Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

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

Bladder cancer subtyping study across 4 atezo clinical trials

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction have revolutionized cancer therapy across many indications. In urothelial carcinoma (UC), several PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have been approved for treatment in localized and metastatic disease. While these agents provide durable clinical benefit in a number of patients, the majority do not respond. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying response and resistance is needed to tailor existing treatments and develop new therapeutics in UC. We profiled tumors from 2803 patients from four late-stage randomized clinical trials evaluating the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic UC and muscle-invasive bladder cancer by RNA-seq, a targeted DNA panel, immunohistochemistry, and digital pathology. A machine learning algorithm identified four UC transcriptional subtypes, representing luminal desert, stromal, immune, and basal tumors. Overall survival benefit from atezolizumab over standard-of-care was observed in immune and basal tumors (45% of patients). Digital pathology showed enrichment of human interpretable features in specific molecular subtypes, and a self-supervised approach could classify molecular subtypes from H&E slides with high accuracy, suggesting that machine-based image interpretation could accelerate tumor molecular profiling. Somatic alterations showed limited capacity to identify responders. Finally, mechanisms of benefit with PD-L1 blockade appeared different in immune and basal tumors, with immune tumors benefiting from B/plasma cell enrichment, while basal tumors benefited from granulocyte enrichment. This study represents the largest integration of UC molecular and curated clinical data in randomized clinical trials to date, paving the way for prospective clinical studies tailoring treatment regimens to specific tumor molecular subtypes in UC and other indications.

Study EGAS50000000497

The Immune Microenvironment, Genome–Wide Copy Number Aberrations and Survival in Mesothelioma

IntroductionResults of recent clinical studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have dampened initial enthusiasm. However, the immune environment and targets of these treatments such as program cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 have not been well characterised in MPM. Using a large cohort of patients, we investigated PD-L1 expression, immune infiltrates and genome-wide copy number status and correlated them to clinicopathological features.Patients and methodsTissue microarrays were constructed and stained with PD-L1(clone E1L3N, CST), CD4, CD8 and FOXP3 antibodies. PD-L1 positivity was defined as ≥5% membranous staining regardless of intensity and PD-L1+hi as ≥50%. Genomic DNA from a representative subset of 113 patients was used for genome-wide copy number analysis. The percent genome alteration (PGA) was computed as a proxy for genomic instability, and statistical analyses were used to relate copy number aberrations (CNA) to other variables.ResultsAmongst 329 patients evaluated, PD-L1+ was detected in 130/311 (41.7%), but PD-L1+hi was only seen in 30/311 (9.6%). PD-L1+ correlated with non–epithelioid histology and increased infiltration with CD4+, CD8+ and FOXP3+ lymphocytes. PD-L1+hi expression correlated with worse prognosis (HR = 2.37; 95%CI= 1.57-3.56; P < 0.001) on univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. Higher PGA was associated with epithelioid histology and poorer survival (HR = 1.59; 95%CI= 1.01-2.5; P = 0.04), but not PD-L1 expression.ConclusionPD-L1 expression was associated with non-epithelioid MPM, poor clinical outcome and increased immunological infiltrates. Increased genomic instability did not correlate with PD-L1 expression, but was associated with poorer survival.

Study EGAS00001002323

GeoMx DSP of NGS mRNA expression in pre-treatment biopsies from patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer treated with PARP inhibitors.

This dataset contains GeoMx digital spatial profiling (DSP) data from 12 FFPE pre-treatment biopsies of metastatic HR-altered breast cancer patients subsequently treated with PARP inhibitors (Olaparib or Talazoparib). Samples were collected from primary breast tumors (n=7) and metastatic sites including lymph nodes (n=2), bone (n=2), and brain (n=1). Tissue sections were stained for pan-cytokeratin (PANCK) to selectively profile tumor cells, with NGS-based transcriptome data generated for both PANCK+ and PANCK- regions. The dataset includes raw data files (176 fastq files) along with clinical annotations.

Dataset EGAD50000001932

Gremlin 1 + fibroblastic niche maintains dendritic cell homeostasis in lymphoid tissues

Although cross-species transcriptional analysis has been generated for DCs37, transcriptomic conservation between mouse and human FRCs at single-cell resolution has been unclear. To test whether GREM1+ FRCs might also play a role in DC homeostasis in humans, we performed scRNA-seq of CD45–PDPN+ stromal cells, as well as CD45+CD11c+ immune cells from healthy human LNs of three donors.

Study EGAS00001006211

Single Cell Genome Sequence for DLP+ library A96207B

Single Cell Genome Sequence for high grade serous ovarian carcinoma patient-derived xenograft SA1052B passage 1 on DLP+ library A96207B

Dataset EGAD00001009474

Single Cell Genome Sequence for DLP+ library A98243B

Single Cell Genome Sequence for high grade serous ovarian carcinoma patient SA1096A, patient-derived xenograft SA1052D passage 1 on DLP+ library A98243B

Dataset EGAD00001009481

Single Cell Genome Sequence for DLP+ library A95717B

Single Cell Genome Sequence for high grade serous ovarian carcinoma patient-derived xenograft SA1050D passage 1 on DLP+ library A95717B

Dataset EGAD00001009489

Accurate sample assignment in a multiplexed, ultra-sensitive, high-throughput sequencing assay for minimal residual disease

High throughput sequencing (HTS) (next generation sequencing) of the rearranged immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor genes promises to be cheaper and more sensitive than current methods for monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, adoption of new approaches by clinical laboratories requires careful evaluation of all potential sources of error and the development of strategies to ensure the highest accuracy. Timely and efficient clinical use of HTS platforms will depend on combining multiple samples (multiplexing) in each sequencing run. Here we examine immunoglobulin heavy chain gene HTS on the Illumina MiSeq platform for MRD (HTS-MRD). We identify errors associated with multiplexing that could potentially impact on the accuracy of MRD analysis. We optimise a strategy combining high purity, sequence-optimised oligonucleotides, dual-indexing and an error-aware demultiplexing approach to minimise errors and maximise sensitivity. We present a probability-based demultiplexing pipeline, Error-Aware Demultiplexer (EAD) - that is suitable for all MiSeq sequencing strategies and accurately assigns samples to the correct identifier without excessive loss of data. Finally using controls quantified by digital PCR, we show that HTS-MRD can accurately detect as few as 1 in 106 copies of specific leukemic MRD.

Study EGAS00001001303

A Randomized Trial of Combined PD-L1 and CTLA-4 Inhibition with Targeted Low-Dose or Hypofractionated Radiation for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Brief SummaryThis randomized phase II trial studies the side effects of durvalumab and tremelimumab to see how well they work with or without high or low-dose radiation therapy in treating patients with colorectal (CRC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). Immunotherapy with durvalumab and tremelimumab may induce changes in body's immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Radiation therapy uses high energy x-rays to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Giving durvalumab and tremelimumab with radiation therapy may work better in treating patients with colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer.Detailed DescriptionPRIMARY OBJECTIVES:I. To assess safety and tolerability of combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 (durvalumab) and tremelimumab alone or with high or low-dose radiation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (NSCLC Cohort) II. To compare the overall response (excluding the irradiated lesion[s]) between combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab alone or combined checkpoint blockade with low or high dose radiation. (NSCLC Cohort) III. To assess safety and tolerability of combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab with high or low-dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort) IV. To determine the overall response rate (excluding the irradiated lesion[s]) with combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab with either low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort)SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:I. To estimate median progression-free survival and overall survival. (NSCLC Cohort) II. To determine local control within the irradiated field(s) and abscopal response rates. (NSCLC Cohort) III. To evaluate associations between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+, CD8+ T-cells and overall response. (NSCLC Cohort) IV. To explore changes in PD-L1 expression, circulating T-cell populations, T-cell infiltration, ribonucleic acid (RNA) expression, spatial relationship of immune markers, and mutational burden as a result of low or high dose radiation. (NSCLC Cohort) V. To estimate median progression-free survival and overall survival. (Colorectal Cohort) VI. To determine local control within the irradiated field and abscopal response rates. (Colorectal Cohort) VII. To evaluate associations between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+ CD8+ T-cells and overall response. (Colorectal Cohort) VIII. To evaluate changes between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+, CD8+ T-cells induced by targeted low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort) IX. To explore changes in circulating T-cell populations, T-cell infiltration, RNA expression, spatial relationship of immune markers, and mutational burden as a result of low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort)OUTLINE: Patients are assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts. NOTE: This Study is only for Cohort 2. Please see phs003295 for Cohort 1COHORT 1: Patients with NSCLC are randomized to 1 of 3 arms.ARM A: Patients receive tremelimumab and durvalumab and as in Arm C. Beginning at week 2, patients receive high dose radiation therapy once per day (QD) over 10 days for up to 3 fractions.ARM B: Patients receive tremelimumab and durvalumab and as in Arm C. Beginning at week 2, patients receive low dose radiation therapy every 6 hours twice per day (BID) on weeks 2, 6, 10 and 14.ARM C: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses.COHORT 2: Patients with CRC are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.ARM A: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses. Beginning at week 2, patients receive high dose radiation therapy once per day (QD) over 10 days for up to 3 fractions.ARM B: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses. Beginning at week 2, patients receive low dose radiation therapy every 6 hours twice per day (BID) on weeks 2, 6, 10 and 14.After completion of study treatment, patients are followed for up to 12 weeks.Official TitleA Phase 2 Study of MEDI4736 (Durvalumab) and Tremelimumab Alone or in Combination With High or Low-Dose Radiation in Metastatic Colorectal and NSCLC Conditions Metastatic Colorectal CarcinomaMetastatic Lung Non-Small Cell CarcinomaStage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7Stage IV Lung Non-Small Cell Cancer AJCC v7Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 Intervention/Treatment Biological: DurvalumabRadiation: Radiation TherapyBiological: Tremelimumab Other Study ID Numbers NCI-2016-01325NCI-2016-01325 ( Registry Identifier ) (REGISTRY: CTRP (Clinical Trial Reporting Program))17-71910021 ( Other Identifier ) (OTHER: Dana-Farber - Harvard Cancer Center LAO)10021 ( Other Identifier ) (OTHER: CTEP) Molecular Technologies/AssaysIHCmIFOlinkCyTOFRNAseqWES

Study phs003294

Whole-genome sequences of single-cell derived clonal samples and bulk blood samples from human

Human single cells were clonally expanded by culture and whole-genome sequenced. This dataset includes 334 clonal samples and 7 blood bulks from seven individuals (DB2, DB3, DB5, DB6, DB8, DB9, DB10). We extracted genomic DNA materials from clonally expanded cells and matched peripheral blood using DNeasy Blood and Tissue kits (Qiagen) according to the protocol. DNA libraries for WGS were generated by an Accel-NGS 2S Plus DNA Library Kit (Swift Biosciences) from 1 µg of genomic DNA materials. WGS was performed on either the Illumina HiSeq X platform or the NovaSeq 6000 platform to generate mean coverage of 25.2X for 374 clonally expanded cells and 94.8X for 7 matched blood tissues.

Dataset EGAD00001007032

Bulk-tissue paired-end RNA-sequencing of anterior cingulate cortex samples derived from Lewy body disease patients

Profiling of 24 human anterior cingulate cortex samples by bulk-tissue RNA-sequencing. Samples were derived from 5 non-neurological control individuals and 19 individuals with Lewy body disease (Parkinson’s disease = 7 individuals; Parkinson’s disease with dementia = 6 individuals; dementia with Lewy bodies = 6 individuals). Paired-end FASTQ files for each of the human samples are provided and are denoted by the suffixes R1 (read 1) and R3 (read 2). Fastp (v 0.20.0), a fast all-in-one FASTQ pre-processor, was used for adapter trimming, read filtering and base correction. Fastp default settings were used for quality filtering and base correction. Further details on parameters used are available here: https://github.com/RHReynolds/RNAseqProcessing/blob/master/QC/prealignmentQC_fastp_PEadapters.R.

Dataset EGAD00001007698

RNA sequencing of end-stage kidney disease patients with COVID-19

This dataset contains paired RNA sequencing data for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on dialysis. There are two cohorts. The first includes 179 samples from 51 COVID-19 patients recruited during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020) and 55 non-infected ESKD patients as controls. 17 patients initially recruited as controls as part of the Wave 1 cohort were later infected with COVID-19 in January-March 2021. We acquired a total of 90 samples during the acute infection and convalescent samples for 12 of the 17 patients following the acute COVID-19 episode. RNA-seq counts and full clinical metadata for these cohorts are available without restriction from Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6497251).

Dataset EGAD00001009752

Biomarkers in Transplant Recipients

Biliary atresia causes jaundice and liver failure in newborn children. In this study, single nucleotide polymorphisms were characterized in children with biliary atresia and identified ARF6 as a susceptibility gene for this disease. Knockdown of this gene in zebrafish embryos impaired formation of bile ducts and excretion of bile from the zebrafish liver. Subject enrollment: Children with biliary atresia were enrolled at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) after obtaining written consent from parents for the University of Pittsburgh IRB approved protocol number 0405628. At the Center for Applied Genomics (CAG), all subjects were enrolled after obtaining written consent from parents per Children's Hospital of Philadelphia IRB approval number 06-004886 Genotyping array: Genotyping of DNA obtained from blood was performed with the Infinium HumanHap550K BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Statistical methods and software: SNP genotype frequencies were compared between cases and controls with a chi-square test statistic applied in Plink [Purcell et al, 2007] for SNPs with at least 90% call rate and 1% minor allele frequency (MAF). Cases and controls: All DNA samples had excellent data quality with call rates > 98%. A total of 63 Caucasian BA cases and 1907 controls were compared at > 550000 SNPs, and demonstrated a very low genomic inflation factor of 1.00627. Description of Cases: Biliary atresia patients had received a Kasai procedure and demonstrated histopathological features of biliary obstruction, and were recruited at evaluation for transplantation or after liver transplantation.

Study phs000960

NHLBI TOPMed: Defining the Time-Dependent Genetic and Transcriptomic Responses to Cardiac Injury Among Patients with Arrhythmias

The UMMS miRhythm Study is an ongoing study of adult patients undergoing an elective electrophysiology study or arrhythmia ablation procedure for a supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation (AF). Atrial fibrillation is a major clinical and public health problem that is related to atrial pathologic remodeling. Few tools are available to quantify the activity or extent of this remodeling, rendering it difficult to identify individuals at risk for AF. Previous studies have suggested an important role for miRNA in cardiovascular disease through gene expression regulation, making this a promising avenue for studying AF mechanisms. The aim of the study is to determine the time-dependent changes to key circulating miRNAs in a model of planned atrial injury and remodeling via ablation. Such knowledge might provide additional insight into the biology and activity of the acute atrial injury response, and furthermore, inform new targets for development of preventative interventions or allow for better AF risk stratification. To assess pathways regulating atrial pathological remodeling, patient blood samples are collected prior to their ablation procedures and also at a regularly scheduled 1-month follow-up appointment. Plasma expression of miRNA is measured using high-throughput quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), providing novel insights into the regulatory processes underlying AF, as well as acute atrial injury in vivo. Additionally, data collected from whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is used to supplement miRNA analyses and further explore new relations between genes and abnormal heart rhythm.

Study phs001434

Transcriptome_human_nasal_epithelium

1. Odors are detected, firstly, by olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) in the olfactory epithelium of the nose. This neurons then project directly to the olfactory bulb in the brain. Olfaction depends on cellular regeneration of the OE, olfactory bulb and hippocampus, and on their continual re-wiring. The olfactory neural pathway includes regions of the frontal, temporal and limbic brain, which in turn overlap with brain areas involved in brain disorders. OSNs are the only aspect of the human brain exposed to the external environment. This not only makes them vulnerable to environmental changes, but also accessible for biomedical studies.We have already sequenced and developed a protocol for analyzing the transcriptome of mouse main olfactory epithelium and single OSNs. We propose here to perform a similar study for samples from the human olfactory epithelium. We have developed a minimally invasive method for obtaining human OSNs, among other cells from the nasal epithelium. In this experiment, we have obtained cell samples from the olfactory epithelium, including OSN, from healthy volunteers. We would like to further characterize them by RNA sequencing. This will give us valuable insight into human olfaction. It will also provide a first step into a new avenue to study, and find biomarkers for, brain diseases though the analysis of these easily available neurons. This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/

Study EGAS00001001294

Analysis of the Elements Involved in the Enrichment of a Panel of Genomic Regions by Nanopore Sequencing Using Adaptive Sampling

DNA sequencing using nanopore technologies with the affordable MinION device is useful for the identification and characterization of structural variants, long haplotypes, sequencing of repetitive regions and identification of epigenetic modifications. The main limitation of this approach is the low coverage obtained, which might be avoided by adaptive sampling, a computationally controlled method of enrichment for targeted genomic regions. This study dissects the factors involved in the enrichment by adaptive sampling of a panel of 18 human genome regions containing 20 genes implicated in breast cancer sequenced in 16 patients with familial breast cancer negative for NGS screening. An average coverage of 2.0x was obtained for the whole genome and 5.1x for selected regions. Sequencing time was the main factor improving coverage. The selection of long reads (&gt;1 Kb) did not improve the enrichment. The length of the selected region, which in our study ranged from 126 to 565 Kb, did not play a significant role in enrichment. However, the region containing PMS2 showed significantly lower coverage, which could be explained by the high number of PMS2 pseudogenes (N = 14), which were also enriched. Our study shows new evidence of enrichment obtained by adaptive sampling in a panel of genomic regions and shows parameters, the relevance of sequencing time and the role of pseudogenes, that improve the enrichment yield with no library reloading or GPU use, data useful for a more efficient application of this procedure in future studies.

Study EGAS00001007375

Transcriptome of (peripheral blood), from donor Sample B, replicate 1 time-course biological replicates; 10x lane replicate 1

time-course biological replicates; 10x lane replicate 1

Dataset EGAD00001010088

NIPT samples for systematic evaluation of NIPT aneuploidy detection software tools

This dataset contains two sets of samples. The reference sample set consists of a total of 669 samples that had been reported previously to be euploid by the NIPTIFY screening test. The validation sample set is based on a previously published validation study by Zilina et al. (1), consisting of 423 samples, of which 259 were high-risk pregnancies that had undergone diagnostic invasive prenatal analysis (1). All samples were sequenced with Illumina NextSeq 500 platform, producing 85 bp single-end reads with an average per-sample coverage of 0.32× at the University of Tartu, Institute of Genomics Core Facility, according to the manufacturer’s standard protocols, as described previously (1). This study was performed with the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu (#315/T-13). 1. Zilina O, Rekker K, Kaplinski L, Sauk M, Paluoja P, Teder H, et al. Creating basis for introducing non‐invasive prenatal testing in the Estonian public health setting. Prenat Diagn [Internet]. 2019 Dec 6;39(13):1262-8. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pd.5578

Dataset EGAD00001007712

DAC for "Transcriptome analysis of human iPSC-derived microglia in a novel human 3D cortical tissue model"

scRNA-seq analysis of human iPSC-derived microglia in a novel, human in vitro 3D cortical tissue model. Samples include three distinct conditions (each as biological duplicates): wild-type microglia extracted from cultures after 1 month (WT_1mo) and 3 months (WT_3mo) of culturing, as well as knock-in microglia extracted from cultures carrying three familial AD mutations in the APP gene (Swedish, Iberian, Arctic; introduced by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-in) after 3 months of culturing (KI_3mo).

Dac EGAC50000000303

Aligned FOS RNA sequencing data

Total RNA-sequencing Paired-End was performed by GenomeScan (Leiden, the Netherlands) on the NovaSeq6000 platform for full-length FOS (FOS FL), truncated FOS (FOSΔ), a FOS isoform with an L376N mutation (FOS mut), untransduced fMSC (unt) and fMSC with empty pLV (pLV) at week 0, 1, 2, and 3 in triplicate (total of 60 samples). Raw RNA-seq data were processed by the RNA-seq BioWDL pipeline pipeline version 5.0.0 developed by the SASC team at LUMC, LUMC, Leiden, the Netherlands).

Dataset EGAD50000001839

Transcriptome analysis of patient-derived Schwann cells isolated from human sural nerve biopsies

This dataset contains the transcriptome analysis of human Schwann cell cultures obtained from sural nerve biopsies from six patients with polyneuropathies (N=3/patient, totalN=18) as well as the nerve fascicles from where they were isolated (N=1/patient, totalN=6). In addition, this dataset includes 8 samples out of commercial human Schwann cell cultures and one sample of a fibroblast culture, which serve as controls for further analysis.

Dataset EGAD50000001021

Profiling of gene expression and epigenomics in the fetal brain

scRNA-seq and Cut&Tag from a sample of the human fetal brain. To compare neurogenesis in the primary human brain with that in organoids, we profiled transcriptome and chromatin accessibility (10X multiome) as well as bulk Cut&Tag of histone modifications H3K27me3, H3K27ac and H3K4me3. We used a human brain sample from GW 19 for all experiments.

Dataset EGAD50000000225

Sequencing data for oesophageal and related samples - Normals release 1 (RNA)

Dataset EGAD00001002258

15394 results for "1 mil coins fc 26 Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..buoc"

in 23.13 milliseconds.