPR software operating in the Philips MRx monitor-defibrillator. The feedback feature of the defibrillator includes audible voice prompts and visual messages on the monitor screen that are triggered when measured chest compressions or ventilation deviate from guidelines or are interrupted.The study was conducted in 21 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies at three ROC regions in the U.S. and Canada. Randomized treatment clusters, which ranged from individual emergency medical vehicles to groups of emergency agencies, were assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off treatments. Each cluster remained in its assigned mode for two to seven months, after which it switched to the opposite treatment arm. At the end of those two treatment periods, each cluster was again randomly assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off. This cycle continued for the duration of the study. Each cluster switched treatment arms at least once, and up to four times, during the study. Conclusions: Real-time visual and audible feedback during CPR altered performance to more closely conform with CPR guidelines. Clusters assigned to feedback were associated with increased proportion of time in which chest compressions were provided, increased compression depth, and decreased proportion of compressions with incomplete release. However, frequency of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation did not differ according to feedback status, nor did the presence of a pulse at hospital arrival, survival to discharge, or awake at hospital discharge (Hostler, et al., 2011, PMID: 21296838).

Study phs003818

University of Pennsylvania CAR T Cell Responding and Non-responding Patients

The adoptive transfer of autologous T cells genetically modified to express a CD19-specific, 4-1BB/CD3zeta-signaling chimeric antigen receptor (CAR; CTL019) has shown remarkable activity in patients with B acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Similar therapy can induce long-term remissions for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, but in only a small subset of subjects. The determinants of response and resistance to CTL019 therapy of CLL are not fully understood. We employed next generation sequencing of RNA (RNA-seq) to identify predictive indicators of response to CTL019 treatment. We performed RNA-seq on leukapheresis and manufactured infusion product T cells from patients with heavily pre-treated and high-risk disease. To characterize potency, we also performed RNA-seq on the cellular infusion product after CAR-specific stimulation. Our findings indicate that durable remission in CLL is associated with gene expression signatures of early memory T cell differentiation (e.g., STAT3), while T cells from poorly- or non-responding patients exhibited elevated expression of key regulators of late memory as well as effector T cell differentiation, apoptosis, aerobic glycolysis, hypoxia and exhaustion. These gene expression signatures, along with additional immunological biomarkers, may be used to identify which patients are most likely to respond to cellular therapies and suggest manufacturing modifications that might potentiate the generation of maximally efficacious infusion products. In a follow-up study, we report multiplex CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing on T cells in humans to test the hypothesis that disrupting genes encoding the endogenous T cell receptor (TCR), TCRα (TRAC) and TCRβ (TRBC), as well as PD-1 (PDCD1) would enhance the efficacy of autologous T cells engineered to express a transgenic NY-ESO TCR. We used single cell RNA-seq to comprehensively characterize the transcriptomic phenotype of this T cell product and its evolution over time in a patient with sarcoma. Notably, this patient's transferred T cells that persisted in vivo demonstrated increases in expression of genes associated with a central memory state (IL7R, TCF7). These findings may guide future trials involving administration of genetically redirected, genome -edited T cells.In this follow-up study, we investigated whether CRISPR-Cas9-mediated disruption of PDCD1 and/or CTLA-4 could restore CART dysfunction in healthy donors and/or CLL patients. We show that depletion of CTLA-4 rescues the function of T cells from leukemia patients that previously failed CART cell treatment. We performed single-cell RNA sequencing and characterized the transcriptomic landscape of CTLA-4 KO CART19 cells that showed higher proliferation and anti-tumor efficacy by permitting unopposed CD28 signaling and maintenance of CAR expression on the T cell surface under stress-test conditions of chronic antigen exposure. Our findings reveal that selective disruption of CTLA-4 invigorates dysfunctional patient T cells, providing a strategy for increasing patient responses to CART cell therapy.

Study phs001707

University of Miami Study on Genetics of Autism and Related Disorders (AutismDisorders)

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are neurodevelopmental in origin and characterized by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication accompanied by restricted and repetitive patterns of interest or behavior. With improved surveillance and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, the most recent prevalence studies suggest that ASD may affect as many as 1/166 children in the US. Treatments are limited resulting in little impact on the profound morbidity. Little is known about the etiology of ASD, but there is a strong genetic component. Genetic studies over the past decade have failed to identify definitive ASD genes, but have clearly shown that the underlying genetics are more complex than anticipated with the likelihood that multiple genes are acting independently and/or interactively. With this realization the field of ASD genetics is at a critical juncture. To move forward we must embrace new and creative paradigms to successfully dissect the genetic etiology of this disease. Specifically the current study will: Extend our ascertainment to the full range of ASD. We will increase our ASD dataset by collecting 600 families who meet clinical diagnostic criteria for the three most common ASDs: autism (AUT), Asperger disorder (ASP) and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-NOS (PDD-NOS). Phenotype assessment will be expanded to include the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and detailed seizure data. Ascertainment will focus on parent-child trios. Further characterize the ASD-associated variations in the Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) receptor (GABR) subunits. We will complete our GABR subunit variant analysis, including coding, UTR, regulatory, and conserved intronic sequence, concentrating on GABRA4 and GABRB1. We will also investigate the role of variation in other GABR subunits. All AUT specific findings will be examined in the entire ASD dataset. Identify the chromosome 19p ASD gene. Multiple genome-wide screens have provided significant evidence for linkage to Chromosome 19p and we have found evidence for significant association in the linked families within an ~3 Mb region. We will genotype 768 SNPs spaced at ~4 kb to refine the candidate region and delineate specific candidate genes for further testing. We will screen the strongest associated candidate genes for additional variants and evaluate evidence for association in the entire ASD dataset (SA5). Develop and apply the Phenotypic Homogeneity Distinction (PHD) algorithm for identification of the phenotypic signature of linkage and/or association signals. The PHD algorithm identifies phenotypic covariates that discriminate a target sample subset (e.g. the positively linked families or families carrying the associated risk allele) from its complement. The resulting PHD discriminators will define a homogeneous subset from our newly-ascertained ASD dataset to use, as a confirmatory dataset and for localization within genes under study in our other aims. Test for gene-gene interactions. To fully explain the spectrum of autism risk, we will test for interactions between genetic variations associated with ASD (such as those in GABR subunit genes). We will build upon our experience using the MDR method and extend our analyses across biological pathways using the entire ASD data set.

Study phs000436

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

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

Study phs003826

Implementation of the GDPR

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

Documentation about/privacy-notice

FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

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

Blog fega-and-gdi

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

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

Study phs003784

Genome-Wide Association Study of Patients with Coccidioidomycosis

BackgroundValley Fever is typically an infection of the lungs caused by the fungi Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. The incidence of Coccidioidomycosis (CM), or infection with Coccidioides, has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. This is particularly true in the Southwest of the United States, where people often breathe fungal spores that arise from the soil. Reasons for increased infection rates are thought to include population growth and construction in these endemic regions, an increase in the number of people whose immune systems are compromised due to infection or treatment with drugs required for organ transplants, climate change, as well as improved testing practices and greater physician awareness. Mild CM most commonly presents itself with flu-like symptoms and rashes, which can last weeks to months. Individuals with compromised immune systems, specifically-- substantial suppression of the immune cells known as T cells, can develop severe pulmonary and disseminated disease. Infection that remains localized to the lungs is referred to as pulmonary disease, but when the infection spreads out of the lungs into other parts of the body it represents a more serious condition referred to as a disseminated disease, or disseminated CM. In nature, Coccidioides spp. exists as mold and lives in dust and soil. When the contaminated soil or dust is disturbed by human activity, animals, or weather, the Coccidiodies spores are released into the air. Airborne spores are taken up by breathing and settle in the lungs. Once in the moist and warm environment of the lung, spores transform into spherules, which divide and become filled with smaller spores, called endospores. When the spherules get large enough, they rupture and release these endospores, which can spread and disseminate to surrounding tissue. The cycle then repeats itself as these endospores develop into new spherules3. Different ethnic groups have been described to vary in their susceptibility to developing disseminated CM after initial infection with Coccidioides. For example, evidence suggests that African-American and Filipino patients suffer the disseminated disease at a greater rate than other ethnicities. The suggestion that race plays a role in the clinical expression of the disease is still a source of debate amongst the scientific community and any genetic mechanisms responsible for these differences have yet to be fully elucidated. If our genetic makeup influences our ability to limit the spread of infection, finding which DNA differences cause these variances could provide clues to how the body successfully fights infection, and provide opportunities to boost the body’s ability to do this. Further, if we are able to identify the specific genetic risk factors that correlate with the development of disseminated infection, physicians could perform genetic screenings to identify high-risk patients and provide them with preemptive antifungal therapy prior to developing disseminated disease.The genome, made up of DNA, contains all of the information needed for humans to develop and grow. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) allow us to look for inherited differences that are more common between people who share a particular trait, for example, height or susceptibility to certain diseases, compared to those who do not share the trait. Although some traits and diseases are controlled by a single gene, the majority are influenced by contribution from several, or even many, different genes. To find evidence of genes that contribute to specific traits, GWAS typically compares genome information from large numbers of people who have a particular disease (referred to as “cases”) looking for DNA sequences that are common among these samples, and are different from DNA sequences seen in large numbers of people who lack the trait, but are as much like the cases as possible (referred to as “controls”). The DNA sequence data from each group, cases versus controls, are analyzed to see if there are specific genomic differences that tend to be associated with the disease. MethodsTwo separate GWAS approaches were taken to look for genetic differences that could be responsible for the observed differences between the different patient populations we are studying. The first method, known as genotyping, scans for differences at a set of positions across the genome, which includes both the genes that encode our proteins and the larger amount of DNA that does not. The second method, known as exome sequencing, allows us to compare the entire sequence of the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.  For this study, DNA from patients with either pulmonary or disseminated CM were genotyped and exome sequenced to look for DNA differences that are associated with one condition or the other. All patients were at least 18 years old, had no evidence of immunosuppression, and had proven or probable pulmonary coccidioidomycosis according to established diagnostic criteria. Of these patients, a subset demonstrated disseminated disease, i.e., they showed evidence of coccidioidal infection outside of the thorax by biopsy/aspiration, had radiographic imaging, and show positive coccidioidal serology. Our criteria for including patients with the pulmonary disease were that they must not require ongoing antifungal treatment or show evidence of active CM (in skin test positive patients), show no evidence of extrapulmonary dissemination, and have no evidence of ongoing pulmonary infection (pulmonary nodules are accepted) beyond six months from diagnosis.Patient DNA was purified from blood or from sputum samples by the labs of our collaborators, Drs. George Thompson (UC Davis School of Medicine) and John Galgiani (University of Arizona Health Sciences). Genome-wide association (GWAS) analysis was carried out to look for candidate loci associated with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, taking into account the population structure of the samples. Single nucleotide or insertion/deletion variants were identified from whole-exome sequences (WES) using the Picard/BWA/GATK pipeline. ResultsTable 1. Pulmonary versus Disseminated Cases of Coccidiomycosis for GWAS, Sorted by EthnicityEthnicityPulmonary CasesDisseminated CasesAsian85Black/African American1664Caucasian/White4015Filipino03Hispanic/Latino3414Indian21Mexican American1039Pacific Islander01Samoan03Vietnamese10Unknown16917More than one race02Total373134Table 1 shows the number of samples analyzed from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, and patient ethnicity, where known. In all, we worked with 507 samples, including 134 samples from patients with disseminated disease and 373 samples from patients with pulmonary disease. Of these, 505 samples were genotyped using the Multi-Ethnic Global Array from Illumina Inc. In addition, we were able to generate whole-exome sequence from 498 patient samples. No significant associations were detected that differed between samples from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease; that is, no particular DNA sequences were found to be significantly enriched in patients with disseminated disease compared to patients with pulmonary disease. The ability to detect genetic association between specific sequences and genetically determined traits is influenced by several factors, including how many patient samples are available to compare, how many different genes contribute to the trait and how strong their contributions are. When the number of genes is small and the contribution of each gene is great, smaller numbers of patient samples are needed to detect an association. When more genes are involved, or the contribution from each gene is more modest, larger numbers of patient samples must be examined. While we were not able to detect any associated within this study, it does not mean that subsequent studies would not find this connection. Our study suggests significantly more samples should be analyzed in further studies.Whole-exome sequences were generated from 498 samples and were aligned to reference sequences to identify positions where the sequences differed from the reference. These data are being analyzed to determine if any variants are associated with pulmonary, versus disseminated, disease. 

Study phs002170

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

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

in 21.89 milliseconds.