2968 results for "愛の戦士完全破壊2-re-imagination-version-鞭首絞め・電撃・ヘソか"

in 12.79 milliseconds.

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

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

  Study phs003621

• NHLBI TOPMed: The Genetic Epidemiology of Asthma in Costa Rica

  This administrative supplement to the project, "The Genetic Epidemiology of Asthma in Costa Rica" (R37 HL066289) is in response to NOT-HL-14-029 to perform whole genome sequencing (WGS) on existing NHLBI populations. We focus on asthma because of its public health significance. Asthma affects 26 million U.S. children and adults, remains a major cause of morbidity (one-half million hospitalizations a year) and is the most common cause of school and work days lost. Asthma-related costs are estimated to be over $12.7 billion annually. The Asthma Probands for both the extended pedigrees and the trios utilized in this study were selected on the basis of a physician diagnosis of asthma; a history of recurrent asthma attacks or at least 2 respiratory symptoms; and either airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine or significant response to bronchodilator (Albuterol) administration. These criteria are identical to the criteria used in the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP). The three primary goals of this project are to: (1) identify common and rare genetic variants that determine asthma and its associated phenotypes (height, weight, IgE level, lung function, bronchodilator response, steroid treatment response) through whole genome sequencing (WGS); (2) perform novel family based association analysis of our WGS data to identify novel genes for asthma; and (3) integrate epigenomic and transcriptomic data with our WGS data and determine the epistatic interactions present using systems genomics approaches. Identification of the molecular determinants of asthma remains an important priority in translational science. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been successful in this regard, identifying at least 10 novel susceptibility genes for asthma. However, as with most complex traits, the variants identified by GWAS explain only a fraction of the estimated heritability of this disorder. Herein, we propose a novel family-based study design and state-of-the-art genome sequencing techniques to map a set of sequence variants for asthma and its associated phenotypes and assess the interrelationships of the identified genes and variants using systems genomics methods. We have assembled a team of investigators highly-skilled and expert in whole genome sequencing (Drs. Michael Cho and Benjamin Raby), genetic association analysis (Drs. Scott T. Weiss, Jessica Lasky-Su and Christoph Lange), integrative genomics (Drs. Raby, Kelan Tantisira, Augusto Litonjua and Dawn DeMeo), and systems genomics (Drs. Weiss, Amitabh Sharma, Lange and Raby) to address this important problem with both a novel study design and data set.

  Study phs000988

• A genotype-phenotype study of tumors from patients with inherited mutations in DNA repair genes

  This study investigated the genomic landscape of tumors from patients with inherited mutations in DNA repair genes. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between locus-specific loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and genomic signatures of homologous recombination-based DNA repair (HR) deficiency in tumors associated with pathogenic germline variants in DNA repair genes. Cohorts of pathogenic germline variant (PGV) carriers with different cancer types were identified via a cancer genetics registry and clinical practice at Penn Medicine and through our collaborator network. Tumors were analyzed with next generation sequencing (whole exome and/or targeted panel sequencing) with or without transcriptomic analyses. Sub-study #1 "Non-breast/ovarian tumors in germline BRCA1/2 carriers". This study investigated primary non-breast/ovarian tumors that arise in individuals with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Whole exome sequencing (WES) using Agilent All-Exon Kit v7 hybrid capture probes was performed on matched tumor and blood germline normal DNA on an Illumina HiSeq. Individual WES data from DNA samples from tumor and normal are available. Sub-study #2: "Breast tumors in germline CHEK2 carriers". This study investigated primary breast tumors that arise in individuals with CHEK2 pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Whole exome sequencing (WES) using Agilent All-Exon Kit v7 hybrid capture probes was performed on matched tumor and blood germline normal DNA on an Illumina HiSeq. Whole transcriptome RNAseq was performed on tumors. Individual WES data from DNA samples from tumor and normal and RNAseq data from tumor are available. Sub-study #3: "Breast tumors in germline TP53 carriers". This study investigated primary breast tumors that arise in individuals with TP53 pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and/or custom panel targeted sequencing was performed on matched tumor and blood germline normal DNA on an Illumina HiSeq. Whole transcriptome RNAseq was performed on tumors and normal breast tissue. Individual WGS or targeted data from DNA samples from tumor and normal and RNASeq data from tumor and normal are available. Sub-study #4: "Prostate tumors in germline DNA repair carriers". This study investigated prostate tumors that arise in individuals with a variety of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and/or custom panel targeted sequencing was performed on matched tumor and blood germline normal DNA on an Illumina HiSeq. Whole transcriptome RNAseq was performed on tumors and normal prostate tissue. Individual WGS or targeted data from DNA samples from tumor and normal and RNASeq data from tumor and normal are available.

  Study phs003348

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): CO-CREATE-Ex: Community-engaged Optimization of COVID-19 Rapid Evaluation And TEsting Experiences

  Cases of COVID-19 infection in San Diego have persistently remained high in the county's central and southern communities near the US/Mexico border, home to primarily Latino residents who have been one of the ethnic minority communities most impacted by COVID-19. To address this, our Phase I RADx-UP project partnered with San Ysidro Health (SYH), a federally qualified health center, and the Global Action Research Center (Global ARC), a social change organization, to co-create and demonstrate the impact of a PCR-based COVID-19 testing program in San Ysidro. To date, we have administered approximately 15,000 PCR tests for >10,000 community members (92% Latino) and received requests from SYH to scale-out the testing program to additional primary care clinic sites. Responsive to RFA-OD-22-006, we will continue working with our community (Global ARC) and clinical (SYH) partners to refine, specify, implement, and evaluate an implementation strategy bundle that optimizes COVID-19 testing, expanding beyond current PCR testing to focus on FDA-authorized COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. Use of self-administered rapid antigen tests will allow participants to build capacity to self-test and use health information technology to access additional clinic services. Based on initial implementation mapping with the project's established Community and Scientific Advisory Board, three implementation strategies were prioritized to accelerate sustained uptake of rapid COVID-19 testing. These three strategies include: (1) current, walk-up onsite free testing; (2) promotores-led COVID-19 test counseling and preventive care reminders; (3) vending machines that dispense FDA-authorized self-testing kits. Our primary objectives are to: 1) refine and operationalize our multi-component implementation strategy bundle and a related set of measures of success for rapid FDA- authorized COVID-19 testing and 2) implement and evaluate impact of our innovative, multilevel, and multicomponent implementation strategy bundle to optimize COVID-19 rapid testing among underserved, Latino communities using a roll-out implementation optimization study design across four clinics over 18 months. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the urgent and essential need to engage invested community parties continuously and meaningfully in public health research to reduce health disparities. This proposal is well-positioned to provide a set of strategies and measures of success that can be used in settings serving underserved communities while maintaining flexibility to adjust to the changing COVID-19 landscape.

  Study phs003686

• Multiomic Landscape of Multiple Myeloma Precursor and Relapsed Disease

  Multiple myeloma (MM) is a treatable, though incurable, plasma cell malignancy. The molecular mechanisms driving disease onset and the emergence of drug resistance remain elusive. To better characterize the mutational, transcriptional, and epigenetic alterations that accompany MM disease evolution, we accessed molecular data from MM patients treated at Moffitt Cancer Center, with bone marrow biopsies collected between 2011 and 2023.We performed scMultiome (single-cell, paired RNA/ATAC-Seq, 10x Genomics) on 18 CD138+-selected bone marrow aspirate samples, including: 2 healthy donors, 3 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 4 with smoldering myeloma (SMM), 3 with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), 1 with early relapse MM (ERMM, 1 to 3 lines of therapy), and 5 with late relapse MM (LRMM, 4 or more lines of therapy). Our dataset includes a sequential sample: a patient with a premalignant condition ("scMultiome_SMM_4") that progressed to active myeloma ("scMultiome_NDMM_3"). These data allow for the assessment of transcriptional and epigenetic dysregulation at the cellular level. Our findings illustrate the dynamic epigenetic and transcriptional landscapes that accompany MM disease progression.We also conducted CUT&Tag analysis on 4 NDMM and 4 LRMM samples to map histone modifications, specifically H3K27ac, to investigate their role in transcriptional reprogramming observed in advanced stages of MM. This analysis revealed sample heterogeneity in terms of super-enhancer-regulated genes associated with active transcription.This cohort also includes samples from the clinical trial NCT04151667, “Daratumumab-Based Response-Adaptive Therapy for Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.” We performed scRNAseq (single-cell RNA sequencing, 10x Genomics) on 30 CD138+-selected bone marrow aspirate samples and 31 pre-sort samples featuring bone marrow mononuclear cells of various cell types from 5 healthy donors and 11 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Our dataset includes sequential samples for all 11 NDMM patients, both prior to induction therapy (denoted by ‘a') with Daratumumab and Dexamethasone, and at cycle 2 day 22 (C2D22, i.e., 60 days after induction therapy start, denoted by ‘b'). For three NDMM patients, we also have samples at relapse (denoted by ‘c'). These data allow for the assessment of transcriptional dysregulation at the single-cell level in both the tumor and immune-tumor microenvironment, associated with Daratumumab treatment in NDMM patients.In addition to the molecular data, demographic, and phenotypic information for all samples is provided.

  Study phs003892

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  Study Overview The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study is a longitudinal study that investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational events, childhood infections, dietary exposures, and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). A consortium of six clinical centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of the study to identify environmental triggers for the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. Beginning in 2004, the TEDDY study screened over 400,000 newborns for high-risk HLA-DR, DQ genotypes from both the general population and families already affected by T1D. The TEDDY study enrolled around 8,676 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) in the 15-year prospective follow-up. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody (IA) measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive participants continue to be followed at three month intervals and autoantibody negative participants are followed at six-month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection are performed at each visit. Parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. Additional information on the TEDDY study is available in the following articles: Rewers et al., 2008, PMID: 19120261 and Hagopian et al., 2006, PMID: 17130573. Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in Hagopian et al., 2011, PMID: 21564455. TEDDY data currently available in dbGaP include: gene expression, SNPs, exome, microbiome (gut, nasal, and plasma), RNA sequencing, and whole genome sequencing. For more information on TEDDY Study version history please refer to TEDDY Study dbGaP README File. ImmunoChip SNP DNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for SNP genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP array, which contains around 196,000 SNPs from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (Hadley et al., 2015, PMID: 26010309). Data cleaning and validation included the removal of subjects with a low call rate (< 5% SNPs missing) and differences in reported sex and prior genotyping at the TEDDY HLA laboratory. Additionally, SNPs with a low call rate or Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value < 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements, were removed from the final dataset (Törn et al., 2015, PMID: 25422107).TEDDY-T1DExome ArrayDNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the University of Virginia using the Illumina TEDDY-T1DExome array. The TEDDY-T1DExome array is a custom chip that contains 550,601 markers from the Infinium CoreExome-24 v1.1 BeadChip and an additional 90,214 tagSNPs specifically selected by the TEDDY investigators based on their associations with nutrients, vitamins, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune diseases, body-mass index, or other exposures and phenotypes measured by TEDDY study.The Illumina GenTrain2 algorithm was used for genotype calling. Sample quality control metrics included sample call rate, heterozygosity rate and concordance of gender between the information reported and genotyped. Gene Expression The TEDDY study collected peripheral blood for the extraction of total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA (200 ng) was further used for cRNA amplification and labeling with biotin using Target Amp cDNA synthesis kit (Epicenter catalog no. TAB1R6924). Labeled cRNA was hybridized to the Illumina HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChips based on the manufacturer's instructions. The HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChip provides coverage for more than 47,000 transcripts and known splice variants across the human transcriptome. Microbiome The TEDDY microbiome study aimed to characterize the longitudinal development of the microbiome, including bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms in the gut, plasma, and nasal cavity of prediabetic and diabetic subjects compared to autoantibody negative non-diabetic subjects. Stool samples used were collected monthly from 3 to 48 months, after which stool samples were collected every 3 months. Nasal swab samples were collected every 3 months starting at 9 months of age until 48 months, after which nasal swabs were collected every 6 months. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months starting at 3 months of age until 48 months, after which plasma samples were collected every 6 months. If the subject was autoantibody positive at 48 months then they remained on the 3 month collection interval for nasal swab and plasma samples. Samples underwent 16s rRNA gene sequencing, DNA and viral RNA metagenomics shotgun sequencing, and sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. Additional information on the TEDDY microbiome data is available in the following articles: Vatanen et al., 2018, PMID: 30356183, Stewart et al., 2018, PMID: 30356187, and Vehik et al., 2020, PMID: 31792456. RNA Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to characterize the transcriptome in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched control subjects. Peripheral blood was collected to extract total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA was then sent to the Broad Institute for the generation of the TEDDY RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data. The RNA samples were prepped using Superscript III reverse transcriptase and Illumina's TruSeq Stranded mRNA Sample Prep Kit. The TruSeq libraries were run on the Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. Whole Genome Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to conduct deep whole genome sequencing and examine the genomic variations in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched autoantibody negative and non-diabetic children. DNA from whole blood was obtained from TEDDY children for whole genome sequencing. The WGS data were generated on the Illumina HiSeq X Ten system.

  Study phs001442

• 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

• WNT-dependent interaction between inflammatory fibroblasts and FOLR2+ macrophages promotes fibrosis in chronic kidney disease

  Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a public health problem driven by myofibroblast accumulation, leading to interstitial fibrosis. Heterogeneity is a recently recognised characteristics in kidney fibroblasts in CKD, but the role of different populations is still unclear. Here, we characterize a proinflammatory fibroblast population (named CXCL-iFibro), which corresponds to an early state of myofibroblast differentiation in CKD. By performing immunofluorescence studies and spatial transcriptomics analysis on 2 patients, we demonstrate that CXCL-iFibro co-localize with macrophages in the kidney and participate in their attraction, accumulation, and switch into FOLR2+ macrophages from early CKD stages on. In vitro, we cultured primary inflammatory fibroblasts that we characterized by using bulk RNAseq. We show that macrophages promote the switch of CXCL-iFibro into ECM-secreting myofibroblasts through a WNT/-catenin-dependent pathway, thereby suggesting a reciprocal crosstalk between these populations of fibroblasts and macrophages. Finally, the detection of CXCL-iFibro at early stages of CKD is predictive of poor patient prognosis, which shows that the CXCL-iFibro population is an early player in CKD progression and demonstrates the clinical relevance of our findings.

  Study EGAS50000000101

• Molecular Biomarkers in Glioma (Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications of Hypermutation in Gliomas)

  This study seeks to genomically and mechanistically examine the basis for resistance of glioblastoma to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeted therapy including immunotherapies. The study design addresses two Aims. In Aim 1, we will test the hypothesis that treatment with radiation and temozolomide or other therapies leads to consistent genetic changes in human tumors using whole exome sequencing of paired pre- and post-treatment tumor samples to determine large-scale changes in population structures and single cell whole genome sequencing to evaluate the effects of these treatments on microheterogeneity. In Aim 2, we will test the hypothesis that genetic changes identified in post-treatment glioblastomas (GBMs) functionally contribute to various forms of resistance in GBM using patient derived cell lines (PDCL) and patient derived xenografts (PDX). These studies will create a comprehensive understanding of genetic evolution during standard-of-care therapy for GBM. They will inform diagnostic approaches for assignment of targeted therapeutics in the recurrent setting and identify genetic changes driving resistance. Therapeutic targeting of these novel resistance drivers could represent a rational approach to substantially improve our existing standard of care for GBM patients.

  Study phs001967

• Primary Prostate Tumor Tissue DNA Methylation Profiles

  The study cohort includes 525 Caucasian and African American prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) as primary therapy for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. These patients were previously enrolled in one of two population-based studies: 1) men 40-64 years of age, diagnosed between January 1993 and December 1996; and, 2) men 35-74 years of age, diagnosed between January 2002 and December 2005. Gleason grade and sum, diagnostic PSA, and pathological tumor stage were obtained from the SEER cancer registry. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate tumor tissue blocks were obtained from RP specimens and used to make hematoxalin and eosin stained slides, which were reviewed by pathologists to confirm the presence/location of adenocarcinoma. For each patient two 1-mm tumor tissue cores from the dominant lesion that were enriched with >=75% tumor cells were taken for DNA purification. The RecoverAll Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (Ambion/Applied Biosciences, Austin, TX) was used to extract DNA, which was then quantified (PicoGreen), aliquoted onto 96-well plates and shipped to Illumina for DNA methylation profiling using the Infinium® HumanMethylation450 BeadChip.

  Study phs001921