15407 results for "1 mil coins fc 26 Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..buoc"

in 17.22 milliseconds.

• Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC): Multi-Ethnic ImmunoChip Study

  Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is characterized by an autoimmune attack that destroys the insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells and is driven by diverse genetic and environmental factors. Between 8-100 chromosome regions are known to contain variants that alter T1D risk, substantially fewer than many other common diseases. Less is known about the contribution of T1D risk alleles in non-European populations, despite recent increases in T1D diagnoses in multiple non-European ancestry groups. To address these gaps in T1D genetics, we doubled the sample size from the previous largest T1D association study, genotyped ancestrally diverse T1D cases, controls, and affected families with the Illumina ImmunoChip array, and imputed additional variants using a large haplotype reference panel. After quality filtering, a total of 61,427 participants and 140,333 genotyped ImmunoChip variants were included in analysis, providing dense coverage in 188 autosomal regions ("ImmunoChip regions") and sparse genotyping in other regions of the genome. Each participant was assigned to one of five ancestry groups using k-means clustering of ImmunoChip genotype principal components: European (EUR, N = 47,319), African Admixed (AFR, N = 4,290), Finnish (FIN, N = 6,991), East Asian (EAS, N = 588) and Other Admixed (AMR, N = 2,239). In total, 16,159 T1D cases, 25,386 controls (unrelated) and 6,143 trio families (i.e., an affected child and both parents) were genotyped and included in association analyses. Imputation with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) multi-ethnic reference panel was used to improve discovery power and fine-mapping resolution. After imputation, the number of variants in ImmunoChip regions with imputation R-squared > 0.8 and MAF > 0.005 in each ancestry group was 322,084 (AFR), 166,274 (EUR), 163,612 (FIN), 137,730 (EAS) and 188,550 (AMR). Imputed genotypes were compared in the same participants who have whole genome sequencing data, resulting in high concordance. Unrelated cases and controls (N = 41,545) were analyzed initially, assuming an additive inheritance model. T1D trio families (N = 6,143 trios, some trio families were multiplex and analyzed as multiple trios) were analyzed separately, with meta-analysis of case-control and trio results used for discovery of regions associated with T1D (p < 5×10-8). Summary-level data at each SNP (genotype and imputed) for type 1 diabetes (outcome) are provided in dbGaP.

  Study phs002468

• Gut 16S rRNA/FINRISK 2002

  Gut microbiome 16S rRNA raw data for N=7174 FINRISK 2002 participants. FINRISK fecal samples were mailed to the Knight laboratory at the University of California (San Diego, CA), for microbiota sequencing using the standard Earth Microbiome Project protocols (https://earthmicrobiome.org/protocols-and-standards/). DNA was extracted using a magnetic bead-based DNA extraction protocol. Amplicon sequence data for the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was generated using 515F (Parada) and 806R (Apprill) primers. For a total of 25μl reaction volume, 13 µl PCR-grade water was combined with 10 µl PCR master mix (Platinum Hot Start PCR Master Mix, 2x, ThermoFisher), 0.5 µl forward primer (10 µM), 0.5 µl reverse primer (10 µM), and 1 µl template DNA. Amplification was performed in triplicate reactions, and triplicate PCR reactions were pooled afterwards. Expected products were visualized on agarose gels (300–350 bp) and quantified with Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA kit (Invitrogen). Equal amounts (240 ng) of amplicon were combined for each sample and cleaned (MoBio UltraClean PCR Clean-Up Kit). Cleaned amplicon pools were sequenced with 515F and 806R primers.

  Dataset EGAD50000000287

• Whole-genome sequence data for The interface of malignant and immunologic clonal dynamics in high-grade serous ovarian cancer

  Each tumor sample was cut into three pieces, yielding two end-pieces for cryovials and a middle portion placed in 10% buffered formalin. End pieces were homogenized manually and with a paddle blender (Stomacher). All paraffin-embedded blocks, including formalin-fixed tumor samples and molecular-fixed fallopian tubes, were sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin prior to expert histopathological review to confirm the presence of high grade serous carcinoma. Homogenized end pieces were then flash frozen and later used for WGS. For all tumor and matched normal (peripheral blood) samples, DNA was extracted with the Qiagen AllPrep DNA/RNA kit (tumor samples from patients 25,26,28-32) or the Qiagen Blood and Tissue Extraction Kit (tumor samples from patients 1-4,7,9-17, and all blood samples). For all tumor and normal samples, DNA extraction was followed by library construction and sequencing using Illumina HiSeq2500 whole genome shotgun v4 chemistry with paired-end 125bp reads.

  Dataset EGAD00001003984

• Single-cell bisulfite-seq analyses of 29-year-old prospermatogonia and adult spermatogonial stem cell

  To examine the timing of de novo methylation during human male germ cell development, single-cell bisulfite sequencing was carried out on human germ cells. FACS-purified Prospermatogonia from three teratoma patients (1-year-0-month, 1-year-5-months, and 1-year-8-months) and spermatogonial stem cells from a 29-year-old obstructive azoospermia patient with normal spermatogenesis were analyzed. The three 1-year-old prospermatogonia exhibited average methylation levels of 41.4% (23.1-54.4%, 1-year-0-month), 53.1% (32.0-62.4%, 1-year-5-months), and 32.6% (10.2-54.7%, 1-year-8-months). In contrast, adult spermatogonia showed an average level of 75.7% (73.3-76.8%). Although teratoma may have influenced the developmental timing of prospermatogonia within the same testes, prospermatogonia across all 1-year-old samples remained in an intermediate phase of DNA methylation establishment.

  Study JGAS000888

• Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension and Sickle Cell Disease with Sildenafil Therapy (Walk-PHaSST)

  Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive condition characterized by narrowing or stiffening pulmonary arterioles resulting in increased pulmonary blood pressure and reduced delivery of oxygenated blood to the body. It is a common complication of sickle cell disease and initially presents with the symptom of shortness of breath (dyspnea) on exertion. As the condition worsens, other symptoms such as dizziness, lower extremity edema, and chest pain can develop. The drug, sildenafil, works by relaxing blood vessels in the lungs which reduces pulmonary blood pressure and allows more oxygenated blood to circulate. Increased levels of oxygenated blood allows individuals with PAH to tolerate more activity, but guidelines for using sildenafil in patients with PAH and sickle cell disease were unavailable at the time of the Walk-PHaSST trial.Participants were screened for the existence of pulmonary hypertension with a six minute walk test and a Doppler echocardiogram that assessed TRV, diastolic function, and valvular and systolic function. Subjects with TRV ≥ 2.7 m/s received further clinical evaluation for possible causes of pulmonary hypertension. Other screening data included medical history, a physical exam, and standard laboratory testing. For individuals with moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension (TRV ≥ 3.0), a cardiac catheterization was done at the baseline and week 16 data collection periods.Subjects eligible for the main intervention trial based on screening results were randomized in a 1:1 double blind fashion to receive sildenafil or placebo for 16 weeks. Subjects received 20 mg of oral sildenafil or matching placebo 3 times daily for 6 weeks, followed by 40 mg 3 times daily for 4 weeks, followed by 80 mg 3 times daily for 6 weeks, as tolerated. Participants could also receive other therapies as needed to manage sickle cell and related complications. The primary outcome measure of the trial was change in the six minute walk test, a standard indicator of a person's heart and lung function and exercise capacity, from baseline to week 16. After completing the study treatment (or placebo), participants could choose to be part of the open-label follow-up phase of the study and continue to be assessed for up to one year.The study was intended to screen about 1000 subjects and randomize 132 subjects, however it was terminated early due to the unforeseen increase in adverse events in participants treated with sildenafil as compared to placebo. When the study was stopped, 33 participants had completed the trial. Subjects continued to be monitored, but were instructed to taper sildenafil treatment over three to seven days.There was no evidence that treatment with sildenafil impacted the six minute walk distance from baseline to week 16. In addition, treatment with sildenafil appeared to increase rates of hospitalization due to sickle cell disease pain.Due to in part to the early termination of the trial, the majority of subject data was collected from the screening phase of the study (n=720), as opposed to the main intervention trial (n=74).Instructions for requesting individual-level data are available on BioData Catalyst at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/data/. Apply for data access in dbGaP. Upon approval, users may begin accessing requested data in BioData Catalyst. For questions about availability, you may contact the BioData Catalyst team at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/contact.

  Study phs002383

• Center for Common Disease Genomics [CCDG] - Autoimmune: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Exomes and Genomes

  The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has funded a collaborative large-scale genome sequencing effort to comprehensively identify rare risk and protective variants contributing to multiple common disease phenotypes. Called the Centers for Common Disease Genomics (CCDG), this initiative will explore a range of diseases with the ultimate goal of: undertaking variant discovery for enough different examples of disease architectures and study designs to better understand the general principles of the genomic architecture underlying common, complex inherited diseases; understanding how best to design rare variant studies for common disease; developing resources, informatics tools, and innovative approaches and technologies for multiple disease research communities and the wider biomedical research community. The initial focus of the CCDGs will be in cardiovascular disease (early-onset coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, hemorrhagic stroke), neuropsychiatric disease (epilepsy, autism), and autoimmune/inflammatory disease (type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease). The Broad Institute is one of four selected CCDG project centers. The overarching aim of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) program is to define the full allelic spectrum of protein-altering variation in genes associated to IBD, and assess their role in both Crohn's Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) risk. The whole genome sequencing data generated here is comprised of samples from US-based diverse populations including African American, Puerto-Rican, Caribean and Cuban origins.

  Study phs001642

• CEBP-Beta/IL-1-Beta/ TNF-alpha Feedback Loop Drives Drug Resistance to BCL2 and MDM2 Inhibitors in Monocytic Leukemia Cells

  To uncover the mechanisms of MDM2 inhibitor resistance that are mediated by IL-1, we performed RNAseq on three primary AML patient cells treated with idasanutlin in the presence or absence of IL-1β. These three leukemia samples were chosen because they exhibit high blast counts and are protected by IL-1β when treated with idasanutlin, as determined by apoptosis assay. We observed that a majority of the major p53 pathway targets remained upregulated in the presence of IL-1β. We next performed differential expressed gene (DEG) analysis following IL-1β treatment with and without idasanutlin. IL-1β treatment upregulated 3295, 1353, and 680 genes with ≥1 Log2FC, in each of the three patient samples, and a significant majority of these genes (82%, 62.4%, and 47.6%) remained upregulated in the presence of idasanutlin. Pathway analysis showed that IL-1β upregulated genes were associated with NF-κB, Interleukin-1 family signaling pathways, immune and inflammatory associated genes and myeloid maturation markers. To identify downstream targets that contribute to the protective effect of IL-1β during idasanutlin treatment, we performed DEG analysis on IL-1β + idasanutlin treatment compared to idasanutlin treatment alone. Interestingly, IL-1β induces its own expression and other pro-survival cytokines including TNF, CSF2 (GMCSF), IL-6, CSF3 (GCSF), as well as their respective receptors and/or coactivators, including IL1RL1 and multiple TNF receptors. We verified that IL-1β and TNF-α induce the upregulation of their own membrane-bound forms, their corresponding receptors, CSF2RB, and monocytic markers, as determined by flow cytometry immunophenotyping. Furthermore, IL-1β upregulated a number of pro-inflammatory chemokines, including CXCL13, CXCL2, etc. These findings highlight a pleiotropic role of IL-1β. The RNA expression of these three samples in the presence and absence of IL-1β and idasanutlin treatment will be deposited in dbGaP.

  Study phs003479

• Platelet RNAseq data for SLFN14 K219N patients

  Pathogenic missense variants in SLFN14, which encodes an RNA endoribonuclease protein that regulates rRNA degradation, are known to cause inherited thrombocytopenia with impaired platelet aggregation and ATP secretion. Despite rather mild laboratory defects, these patients display an obvious bleeding phenotype. The function of SLFN14 in megakaryocyte (MK) and platelet biology is unknown. This study aims to characterize the platelet transcriptome in patients with a SLFN14 K219N variant and model the disease in the immortalized megakaryocyte cell line imMKCL. Total platelet RNA was sequenced for two patients and 19 healthy controls. Differential gene expression analysis yielded a total of 2999 and 2888 significantly (|log2FC|>1, FDR<0.05) up- and downregulated genes, respectively. Remarkably, these downregulated genes were not enriched for any biological pathway while upregulated genes were enriched for pathways involved in (mitochondrial) translation and transcription with a significant upregulation of 134 ribosomal protein genes (RPG). Heterozygous and homozygous SLFN14 K219N imMKCL showed a defect in MK differentiation that aggravated during cell passaging of undifferentiated cells and in proplatelet formation. SLFN14 defective platelets and MK showed signs of rRNA degradation while this was absent in undifferentiated imMKCL cells. Upregulation of RPG through increased mTOR signaling in SLFN14 K219N MK seems to be a compensatory response for rRNA degradation. Indeed, mTOR inhibition with rapamycin resulted in further enhanced rRNA degradation in SLFN14 K219N MK. Taken together, our study indicates dysregulation of mTOR-regulated ribosomal biogenesis as the disease mechanism for SLFN14-related thrombocytopenia.

  Study EGAS00001006339

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? The 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. How can I add my dataset to the cBioPortal instance? In order to link your data to the cBioPortal, you must register it as a normal dataset in the Submitter Portal. For more information, please refer to the cBioPortal documentation. 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

• Impact of Genetic Variation on Response to GO Therapy in COG-AML Trials AAML03P1 and AAML0531

  The 340 de novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients (ages 1 month to 21 years) were enrolled in COG-AAML03P1 (NCT00070174). Everyone received standard chemotherapy regimen of ara-C, daunorubicin and etoposide (ADE) with addition of one 3 mg/m2 dose of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) in induction 1 as well as in intensification II phase. The 1022 de novo AML patients (ages 0–30 years) were enrolled in COG-AAML0531 (NCT01407757). They were randomly assigned to receive either the standard ADE regimen (ADE arm, n = 511) or with the addition of one 3 mg/m2 dose of GO, during induction I as well as intensification II phase (ADE+GO arm, n = 511). Detailed study design, treatment regimen, and clinical outcomes of these two trials have been previously published (Cooper TM, Franklin J, Gerbing RB, et al., PMID:21766293 and Gamis AS, Alonzo TA, Meshinchi S, et al., PMID:25092781). The current study used genomic DNA from 1,225 pediatric patients treated in these two trials with 470 patients treated with standard chemotherapy in COG-AAML0531 (ADE arm) and 755 patients treated with addition of GO to standard therapy in COG-AAML03P1 and COG-AAML0531 trials (ADE+GO arm). The 132 SNPs in 42 genes within DNA-damage repair (DDR) pathways or genes implicated in mediating calicheamicin were selected for genotyping. These SNPs were genotyped using the Sequenom platform at the Biomedical Genomics Center, University of Minnesota. All SNPs had a call rate of more than 0.98 and were in accordance with the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. These genotypes were used to test for association with clinical endpoints as defined in the COG-AAML03P1 and COG-AAML0531 trials.

  Study phs003490