6377 results for "11+1双色球多少钱一注"

in 13.84 milliseconds.

• Transdisciplinary Research Into Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) - Exome Plus Targeted Sequencing

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani's lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, > 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• Integration of Clinical and Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Survival (Berwick)

  The long-term goal of the InterMEL Program Project: Integration of Clinical and Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Survival is to identify molecular and clinical factors that predict survival of melanoma patients. Our overarching hypothesis is that we can identify factors in the primary melanoma tumor that will lead to more aggressive disease. Melanoma patients diagnosed at American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor, lymph nodes, and metastases (TNM) stages IIA/IIB/IIC/IIIA/IIIB/IIIC/IIID display highly variable clinical outcomes and responses to therapy. We wish to identify robust and reproducible biomarkers or sets of classifiers that distinguish patients likely to have poor prognosis. These biomarkers will help establish targets for adjuvant therapies for this set of patients before the tumors metastasize. Aim 1. Classify actionable somatic mutations, and copy number variations (CNVs) in relationship to melanoma survival. In Project 1, Targeted Sequencing and Clinicopathology to Evaluate Primary Melanoma Molecular Subtypes and Outcomes, we will profile 468 genes using the MSKIMPACT ™ assay and identify somatic mutations and CNVs associated with melanoma-specific survival, as well as their co-occurrence with other mutations, in 1,000 tumors from patients at AJCC TNM stages IIA-IIID: approximately 500 from patients who died with melanoma within five years and approximately 500 from individuals who have lived at least five years. We will also evaluate the joint effects of somatic mutations, CNVs and pathologic characteristics associated with good and poor outcomes. Aim 2. Identify primary melanoma DNA methylation profiles to evaluate subtypes and survival. Although it has been established that melanomas frequently have aberrant DNA methylation, it is unknown if DNA methylation in primary melanomas predicts outcome. In Project 2, Primary Melanoma DNA Methylation Profiling for Evaluating Subtypes and Survival, we will profile the same primary melanomas as in Project 1 with Illumina Infinium 850K methylation arrays. We expect to: identify and characterize DNA methylation-based melanoma subclasses; train, test and validate a CpG signature prognostic for survival from melanoma; determine whether this profile adds information to outcome prediction beyond AJCC TNM staging. This project is based on the hypothesis that DNA methylation in primary melanoma will define subgroups (including a poor-prognosis CIMP – ‘CpG island methylator phenotype' subtype) and that a CpG signature will be prognostic for melanoma survival. Aim 3. Define microRNA expression changes in relation to melanoma survival. MicroRNAs have been associated with poor prognosis in melanoma, as well as in other cancers. In Project 3, Prognostic and Functional Role of a Gene Expression Signature in Melanoma Patients, we hypothesize that altered miRNA expression, captured at the time of diagnosis, may contribute to the aggressive behavior of a subset of early stage primary melanomas. We will profile the same primary melanomas as in Projects 1 and 2 with a Nanostring assay. This project will define and validate a tissue-based microRNA signature in conducted to determine whether the prognostic miRNA signature, as well as other candidate genes emerging from other projects, contribute to melanoma survival. Aim 4. Integrate data from multiple platforms to identify melanoma subtypes and survival. Despite substantial literature on gene tumor mutation-, methylation- and gene expression-based prognostic and predictive signatures for melanoma, few such signatures are used in clinical practice. Project 4, Multiplatform Analysis of Melanoma Molecular Subtypes and Patient Survival Outcome, will use novel integrative clustering methods to identify molecular subtypes of melanoma jointly defined across these platforms.

  Study phs003099

• Gene Expression Study of Individuals with Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies

  Males and females show dramatic differences in their vulnerability to the same diseases. For example, compared to men, lupus is six times more prevalent, thyroid cancer is three times more prevalent, and unipolar depression is twice as prevalent in women. Diseases with a strong male bias include autism (5:1), dilated cardiomyopathy (3:1), and ankylosing spondylitis (5:1). Historically, such differences have been attributed solely to extrinsic factors such as circulating sex hormones or environmental influences. We hypothesized that intrinsic factors - genetic differences between XX and XY cells - have unappreciated biological consequences throughout the body and contribute to sex differences in disease incidence and severity. This hypothesis stems from our long-term effort to sequence the sex chromosomes of diverse mammalian species, which has identified a set of homologous genes on the X and Y chromosomes that are dosage-sensitive, expressed throughout the body, and encode regulators of chromatin modification, transcription, translation, and protein stability. These X- and Y-encoded genes differ in sequence and expression pattern, which likely manifests in genome-wide differences in gene regulation between XX and XY cells and influences all aspects of human biology, including sex differences in disease susceptibility. These hard-wired molecular sex differences have been largely overlooked and understudied, representing a significant gap in our knowledge of human biology.The gene expression study of individuals with sex chromosome aneuploidies takes advantage of natural human variation in sex chromosome number, i.e. sex chromosome aneuploidy, to investigate alterations in genome-wide gene expression that correlate with changes in X- and Y-chromosome dosage. We analyzed samples from 114 individuals with a variety of sex chromosome aneuploidies, including 45,X; 47,XXY; 47,XYY; 47,XXX; 48,XXYY; and 49,XXXXY. We generated lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) from blood samples and, in some cases, fibroblast cultures from skin biopsies. We supplemented our collection with previously-derived cell lines. To evaluate gene expression, we performed deep profiling of the transcriptome (RNA-seq) from these LCLs and fibroblasts. We performed parallel analyses on samples collected from 62 control 46,XX and 46,XY individuals, 6 individuals with trisomy 21, and 14 individuals with structural variations of the X and Y chromosomes. In addition, we performed CRISPRi knockdowns on 3 of the 46,XX and 3 of the 46,XY fibroblast samples for the homologous transcription factors ZFX and ZFY, encoded on the X and Y chromosomes, respectively.In the April 2024 update, we added RNA-seq datasets derived from isolated CD4+ T cells and monocytes from 76 and 72 adults, respectively, with the following sex chromosome constitutions: 45,X; 46,XX; 46,XY; 47,XXX; 47,XXY; 47,XYY. These individuals are largely a subset of the same cohort described above. In addition, we performed RNA-seq on in-vitro stimulated CD4+ T cells with the following sex chromosome constitutions: 45,X; 46,XX; 46,XY; 47,XXY.In the August 2024 update, we added RNA-seq datasets generated from the following: 1) LCLs derived from individuals with AZFa deletions of the Y chromosome, 2) DDX3X and DDX3Y knockdown (via CRISPRi) in XY fibroblasts, and 3) 5-ethyl uridine (5-EU) treatment in XY and XYYYY LCLs.

  Study phs002481

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Versions 1 and 2 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: The ROC Cardiac Epistry versions 1 and 2 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from December 1, 2005 to April 1, 2011. ROC Cardiac Epistry 3 includes cardiac arrest cases captured between 2011 and 2015, and introduced significant changes in how and which data were collected.For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data, please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest;to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes.Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 109,326 cardiac arrest events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003803

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

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

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• 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

• Whole Genome DNA Methylation

  Whole Genome Bisulfite Sequencing on normal primary human uveal melanocytes. WGBS libraries were prepared using the Accel-NGS Methyl-Seq DNA Library Kit (Swift Biosciences 30024), the EZ DNA Methylation-Gold Kit (Zymo D5005), and DNA Clean & Concentrator-5 (Zymo D4013), following the instruction manual Accel-NGS Methyl-Seq DNA Library (Revision 160510). Paired-end (2 x 150 bp) libraries were sequenced on a DNBSEQ-T7 instrument (MGI) after library conversion.

  Dataset EGAD50000000766

• Indonesian Genome Diversity Project 3

  Low coverage whole genome sequences (1-3x) were collected to study human genetic history across Wallacea archipelago and West Papuan Region of Indonesia . We collected 254 newly sequenced genomes mostly from previously undocumented populations including 9 communities in Wallacea and 3 in West Papuan regions. Out of 254, there are 8 high coverage whole genome sequences were produce in the study (L4).

  Dataset EGAD50000000647

• TIRE-seq_PDN

  TIRE-seq is a novel RNA sequencing method that integrates mRNA purification directly into library preparation, eliminating separate RNA extraction. The technique demonstrated utility across three biological applications, including capturing transcriptional changes in human T cells, identifying genes driving murine dendritic cell differentiation, and analyzing the dose-response effects of temozolomide on patient-derived neurospheres. With its simplified approach and high sequencing efficiency, TIRE-seq offers a cost-effective solution for large-scale gene expression studies.

  Dataset EGAD50000001261

• scRNAseq of endothelial cells from human iPSC-derived kidney organoids transplanted in the coelomic cavity of chicken embryos compared to untransplanted controls

  This dataset includes scRNA-seq fastq files and Seurat counts and metadata for 6 samples of endothelial cells enriched from hiPSC-derived kidney organoids cultured in vitro or transplanted in chicken embryos. Samples were obtained at 2 timepoints: d7+13 (1 day after transplantation) and day 7+20 (8 days after transplantation).

  Dataset EGAD50000001555