1010 results for "1993+article+mouse+line+professor+BA+psychology"

in 16.55 milliseconds.

• In vitro reconstitution of epigenetic reprogramming in the human germ line

  Epigenetic reprogramming resets parental epigenetic memories and differentiates primordial germ cells (PGCs) into mitotic pro-spermatogonia or oogonia, ensuring sexually dimorphic germ-cell development for totipotency. In vitro reconstitution of epigenetic reprogramming in humans remains a fundamental challenge. Here, we establish a robust strategy for inducing epigenetic reprogramming and differentiation of pluripotent stem cell (PSC)-derived human PGC-like cells (hPGCLCs) into mitotic pro-spermatogonia or oogonia, coupled with their extensive amplification (~>1010-fold). Strikingly, bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signalling is a key driver of these processes: BMP-driven hPGCLC differentiation involves an attenuation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular-regulated kinase (MAPK/ERK) pathway and both de novo and maintenance DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) activities, likely promoting replication-coupled, passive DNA demethylation. On the other hand, hPGCLCs deficient in tens-eleven translocation (TET) 1, an active DNA demethylase abundant in human germ cells, differentiate into extraembryonic cells, including amnion, with de-repression of key genes bearing bivalent promoters; these cells fail to fully activate genes vital for spermatogenesis and oogenesis, with their promoters remaining methylated. Our study elucidates the framework of epigenetic reprogramming in humans, making a fundamental advance in human biology, and through the generation of abundant mitotic pro-spermatogonia and oogonia-like cells, represents a milestone for human in vitro gametogenesis (IVG) research and its potential translation into reproductive medicine.

  Study JGAS000690

• Sequence Data from the phase 2 PrE0505 trial of Durvalumab with First Line Platinum-Pemetrexed for Unresectable Pleural Mesothelioma

  Mesothelioma is a rare and fatal cancer with limited therapeutic options until the recent approval of combination immune checkpoint blockade. We report the results of the phase 2 PrE0505 trial (NCT02899195) of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, durvalumab, plus platinum-based and pemetrexed chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated unresectable pleural mesothelioma. The primary endpoint was overall survival compared to historic control with cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy. The combination of durvalumab with chemotherapy met the pre-specified primary endpoint reaching a median survival of 20.4 months vs. 12.1 months with historic control. Treatment emergent adverse events were consistent with known side effects of chemotherapy and all adverse events due to immunotherapy were grade ≤2. Integrated genomic and immune cell repertoire analyses revealed that a higher immunogenic mutation burden coupled with a more diverse T cell repertoire were linked with favorable clinical outcome. Structural genome-wide analyses demonstrated a higher degree of genomic instability in responding tumors of epithelioid histology. Patients with germline alterations in cancer predisposing genes, especially those involved in DNA repair, were more likely to attain long term survival. Our findings indicate that concurrent durvalumab with platinum-based chemotherapy has promising clinical activity and that responses are driven by the complex genomic background of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

  Study EGAS00001005426

• National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Gene Discovery in Autosomal Dominant Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (FSGS)

  Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a frequent cause of end-stage renal disease. The pathogenesis of FSGS has not been precisely defined and there are no consistently effective treatments. Recent studies identifying causal genes in rare, inherited FSGS, including our own study, have associated mutations in at least six genes with familial FSGS, and each discovery has clarified molecular mechanisms of glomerular injury. To build on this productive line of inquiry, we have ascertained and carefully characterized 118 families with familial FSGS. We have screened the remainder of our families for mutations in genes known to cause FSGS and identified the causal mutations in an additional 6 kindreds; the genetic basis of disease in the remaining 111 families is unknown. The objective of this proposal is to use this valuable and unique family resource to systematically identify causal genes for familial FSGS. Limitations of current conventional linkage and positional cloning approaches include their requirement for large, multiplex families. In addition, narrowing candidate areas in traditional linkage analysis can be difficult due to large regions that lack recombination events and hence these regions have required cumbersome and lengthy screening for causative mutations. Powerful new genetic tools can facilitate this screening process and improve variant discovery in smaller families. In particular, efficient whole-exome sequencing, the targeted capture of protein-coding gene sequences, should be particularly useful in our studies since most Mendelian disorders are caused by mutations affecting exomes of the target gene. Thus, by combining genome-wide linkage analysis (GWLS) and whole-exome sequencing, we can maximize impact of our family data and accelerate identification of novel mutations in FSGS. In preliminary studies, we have used this combination to identify a novel variant in the WT1 (Wilms' Tumor-1) gene in one FSGS family, and we have evidence suggesting it is the causal mutation. This success provides proof-of-concept and provides a roadmap of how genes will be identified and evaluated in the proposed studies. Our hypothesis is that causes of inherited FSGS in our cohort of families will be sequence variants in the coding region of genes not previously associated with familial FSGS. We aim to: 1) Use GWLS and whole-exome sequencing to identify genetic variants associated with familial FSGS. 2) Characterize functional consequences of candidate causative mutations and 3) Determine the prevalence in the Duke FSGS dataset of these new causative mutations identified in Aim 2. Any genes found to have causative mutations will be sequenced in the remaining families and take full advantage of our family resource. By combining genome-wide linkage analysis (GWLS), whole-exome sequencing, and characterization of variants' functional consequences, we will significantly improve understanding of normal glomerular biology and of the pathogenesis of FSGS and related glomerular diseases. Moreover, our discoveries are likely to reveal new opportunities to improve therapy for a disease that currently has few effective treatments.

  Study phs000777

• Distribution of data using Live Distribution

  Live Distribution Welcome to the documentation for using the Live Distribution feature for distributing data files securely through the EGA platform. This guide will walk you through the process of downloading encrypted files and decrypting them using Crypt4GH. Please follow the steps below to ensure a smooth experience. Before Downloading Create an EGA user. Make sure that you have the permissions to download the dataset of interest. In case you don’t have access, request access to the dataset. Add your Crypt4GH-compatible public key to your EGA account. Please allow a few hours for your public key to be synced with your profile. Afterwards, you will be able to connect to your EGA outbox using the SFTP protocol. Download Graphical User Interface (GUI) You can use any GUI that supports SFTP connections, such as FileZilla, an open-source FTP client. For Filezilla as your GUI, follow these steps to download files: Open FileZilla and access Site Manager (File > Site Manager). Create a new connection with the following settings (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer Protocol Host: __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ Logon Type: Key file User: your EGA username Key file: path/to/your/private_key Figure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the EGA outbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. Click Connect to access your Outbox. This folder serves as your storage space within the EGA cloud, containing files accessible for download in a secure way. Browse the remote directory on the right side of the FileZilla screen. Select the files you wish to download, right-click, and choose Download (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually downñoad files from __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can downñoad data from the EGA outbox to their local storage by following the depicted steps SFTP command line You can also use the SFTP command line to securely download files from the EGA Outbox. Using SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal window Enter the following command to connect: sftp username@hostname Enter your EGA password To see a list of available sftp commands type help sftp> put – Upload file sftp> get – Download file sftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’ sftp> pwd – Display remote working directory sftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’ sftp> lpwd – Display local working directory sftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directory sftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directory Type get command to download files. For example: get encrypted_file.c4gh Use the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). Convenient SSH settings Include the following settings in your SSH config file, located in ~/.ssh/config Host __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ EGA-outbox hostname __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ User username IdentityFile path/to/the/private/key Replace username and path/to/the/private/key with the appropriate settings, and you will be able to connect to the __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ simply using sftp EGA-outbox. How to decrypt Files archived at the EGA are encrypted based on Crypt4GH. Hence, to decrypt the files you need to install Crypt4GH. You can install a python implementation of it, with pip install crypt4gh or directly from the Github repository pip install git+https://github.com/EGA-archive/crypt4gh.git After installing Crypt4GH, decrypt files using the following command: crypt4gh decrypt --sk /path/private/key < encrypted_file.c4gh > decrypted_filename The command reads the encrypted file from stdin (with <) and output the decrypted version to stdout (with >). Replace encrypted_file.c4gh and decrypted_filename with the appropriate filenames but make sure to not use the same filename for both reading and writing because your SHELL would then truncate both files before you even read or write. Frequently Asked Questions What username should I use to log in to my outbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username, not your email address. Therefore, if you registered a username different from your email address when creating your EGA account, you must use that username to log in. If you have forgotten your registered username, please, contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. I see that some files in my dataset have 'unavailable' as extension. What should I do? Within your Outbox, you'll find a list of all the datasets available for download. Occasionally, certain files may be marked as "unavailable". These unavailable files can be identified by the "unavailable" extension added to their filenames (e.g. filename.fastq.gz.unavailable.c4gh). If you encounter an unavailable file that you need, please reach out to our Helpdesk. We'll promptly work on making the file accessible for download as soon as possible. Specific to using keys Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation access/download/files/live-outbox

• 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

• Enhancer profiling identifies epigenetic markers of endocrine resistance and reveals therapeutic options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (LuCaP cell line data)

  Androgen Receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors, including enzalutamide, are treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but resistance inevitably develops. Using metastatic samples from a prospective phase II clinical trial, we epigenetically profiled enhancer/promoter activities with H3K27ac chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing, before and after AR-targeted therapy. We identified a distinct subset of H3K27ac-differentially marked regions that associated with treatment responsiveness. These data were successfully validated in mCRPC patient-derived xenograft models (PDX). In silico analyses revealed HDAC3 as a critical factor that can drive resistance to hormonal interventions, which we validated in vitro. Critically, we identified the pan-HDAC inhibitor, vorinostat to be effective in decreasing tumor cell proliferation both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, we uncovered evidence for HDAC3 working together with Glucocorticoid Receptor (GR) as a potential mechanism for this therapeutic effect. These findings demonstrate rationale for new therapeutic strategies including HDAC inhibitors to improve patient outcome in advanced stages of mCRPC. Project Goal: We identified H3K27ac regions associated with resistance in patient samples. Extensive analysis of these regions suggested that HDAC3 may play a role in resistance. To test this, we analyzed ChIP-seq and RNA-seq from cell lines generated from PDX LuCaP samples (recapitulating resistant and non-resistant) to validate findings in patient samples. ChIP-seq samples were used to verify the signals identified from specific factors, such as H3K27ac, AR, FOXA1, GR and HDAC3, their association with resistance and possible mechanisms of action. RNA-seq samples were analyzed to determine the effect of AR signaling in these samples in specific genes in the H3K27ac resistance-associated regions.

  Study EGAS50000000917

• Genes and Blood Clotting Study (GABC)

  Objectives: Use genome-wide approaches to identify genetic variants that influence common thrombosis and hemostasis factors, as well as selected common human traits. Design/Methods: The GABC study was a prospective sibling cohort design. Siblings were recruited by targeted email to the undergraduate and graduate student email lists at the University of Michigan. Healthy persons between 14 and 35 years old who had healthy siblings within the same age restriction were able to participate. Study participants agreed to an online informed consent and subsequently completed a 52-question online survey describing their specific bleeding traits as well as many common human traits. Fifty milliliters of blood was collected into a citrate-dextrose solution (ACD) from each participant. An aliquot of whole blood was used for an automated complete blood count analysis and the remainder was processed into platelet poor plasma and buffy coat portions. Plasma and buffy coat aliquots were snap frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen for future studies. 1189 individuals representing 507 sibships were collected between 06/26/2006 and 01/30/2009. Phenotyping Survey Details: To characterize individual bruising and bleeding history, the online survey recorded answers to questions based on a modified von Willebrand Disease (VWD) screening questionnaire. To characterize a collection of participant&#39;s common human traits, the survey recorded answers to questions about height, weight, presence of skin tags, history of acne, eye color, hair color, hair line characteristics, skin sunburn sensitivity, skin tanning ability, natural skin color, freckling, cheek dimpling, earlobe shape, shoe size, foot arch characteristics, hand fifth digit morphology, history of dyslexia, history of migraine headaches, history of seasonal allergies, history of apthous ulcers, tendency to sneeze while walking into a bright sunny place, history of dental caries, need for corrective eye lenses, handedness and like or dislike of strongly flavored foods. Biochemical phenotyping: Assays for plasma Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) antigen were performed using ELISA and "Alphalisa" techniques. Automated complete blood count analysis was performed on a Bayer Advia 120 on all participants (including WBC differential, RBC indices, and platelet count.) For the dbGaP v2 update, new biochemical phenotypes have been submitted and include von Willebrand Factor, von Willebrand Factor propeptide, plasminogen, gamma prime fibrinogen, ADAMTS 13, antithrombin III, protein C, and protein S. All new phenotypes were obtained using "Alphalisa" techniques. Genotyping Details: SNP genotyping was performed using genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood at the Broad Institute, (MIT/Harvard). Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Omni-1 quad chip at the Broad Institute. For the dbGaP v2 update, genotyping data from the Illumina Human Exome was deposited. 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 blood clotting through large-scale genome-wide association studies of siblings. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization was performed by the primary investigators at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. This study serves as a resource for investigators who are interested in the genetic determinants of specific plasma proteins in a healthy population. The sibling cohort design allows for linkage analysis in addition to association studies. Analysis of thrombosis and hemostasis related traits should help elucidate specific biochemical and genetic networks that maintain hemostasis. We hope to identify specific genetic determinants of VWF levels in order to better understand the factors that influence the development of VWD.

  Study phs000304

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-BioLINCC)

  Available DataThe available data include all elements of the previously released SPRINT Primary Outcome Paper (SPRINT-POP) data, the full SPRINT clinical data including the MRI and MIND data, and select ancillary study data (Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring, APOL1, Acute Kidney Injury, ASK, Heart, FAST, PWV, Renal Resistance, Biomarkers, Plasma AD).ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group.DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy.Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003483

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-Imaging)

  Available DataSystolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, SPRINT-Imaging, provides access to ECG signals data from the SPRINT clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with SPRINT-BioLINCC, phs003483.ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group. DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy. Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003566

• Highlights from 2025: Our top 10 requested studies

  In 2025, as in previous years, EGA has facilitated the reuse of numerous datasets spanning a broad range of research and healthcare topics. To reflect on this activity, we would like to highlight the top 10 studies behind the most requested datasets of last year. Notably, the vast majority of these highly requested datasets are cancer-focused, particularly involving the study of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the most transformative advances in modern cancer therapy. These monoclonal antibodies enhance antitumor immune responses by targeting inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. While ICIs have led to remarkably favorable and durable responses in some patients, treatment outcomes vary widely. This variability has fueled intense research efforts aimed at understanding resistance mechanisms, exploring combination therapies, and discovering predictive biomarkers to better stratify patients and guide treatment decisions. Study Title Disease 1 EGAS00001005503 Integrated genomic analyses reveal molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma Liver Cancer 2 EGAS00001005013 Intratumoral plasma cells predict outcomes to PD-L1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer Lung Cancer 3 EGAS00001004809 BIOKEY: A single-cell catalogue of the dynamic changes underlying Checkpoint Immunotherapy response in Early Breast Cancer Breast Cancer 4 EGAS50000000138 BIOKEY: Immune heterogeneity in small cell lung cancer and vulnerability to immune checkpoint blockade Lung Cancer 5 EGAS50000000497 Bladder cancer subtyping study across 4 atezo clinical trials Bladder Cancer 6 EGAS50000000689 MOSAIC - Multi-Omics Spatial Atlas In Cancer Cancer Atlas 7 EGAS00000000083 METABRIC (Breast cancer - genome and transcriptome) Breast Cancer 8 EGAS00001005702 Human genomic and phenotypic synthetic data for the study of rare diseases Synthetic data 9 EGAS00001002556 TGF-β attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells Bladder Cancer 10 EGAS00001004353 Molecular subsets in renal cancer determine outcome to checkpoint and angiogenesis blockade Renal Cancer The most requested dataset of the year was EGAD00001008128. It belongs to a study that analyzed 358 liver cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials and treated with the combination of atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) and bevacizumab (anti-VEGF), atezolizumab alone, or sorafenib. The study highlights how bevacizumab enhances anti-PD-L1 effect and identifies candidate biomarkers to predict treatment response. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Because symptoms often appear late, many patients are diagnosed at advanced stages, when curative options are no longer viable. For many years, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor approved in 2007—was the only systemic treatment available. Although numerous clinical trials followed, it was not until a decade later that additional therapies showed meaningful clinical benefit. Among these advances, immunotherapy emerged as a promising first-line option [2]. In particular, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab demonstrated improved survival in patients with advanced HCC, reshaping the treatment landscape. However, treatment efficacy remains limited by the complex and diverse hepatic microenvironments that influence immune responses, as well as by high intratumoral heterogeneity. Identifying robust predictors of treatment response is critical to enable effective patient stratification and maximize the benefits of these therapies [2]. The continued demand for these datasets highlights the interest and critical role of data reuse in deepening our understanding of cancer, accelerating the development of more effective therapies, and improving patient outcomes. By providing secure access to high-quality genomic and clinical data, EGA acts as a catalyst for biomedical progress. References Sung, Hyuna, et al. "Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries."CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 71.3 (2021): 209-249. Ladd, Alexandra D, et al.“Mechanisms of drug resistance in HCC.” Hepatology 79(4) (2024): 926-940

  Blog top-10-studies-2025