2965 results for "愛の戦士完全破壊2-re-imagination-version-鞭首絞め・電撃・ヘソか"

in 24.81 milliseconds.

• Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS)

  This pharmacogenomic study focused on the response of patients with MDD to an 8-week course of treatment with citalopram or escitalopram. Briefly, clinical assessments and research assessments were performed at each study visit as summarized in Table 1. Many patients continued on antidepressant medication after the 8 week study. Table 1: Study timeline and patient contacts. Week Consent/Med Hx Write Rx SI Qx SCID HRS-D17 QIDSC16 CGI-I 0 SC RC RC SC SC SC 4 RC RC SC SC RC 8 RC RC SC SC RC HRS-D17=Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, QIDS-C16=Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, CGI-I=Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, SCID=Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SC=Study Coordinator, RC=Research Clinician. Enrollment and baseline assessment. Upon initial intake, the Study Coordinator (SC) obtained informed consent as well as clinical and demographic information, including history of bone marrow or liver transplant or blood transfusion within the previous 6 weeks, and prior history of treatment during the current major depressive episode. The SC completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the HRS-D17 (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and the QIDS-C16 (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and reviewed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After review with the Research Clinician (RC) and when appropriate, after a negative pregnancy test, the SC invited the subject to participate in the study if entry criteria were met. If the subject agreed, he/she received treatment according to the study protocol. Treatment schedule. Participants selected for inclusion in the study were seen at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The appropriate treatment antidepressant (citalopram or escitalopram) was determined following discussion between the patient and RC concerning medical, financial, and insurance considerations. The study medication citalopram was given in tablet or liquid form, depending on the patient's need. A fixed-flexible dose schedule was employed with the possibility of a dose escalation. In particular, the initial dose of citalopram was 20 mg and escitalopram was 10 mg. This dose was increased to 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks if the subject had a score of >/= 6 on the QIDS-C16 and the RC concluded that the subject could tolerate the increase. If necessary, dose was reduced at the discretion of the RC. The importance of medication compliance was discussed with the subject, and subjects were asked to bring in the medication at each visit for the purpose of counting remaining pills to assess compliance. Participants may have had an abbreviated course of therapy if they were clearly intolerant of the drug or failed to respond to a 40 mg dose of citalopram or a 20 mg dose of escitalopram. They then received standard treatment from a primary physician or psychiatrist with different medications and/or therapeutic modalities (e.g. psychotherapy). Special attention was given to subjects with suicidal ideation. Those subjects were offered additional appointments as needed to ensure their safety. Participants were also contacted by telephone at week 1 and week 2 by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) or other study personnel to ensure medication compliance and patient safety. The CNS was supervised by the study psychiatrist and principal investigator and deferred to the physician's judgment as needed. The SC was trained to notify the RC at the time of the clinical visits or the phone interviews if the subject endorsed any suicidal ideation or plans. For those subjects who were unable to attend the follow-up visits as scheduled, the patient was contacted by phone to complete the HRS-D17/QIDS-C16. The participant was also asked to return to the clinic to complete a final blood draw for the study. Adjunctive and concurrent medications. Adjunctive treatments were those used to manage transient associated symptoms (e.g., insomnia) or transient or longer-term medication side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction). Adjunctive treatments that were not used to treat depression were allowed during the study. However, drugs in the exclusion criteria for this study were not used as adjunctive therapies. Subjects were allowed to participate in the study while receiving concurrent medications for general medical conditions as long as there was no contraindication to use while taking citalopram or escitalopram. Drug efficacy phenotype evaluation. The change in QIDS-C16 score and change in HRS-D17 score were used as the major research outcome measures to assess drug response. At each clinical research visit, the RC also completed the Clinician Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. For the primary genome-wide association analyses, dichotomous outcome variables, remission and response, were defined based on the QIDS-C16 last visit score. Remission was defined as a QIDS-C16 score of 5 or less, while response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the QIDS-C16 score from baseline. Specimen collection. Specimen collections were obtained by the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at St. Mary's Hospital (SMH). Subjects had blood drawn on an outpatient basis at GCRC-SMH on three separate occasions - baseline (0), week 4 and week 8 visits. Prior to sample collection, date and time of last dose of study medication was gathered at the 4 and 8 week visits. For those patients who were unable to complete the regularly scheduled visits, a dismissal blood draw was requested. GCRC then shipped samples to Mayo Clinic's Biospecimens Accessioning and Processing Lab. Genotyping and biomarker assays. DNA from 529 patients was genotyped by the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine (Yokohama, Japan) using Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The study also included the determination of plasma drug levels at weeks 4 and 8, and metabolite levels at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 for a subset of subjects. The primary genome-wide association study based on these data, which includes a summary of the protocol, subject description, selection of subjects for genetic analyses, and definitions of clinical outcomes, was published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal (Ji et al., 2012).

  Study phs000670

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics: Study of Dental Caries and Cleft Lip/Palate in Guatemala

  This study provides an opportunity to investigate the genetics of both dental caries and orofacial clefts (OFCs) in one set of families ascertained in Guatemala. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). Furthermore this study brings together multiple research priorities of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (www.ccdg.pitt.edu). A genome-wide panel of 610,000 SNPs was genotyped at the Broad Institute to be comparable to our other pertinent GENEVA studies that are also part of dbGaP (dbGaP accession number phs000095, "Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies" and dbGaP accession number phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). The goal of this study is to investigate genetic determinants to dental caries and to OFCs in a novel study population. To date, most genetic studies of dental caries have been conducted in Caucasians, and of OFCs in Caucasians and Asians. The Guatemalan population under study is rural and ethnically mixed with a high proportion of Native-South-Americans. Thirty-six Guatemalans from this dataset were also part of the recent GWAS studies of cleft lip and cleft palate (Beaty et al., 2010 and 2011, dbGaP Study Accession: phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). In addition to the families ascertained in Guatemala, some subjects were genotyped with this cohort to augment the data in the parent GENEVA study (Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies, dbGaP accession number phs000095), in particular individuals from the IOWA and PITT GENEVA study sites. Their data are available with the parent study. Dental caries (also known as tooth decay) remains the most common chronic disease of childhood, five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than environmental allergies, with more than 40% of children exhibiting caries when they enter kindergarten. In 2005, it was estimated that dental health care costs were approximately $84 billion, of which 60% or about $50 billion were related to treatment of dental caries. The etiology of dental caries has been studied for many years. Multiple factors contribute to a person's risk for caries, including: 1) environmental factors such as diet, oral hygiene, fluoride exposure and the level of colonization of cariogenic bacteria and 2) host factors such as salivary flow, salivary buffering capacity, position of teeth relative to each other, surface characteristics of tooth enamel and depth of occlusal fissures on posterior teeth. In spite of all that is known about this disease, there are still individuals who appear to be more susceptible to caries and those who are extremely resistant, regardless of the environmental risk factors to which they are exposed, implying that genetic factors also play an important role in caries etiology. This conclusion is supported by studies in both humans and animals, with the most compelling evidence coming from studies of twins reared apart in which investigators found significant resemblance within monozygotic (MZ) but not dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs for percentage of teeth and surfaces restored or carious and estimated the genetic contribution to caries as 40%. Other recent studies of twins reared together estimated the heritability for caries, adjusted for age and gender, as ranging from 45-64%. In our study populations of families, we also estimated caries heritability as approximately 54%-70% of variation in primary dentition caries scores and 35%-55% in the permanent dentition (Wang et al., 2010). Orofacial clefts (OFCs), particularly cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and isolated cleft palate (CP) are a major public health problem, affecting one in every 500-1000 births worldwide thus representing the most common facial birth defect and one of the most common of all congenital anomalies. CL/P is a major structural birth defect that is notable for significant lifelong morbidity and complex etiology. The extensive psychological, surgical, speech and dental involvement emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying causes of CL/P. Therefore, many research groups have attempted to elucidate the etiology of CL/P, with some recent success by our research group and others (see Beaty et al., 2010, 2011; Dixon et al., 2011). It is clear that CL/P can occur as part of Mendelian syndromes, that certain chromosomal abnormalities include CL/P in the phenotype, and that certain teratogens can increase the risk of having an offspring with CL/P. However, phenotypes of known etiology comprise only a small portion of all individuals with a CL/P or CP, and the major focus of research into OFCs is to develop an understanding of the etiology of nonsyndromic (NS) forms of clefting. A major focus of the University of Pittsburgh CCDG has been to study additional phenotypes within nonsyndromic OFC families in order to identify sub-clinical expressions of OFC risk genes or risk variants, e.g. SNPs (see Weinberg et al., 2006). A detailed oral exam is conducted as part of these extended phenotypic studies, including a dental caries exam. Note that although there are some reports in the literature of higher caries experience in individuals with clefts, the most recent meta-analysis of those literature reports concluded that individuals born with these defects do not have a higher frequency of caries (Hasslöf and Twetman, 2007). Notably, we investigated the association of CL/P and caries in three of our study populations (including part of the Guatemalan population in this GWAS study) and also found no increase in caries rates of CL/P cases versus controls (Jindal et al., 2011). This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to dental caries and oral clefts through large-scale genome-wide association studies of well-characterized Guatemalan families and individuals. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR, U01-DE018903). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000440

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Leprosy and Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome (DHS) in Chinese population

  Leprosy GWAS (1) Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae (M. leprae). Due to M. leprae's narrow host range and an inability to be cultured in vitro, the biological investigation of this disease has been difficult. Host genetic factors have been suggested to play an important role in disease development, but few have been identified. In this study, we attempted to identify the host genetic factors by performing a two-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) in Chinese population. The initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 706 patients and 1225 controls using the Illumina HumanHap610 BeadChip, and the follow-up study was performed by genotyping 93 SNPs in three independent samples consisting of 3254 cases and 5955 controls. We identified significant association (P < 10-10) within six genes CCDC122 (13q14), C13orf31 (13q14), NOD2(16q12), TNFSF15 (9q32), HLA-DR (6p21) and RIPK2 (8q21), and suggestive association (P = 5.68x10-6) within LRRK2 (12q12). We also revealed suggestive evidence for C13orf31, LRRK2, NOD2 and RIPK2 to show stronger association in the multibacillary form than the paucibacillary form of leprosy. Our findings highlight the importance of the innate immune response, particularly NOD2-mediated signaling, in leprosy and suggests a new therapeutic target for leprosy. DHS GWAS Dapsone (DDS), as both an antibiotic and an anti-inflammatory agent, has been widely used for preventing and treating pathogen-caused infectious diseases and chronic inflammatory diseases. Currently, about 0.5-3.6% of individuals treated with DDS develop severe dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome (DHS) and the mortality rate is up to about 11-13%. However, until now, no tests are available to predict the risk of DHS. To identify the genetic risk factors of DHS, we performed a two-stage GWAS in Chinese population. In this study, the initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 39 DHS cases and 833 controls using Illumina Human 660W-Quad Beadchips and imputed human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. Validation was performed by genotyping 24 SNPs using the Sequenom MassARRAY platform in additional 31 DHS cases and 1,089 controls through genotyping and 32 four-digit HLA-B alleles in an independent series of 37 DHS cases and 201 controls through Roche 454 sequencing. We identified significant association (OR =6.18, P = 3.84x10-13) with SNP rs2844573, which located between the HLA-B and MICA loci. HLA-B*13:01 was confirmed to be a strong risk factor for DHS (OR = 20.53, P = 6.84x10-25) and responsible for the association at rs2844573. The presence of HLA-B*13:01 had a sensitivity of 85.5% and specificity of 85.7% as a predictor for DHS, and its absence can reduce the risk by 7 fold (from 1.4% to 0.2%). HLA-B*13:01 is strongly associated with the development of DHS and can be used as a risk predictor of DHS in the individuals of Chinese and other Asian populations. Leprosy GWAS (2) This is a three-stage GWAS of leprosy in the Chinese population. The genome-wide discovery analysis involved two independent data sets: the new unpublished data set by genotyping 842 leprosy patients and 925 controls from northern and southern China using the Human660w-quad beadchips and a previously published GWAS data set of 706 leprosy cases, 1,225 healthy controls and 4,362 individuals with immune-related diseases as population controls from northern China of Chinese Han descent. Further validation studies were performed in two stages in a total of 6,765 cases and 9,505 controls from Chinese Han and minority descent in multiple areas of China, similar to the discovery stage. From this study, we discovered six new susceptibility loci with a combined P-value from discovery and validation stage surpassing genome-wide significance, including BATF3 at 1q32.3, CDH18 at 5p14.3, DEC1 at 9q32, EGR2 at 10q21.3, CCDC88B at 11q13.1 and CIITA at 16p13.13. Our current study has advanced the genetic understanding of leprosy by substantially increasing the number of confirmed genetic susceptibility loci. Leprosy GWAS (3) To discover additional leprosy susceptibility loci, we carried out a large-scale three-stage GWAS analysis of leprosy in Chinese population. The genome-wide discovery analysis (Stage 1) involved a new GWAS data set of 1,197 leprosy cases and 1,426 controls from northern and southern China conducted by using Illumina Omni Zhonghua chips with 900,015 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), two published GWAS dataset (GWAS2 data set including 706 leprosy cases, 1,225 healthy controls genotyped by Illumina HumanHap610 beadchips, GWAS3 data set including 842 leprosy patients and 925 controls from northern and southern China genotyped by the Human660w-quad beadchips). Further validation studies were performed in two stages in a total of 5,413 cases and 9,771 controls from Chinese Han descent in multiple areas of China. In this study, we identified four novel associations at genome-wide significance (P < 5 x 10-8), all of which can indicate candidate genes within the susceptibility loci, SYN2 (3p25.2), BBS9 (7p14.3), CTSB (8p23.1) and MED30 (8q24.11), through a differential gene expression and eQTL analysis. Altogether, these findings have provided new insight and significantly expanded our understanding of the genetic basis of leprosy. Leprosy GWAS (4) In this study, we attempted to systematically investigate the contribution of protein-coding variants to leprosy susceptibility by performing a three-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) of protein-coding variants in Chinese population. The initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 1,670 persons affected by leprosy and 2,321 controls using the Illumina Infinium Human Exome Beadchips (v1.0).The validation study was performed by genotyping 39 SNPs in an additional 3,169 leprosy patients and 9,814 healthy controls from the northern region of China, and the replication study was performed by genotyping eight SNPs in three independent samples from the southern regions of China consisting of 2,231 cases and 2,266 controls. We identified significant association (P < 1.23 x 10-6) within seven genes FLG (Gene ID: 2312), IL23R (Gene ID: 149233), CARD9 (Gene ID: 64170), NCKIPSD (Gene ID: 51517), TYK2 (Gene ID: 7297), SLC29A3 (Gene ID: 55315), IL27 (Gene ID: 246778). Our findings discover novel involvement of skin barrier and endocytosis/phagocytosis/autophagy, besides known innate and adaptive immunity, in the pathogenesis of leprosy, highlight the merits of protein coding variant studies for complex diseases. Here, the summary statistics from the five genome-wide association analyses were published.

  Study phs000217

• Solve RD data - Short-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing, raw data, uh-udd_group samples

  Dataset EGAD00001008177

• Solve RD data - Short-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing, raw data, uzlu-lohmann_group samples

  Dataset EGAD00001008179

• The British Autozygosity Populations BioResource (2022-04-26)

  This data set contains whole exome sequences of individuals from 8086 (mostly British Pakistani/British Bangladeshi, mostly self-reported parentally related) individuals from the following studies: 1. 5236 British Pakistani/British Bangladeshi adults from East London Genes & Health, now known as Genes & Health 2. 2624 British South Asian mothers from Born in Bradford (mostly Pakistani) 3. 1061 British South Asian adults from Birmingham (mostly Pakistani) This dataset contains all the exome sequence data available for this study on 2022-04-26

  Dataset EGAD00001008736

• Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss

  The Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss, which constitute the Epidemiology of the Weiss Cohort Projects, consist of a series of inter-connected projects, building upon a set of cohort projects of various groups, mainly drug users from medication-assisted treatment programs, that Dr. Stanley H. Weiss first developed in the 1980’s plus several newer initiatives, each with an array of collaborators. Beginning in the 1980’s, Dr. Stanley H. Weiss started several long-term studies of persons who inject drugs (PWID) across the United States, ultimately enrolling over 10,000 participants through the early 1990’s with an average age then in their 30’s. About a quarter were enrolled from sites in New Jersey (NJ). These studies included the first testing of PWID for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the human T-cell lymphotropic viruses (HTLV I and HTLV II). Cumulative past support (initiation thru ~ 1999) for these cohort studies included ~ $20 million from intramural resources from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), plus multiple grants and in-kind support from the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) totaling ~ $1 million. The Weiss Cohort Projects include the first large AIDS-era cohorts to include women at high risk for HIV. A high percentage of subjects in these studies are black or Latino. Thus, this is an ethnically diverse US cohort, with a high proportion of women included. These subjects are at high risk of parenteral and sexual infection from both drug use and sexual practices. Samples from other studies conducted by Dr. Weiss, in which detailed interviews were conducted, are included as controls (persons documented by us not to have a history of opioid drug use). As one of our groups of subjects have many persons of Haitian ancestry, we specifically included some Haitians who had never used opioids as controls. Our documentation includes such ancestry. These cohorts demonstrated high rates of HIV and HTLV-II infection in PWIDs, including one study initiated in 1981 with confirmation in the later cohorts. In the first two decades of these studies, among numerous publications was the first study showing a very high rate of hepatitis C infection among PWIDs. An example of how the studies’ long-time horizon proved essential was that it first became possible to test whether a person had ever been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), as well as how much HCV was in each person’s blood, many years after the specimens were collected. This allowed HCV amounts in blood to be compared for subjects who had died of liver disease early in the study versus those who survived. Then a sequence of published papers culminated in demonstrating, using a nested case-control design, that a high baseline HCV titer was predictive of early progression to death from end-stage liver failure. Outcomes related to HCV (end stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma) remain under study. In the original cohort studies, the mean age at enrollment was ~ 33 years old, so that those still alive in 2022 are mainly now ~ 60 - 75 years old. Many participants have already died. The tincture of time has led to subjects reaching ages when many more are dying from a wide array of outcomes, including from many chronic diseases (including cancer) as well as from infectious agents (especially HIV, HCV) or drug overdose. Renewed collaboration with local drug treatment programs has led to new field-based studies, including examination of some currently evolving problems among drug users. Dr. Weiss joined the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Genetics Consortium (NGC) in 2017, and through the NIDA project officer has had access to NGC contract resources (see below). NIH Certificate of Confidentiality, CC-DA-16-214 (attached) protects these studies. Past arrangements related to data on our subjects leads to restrictions on the use of data emanating from our study, such as potential commercialization and restrictions on whom may access and use these data. NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC) resources further support these endeavors and will be used as part of the NGC analyses studying the genetics of substance use. Study participants signed informed consent for the information collected from them to be used with no time limit and for biologic specimens collected from them to be used without restriction in future research. Serum samples were collected from participants, and from many also plasma, white blood cells and/or urine samples. About 100,000 vials were stored. All specimens have been continuously preserved at sufficiently cold temperatures to prevent deterioration, and many subjects separated white blood cells were processed and frozen in such a way as to maintain viability. Detailed data from the participants has been accumulated over time, and in general, linkage has been retained in each sub-study in accordance with the consent forms and protocols. For some participants, specimens were collected at multiple times (that is, sequential specimens). Multiple specimens from a single person exist in this database, and efforts at de-duplication remain ongoing. Dr. Weiss should be contacted if an investigator requires unique individuals since: • Multiple phases of enrollment occurred, and as our prospective follow-up continues; Dr. Weiss may identify new instances of multiple enrollment. • Some persons are related to each other. • In general, in this dataset for dbGaP, only a single specimen/record form a given person is included. Advances in laboratory testing techniques now permit innovative new uses for our linked research biospecimen repository. The ongoing focus of an interdisciplinary research program based on these cohorts relates subjects’ diseases, behaviors, medical history, and outcomes with biological and exposure markers. Participants’ use of various substances was ascertained on study enrollments, many serially over time. Quantitative frequency of use data, also sometimes sequential over time, were ascertained. Active ascertainment of outcomes is being conducted, including matching to mortality and cancer databases. Investigators interested in collaborations on specific outcomes (which is not part of this dbGaP dataset) or in the use of our stored specimens are encouraged to contact the principal investigator, Dr. Weiss. The processing of the genomic data was done in conjunction with NIDA, and in accordance with some longstanding data cleaning steps used by NIDA in the NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC), a group to which we shall be contributing these data for collaborative analyses. Since there is the potential for these steps to introduce certain types of potential biases, we summarize these here. Under contract from NIDA, cryopreserved sera or plasma (-80 C) or cells (in liquid nitrogen) were used, with most stored having been stored for 30 to 40 years in our biorepository. In the case of serum or plasma, in which only (largely) cell-free DNA fragments were available, DNA was extracted and restored prior to amplification. Industry standard DNA amplification techniques were done on all samples prior to genotyping in accord with established protocols of the NIDA Genetics Consortium. Our genotype data were run and processed on the Illumina Infinium OmniExpress_v_1.3 array. This array has 714,238 SNPs, and was designed many years ago. There were 628 SNPs on the array that do not correspond to any chromosome position, and these were removed. Genotype data were submitted by NIDA’s contracted genotyping laboratory in six batches over time to NIDA’s contracted dbGaP data management group, which conducted quality control (QC) analyses. QC analysis included an assessment of batch effects on for five of the six batches. (One of the batches, with only 12 samples, was too small for QC analysis of batch effects.) Standard NIDA Genetic Consortium cleaning was performed. Samples with a call rate <.85 were removed. Only one sample per person was retained. When more than one specimen was genotyped from one subject, only the sample with the higher call rate was retained (provided, of course, that that call rate was ≥ 0.85). We have retained some people we know are related, including some found to have been related through genotyping; the pedigree file describes those relationships. In summary, key cleaning steps include: 1. Using PLINK to check gender discrepancy. 2. Using PREST-PLUS and KING (Kinship-based Inference for GWAS) to check relatedness. 3. Using PEDCHECK and PLINK to check/zero-out Mendelian error. 4. Using PLINK to perform sample QC, SNP QC, along with KING to perform chromosome X and chromosome Y QC. 5. SNP-QC: Batch-effect: 5 Batches were compared (one batch, with few samples, was not). These five batches were compared to each other in all ten possible pairs, one batch vs. another batch, examining SNP allele frequency discrepancies by population (from GRAF), Fisher Exact Allelic test, with the criterion of p<5e-8 for removal. 6. SNP-QC: discordant SNPs in QC duplicates. Compared 25 QC duplicated samples with call rate > 0.95, removed SNPs with 3+ discordance. 7. There were 1,056 SNPs that were monomorphic; these have been retained so they can be included in analyses in which our dbGaP data are combined with those from other cohorts (in the latter of which those SNPs may not be monomorphic). The final cleaned dataset submitted has 8,898 samples and 606,793 SNPs.

  Study phs002140

• Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA)

  The Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) Cohort was created by a RC2 "Grand Opportunity" grant that was awarded to the Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics (AG036607; Schaefer/Risch, PIs). The RC2 project enabled genome-wide SNP genotyping (GWAS) to be conducted on a cohort of over 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its RPGEH. The purpose of the RPGEH is to facilitate research on the genetic and environmental factors that affect health and disease by linking together clinical data from electronic health records, survey data on demographic and behavioral factors, and environmental data from various sources, with genetic data derived from biospecimens collected from participants. At the time of the award of the RC2 project in late 2009, the RPGEH had established a cohort of about 140,000 individuals who had answered a detailed survey, provided saliva samples for extraction of DNA, and given broad consent for the use of their data in studies of health and disease. To maximize the diversity of the resulting sample, the GERA cohort was formed by including all racial and ethnic minority participants with saliva samples (N = 20,925; 19%); the remaining participants were drawn sequentially and randomly from white non-Hispanic participants (89,341; 81%). A total of 110,266 participant samples were included to ensure that at least 100,000 were successfully assayed. The resulting GERA cohort is 42% male, 58% female, and ranges in age from 18 to over 100 years old with an average age of 63 years at the time of the RPGEH survey (2007). The sample is ethnically diverse, generally well-educated with above average income. Approximately 69% of the participants are married or living with a partner. Length of membership in KPNC averages 23.5 years. UCSF and RPGEH investigators worked with the genomics company Affymetrix to design four custom microarrays for genotyping each of the four major race-ethnicity groups included in the GERA Cohort, described in detail in Hoffmann et al., 2011a and 2011b. Following genotyping and quality control procedures, and after removal of invalid, discordant, or withdrawn samples, about 103,000 participants were successfully genotyped. The resulting genotypic data were linked to survey data and data abstracted from the electronic medical records. As described below, all RPGEH participants were mailed new consent forms with explicit discussion of the placement of data in the NIH-maintained dbGaP. About 77% of participants returned completed consent forms, resulting in a final sample size of 78,486 participants in the GERA Cohort with data for deposit into dbGaP. Origins of the RPGEH GERA Cohort The goal in creating the RPGEH GERA cohort was to create a large, multiethnic, and comprehensive population-based resource for research into the genetic and environmental basis of common age-related diseases and their treatment, and factors influencing healthy aging and longevity. The GERA Cohort consists of a diverse cohort of more than 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health (RPGEH). KPNC is an integrated health care delivery system with a population of about 3.3 million people in northern California. The membership of KPNC is representative of the general population in the 14 county area in which facilities are located, although the membership is underrepresented for the extremes of income at both ends of the spectrum. The RPGEH utilizes the longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) of KPNC to obtain clinical, laboratory, imaging and pharmacy information on all cohort members, to which personal demographic, behavioral and health characteristics have been added through member surveys. The GERA Cohort comprises a subsample of the RPGEH participant cohort, and was created through the RC2 award from the NIA, NIMH, and NIH Common Fund as described above. GERA Study Design The GERA Cohort is a subsample, as described above, of the longitudinal cohort enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente RPGEH. The RPGEH cohort includes about 400,000 survey participants of whom about 200,000 have provided broad consent and a sample of saliva or blood for use in studies of genetic and environmental factors in health and disease. The GERA Cohort was developed from a mailed survey sent to all adult members of KPNC who had been members for two years or more in 2007. All survey respondents were contacted and asked to complete a consent form; those who completed consent forms were asked to provide a saliva sample. Additional male participants were added to the RPGEH through inclusion of the Northern California sample of the California Men's Health Study (CMHS) cohort of about 40,000 men from KPNC, ages 45-69 years old at the time of the CMHS survey in 2002-2003. The CMHS participants contributed about 15,400 saliva samples to the RPGEH and were eligible for inclusion in the GERA Cohort. CMHS participants were included according to the same sampling design as for the RPGEH cohort as a whole. Specifically, all minority participants were selected for inclusion in order to maximize representation of minorities in the GERA Cohort, and Non-Hispanic White participants were selected at random to complete the sample of 110,266 GERA Cohort participants. GERA Genotypic Data High-density genotyping was conducted at UCSF using custom designed Affymetrix Axiom arrays, as described in Hoffmann et al. (2011a; 2011b). To maximize genome-wide coverage of common and less common variants, four specific arrays were designed for individuals of Non-Hispanic White (EUR), East Asian (EAS), African-American (AFR), and Latino (LAT) race/ethnicity. There was broad overlap among the SNPs on the arrays, which were designed using a hybrid greedy imputation algorithm (Hoffmann et al., 2011b) applied to genotype information validated by Affymetrix from the 1000 Genomes Project. However, in order to capture low frequency variants specific to particular race-ethnicity groups, SNP content varies between arrays. A more detailed description of the process of genotyping and results is included in Genotyping of DNA Samples. Description of the analyses of population structure and development of principal components for adjustment of population structure is included in Population Structure Analysis. GERA Phenotypic Data RPGEH and CMHS Survey Data. The sources of data on demographic and behavioral factors deposited in dbGaP for the GERA Cohort are the RPGEH and CMHS surveys. Data on common demographic factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education and on behavioral factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index, have been cleaned, edited, reconciled between the two surveys, and compiled into summary indices, where appropriate, for deposition into dbGaP. A more complete description of the survey variables is included in Survey Variables Documentation. Please note that the terms of use of the GERA Cohort Data, as specified in the Data Use Certification (DUC), prohibit the use of survey variables as outcomes in analyses. For example, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of education or smoking is not permitted as specified by the DUC. Only health conditions can be used as outcome variables in analyses. Health Conditions derived from Kaiser Permanente Electronic Medical Records. Data on the occurrence of health conditions in participants in the GERA Cohort have been derived from summarizing ICD-9 coded diagnoses in Kaiser Permanente's electronic medical records. An algorithm that aggregates specific ICD-9 codes into appropriate diagnostic groups for selected conditions is applied to outpatient and inpatient databases; see Disease and Conditions Definitions Documentation for details. The criterion for including a condition as "present" for a participant is the occurrence of two or more diagnoses within a diagnostic category occurring on separate days. Two or more is used as the criterion in order to reduce false positives due to mistakes or rule-out diagnoses. When compared with validated disease registries, the criterion of 2+ diagnoses yields high specificity and good sensitivity. ICD-9 codes in the electronic records are specified in several ways. For outpatient visits occurring during the period 1995 to 2006, diagnoses were assigned by the treating physician who endorsed specific diagnoses on an optically scanned list that varied by specialty. Beginning in 2006 with the advent of an integrated, fully electronic medical record, outpatient diagnoses are made by physicians/ providers using a pull down menu. Discharge diagnoses from inpatient stays are specified by physicians and coded by specially trained coders. Databases of ICD-9 codes for diagnoses assigned at outpatient visits, or as one of the discharge diagnoses following inpatient stays, are complete and available for all KPNC members dating back to 1995. Although the average length of KPNC membership among GERA cohort members is 23.5 years in 2007, not all have been members since 1995, so the history for some conditions, such as those that are not chronic or recurrent, may not be complete for all cohort members. The year of first membership in KPNC is included as a variable in the list of survey variables, enabling investigators to estimate the number of years of observation of each Cohort member. RPGEH Access and Collaborations Website and Procedures The RPGEH maintains a web portal for inquiries and applications for collaboration and access to data. The url is: https://rpgehportal.kaiser.org/. RPGEH has an application process and an Access Review Committee that reviews applications for collaboration and use. For more details, please contact RPGEH through the website.

  Study phs000674

• What is a DAC?

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

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

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! The EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal