6365 results for "11+1双色球多少钱一注"

in 16.66 milliseconds.

• Virginia PrIMeD Study

  The goal of this study was to determine whether screening children (2-16 yrs) in pediatric waiting rooms for genetic risk of type 1 diabetes (T1D) could be applied to diverse (by geography, genetic ancestry) communities, and for those at "high genetic risk," if barriers prevent subsequent screening for presence of islet autoantibodies. A total of 3,818 children were recruited from eight general pediatric and specialty clinics across Virginia. Clinical Research Coordinators were stationed at each clinic and obtained informed consent/assent, a brief medical history, and a saliva sample for DNA extraction and determination of their genetic risk using a T1D Genetic Risk Score (T1D GRS). Children were present in the clinic for a "healthy" visit, although children with and without a history of T1D were recruited into the study. Age, sex, self-reported ancestry/race, T1D history, and other medical history information was obtained. DNA was extracted from the saliva samples and genotyping with a T1D-focused array using 74 SNPs (including 26 SNPs in the HLA region) provided data to generate a T1D GRS for each individual. Of the 3,818 children recruited, there was a slight excess of males (1,959, 51.3%), a majority of white and Hispanic/Latino ancestry (82.8%), and 91 (2.4%) with prevalent T1D. A total of 542 (14.2%) had "high T1D genetic risk" (T1D GRS > 5). Although the T1D GRS included non-HLA genetic variants, 80% of those with "high genetic risk" would have been classified using only those SNPs in the HLA region alone. Of children with "high genetic risk" and without pre-existing T1D (n=494), 7.0% (34/494) consented for islet autoantibody screening. Among children with pre-existing T1D (n=91), 52% (n=48) also had a "high genetic risk." The HLA-focused T1D GRS was not significantly associated with age at onset of T1D. Of those at high genetic risk that consented for autoantibody testing (n=34) and completed the blood collection (n=28), two (2/28, 7.1%) tested positive for multiple autoantibodies and were at significant risk of developing T1D. Follow up of 55% of parents/guardians identified 2 (of 2,096, 0.095%) participants who developed T1D, one at "high genetic risk" and one with a first-degree relative with T1D. A major factor in obtaining islet autoantibody testing was concern over SARS-Cov-2 exposure and an independent non-scheduled blood collection.Individual-level data at each SNP (genotyped and imputed) for T1D genetic risk and affiliated data are provided in dbGaP.

  Study phs003609

• Genome Diversity in Africa Project: Benin (2021-02-16)

  Globally, human populations show structured genetic diversity as a result of geographical dispersion, selection and drift. Understanding this genetic variation can provide insights into the evolutionary processes that shape both human adaptation and variation in disease. Populations from SSA have the highest levels of genetic diversity. This characteristic, in addition to historical genetic admixture, can lead to complexities in the design of studies assessing the genetic determinants of disease and human variation. However, such studies of African populations are also likely to provide new opportunities to discover novel disease susceptibility loci and variants and refine gene-disease association signals. A systematic assessment of genetic diversity within SSA would facilitate genomic epidemiological studies in the region. The Genome Diversity in Africa Project (GDAP) aims to produce a comprehensive catalogue of human genetic variation in SSA, including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), structural variants, and haplotypes. This resource will make a substantial contribution to understanding patterns of genetic diversity within and among populations in SSA, as well as providing a global resource to help design, implement and interpret genomic studies in SSA populations and studies comprising globally diverse populations, complementing existing genomic resources. Specifically, we plan to carry out high depth whole genome sequencing of up to 2000 individuals across Africa (25 individuals from each ethnolinguistic group). Our scientific objectives are to: 1) develop a resource that provides a comprehensive catalogue of genetic variation in populations from SSA accessible to the global scientific community; 2) characterise population genetic diversity, structure, gene flow and admixture across SSA; 3) develop a cost-efficient, next-generation genotype array for diverse populations across SSA; and 4) facilitate whole genome-sequencing association studies of complex traits and diseases by developing a reference panel for imputation and resource for enhancing fine-mapping disease susceptibility loci. These scientific objectives will be supported by cross-cutting operational activities, including network and management of the consortium, research ethics, and research capacity building in statistical genetics and bioinformatics 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/ . This dataset contains all the data available for this study on 2021-02-16.

  Dataset EGAD00001006970

• CM067 WES - Clinical Outcomes by Tumor Mutational Burden and Inflammatory Gene Expression With Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

  Purpose Exploratory analyses of CheckMate 066 and 067 trials were conducted to investigate associations of tumor mutational burden (TMB), a 4-gene inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status with tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients with known programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and BRAF mutation status received nivolumab (NIVO) or dacarbazine in CheckMate 066 and either NIVO, ipilimumab (IPI), or NIVO+IPI in CheckMate 067. Whole exome sequencing and RNA sequencing were used to determine TMB and inflammatory gene expression signature scores, respectively. These biomarkers were evaluated in terms of their association with PFS and OS. Results In the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms of CheckMate 067, longer survival was associated with high (> median) versus low (≤ median) TMB with hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for PFS of 0.45 (0.30–0.65), 0.55 (0.38–0.81), and 0.60 (0.43–0.82), and for OS of 0.46 (0.30–0.71), 0.53 (0.34–0.82), and 0.52 (0.36–0.74), respectively. For NIVO-treated patients, these results were confirmed in CheckMate 066. A survival benefit was observed with high TMB and absence of BRAF mutation. Survival was associated with high versus low inflammatory signature scores with HRs (95% CI) for PFS of 0.56 (0.34–0.94), 0.40 (0.23–0.72), and 0.43 (0.27–0.70), and for OS of 0.37 (0.20–0.66), 0.38 (0.19–0.74), and 0.46 (0.27–0.79), in the NIVO, NIVO+IPI, and IPI arms, respectively. Weak correlations were observed between PD-L1, TMB, and the inflammatory signature. Conclusions Combined assessment of TMB, inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status may be predictive for response to immunotherapy in advanced melanoma.

  Dataset EGAD00001007573

• Whole genome sequencing of retinoblastoma reveals the diversity of rearrangements disrupting RB1 and uncovers a treatment related mutational signature

  Background: The development of retinoblastoma is thought to require pathological genetic changes in both alleles of the RB1 gene. However, cases exist where RB1 mutations are undetectable suggesting alternative pathways to malignancy. Methods: We applied comprehensive whole genome sequencing (WGS) and transcriptomics to sporadic retinoblastomas derived from twenty patients attending our clinic, contrasting these results to that obtained through customary clinical testing. We sought RB1 and other driver mutations, investigated mutation burden, mutational signatures and phylogenetic relatedness in one case of bilateral retinoblastoma. Results: At least one RB1 mutation was identified in all retinoblastomas. We confirmed RB1 mutations previously identified by clinical screening, identified three new RB1 mutations and provided clarity to the mechanism behind a further six mutations. Eight tumours carried structural rearrangements involving RB1 ranging from relatively simple to extremely complex rearrangement patterns, including a chromothripsis-like pattern in one tumour. Potential driver mutations included mutations in BCOR (5/20) and amplification of MYCN (2/20) and MDM4 (1/20). We show that RB1 mutations are not mutually exclusive of MYCN amplifications, and further reveal that all tumours demonstrate increased MYCN expression suggesting a universal role in retinoblastoma tumorigenesis.  Bilateral tumours obtained from one patient harboured conserved germline but divergent somatic RB1 mutations, indicating independent evolution. In-keeping with previous WGS of paediatric cancers, the mutation burden in retinoblastomas was extremely low. Mutational signature analysis showed a predominance of signatures associated with cell division and an absence of ultraviolet-related DNA damage. In a tumour exposed to chemotherapy prior to enucleation, a profound platinum-related mutational signature was observed. Conclusions: WGS provides a complete picture of the genomic landscape of retinoblastomas, allowing the discovery of mutations otherwise undetected by conventional clinical screening approaches. The presence of at least one RB1 mutation in all retinoblastomas and the relative paucity of driver mutations in other genes suggests mutations beyond RB1, MYCN and BCOR are rare. Whilst most RB1 mutations are identifiable by clinical screening, the increased resolution and ability to detect otherwise elusive rearrangements of RB1 by WGS, confirming whether they are somatic or germline, has important repercussions on clinical management and advice on recurrence risks.

  Dataset EGAD00001006431

• Thymic epithelial transplantation for complete DiGeorge syndrome: RNA (2025-07-22)

  Single cell transcriptomics study of thymic transplant biopsies Allogeneic thymus transplantation is the only curative therapy for complete DiGeorge Syndrome (cDGS), a rare severe primary immunodeficiency characterised by athymia. GOSH is one of only two centres worldwide to offer this treatment. Despite a lack of major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-matching between donor and host, transplanted thymus becomes repopulated by recipient bone marrow derived precursor cells and supports development of functional T-cells. The mechanisms underlying thymopoiesis in this context are poorly understood, but over time we observe reconstitution of T-cell immunity, with the ability to produce host naïve T-cells showing a broad T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire and to generate MHC-restricted T-cell proliferative responses. Although lifesaving, the achieved immunological reconstitution is typically not complete with circulating T-cell numbers usually remaining below the age related normal ranges. Additionally, we observe persistence of donor-derived T-cells of unknown clinical significance. To gain more insight into the mechanisms by which MHC-mismatched transplanted thymus supports T-cell development with self-tolerance, as well as into the basis of suboptimal T-cell immunity, we now aim to investigate immune reconstitution after thymus transplantation in further detail by using single-cell transcriptomics, applied to thymic transplant biopsies and peripheral blood samples collected during standard post-transplant patient care. By identifying which lineages of host- derived cells repopulate the thymic tissue after transplantation, we will be able to address the role of MHC in positive and negative T-cell selection during T-cell differentiation. We will also be able to clarify the exact ontogeny of the persistent donor T-cells, as well as their possible role. Understanding the mechanisms of action of HLA-mismatched transplanted thymus will contribute to treatment optimisation. Additionally, our research provides a unique opportunity to further investigate key immunological concepts, such as tolerance and autoimmunity, challenging existing paradigms in thymus immunology. 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/ . This dataset contains all the data available for this study on 2025-07-22.

  Dataset EGAD00001015648

• Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP)

  NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE SEQUENCING PROJECT (ADSP) GENETIC AND PHENOTYPIC DATA: ADSP whole exome and whole genome sequence data that are shared through dbGaP were mapped to the Genome Reference Consortium human genome GRCh37 (build 37). These data are from the Discovery Phase of the project (described below) and will continue to be available at this site. Please see the ADSP Design page for the complete study description. All data that are mapped to GRCh38 (hg38) are being shared through the NIA Genetics of Alzheimer's Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) Data Sharing Service (DSS). For instructions on how access the ADSP Build 38 data that are shared through NIAGADS DSS, visit the Application Instructions page. STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR dbGaP BUILD 37 ADSP DATA: The overarching goals of the Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) are to: (1) identify new genomic variants contributing to increased risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease (AD), (2) identify new genomic variants contributing to protection against developing AD, and (3) provide insight as to why individuals with known risk factor variants escape from developing AD. These factors will be studied in multi-ethnic populations in order to identify new pathways for disease prevention. Such a study of human genomic variation and its relationship to health and disease requires examination of a large number of study participants and needs to capture information about common and rare variants (both single nucleotide and copy number) in well phenotyped individuals. Using existing samples from NIH funded and other studies, three NHGRI funded Large Scale Sequencing and Analysis Centers (LSAC) - Broad, Baylor, and Washington University - produced the DNA sequence data. Variant call data are being made available to the scientific community through NIH-approved data repositories. Statistical analysis of the sequence data is anticipated to identify new genetic risk and protective factors. The ADSP will conduct and facilitate analysis of sequence data to extend previous discoveries that may ultimately result in new directions for AD therapeutics. Analysis of ADSP data will be done in two phases. The Discovery Phase analysis (2014-2018) is funded under PAR-12-183. The entire Discovery dataset contains whole-genome sequencing data on 584 subjects from 113 families, and pedigree data for > 4000 subjects; whole exome sequencing data on 5096 cases 4965 controls; and whole exome sequence data on an additional 853 (682 Cases [510 Non-Hispanic, 172 Hispanic]), and 171 Hispanic Control subjects from families that are multiply affected with AD. The Replication Phase (2016-2021) analysis will be funded under RFA-AG-16-001 and RFA-AG-16-002 and is expected to include a combination of genotyping and sequencing approaches on at least 30,000 subjects. Targeted sequencing will be done by the LSACs. GRCh37 Data Releases The first ADSP data release occurred on November 25, 2013. It included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format on 410 individuals. The second ADSP data release occurred on March 31, 2014, and included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format for an additional 168 individuals. The third ADSP data release occurred on November 03, 2014 and included whole-exome sequencing data in BAM file format for 10,939 individuals. The fourth ADSP data release occurred on February 13, 2015 and included revised ethnic data for subjects with whole-exome sequencing data. The fifth ADSP data release occurred on July 13, 2015 and included whole-genome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to pedigree structures and sample IDs. The sixth ADSP data release occurred on December 8, 2015, and included whole-exome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to subject IDs. This seventh ADSP data release on April 12, 2016 includes: (1) WES and WGS SNV VCF files (2) WES and WGS Indel PLINK files ADSP Data Available through dbGaP: ADSP - Whole Genome Sequencing ADSP - Whole Exome Sequencing Comments DNA-Seq (BAM) n=578 n=10913 Sequence data available (plus n=38 replications w/out genotype data) Concordant SNV Genotypes (PLINK format) N/A n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas (Baylor's) and GATK (Broad's) calling pipelines (a subset of the consensus genotype set) Consensus Genotypes (PLINK and VCF format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between Atlas and GATK pipelines as well as those that that were called uniquely by Atlas or GATK Concordant Indel Genotypes (PLINK format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas and GATK calling pipelines Phenotype Data n=4735 n=10913 Data of n=53 phenotype variables available (plus administrative data), including APOE genotype. WGS phenotypes include data of connecting family members. Please use the release notes provided by dbGaP to obtain detailed information about study release updates. The ADSP data portal provides a customized interface for users to quickly identify and retrieve files by covariates, phenotypes, and data properties such as sequencing facility or coverage. For more information about the ADSP study and the data portal, please visit https://www.niagads.org/adsp/.

  Study phs000572

• Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS)

  The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) is a multi-center prospective, longitudinal, observational study of risk factors for vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures in older men, and of the sequelae of fractures in men. The original specific aims of the study include: (1) to define the skeletal determinants of fracture risk in older men, (2) to define lifestyle and medical factors related to fracture risk, (3) to establish the contribution of fall frequency to fracture risk in older men, (4) to determine to what extent androgen and estrogen concentrations influence fracture risk, (5) to examine the effects of fractures on quality of life, (6) to identify sex differences in the predictors and outcomes of fracture, (7) to collect and store serum, urine and DNA for future analyses as directed by emerging evidence in the fields of aging and skeletal health, and (8) define the extent to which bone mass/fracture risk and prostate diseases are linked. The MrOS study population consists of 5,994 community dwelling, ambulatory men aged 65 years or older from six communities in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA; Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA). Inclusion criteria were designed to provide a study cohort that is representative of the broad population of older men. The inclusion criteria were: (1) ability to walk without the assistance of another, (2) absence of bilateral hip replacements, (3) ability to provide self-reported data, (4) residence near a clinical site for the duration of the study, (5) absence of a medical condition that (in the judgment of the investigator) would result in imminent death, and (6) ability to understand and sign an informed consent. To qualify as an enrollee, the participant had to provide written informed consent, complete the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), attend the clinic visit, and complete at least the anthropometric, DEXA, and vertebral X-ray procedures. There were no other exclusion criteria. The baseline examination was completed over a 25-month period from March 2000 to April 2002. Participants completed questionnaires regarding medical history, medications, physical activity, diet, alcohol intake, and cigarette smoking. Objective measures of anthropometric, neuromuscular, vision, strength, and cognitive variables were obtained at a clinic visit. Skeletal assessments included DEXA, calcaneal ultrasound, and vertebral radiographs. Vertebral and proximal femoral QCT was performed on a subset (65%) of participants. Serum, urine, and whole blood specimens were collected. During the study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that obtains information concerning the occurrence of incident falls and fractures. Follow-up is over 99% complete. All reported fractures are confirmed using physician review of radiology reports or study radiologist review of x-rays. All deaths are also centrally adjudicated using death certificates and recent hospitalization records. In additional to the baseline study visit and tri-annual questionnaires, all surviving active participants were invited to follow-up visits and questionnaires. A second comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2005 and May 2006 or about 4.5 years after baseline. Most baseline measures, including vertebral radiographs, were repeated at the second visit. A third comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2007 and March 2009 or about 7.0 years after baseline. Many baseline measures were repeated at the third visit. A measure of energy expenditure was also obtained utilizing an accelerometer based armband device. Surviving participants have also completed two extensive mailed questionnaires designed to updated information obtained at clinic visits. The first questionnaire was mailed between baseline and visit 2 between July 2002 and March 2004. The second questionnaire was mailed after the third questionnaire between March 2009 and February 2011. The MrOS Sleep Study, an ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was conducted between December 2003 and March 2005 and recruited 3,135 MrOS participants for a comprehensive sleep assessment. Men were screened for nightly use of mechanical devices during sleep including pressure mask for sleep apnea (CPAP or BiPAP), mouthpiece for snoring or sleep apnea, or oxygen therapy and were generally excluded. The sleep visit included objective measures of sleep using actigraphy and polysomnography. Other measures at the sleep visit include neuropsychiatric measures, performance measures, health related questionnaires, routine exam measures previously completed at MrOS clinic visits and a urine and serum specimen collection. During the sleep study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that contains information about incident cardiovascular events. All reported events are centrally adjudicated utilizing hospital records, study ECGs and other supporting documentation. The Hip Osteoarthritis study, another ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was completed at the second clinic visit between March 2005 and May 2006. Participants were asked for consent for a hip x-ray and osteoarthritis measurements were obtained from these x-rays. DNA was extracted from baseline whole blood samples for use in genetic research. Consent for use of DNA was obtained through written consent. Raw GWAS data is housed at the study's coordinating center and not released as part of the dbGAP release. The raw data can be requested from the study's coordinating center. Only QC cleaned Plink files are available on dbGAP.

  Study phs000373

• Programmatic submission based on XML

  Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

• A Multiethnic Genome-wide Scan of Prostate Cancer

  Multiple GWA studies of prostate cancer conducted in European White populations are ongoing. These studies will continue to have a dramatic impact on our understanding of the contribution of common genetic variation on inter-individual susceptibility to this common cancer. Important questions that will remain unanswered, however, are whether all common risk alleles for prostate cancer will be revealed in studies limited to populations of European ancestry. A comprehensive examination of common genetic variation in men of Japanese, Latino, and African ancestry will be required to understand population differences in disease risk and to reveal the full spectrum of causal alleles that exist in these populations. Further, genetic and environmental diversity is likely to contribute to ethnic heterogeneity of genetic effects. Elucidating gene x gene and gene x environment interactions is also likely to provide knowledge that may be critical for understanding the contribution of genetic susceptibility to racial/ethnic disparities in prostate cancer incidence and for translating the findings from GWA studies into interventions. In this study we plan to undertake a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of prostate cancer in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study. We propose the following hypotheses: (a) that inherited DNA variation influences risk of prostate cancer; (b) that many of the causal alleles will be outside known "candidate genes" requiring an agnostic, comprehensive search; and (c) that performing this search in a multi-ethnic cohort is more powerful than a study limited to a single population to reveal the full range of causal alleles relevant to the U.S. population. The version 1 release of this dataset will include genotype data for the Japanese and Latino populations in the study. The version 2 release will include data for the African ancestry population along with the Japanese and Latino subjects. The version 3 release will include fully-cleaned genotype data for all three populations. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to prostate cancer through large-scale genome-wide association studies of a well-characterized multi-ethnic cohort. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center and at the University of Southern California. Data cleaning and harmonization were performed at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. As an add-on to this GWAS we performed a targeted re-sequencing of all known prostate cancer risk loci in the samples from the MEC. Sequencing was performed in Dr. Reich&#39;s lab at Harvard Medical School.

  Study phs000306

• A Prospective Natural History Study of Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes of Children with SCID Disorders

  Individuals with a recent or new diagnosis of severe combined immune deficiency (including infants who were identified by newborn screening) may be eligible to be enrolled on the PIDTC research study 6901. Speak to your doctor to determine if you or your child may be eligible. Protocol 6901 follows patients with SCID prospectively, meaning the 6901 study enrolls participants where there is a plan to receive a blood and marrow transplant, enzyme therapy, or gene therapy in the future. Patients are then followed according to a schedule set out by the study protocol after the procedure. The times the study requests follow up will be the same as when your doctor would want to be seeing you or your child as part of their regular ongoing medical care. Patients with &#34;leaky SCID&#34;, reticular dysgenesis, and Omenn syndrome may also be eligible to participate in 6901. The 6901 research study does NOT dictate how your or your child&#39;s doctors should treat you or your child, as the PIDTC recognizes that there are many complex factors that go into this decision. The decision about how you or your child with SCID will be treated is made by your doctor. The 6901 study simply follows how you or your child do over time. There are no experimental therapies on this study. The 6901 study has been open since August 2010, and continues to be open and enrolling patients to the present day. The study plans to enroll approximately 250 patients with SCID. By studying new patients undergoing treatment for SCID, the goal is to learn more about: (1) outcomes from the treatment of SCID in the modern era of medicine, (2) what factors lead to the best long-term outcomes, such as best donor, conditioning regimen, timing of transplant, etc. and (3) what impact newborn screening and the early diagnosis of SCID has had on the long-term outcomes following BMT or gene therapy. A significant amount of information is also being gathered on how and when the immune system recovers after BMT, quality of life for long-term survivors, and about whether children develop normally after treatment. The 6901 study is the largest coordinated prospective study of patients with SCID ever performed. Information that we will learn, both now and in the future, will help doctors and other health professionals to better treat children with SCID. All hospitals within the PIDTC are enrolling patients with SCID on 6901, ensuring that the outcomes are reflective of what happens in the &#34;real world&#34; as opposed to at just one or two large centers.

  Study phs001392