999 results for "1993+article+mouse+line+professor"

in 62.57 milliseconds.

• The Role of CDX2 in Controlling ABCB1 Expression and Chemosensitivity in Human Colon Cancer

  This study reports the results of RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) experiments performed on two human colon cancer cell lines (HT-29, DLD-1) that were genetically engineered to achieve either the constitutive expression (in HT-29 cells) or the selective inactivation (in DLD-1 cells) of the transcription factor CDX2, a master regulator of embryonic gut development and a key regulator of multi-lineage differentiation in adult colon epithelial cells. Our previous studies had identified lack of CDX2 expression as a prognostic biomarker of poor prognosis and a predictive biomarker of benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage-II and Stage-III colon cancer patients (Dalerba et al., NEJM, 374:211-222, 2016; PMID: 26789870). The molecular basis of these associations, however, remained poorly understood. The present study was designed to identify which genes are under the transcriptional control of CDX2, in order to clarify their role in shaping colon cancer resistance to chemotherapy. Of the two lines included in this study, the first (HT-29) is CDX2-negative at baseline, and was infected with a lentivirus vector encoding for the cDNA of the human CDX2 gene under the control of a constitutive promoter (CMV). The second line (DLD-1) is CDX2-positive at baseline, and was infected with a series of lentivirus vectors encoding for CRISPR/Cas9 constructs designed to selectively inactivate the CDX2 gene. In both cases, infected cells were purified by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), based on the differential expression of a green fluorescent reporter (EGFP) that was also encoded by the lentivirus vectors, and transcribed in tandem with either the CDX2 cDNA (HT-29) or CRISPR/Cas9 gRNAs targeting CDX2 (DLD-1). The experiments were designed to include 3 experimental replicates per condition, and to compare the transcriptional profile of genetically engineered cells with that of autologous controls (i.e., HT-29 cells infected with an "empty" version of the same lentivirus vector used to over-express CDX2, DLD-1 cells engineered with a "non-targeting" CRISPR/Cas9 gRNA). In the specific case of DLD-1 cells engineered with CRIPSR-Cas9 constructs targeting CDX2, infected cells were sorted based on the differential expression of EGFP and then plated as single-cells, in order to sub-culture three isogenic clones, all of which were genetically sequenced to confirm bi-allelic knock-out of the CDX2 gene, and confirmed to lack CDX2 protein expression by Western blot. The results of our experiments demonstrate that, in human colon epithelial cells, CDX2 controls the expression of the ABCB1 efflux pump, by positively regulating the transcription of the corresponding gene.

  Study phs002903

• PanCuRx Translational Research Initiative

  The goal of the PanCuRx TRI is to seek solutions to the high fatality rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the most common type of pancreatic cancer, by generating new knowledge about the genetics and biology of the disease, mechanisms of how tumours grow and tailored treatment options. PDAC is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in Canada and is expected to become the second-leading cause of cancer death within the next decade. The current five-year survival rate of eight per cent is the lowest of all epithelial cancers. There are major clinical challenges to treating the disease, including the fact that PDAC spreads to other parts of the body early so surgical removal of the tumour benefits few patients, that PDAC has proven relatively resistant to systemic therapies such as chemotherapy and that there has been limited benefit from the use of newer molecular targeted agents. The PanCuRx team has created the world’s first resource of tumour-purified PDAC whole genomes; more than 500 PDAC samples, with combined clinical annotation, have been successfully sequenced and analyzed at the Ontario Institute for Cancer research in Toronto. The resulting clinical genomic resource created from this data has led to multiple new findings that have established a framework to better understand PDAC biology and lays the foundation for new genomic approaches to better understanding the disease. The team also launched a clinical trial called COMPASS (Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Advanced Ductal Pancreas Adenocarcinoma for Better Treatment Selection: A Prospective Study), which is recruiting patients with advanced PDAC (both locally advanced and metastatic) at The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Toronto. The study uses the molecular results from individual patient tumours to guide selection of better second line treatment on a case-by-case basis. The primary objective of the initial study was to assess the feasibility of collecting tumour materials from patients with advanced PDAC and delivering results within 56 days of biopsy. Having achieved this objective, the trial has expanded to other cancer centres across Canada. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly forms of cancer and outcomes have not improved in four decades. The PanCuRx initiative is providing a better understanding of the disease and actively applying new knowledge to cancer patients through clinical trials. This knowledge will help to improve quality of life and prolong survival for pancreatic cancer patients worldwide.

  Study EGAS00001002543

• Examination of Engineered LINE-1 Integration Events in HeLa Cells

  Long Interspsesed Element-1 (LINE1 or L1) encodes two proteins (ORF1p and ORF2p) required for its mobilization (i.e. retrotransposition) in the human genome. Human ORF2p, a 150kDa protein, has endonuclease (EN) and reverse transcriptase (RT) activities. L1 EN is classified as apurinic/apyrimidin-like endonuclease (APE) and is responsible for initiating target-site primer reverse transcription (TPRT) during the L1 retrotransposition cycle. During canonical TPRT, the L1 EN activity makes a single-strand endonucleolytic nick at a double-strand DNA target sequence in genomic DNA. The endonucleolytic nick is typically made at an L1 EN degnerate consensus cleavage sequence (5'-TTTT/A-3') exposing a free 3' hydroxy group that can be used as a primer by the ORF2p L1 RT activity to reverse transcribe the associated L1 RNA. Here, we characterized over 21,000 de novo engineered L1 retrotransposition events in HeLa cells to determine if L1 exhibits overt integration preferences in the human genome. Bru-seq of HeLa cells to determine actively transcribed regions of the genome was also performed. This Bru-seq data was used to determine if engineered L1 integration events preferentially integrate into transcribed regions of the genome, and to determine which strand during transcription may present itself as preferential during L1 retrotransposition.

  Study phs001669

• The Haplotype-Resolved Genome and Epigenome of the Aneuploid HeLa Cancer Cell Line

  The genomic architecture of HeLa remains largely unexplored beyond its karyotype, partly because like many cancers, its extensive aneuploidy renders such analyses challenging. We carried out haplotype-resolved whole-genome sequencing of the HeLa CCL-2 strain, examined point- and indel-mutation variations, mapped copy-number variations and loss of heterozygosity regions, and phased variants across full chromosome arms. We also investigated variation and copy-number profiles for HeLa S3 and eight additional strains. We find that HeLa is relatively stable in terms of point variation, with few new mutations accumulating after early passaging. Haplotype resolution facilitated reconstruction of an amplified, highly rearranged region of chromosome 8q24.21 at which integration of the human papilloma virus type 18 (HPV-18) genome occurred and that is likely to be the event that initiated tumorigenesis. We combined these maps with RNA-seq and ENCODE Project data sets to phase the HeLa epigenome. This revealed strong, haplotype specific activation of the proto-oncogene MYC by the integrated HPV-18 genome approximately 500 kilobases upstream, and enabled global analyses of the relationship between gene dosage and expression. These data provide an extensively phased, high-quality reference genome for past and future experiments relying on HeLa, and demonstrate the value of haplotype resolution for characterizing cancer genomes and epigenomes. Reprinted from Adey et. al. 2013, Nature, with permission from Nature Publishing Group.

  Study phs000642

• 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

• Oncoarray Consortium - Lung Cancer Studies

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics: All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four substudies. The substudies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study is a randomized primary prevention trial including 29,133 male smokers enrolled in Finland between 1985 and 1993. Participants ranged between ages of 50 to 69 at enrollment and were randomized in a factorial design to take either 50 milligrams of d-alpha tocopheryl acetate (Vitamin E), 20 mg of all-trans-beta-carotene, both or placebo. The study continued to monitor cancer incidence through 2012 and total mortality through December 2013. The CAncer de PUlmon en Asturias Study (CAPUA) is a hospital-based case-control study conducted in Asturias, Spain by the University of Oviedo. Lung cancer cases were recruited in three main hospitals of Asturias, following an identical protocol from 2002 to 2012. Eligible cases were incident cases of histologically confirmed lung cancer between 30 and 85 years of age and residents in the geographical area of each participating hospital. Controls were selected from patients admitted to those hospitals with diagnoses unrelated to the exposures of interest and individually matched by ethnicity, gender, age (&#177; 5 years) and hospital. Epidemiologic data were collected personally through computer-assisted questionnaires by trained interviewers during the first hospital admission. Structured questionnaires collected information on sociodemographic characteristics, recent and prior tobacco use, environmental exposure (air pollution and passive smoking), diet, personal and family history of cancer, and occupational history from each participant. Peripheral blood samples (or mouthwash samples when they refused to donate blood) were collected from all participants. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Canadian Screening Study includes the nested case-control samples from 3 screening programs: IELCAP-Toronto: Ever smokers of more than 10 pack-years age 50 and above were eligible for the I-ELCAP screening program since 2003, and a total of 4782 individuals have been enrolled in the Greater Toronto Area. Participants were administered a LDCT scan along with a standard study questionnaire at baseline. Blood samples were systematically collected at baseline since 2006. Participants who had an abnormality in a CT scan were followed up every 1 to 2 years. The screening program was organized by the Princess Margaret Hospital. PanCan: Ever smokers between the ages of 50-75 with no previous history of invasive cancer are eligible to participate in the study. The study was carried out across Canada in Vancouver, Calgary, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax, and St. John's. A total of 2537 smokers have been screened from 2008 to 2011. All study participants completed a detailed questionnaire, spirometry, collection of blood specimens for biomarker measurement and LDCT at baseline. All participants are followed for a minimum of 3 years. On yearly follow up, an updated shorter questionnaire is administered, blood is collected and CT scans are performed. Blood samples are available from all 2537 individuals. BCCA Screening Program: From 1990 to 2007, 4274 smokers above 40 years old who had smoked 20 pack-years or more were enrolled at BCCA. Upon enrollment, subjects completed a questionnaire for their lifestyle and medical history. Baseline spirometry was conducted using a flow-sensitive spirometer in accordance with the American Thoracic Society recommendations. Since 2000, a LDCT was obtained in 2440 individuals. The participants were followed prospectively to determine whether they developed lung cancer. A total of 9759 individuals participated in the CT screening program in Canada from these 3 programs. The samples included in this project is based on a subset of nested lung cancer case-control pairs based on 1:2 ratio. The Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the cancer prevention efficacy and safety of a daily combination of 30 mg of beta-carotene and 25,000 IU of retinyl palmitate in 18,314 persons at high risk for lung cancer. CARET began in 1985, and the intervention was halted in January 1996, 21 months ahead of schedule, with the twin conclusions for definitive evidence of no benefit and substantial evidence of a harmful effect of the intervention on both lung cancer incidence and total mortality. CARET continued to follow and collect endpoints on their participants through 2005. Pathology reports and medical records were reviewed to confirm cancer endpoints, and death certificates obtained to capture cause of death. During the active intervention phase of CARET, serum, plasma, whole blood, and lung tissue specimens were collected on participants. These biospecimens make up the CARET Biorepository. For the OncoArray Project, CARET provided DNA extracted from whole blood of lung cancer cases and controls matched on age at baseline (&#177; 4 years), sex, race, baseline smoking status, history of occupational asbestos exposure (asbestos vs heavy smoker), and year of enrollment (2-year intervals). The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study is a multi-center cohort study involving 521,000 study participants from 10 European countries. The current study involved EPIC participants from 7 countries (Greece, Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy), including 1223 incident lung cancer cases and 1249 smoking matched controls. The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative is a study conducted by the Markey Cancer Center Cancer Center and the University of Kentucky using a population-based, case-control framework to study the extraordinarily high rates of lung cancer in Southeastern, Appalachian Kentucky. Cancer cases were recruited from the Kentucky Cancer Registry at the time of diagnosis and controls were recruited from a random digit dialing process from the same region. Study accrual began in January 5, 2012 and completed on September 5, 2014 and 520 subjects were recruited in a 4:1 ratio of controls: cases from Appalachian Kentucky. Of the 520 subjects recruited, 231 are included in the OncoArray analysis, including all 93 cancer cases, and 123 controls. Newly diagnosed lung cancer cases and controls underwent blood, toenail (for trace element analysis), urine, buffy coat, water, soil, and radon collection, residence GPS mapping, as well as an extensive epidemiologic, occupational, and health history questionnaire (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01648166). The Harvard Lung Cancer Study (HLCS) is a case-control study based at Mass General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, Massachusetts from 1992 to 2004. Details of the study were described previously. Briefly, eligible cases included any person over the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of primary lung cancer that was further confirmed by an MGH lung pathologist. Controls were recruited from the friends or spouses of cancer patients or the friends or spouses of other surgery patients in the same hospital. Potential controls were excluded from participation if they had a diagnosis of any cancer (other than non-melanoma skin cancer). Interviewer-administered questionnaires, a modified version of the standardized American Thoracic Society respiratory questionnaire, collected information on demographics, medical history, family history of cancer, smoking history, and a detailed work history, including job titles and tasks. Genome-wide genotype data were first generated using Illumina Human 610-Quad BeadChips and then imputed by MACH against the 1000 Genome Project dataset (http://browser.1000genomes.org/index.html). The Institutional Review Board of MGH and the Human Subjects Committee of the Harvard School of Public Health approved the study. The Israel study (NICCC-LCA) is an ongoing case-control study of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases of any histology and population age/sex/ethnicity-matched "healthy" controls. All participants undergo face-to-face interviews, provide a venous blood sample (separated into DNA, Sera, lymphocytes) after signing an IRB-approved form. Histology reports, FFPE blocks and clinical follow-up are available for most cancer cases. The MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Study. Lung cancer cases and frequency-matched controls were ascertained from a large ongoing case-control study at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) since 1991. Detailed study description was provided previously (Spitz et al 2007). In brief, cases were newly-diagnosed and histologically confirmed lung cancer patients recruited from UTMDACC. Controls were healthy individuals without a history of cancer (except for nonmelanoma skin cancer) and recruited from the Kelsey-Seybold Clinics, the largest private multispecialty physician group in the Houston metropolitan area. Controls were frequency-matched to cases on age (&#177;5 years), sex, and race/ethnicity. After providing written informed consent, each study participants completed an in-person interview by staff interviewers to collect information on demographics, smoking status, etc. Blood samples were also drawn from all the study participants. This study was approved by institutional review boards of UTMDACC and Kelsey-Seybold Clinics. The Malm&#246; Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) is a population-based prospective cohort study that recruited men and women aged at 44 to 74 years old of living in Malm&#246;, Sweden between 1991 and 1996. The main goal of the MDCS is to study the impact of diet on cancer incidence and mortality. It consists of a baseline examination including dietary assessment, a self-administered questionnaire, anthropometric measurements and collection of blood samples. A total of 165 incident lung cancer cases and 174 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study includes 215,251 men and women aged 45-74 years at recruitment, primarily from five ethnic/racial groups - African Americans and Latinos mostly recruited from CA (mainly from Los Angeles County) and Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiians and whites (mostly recruited from HI). The cohort was assembled in 1993-1996 by mailing a self-administered questionnaire to persons identified primarily through driver's license files. The baseline questionnaire obtained information on demographics, anthropometry, smoking history, medical and reproductive histories, family history of cancer, diet and physical activity. Incident cancer cases are identified by regular linkage with the State of California Cancer Registry and the Hawaii Tumor Registry, both members of the SEER Program of the NCI. In 2001-2006, a prospective biorepository was assembled by collecting a pre-diagnostic blood specimen from 67,594 surviving MEC members. At the time of blood collection a short questionnaire was administered that included information on smoking during the previous 15 days. For this study, cases were all lung cancer cases incident to blood draw and diagnosed before December 2012. For each case, a control was selected among unaffected MEC participants who were alive at time of the case's diagnosis and matched on study site, sex, race/ethnicity, age (age at diagnosis for cases; age at blood collection for controls), and date of blood collection. The Mount-Sinai Hospital-Princess Margaret Study (MSH-PMH) was conducted in the greater Toronto area from 2008 to 2013. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of the University of Toronto. Controls were selected randomly from individuals registered in the family medicine clinics databases and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were centrally reviewed by the reference pathologist, a member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) committee, and a second pathologist in the University Health Network. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The New England Lung Cancer Study (NELCS) is a population-based case-control study of lung cancer among residents of Northern and Central New Hampshire counties and the bordering region of Vermont. Cases with histologically confirmed primary incident lung cancer were identified from 2005 to 2007 using the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) Tumor Registry. Control participants were identified using a commercial database and matched to lung cancer cases within 5-year age groups, sex and county. Genomic DNA was isolated from blood or buccal specimens provided by consenting participants. The study complied with requirements of the Dartmouth College's Committee for Protection of Human Subjects. The Nijmegen Lung Cancer Study. The Netherlands patients with lung cancer were identified through the population-based cancer registry of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Patients who were diagnosed in one of three hospitals (Radboud University Medical Center, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital in Nijmegen, and Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem) since 1989 and who were still alive at April 15th, 2008 were recruited for a study on gene-environment interactions in lung cancer. 458 patients gave informed consent and donated a blood sample. This case series was expanded with 94 patients to a total of 552 by linking three other studies to the population-based cancer registry in order to identify new occurrences of lung cancer among the participants of these other studies. All three other studies (i.e., POLYGENE, the Nijmegen Biomedical Study, and the Radboudumc Urology Outpatient Clinic Epidemiology Study) were initiated to study genetic risk factors for disease and participants to these studies gave general informed consent for DNA-related research and linkage with disease registries. Information on histology, stage of disease, and age at diagnoses was obtained through the cancer registry. Lifestyle information was collected through a structured questionnaire and whole blood for DNA isolation was collected by the regional thrombosis services. The cancer-free controls (46% males) were selected from participants of the "Nijmegen Biomedical Study" (NBS), an age- and sex-stratified random sample of the general population of the municipality of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. All participants provided extensive lifestyle information by structured questionnaires and blood samples for DNA isolation, serum and plasma. All controls are of self-reported European descent. The study protocols of the NBS were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Radboudumc and all study subjects signed a written informed consent form. The Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study (NSHDS) encompasses several prospective cohorts. The current study involves participants from the V&#228;sterbotten Intervention Project (VIP), a sub-cohort within NSHDS. VIP is an ongoing prospective cohort and intervention study intended for health promotion of the general population of the V&#228;sterbotten County in northern Sweden. VIP was initiated in 1985 and all residents in the V&#228;sterbotten County were invited to participate by attending a health check-up at 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Participants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire including various demographic factors such as education, smoking habits, physical activity and diet. In addition, height and weight were measured and participants were asked to donate a fasting blood sample for future research. A total of 243 incident lung cancer cases and 266 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. Norway National Institute of Occupational Health Study. Early-stage NSCLC cases and healthy controls at the time of enrollment were Caucasians of Norwegian origin and were recruited from the same geographical region (Western Norway). The patients were enrolled in the study, whenever practically feasible among patients admitted for lung cancer at the Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. The informed written consents covering analysis of molecular and genetic markers was signed by the patients prior to surgery. Only patients with histologically confirmed early-stage NSCLC were included in our study. The subjects included in this project are a subgroup recruited into the project "lung cancer genetics" at NIOH. The controls were recruited from the same geographical region of Western Norway and frequency-matched with cases on cumulative smoking dose (pack-years). Pack-years smoked [( 20 cigarettes per day) x years smoked] were calculated to indicate the cumulative smoking dose. The Cases and controls were interviewed using similar questionnaires and were categorized as never smokers, ex-smokers or current smokers. Never smokers are subjects indicating having smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their life time. Ex-smokers were defined as those having quitted at least 1 year before sampling, and current smokers were those indicating that they were smokers at the time of sampling. The project has been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Southern Norway in accordance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. The ethical approval covered access to the NSCLC databank. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) Study, a randomized trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of screening in reducing cancer mortality, recruited approximately 155,000 men and women age 55 to 74 years from 1992 to 20014. Screening for lung cancer among participants in the intervention arm included a chest x-ray at baseline followed by either three annual x-rays (for current or former smokers at enrollment) or two annual x-rays (for never smokers); participants in the control arm received routine health care. Screening-arm participants provided data on sociodemographic factors, smoking behavior, anthropometric characteristics, medical history, and family history of cancer, as well as blood samples annually for the first 6 years of the study (baseline T0 and T1 through T5). Lung cancers were ascertained through annual questionnaires mailed to the participants, and positive reports were followed up by abstracting medical records or death certificates. Follow-up in the trial as of July 2009 was 96.7%. Patients were excluded because of missing baseline questionnaire, previous history of any cancer, diagnosis of multiple cancers during follow-up, missing smoking information at baseline, missing consent for utilization of biologic specimens for etiologic studies, or unavailability/insufficient quantity of serum or DNA specimens. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT) is an ongoing study conducted in Sheffield from 2006 and due to complete recruitment in 2016. The study recruited pathologically confirmed lung cancer cases diagnosed at age 60 years or younger and family matched controls. Lung cancer cases diagnosed at ages older than 60 years were recruited if they reported a family history of lung cancer. The cases and matched controls were recruited through several major cancer treatment centers, however, the majority were recruited in North Trent. All participants completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire which included questions about occupational exposures, education, medical history and family history of cancer and lung disease. Participants also donated blood samples for DNA extraction. The ReSoLuCENT study has been funded by the Sheffield Hospitals Charity, Sheffield ECMC and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. First degree relatives were removed from the sample deposited to dbGaP. The Roy Castle Lung Study of Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) is a case-control and cohort study which has recruited over 11,500 individuals since 1996 from the Liverpool region in the UK. Detailed epidemiological and clinical data is collected with associated specimens (i.e. tumor tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire at recruitment, with repeat questionnaires at intervals; updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Health and Social Care Information Center (including Office of National Statistics mortality data, Cancer Registry and Health Episode Statistics). The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The lung tumors were reviewed by the reference pathologist. The Seoul Bundang Lung Cancer Study was conducted between 2005 and 2010 to discover genetic and environmental factors related with lung cancer development. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the Seoul National University Hospital in Bundang. Controls were selected randomly from individuals participated in health check-up program and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were reviewed by the pathologists in the hospital. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) consisted of 18,244 men in Shanghai, China, who were 45-64 years old at the time of enrollment during 1986-1989. Approximately 80% of eligible men participated in the study. At the time of recruitment, each cohort subject was interviewed in-person by a trained nurse interviewer using a structured questionnaire that included background information, history of tobacco and alcohol use, current diet, and medical history. At the completion of the interview, the nurse collected a 10 ml blood and a single void urine specimen from the study participant. The buccal cell samples were collected from all surviving cohort members (~15,000) in the 2001-2002 follow-up interviews. The cohort has been followed for the occurrence of cancer and death through routine ascertainment of new cases from the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry and Shanghai Vital Statistics Units. To maximize the cancer findings and minimize the loss of follow-up, we contacted each surviving cohort member annually. Retired nurses visit the last known address of each living cohort member and record details of the interim health history of the cohort member. As of December 31, 2014, cumulatively 612 (3.4%) original subjects were lost to follow-up, and 574 (3.1%) refused to our continued follow-up interview. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Shanghai Cohort Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. Briefly, 516 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available serum samples as of 12/31/2006. For each case, we randomly selected one control subject from all cohort members who were free of cancer and alive at the time of cancer diagnosis of the index case. Controls were matched to the index case by age at enrollment (&#177;2 years), date of biospecimen collection (&#177;1 month) and neighborhood of residence at recruitment, and smoking status (current, former and never smokers) as established previously for other studies. For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (&lt;10 vs &#8805;10 years). One serum vial per subject was retrieved from biorepository and all serum samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements. DNA samples of 250 lung cancer cases and 250 matched controls were available for the present study. The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) cohort consisted of 63,257 Chinese men and women in Singapore when they were 45-74 years old at the time of enrollment between April 1993 and December 1998. At recruitment, each study subject was interviewed in person by a trained interviewer using a structured questionnaire that emphasized current diet assessed via a validated, 165-item food frequency questionnaire. The questionnaire also requested information on demographics, lifetime use of tobacco, incense use, current physical activity, usual sleep duration, reproductive history (women only), occupational exposure, medical history, and family history of cancer. Blood or buccal cell, and spot urine samples were collected first from a random 3% sample of cohort participants in April 1994, and extended to all surviving cohort participants starting in January 2000. Overall approximately 60% of eligible cohort participants donated biospecimens. The cohort has been passively followed for death and cancer occurrence through regular record linkage with the population-based Singapore Cancer Registry and the Singapore Registry of Births and Deaths. Migration out of Singapore, especially among housing estate residents, was negligible. As of latest update, only 55 individuals from this cohort were known to be lost to follow-up due to migration and other reason. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Singapore Chinese Health Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. As of 12/31/2011, 422 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available prediagnostic plasma samples. For each case, one control subject was randomly selected from all eligible cohort members who were alive and free of cancer on the date of cancer diagnosis of the index case. The control subject was individually matched to the index case by gender, dialect group (Hokkien, Cantonese), age at enrollment (&#177;3 years), date of baseline interview (&#177;2 year), date of biospecimen collection (&#177;6 months), and smoking status (current, former, and never smokers). For current smokers, cases and controls were further matched by number of cigarettes per day (&lt;15, &#8805;15 cigarettes/day). For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (&lt;10, &#8805;10 years). One plasma aliquot per subject was retrieved from the biorepository and all plasma samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements, and one aliquot of DNA per subject for the present study. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) L2 Study. Lung cancer cases and controls were recruited through a multicentric case-control study coordinated by the IARC in Russia, Poland, Serbia, Czech Republic, and Romania from 2005 to 2013. Cases were incident cancer patients collected from general hospitals. Controls were recruited from individuals visiting general hospitals and out-patient clinics for disorders unrelated to lung cancer and/or its associated risk factors, or from the general population. Information on lifestyle risk factors, medical and family history was collected from subjects by interview using a standard questionnaire. All study participants provided written informed consent. The current study included 1,133 lung cancer cases and 1,117 controls genotyped on the Oncoarray. The Washington State University Lung Cancer Study is a hospital case-control study of 511 subjects with newly-diagnosed (within 1 year of diagnosis) lung cancer and 820 race-, sex- and age-matched controls. Lung cancer cases were recruited from lung cancer clinics within the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center while controls were recruited from the Lifetime Cancer Screening Center, a H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center affiliate. None of the controls were diagnosed with any form of cancer at the time of screening. Detailed questionnaire data and oral buccal cells were collected for all subjects. The Total Lung Cancer (TLC) Study is a hospital-based study that included 458 lung cancer patients recruited for Moffitt Cancer Center's Total Cancer Care&#8482; protocol between April 2006 and August 2010. Total Cancer Care&#8482; is a multi-institutional observational study of cancer patients that prospectively collects self-reported demographic and clinical data, medical record information and blood samples for research purposes. All patients used in this cohort were recruited from the Thoracic Oncology Clinic at the Moffitt Cancer Center. The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study (BioVU) is a case-control study nested within the Vanderbilt University Medical Center biobank, BioVU. BioVU is a biorepository of DNA extracted from blood drawn from patients seeking routine clinical care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and linked to de-identified electronic health records for research purposes. Lung cancer cases and controls were identified from BioVU participants in February 2014. Lung cancer cases were identified from the Vanderbilt tumor registry. All specimens undergo pathologic review for determination of morphology. Coding of histology was based on SEER Program Coding Guidelines. Controls were randomly selected from BioVU participants, excluding cancer patients, and were matched to cases on age (&#177; 5 years), sex, and race. Relevant covariates were identified from electronic health records using natural language processing. Genomic DNA was extracted based on a standard protocol.

  Study phs001273

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal

  With the DAC Portal, it is possible to streamline the process of managing access to sensitive data, ensuring that researchers have the necessary resources to advance scientific discovery while maintaining the highest standards of data protection and privacy. We know that, as a new tool, its first use can be complex. For this reason, in this article we will try to show all the elements of interest. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the DAC Portal and who doesn't? Only new users (since September the 12th) need to create an EGA account to access the DAC Portal. The EGA team went one step ahead by creating EGA accounts for former DAC members to login to the DAC Portal. These accounts are linked to the personal email used in the DAC structure: To check the linked email, DAC members can paste the DAC ID right after this link: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/ (e.g. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001002543) In case of password oblivion, it is possible to set a new one. All the process is channelled through the personal email. Some DAC members may be interested in updating the DAC email. This action can be done contacting our Helpdesk team. For the correct functioning of the DAC Portal, users must add the missing information of the DAC Profile. For a deeper dive, check out our documentation. The first step: knowing your workspace on the Portal Once logged in to the platform using the EGA User credentials, note the sections available: DACs and Policies. In the first one it is possible to check all user's registered DACs by default. It provides a comprehensive overview of each DAC, including its EGA accessions (EGAC), title, status, and the number of data access requests associated with each DAC. Whereas the Policies section is where users can manage and view all their registered policies, along with their associated EGA accessions, links, and titles. A drop-down menu is available with shortcuts to the most useful pages in the top right corner. It is possible to check DACs and policies, as well as creating new ones. In this menu, users can also contact the Helpdesk team using the “Need Help?” section to make inquiries about DACs and policies. Comprehending the DACs list & making the most of all the features Colours are crucial in the DAC's section as they will indicate the user role and the status in every committee, namely: Yellow: you are the administrator of the DAC and have full control to add other contacts, modify the content, and manage data access requests. Orange: you are a member of the DAC and have the authority to manage data access requests but cannot make any changes to the content. Blue: you have been invited to join the DAC and need to either accept or decline the invitation. Grey: the DAC is currently pending validation by the EGA Helpdesk team. Red: the DAC has been declined by the EGA Helpdesk team. Discover more information on how to view the message from Helpdesk containing the declination reason or how to validate or reject a DAC invitation by taking the tour of the DAC Portal. How to create, register and edit a DAC Creating a DAC is an easy process that only requires users to complete the necessary information. After that, the EGA Helpdesk team will review the proposal and validate the proposal. Once the DAC is validated it is possible for authorised users with admin role to edit it at any time, ensuring that all information and contacts associated with the committee is accurate and up to date. Membership management is controlled by searching for the EGA user looking for their username, email, or organisation. Please, note that for a person's details to appear in this search engine, they must have registered as a EGA user. Data Access Committee administrators manage two types of permissions that apply to contacts: Main contact and Role. Both can be modified at any time: Main contact refers to the primary person we firstly contact for any inquiry about the DAC (please, note that we can contact all DAC members, and this refers to the person we will contact first). Role defines the actions that can be taken by each contact. There are two possible status, admin and member, details of which can be found in the Take the Tour. Keep in mind that, to save the modifications, it is always necessary to click on “Update”. Moreover, it is also possible to delete any contact in a DAC whenever it is needed. The data request process: how to manage access requests The data request process is now channelled through the EGA website. Once a user sends a request access, the petition will go directly to the DAC Portal profile of the DAC members liked to the requested dataset. Whenever a request is received, a sand clock symbol will be displayed next to the DAC responsible for the dataset involved. By clicking on the DAC, it is possible to discover more information about requester(s). In this section, DAC Portal users will also be able to modify the display of the data access requests. It is possible to group requests by dataset accession or username, depending on the user preferences. Additionally, it is possible to isolate specific requests by user or dataset. To accept a request, users must slide the button to the right. Once the button turns green, it signifies that the request is accepted; the requester will be granted access to the requested dataset. To make lives easier, we have implemented a “Select all” button to easily accept or revoke multiple requests at once. To decline requests, it is necessary to slide the button to the left. A red button means the requester will not be granted access to the dataset. The DAC Portal will always ask to submit the reason why the data access was denied. Please, note that any decision, grant or denial, must be confirmed clicking the "Apply" button. This will update the status of the request and notify the requester accordingly. Taking control of the activity in the DAC Portal: checking the requests history The History button is a useful feature that allows users to access a list of all the requests that have been granted. This is especially useful for auditing purposes, as it enables to keep track of who has been granted access to the data and when. To facilitate control for those users with several requests we have included a filtering option. It allows to filter requests by user, mail, dataset, EGA ID, and date (these are combinable to boost the search). Don't forget about policies: creation, management, and update Similarly to the DACs section, in the Policies one users can manage and view all their registered policies. By clicking on any policy, it is possible to view its details as well as making any necessary updates or modifications. The sheets symbol and its adjacent number indicate the quantity of objects using a policy. By clicking in the location symbol users will go directly to the DAC page on the DAC Portal to see more information about that DAC. DAC Portal users can create new policies. The first step requires to link the policy to a registered DAC. After defining the title, users can either add a link to an external URL containing terms & conditions or write the policy content directly on the DAC Portal. Keep in mind that both options can be included. Data Use Ontology (DUO) codes can be added to new policies. These codes are used to specify the permitted and prohibited uses of the data. Please, note that some of them require a modifier to provide additional specificity. Find out more by checking out this specific content on the DAC Portal Tour. Policies can be modified at any given time by clicking on one registered policy, which will display the current information.

  Blog new-dac-portal

• How to upload Crypt4GH files

  Uploading files Users who hold an ega-box-XXX account can upload files using either INBOX or FTP. Users who have a Submitter role associated with their email will only be able to upload files using INBOX. Before uploading your files, please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters in their naming convention, such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &. This can cause issues with the archiving process, leading to problems for end users. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited storage. To manage the available resources, we enforce a limit of 10TB per submission account at any one time. If you exceed this limit, a “permission denied” message will be displayed. This will prevent you from uploading more files, but connecting to your inbox.For submissions larger than 10TB, please perform uploads in 10TB batches: register all the metadata and then finalise the submission. Upload the next batch of files and repeat the same metadata registration and finalisation process until you have completed the file upload. Further information can be found in the SP documentation. INBOX FTP The INBOX is only compatible with files encrypted using the Crypt4gh tool Before uploading If you are not a registered EGA user, you will first need an EGA user account. Please note that it may take a few days for your account to be activated, as it needs to be vouched for by the EGA Helpdesk. Once your account is validated, you will be able to request a submitter role. [Optional] Meanwhile, you can create and add your public key to your EGA account profile. This option is not available for old submission accounts (e.g., ega-box-NNN). As soon as you have been granted a submitter role, you will be able to connect with your username and password to the EGA inbox using the SFTP protocol. If you have also registered a public key in your profile, you can also connect using this key. To upload files to your account, you can use the graphical user interface (GUI) or the command line. Graphical User Interface (GUI)We recommend using FileZilla, a free, open-source FTP client. However, you can use any other GUI that allows connecting over the SFTP protocol. For FileZilla as your GUI, follow these steps to upload files: Create a new connection in Site Manager (File > Site Manager) and select the following options (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer ProtocolHost: __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__Logon Type: Key fileUser: your EGA usernameKey file: Path/to/your/private_keyFigure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_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 inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers.Click Connect, and you will log in remotely to your home directory. You can think of this folder as a storage "in the EGA cloud" in which you will add your files for the EGA. The uploading area has three folders:To-encrypt: Files uploaded in this folder will be encrypted automatically on the fly.Encrypted: Files uploaded in this folder must already be encrypted with Crypt4gh. Upload your files here if your connection is unstable or you have problems completing the upload into-encrypt.Etc: This folder contains two files that allow the server to show you your username and group instead of some internal numbers. Please do not upload files here; otherwise, you will obtain a permission denied error. Find the files you want to upload by browsing your local storage (left side of your screen in FileZilla). Select all the files you want to upload, then right-click on them and select Upload (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually uploading files to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can transfer data from their local storage to the "EGA cloud" by following the depicted steps Please note that regardless of which folder you upload your files in, both folders (to-encrypt, encrypted) will point to the same path (/) (Figure 3). Therefore, you will see your files in both folders. Figure 3: Both folders, to-encrypt and encrypted, point to the same path (/)" If your connection is unstable, please encrypt your files first using Crypt4gh. Then upload them to the ‘encrypted’ folder. The example above shows how to connect to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using the private key. However, if you prefer to log in using your credentials, you can do so. Please go to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)  for more information. SFTP command line To upload files securely to your private area of the EGA, you can use SFTP(Secure File Transfer Protocol) with your favorite FTP client. Here's what you need to know to get started: Connect to the target host __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__. This is the new hostname for the EGA SFTP service. Log in with your EGA username and key files (or password). Upload files to your private EGA inbox to ensure that only you can access the files. By following these steps, you can securely upload your files to the EGA for safe storage and sharing. Using the SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal and type sftp username@hostnameEnter your EGA passwordTo see a list of available SFTP commands, type helpsftp> put – Upload filesftp> get – Download filesftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’sftp> pwd – Display remote working directorysftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’sftp> lpwd – Display local working directorysftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directorysftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directoryType the "put" command to upload files. For example: put *.bamUse the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). After uploading- Once you have uploaded files to the inbox, please bear in mind that the checksum needs to be calculated, which can take up to two days. You will only be able to link your files to a run/analysis once the encrypted checksum has been calculated.- When linking your files to the 'Run' or 'Analysis', ensure that the file name matches the file path '/name' in the INBOX folder.- Please delete the files from your SFTP INBOX after all the runs/analyses have been registered and files are ingested (SP > Files > Files ingested). This will clear your inbox space an allow you to upload more files. This will also prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal inbox. Frequently Asked Questions Specific to the inbox What username should I use to log in to my inbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username.  If you have forgotten your registered username, please contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. How are checksums calculated in your inbox? If you encrypt the file beforehand and upload it to the "encrypted" folder, the unencrypted checksum will not be calculated until the file is ingested (i.e., until it is used in a run/analysis). If the file is uploaded to the "to-encrypt" folder, then both checksums are calculated.Please bear in mind that after files have been uploaded to the inbox, the checksum must be calculated, which can take from a few hours to two days.  Specific to using keys to authenticate 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_INBOX_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 submission/data/uploading-files/inbox

• Genetic Causes of Growth Disorders

  Description of the disorder: A very common disorder presenting to pediatricians/pediatric endocrinologists is childhood growth failure. Sometimes the cause is evident, for example, growth hormone deficiency. In other children, the etiology remains unknown despite extensive evaluation, resulting in the unhelpful diagnosis of severe idiopathic short stature (SISS). These conditions are quite heterogeneous, including children with isolated growth failure and others who also have other abnormalities such as developmental delay or a constellation of congenital anomalies (syndromic short stature). Sometimes, the disorder appears to primarily affect the growth plate, which drives skeletal growth and thereby determines overall body proportions, whereas in other children, the disorder affects skeletal and non-skeletal tissues equally. Some cases of SISS have a polygenic inheritance while others appear to follow a Mendelian inheritance model, recessive, dominant or X-linked. Very recently, genome-wide analysis for copy number variants (CNVs) and whole-exome sequencing have begun to identify some of the molecular etiologies of these disorders.1 Identifying the molecular etiology of growth disorders has clinical and scientific value. Clinically, identifying a molecular cause prevents extensive further testing and may direct anticipatory care for associated medical problems. For example, we recently studied aggrecan (ACAN) gene mutations in families with autosomal dominant short stature and accelerated skeletal maturation. These mutations affect both growth plate cartilage, causing linear growth failure, and also articular cartilage, causing osteochondritis dissecans and early-onset osteoarthritis.1 Etiological classification of idiopathic growth failure allows more precise characterization of prognosis and response to treatment, which are currently highly imprecise because of the locus heterogeneity. In some cases, finding the genetic etiology points to a novel treatment approach that targets the specific molecular pathway involved. The proposed project is central to the main focus of our group, the Section on Growth and Development, NICHD. Our primary goal is to investigate cellular and molecular mechanisms governing childhood growth and to gain insight into the many human genetic disorders causing childhood growth failure. The proposed project is well suited for the intramural program because it takes advantage of Clinical Center expertise to phenotype subjects with SISS. Study subjects: We will study subjects with SISS and nuclear family members. SISS will be defined by height SDS &lt; -2.5 for age without evident cause after routine evaluation including: growth hormone axis evaluation; thyroid function testing; celiac disease screening; urinalysis; CBC; chemistry; karyotype (girls, for Turner syndrome); and testing for single gene defects based on the clinical evaluation (for example, SHOX or Noonan-associated genes). Candidate families will include isolated growth disorders and growth disorders that are accompanied by congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or other syndromic short stature. Strong preference will be given to subjects with a severe phenotype and a pedigree that indicates a Mendelian inheritance. Multiple independent families with the same phenotype will have priority. The pool of applicants for recruitment is large, and we receive many inquiries by emails and phone consultations from pediatric endocrinologists for advice regarding diagnosis and management of unusual growth disorders, including familial disease. Often these families are seeking further evaluation and are willing to participate in a research study. From this pool, we will be selecting pedigrees with very favorable Mendelian characteristics, for example de novo dominant occurrences where two normal parents have a child with SISS, and the child grows up to be an adult who passes this phenotype on to multiple grandchildren in the next generation. Subjects and family members will be brought to the NIH Clinical Center (NIHCC) for outpatient evaluation. Participants will be evaluated by pediatric endocrinology fellows (as part of our training program) and by senior staff to establish the clinical findings and construct a pedigree. Subjects will receive additional biochemical and imaging studies at the Clinical Center to complete the phenotyping and assign affected status. The growth abnormality will be evaluated by assessing body proportions, relative organ size, and skeletal imaging as indicated. Associated clinical abnormalities beyond altered growth will be characterized with the help of other Clinical Center subspecialists. Subjects and family members will be evaluated by SNP microarray and whole-exome sequencing. We anticipate 4-5 persons for each of 16-20 families, for a total of 72-90 whole-exome sequences. Half of the families will be recruited and studied within the first year and half in the second year. We will use freshly collected peripheral blood as the DNA source for SNP array and NextGen Sequencing. Analytic approach: The candidate genes will be chosen based on 1) inheritance state consistency, 2) population frequency in the ESP and UDP databases, and 3) predictions of deleteriousness. We will use VarSifter and the B road Institute Integrated Genome Viewer to filter and visualize these data. The genetic model will be dependent on the family&#39;s pedigree. For a simple trio, we will explore variants using genetic models including autosomal recessive, de novo (dominant), compound heterozygous, deletion/point mutation recessive, and X-linked (male only). The candidate variants will be identified using Boolean logic sets in VarSifter following intramural NHGRI/UDP methods. We will also use SNP microarray data to identify copy number variations, complete/single copy deletions, duplications, non-paternity, consanguinity for homozygosity mapping, uniparental isodisomy, mosaicism, and segregation patterns (bed file generation for use in VarSifter filter work). After a list of candidate sequence variants has been generated, annotation will include using the Exome Variant Server, Polyphen-2, MutationTaster, Sift, and CADD predictions of deleteriousness. Biological laboratory data will be included to prioritize candidate variants. Our group has expertise in the molecular mechanisms regulating both skeletal growth2,3 and growth of other tissues4,5, which may be helpful in this phase of the analysis. The most promising candidate mutations will be confirmed by Sanger sequencing and studied functionally, in vitro and/or in vivo. For mutations that affect skeletal growth, we will use experimental systems related to growth plate cartilage. For in vitro studies, we have experience transfecting chondrocyte cell lines, such as ATDC5, and primary chondrocytes. We will determine whether the mutation alters protein and/or cell function. In vivo studies can be used to explore pathophysiology. We have recently successfully used a new approach, the CAS9/CRISPR system to knockout multiple loci in mice (unpublished), which can be used again in the future to create mouse models efficiently. 1J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2014 (PMID: 24762113) 2J Mol Endocrinol, 2014 (PMID: 24740736) 3Hum Mol Genet, 2012 (PMID: 22914739) 4Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2013 (PMID: 23530192) 5Endocr Rev, 2011 (PMID: 21441345)

  Study phs001617

• Federated EGA

  Federated EGA Federated EGA Index Overview Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Documentation Overview Federated EGA is a global network of repositories enabling secure discovery and access to sensitive human data. Our vision is to accelerate scientific discovery and healthcare breakthroughs by creating the go-to worldwide sensitive human data resource. Our values are: Privacy & Trust: Ensuring privacy of data subjects, security of services and acting with integrity to build community trust.FAIRness: Driving reuse of data through standardisation of metadata and clear access policies.Diversity: Expanding our network and representing global diversity in the data we host to bring benefits worldwide. Federated EGA - European by name, global by nature Federated EGA collaborates with European and global initiatives (GA4GH, ELIXIR, 1+ Million Genomes Framework, GDI), demonstrating that a network for transnational discovery of and access to human data is possible. By providing a solution to emerging challenges around secure and efficient management of human omics and associated data, the FEGA Network fosters data reuse, enables reproducibility, and accelerates biomedical research. For general enquiries or to request more information about Federated EGA, please send an email to fega-info [at] lists [dot] ega-archive [dot] org. Read more about the Federated EGA in our commentary in Nature Genetics! Learn more about setting up a Federated EGA Node in our onboarding documentation. Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Node Description Joined CEGA Central EGA is managed by the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and EMBL-EBI. The EGA has been a trusted repository for sensitive data since 2008. CEGA coordinates the FEGA network, hosts central services and the EGA catalogue. 2022 Finland FEGA Finland is hosted by CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd., which is the national ELIXIR Node in Finland. CSC is a state-owned company specialising in providing high-quality IT infrastructure and services for Finnish higher education and research. 2022 Germany The German Human Genome-Phenome archive (GHGA) is part of the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI). It is coordinated by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and includes over 20 academic partners. 2022 Norway FEGA Norway is a service by ELIXIR Norway, the Norwegian node of the European organisation ELIXIR. University of Oslo as a partner institution in ELIXIR Norway is hosting the service relying on the TSD infrastructure for sensitive data. ELIXIR Norway is a consortium of 5 Norwegian universities and is coordinated by University of Bergen. 2022 Spain FEGA Spain is co-hosted by the Barcelona Supercomputer Center (BSC) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), both part of ELIXIR Spain and the Spanish National Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine associated with Science and Technology (IMPaCT). 2022 Sweden FEGA Sweden is hosted by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS), which legally is part of Uppsala University. NBIS forms the bioinformatics platform at SciLifeLab and constitutes the Swedish node of the European organisation ELIXIR. 2022 Poland FEGA Poland is hosted by Biobank Lodz, which is part of University of Lodz. Biobank Lodz is an element of the infrastructure of the Regional Digital Medicine Centers established by the Medical Research Agency. 2022 Portugal FEGA Portugal is managed by BioData.pt, the distributed infrastructure for Life and Health data for Portugal. This entity is a non-profit association of 15 life sciences R&I organisations spread across the country, and the home of ELIXIR Node in Portugal. 2023 Canada Canadian Genome-phenome Archive is part of the Pan Canadian Genome Library, with the mandate to allow the secure and responsible sharing and analysis of Canadian genomic information. 2024 Switzerland Swiss FEGA is hosted by SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which is the national ELIXIR Node in Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss FEGA Partnership which includes 4 other key partners (ETH Zurich, Health 2030 Genome Center, Swiss Data Science Center and Switch). 2025 Documentation Title Version Description Mission, vision, values Federated EGA Mission, vision, values 1.0 The official Mission-Vision-Values statement for FEGA, produced and formally approved by the FEGA Strategic Committee in September 2025. Structure and Organisation Federated EGA Structure and Organisation 2.0 The structure of the FEGA network and service expectations, responsibilities and commitments. FEGA is organised into three tiers: Central EGA, FEGA Nodes and FEGA Affiliates. Strategic Committee Federated EGA Strategic Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Strategic Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to provide direction and strategic planning for the FEGA network. The committee receives input from, and provides feedback for the EGA Strategic Committee. Operations Committee Federated EGA Operations Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Operations Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to review operational performance and coordinate technical roadmaps of FEGA Nodes and Central EGA. The committee receives advice from, and provides operational reporting to the FEGA Strategic Committee. Guidelines Node Operations guidelines 2.1 An overview of the operational areas which require resources in order to create a FEGA Node. The document is based on more than 15 years' experience of EMBL-EBI and CRG operating the EGA and initial expericences of the inaugural FEGA Nodes. The operational areas of responsability are in line with the FEGA Maturity Model, which guides establishment and operation of FEGA Nodes. Collaboration Federated EGA Node Collaboration Agreement 1.3 Nodes are welcome to make a copy of this current version of the CA to start its review with their legal teams and understand the responsibilities of joining FEGA. Nevertheless, this version (the one with a watermark) shall not be signed: the official version needs to be obtained from FEGA prior signing through its official channels.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/federated-ega

• Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study - Imaging

  Objectives: The clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of three interventions. Specifically, it evaluated (1) the major health benefits and risks of estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone, (2) the effects of a low-fat eating pattern on risk of colorectal cancer, and (3) the efficacy of calcium with vitamin D supplementation for preventing hip and other fractures. The objective of the memory study was to determine whether estrogen plus progestin therapy protects global cognitive function, and evaluate the therapy's effect on the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The observational study is examining the relationship between lifestyle, socioeconomic, health, and other risk factors with cardiovascular, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporotic fracture outcomes. Secondary objectives include providing more reliable estimates of the extent to which known risk factors predict disease, more precise estimates of new occurrences of disease, and to provide a future resource for the identification of new or novel risk factors especially factors found in blood. Background: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing the major causes of death, disability, and frailty in postmenopausal women, specifically heart disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. The WHI is primarily composed of an observational study (OS), as well a clinical trial (CT) with three components: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HT), Dietary Modification, (DM) and Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation (CaD).Prior to the WHI, observational studies suggested that postmenopausal hormone therapy was associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Potential cardioprotection was based on generally supportive data on lipid levels in intermediate outcome clinical trials, trials in nonhuman primates, and a large body of observational studies suggesting a 40% to 50% reduction in risk among users of either estrogen alone or, less frequently, combined estrogen and progestin. Observational studies primarily examining unopposed estrogen preparations have suggested a 30% to 50% reduction in coronary events, and an 8% to 30% increase in breast cancer with extended use. Other research findings indicated that hormone therapy was also associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and increased bone density. The WHI HT trials were designed to test the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on risk for coronary heart disease and assess overall risks and benefits in predominantly healthy women. The Women's Health Initiative Memory Program (WHIMS) consists of a suite of studies which include cohorts of women who participated in the WHI HT trials. Postmenopausal women have a greater risk than men of developing Alzheimer's disease, but studies of the effects of estrogen therapy on Alzheimer's disease have been inconsistent. Additionally, observational studies have suggested that postmenopausal hormone treatment may improve cognitive function, but data from randomized clinical trials have been sparse and inconclusive. International comparisons and migration studies have suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer. Additionally, fairly consistent evidence existed for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer risk from within-country observational studies, although the protective effect of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake. The WHI DM trial was the first randomized trial to directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Osteoporosis is a major cause of injury, loss of independence, and death, and contributes to hip fractures. Observational evidence and data from previous randomized clinical trials suggest that calcium and/or vitamin D supplements may slow bone loss and reduce the risk of falls in postmenopausal and elderly women. However, evidence from trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of calcium and vitamin D supplementation with respect to hip and other fractures was limited at the time the WHI was initiated. In two prior randomized trials, calcium plus vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures among older women. When the WHI CaD trial was designed, guidelines recommended daily intakes of 800 to 1200 mg of calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis, which was not met by many American women. Therefore, the WHI CaD trial was designed to test the primary hypothesis that postmenopausal women randomly assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation would have a lower risk of hip fracture and, secondarily, of all fractures than women assigned to placebo. Subjects: Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 were eligible to participate. A woman was considered postmenopausal if she had experienced no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for women under 55 years of age), had had a hysterectomy, or had ever used postmenopausal hormones. Recruitment was carried out in 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998. The clinical trial components had additional specific inclusion or exclusion criteria.A total of 68,132 women were randomized into at least one component of the clinical trial. 27,347 women were enrolled in the hormone therapy component with 16,608 in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 10,739 in the unopposed estrogen trial, 48,835 women were enrolled in the diet modification component, and 36,282 women were enrolled in the calcium/vitamin D component. 7,479 women 65 years of age and older at baseline and that participated in the HT trial component were enrolled in the ancillary memory study. Women who were either ineligible or unwilling to participate in the clinical trial component were enrolled in the observational study. For example, many potential participants to the clinical trial component of the study were already undertaking a low fat diet or were using hormone replacement therapy. The effect of the selection process was that women enrolled in the observational study tended to have healthier lifestyles compared to those enrolled in the clinical trial. In total, 93,676 subjects were enrolled in WHI OS, with over 16% being members of a racial/ethnic minority group. The first WHI Extension Study enrolled 115,407 consenting participants from all components of the original WHI study for an additional five years of follow-up, from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, 93,567 women consented to continued follow-up. Design: The clinical trial component of the WHI included three randomized comparisons: hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Women could have been randomized into one, two or all three trials.The hormone therapy trial enrolled women to one of two double-blinded trials: estrogen (0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens daily) plus progestin (2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily) or estrogen alone. Women with a prior hysterectomy were eligible for the trial of unopposed estrogen. Women with an intact uterus at screening were initially also eligible for unopposed estrogen, but were reassigned to the trial of combined postmenopausal hormones beginning in 1995. Both trials randomized participants 1:1 to either hormone therapy or placebo. A 3-month washout period was required before baseline evaluation of women using postmenopausal hormones at initial screening. Study participants were contacted by telephone 6 weeks after randomization to assess symptoms and reinforce adherence. Follow-up contacts by telephone or clinic visit occurred every 6 months, with clinic visits required annually. The estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 after a mean 5.2 years of follow-up because health risks, including increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, exceeded benefits. The estrogen alone trial was stopped early in March 2004, because an increased risk of stroke was found with no benefit for coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome. The dietary modification trial evaluated the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable, and grain diet on preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group in the ratio of 2:3 for cost-efficiency. The intervention was an intensive behavioral modification program, using 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly sessions thereafter, led by specially trained and certified nutritionists. The program was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing total fat to 20% of energy intake, increasing vegetables and fruits to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals. Comparison group participants received a copy of the US Department of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other health-related materials but were not asked to make dietary changes. Dietary intake was monitored using the WHI food frequency questionnaire at 1 year and in a rotating one-third subsample every year thereafter. Women completed a medical update questionnaire every 6 months, and medical records were sought for all women reporting colorectal cancer. The primary outcome was invasive colorectal cancer incidence. Participants in the calcium/vitamin D trial were randomized 1:1 to either supplements or placebo. Active tablets contained 500 mg of elemental calcium (as calcium carbonate) and 200 IU of vitamin D3, to be taken twice daily with meals. The presence and severity of symptoms, safety concerns, and outcomes were ascertained at annual clinic visits and telephone or clinic visits at intervening six-month intervals. Risk factors for fracture were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and clinical examination. The primary outcome was incidence of hip fracture. Participants in the observational study attended a baseline examination and were re-examined three years later. Participants completed annual updates of exposures and clinical outcomes by mail. Final data were collected by mail during the close-out period in April 2004 to March 2005. The major clinical outcomes of interest were coronary heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporotic fractures, diabetes, and total mortality. Most outcomes were initially ascertained by self-report on an annual questionnaire and documented by hospital and related records. Charts with potential cardiovascular, cancer, and fracture outcomes were sent to the local physician adjudicator for evaluation and classification. Staff at the Clinical Coordinating Center coded and adjudicated all cancers of major interest in the study using standardized SEER guidelines. In 2005, WHI participants were invited to join the Extension Study for an additional five years of follow-up in order to collect long-term outcomes. Participants completed annual data collection forms primarily by mail, similar to the OS follow-up. Women reporting study outcomes were contacted by WHI field center staff to obtain additional details and medical records, which were evaluated by physician adjudicators. In 2010, the woman remaining were invited to join the next Extension Study. In the second extension, women were divided into two groups, one of which would have outcomes documented with medical records (the Medical Records Cohort, MRC), and the other would just be followed by self-report (the Self-Report Cohort, SRC). The MRC consists of women who were in the hormone therapy trials, and all African-American and Hispanic women. In 2012-2013, a subset of the MRC was identified for a potential in-home visit to collect blood and several objective measures of physical functioning. Conclusions: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin after an average 5.2 year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women (Rossouw et al., 2002, PMID:12117397). Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo (Rapp et al., 2003, PMID: 12771113), increased the risk for probable dementia, and did not prevent mild cognitive impairment (Shumaker, et al., 2003, PMID: 12771112). The use of conjugated equine estrogen increased the risk of stroke, decreased the risk of hip fracture, and did not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy after an average of 6.8 years of follow-up (Anderson et al., 2004, PMID: 15082697). Over approximately 8 years of follow-up, a low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (Beresford, et al., PMID: 16467233). Calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density; however, no significant difference was observed in hip fractures (Jackson, et al., 2006, PMID: 16481635). A recent review summarizes the conclusions from the WHI clinical trials with a focus on clinical practice (Manson, et al., 2024, PMID: 38691368).Description of ECG Imaging Data: Electric cardiograms (ECGs) were given to all clinical trial participants at baseline and in years 3, 6, and 9 of the original WHI study.EKG data consist of 12 lead 10 seconds ECGS sampled at 500Hz via GE ECG machines and process via GE MUSE system. The ECG waveform were directly exported from GE MUSE using MUSE export function in XML format, which include EKG waveform data as well as other ECG characteristics. Waveform data is in base64 encoded format, when it is decoded, it is a binary data that can be used to draw waveform graph. Many programming languages and data tools have built in functions to decode base64 strings. All the other necessary information is included in the LeadData section, total byte size, total sample size etc. (usually 1 sample is 2 bytes). See example below: encoded-data (base64 encoded string) JwAoAC0AKAAiACIAJAAkACQAIwAiACIAHgAcABwAGwAZABgAGAAYABcAEwAQABAAEAAL^/AAsADAAM... decoded-binary-data (1 sample is 2 bytes) 270028002D002800220022002400240024002300220022001E001C001C001B00 1900180018001800170013001000100010000B000B000C000C000D000D000D00 0A000A000A0009000600040004000700070005000500020... These binary values are integers (Y axis data of the graph), hence it is a straightforward process to draw the waveform graph. Acquisition dates have been redacted from this ECG data to comply with WHI policy. All acquisition dates within files and in file names have been set to January 1, 1900 (19000101) to comply with this policy.

  Study phs003824

• Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Colorectal Cancer with Focus of Rare and Less Frequent Variants

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies conducted in North America and Europe. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, replicating and fine-mapping of GWAS discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 20 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. The Black Women&#39;s Health Study (BWHS): Is the largest follow-up study of the health of African-American women (Cozier et al., 2004; Rosenberg et al., 1995) [PMID: 15018884; PMID: 7722208]. The purpose is to identify and evaluate causes and preventives of cancers and other serious illnesses in African-American women. Among the diseases being studied are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, uterine fibroids, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cardiovascular disease. The study began in 1995, when 59,000 black women from all parts of the United States enrolled through postal questionnaires. The women provided demographic and health data on the 1995 baseline questionnaire, including information on weight, height, smoking, drinking, contraceptive use, use of other selected medications, illnesses, reproductive history, physical activity, diet, use of health care, and other factors. The participants are followed through biennial questionnaires to determine the occurrence of cancers and other illnesses and to update information on risk factors. Self-reports of cancer are confirmed through medical records and state cancer registry records. Mouthwash-swish samples, as a source of DNA, were obtained from &#126;26,000 BWHS participants in 2002-2007. DNA was isolated from the mouthwash-swish samples at the Boston University Molecular Core Genetics Laboratory using the QIAAMP DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). All incident colorectal cancer cases with a DNA sample were included in the present analysis. Two controls per case, selected from among BWHS participants free of colorectal cancer at end of follow-up, were matched to cases on year of birth (&#43;/- 2 years) and geographical region of residence (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total 209 colorectal cancer cases and 423 controls were sent for genotyping. Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II): The Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease, is a prospective cohort designed to identify biomarkers and other factors associated with risk of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions (Kakourou et al., 2015) [PMID: 26220152]. 32,894 participants were recruited from May through October 1989 from Washington County, Maryland and surrounding communities. Colorectal cancer cases (n &#61; 297) and matched controls (n &#61; 296) were identified between 1989 and 2000 among participants in the CLUE II cohort of Washington County, Maryland. Colorectal Cancer Study of Austria (CORSA): In the ongoing colorectal cancer study of Austria (CORSA), more than 13,000 Caucasian participants have been recruited within the province-wide screening project &#34;Burgenland Prevention Trial of Colorectal Disease with Immunological Testing&#34; (B-PREDICT) since 2003 (Hofer et al., 2011) [PMID: 21422235]. All inhabitants of the Austrian province Burgenland aged between 40 and 80 years are annually invited to participate in fecal immunochemical testing and haemoccult positive screening participants are invited for colonoscopy. CORSA includes genomic DNA and plasma of colorectal cancer cases, low-risk and high-risk adenomas, and colonoscopy-negative controls. Controls received a complete colonoscopy and were free of colorectal cancer or polyps. CORSA participants have been recruited in the four KRAGES hospitals in Burgenland, Austria, and additionally, at the Medical University of Vienna (Department of Surgery), the Viennese hospitals &#34;Rudolfstiftung&#34; and the &#34;Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Sud&#34;, and at the Medical University of Graz (Department of Internal Medicine). 1403 colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal adenoma cases, and 1404 matched controls were selected for the study. Distribution of factors sex and age (5 year strata) were evenly matched between cases and controls. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2014) [PMID: 12015775; PMID: 25472679]. At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. A total of 360 cases and 359 controls were selected for this study. Czech Republic Colorectal Cancer Study (Czech Republic CCS): Cases with positive colonoscopy results for malignancy, confirmed by histology as colon or rectal carcinomas, were recruited between September 2003 and May 2012 in several oncological departments in the Czech Republic (Prague, Pilsen, Benesov, Brno, Liberec, Ples, Pribram, Usti and Labem, and Zlin). Two control groups, sampled at the same time of cases recruitment, were included in the study. The first group consisted of hospital-based individuals with a negative colonoscopy result for malignancy or idiopathic bowel diseases. The reasons for the colonoscopy were: i) positive fecal occult blood test, ii) hemorrhoids, iii) abdominal pain of unknown origin, and iv) macroscopic bleeding. The second control group consisted of healthy blood donor volunteers from a blood donor center in Prague. All individuals were subjected to standard examinations to verify the health status for blood donation and were cancer-free at the time of the sampling. Details of CRC cases and controls have been reported previously (Vymetalkova et al., 2014; Naccarati et al., 2016; Vymetalkova et al., 2016) [PMID: 24755277; PMID: 26735576; PMID: 27803053]. All subjects were informed and provided written consent to participate in the study. They approved the use of their biological samples for genetic analyses, according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The design of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. All subjects included in the study were Caucasians and comprised 1792 cases and 1764 matched controls. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years, whereas sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex. Early Detection Research Network (EDRN): The aim of the EDRN initiative is to develop and sustain a biorepository for support of translational research (Amin et al., 2010) [PMID: 21031013]. High-quality biospecimens were accrued and annotated with pertinent clinical, epidemiologic, molecular and genomic information. A user-friendly annotation tool and query tool was developed for this purpose. The various components of this annotation tool include: CDEs are developed from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Checklists and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACR) standards. The CDEs provides semantic and syntactic interoperability of the data sets by describing them in the form of metadata or data descriptor. A total of 352 colorectal case samples and 399 controls were selected for this study. Controls were matched to CRC cases based on age and sex. The EPICOLON Consortium (EPICOLON): The EPICOLON Consortium comprises a prospective, multicentre and population-based epidemiology survey of the incidence and features of CRC in the Spanish population (Fernandez-Rozadilla et al., 2013) [PMID: 23350875]. Cases were selected as patients with de novo histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease-related CRC, and cases where patients or family refused to participate in the study were excluded. Hospital-based controls were recruited through the blood collection unit of each hospital, together with cases. All of the controls were confirmed to have no history of cancer or other neoplasm and no reported family history of CRC. Controls were randomly selected and matched with cases for hospital, sex and age (&#43;&#45; 5 years). A total of 370 cases and 370 controls were selected for genotyping. Hawaii Adenoma Study: For this adenoma study, two flexible-sigmoidoscopy screening clinics were first used to recruit participants on Oahu, Hawaii. Adenoma cases were identified either from the baseline examination at the Hawaii site of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial during 1996-2000 or at the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii&#39;s Gastroenterology Screening Clinic during 1995-2007. In addition, starting in 2002 and up to 2007, we also approached for recruitment all eligible patients who underwent a colonoscopy in the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Gastroenterology Department. Cases were patients with histologically confirmed first-time adenoma(s) of the colorectum and were of Japanese, Caucasian or Hawaiian race&#47;ethnicity. Controls were selected among patients with a normal colorectum and were individually matched to the cases on age at exam, sex, race/ethnicity, screening date (&#43;&#45;3 months) and clinic and type of examination (colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy). We recruited 1016 adenoma cases (67.8% of all eligible) and 1355 controls (69.2% of all eligible); 889 cases and 1169 controls agreed to give a blood and 29 cases and 34 controls, a mouthwash sample. A total of 989 cases and 1185 controls were genotyped for this study. Columbus-area HNPCC Study (HNPCC, OSUMC): Patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at six participating hospitals were eligible for this study, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis were not eligible for this study. These six hospitals perform the vast majority of all operations for CRC in the Columbus metropolitan area (population 1.7 million). The institutional review board at all participating hospitals approved the research protocol and consent form in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Briefly, during the period of January 1999 through August 2004, 1,566 eligible patients with CRC were accrued to the study (Hampel et al., 2008) [PMID 18809606]. A total of 1472 colorectal cancer samples had enough blood DNA remaining to be sent for genotyping. Control samples were provided by the Ohio State University Medical Center%#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank. The Columbus Area Controls Sample Bank is a collection of control samples for use in human genetics research that includes both donors&#39; anonymized biological specimens and linked phenotypic data. The data and samples are collected under the protocol &#34;Collection and Storage of Controls for Genetics Research Studies&#34;, which is approved by the Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board at OSUMC. Recruitment takes place in OSUMC primary care and internal medicine clinics. If individuals agree to participate, they provide written informed consent, complete a questionnaire that includes demographic, medical and family history information, and donate a blood sample. 4-7 ml of blood is drawn into each of 3 ACD Solution A tubes and is used for genomic DNA extraction and the establishment of an EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell culture, cell pellet in Trizol, and plasma. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1. Matching was done on age at reference time (age_ref), race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Sex and race were matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race with 1&#58;1 ratio. Since controls are fewer than cases, one control is matched on 2 cases at most. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses&#39; Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990) [PMID: 2090285]. Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma 1 cm or larger in diameter and&#47;or with tubulovillous, villous, or highgrade dysplasia&#47;carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month&#47; year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. In total, 159 advanced adenoma cases and 109 controls were selected for genotyping. Leeds Colorectal Cancer Study (LCCS): Following local ethical approval, colorectal cancer cases were recruited from 1997 until 2012 in Leeds, UK through surgical clinics. Initially, funding was provided by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (subsequently the Food Standards Agency) and Imperial Cancer Research Fund (subsequently Cancer Research UK). Recruitment also occurred similarly in Dundee, Perth and York between the periods of 1997 and 2001 using the same protocol and the data and samples were combined. Pathologically confirmed cases were consented at outpatient clinics, providing information on known and postulated risk factors for colorectal cancer (diet, lifestyle and family history) as well as providing a blood sample for DNA. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing diverticular disease and an inability to complete the questionnaire. The General Practitioners of cases (all UK residents have a nominated General Practitioner to whom to refer initial medical queries) and these GPs were asked to send letters to other persons on their patient list of the same gender and born within 5 years of the case. Subsequently to enhance the number of controls, we systematically invited patients from selected GP practices. Diet was assessed in cases and controls using an extensive dietary and lifestyle questionnaire modified by that produced by the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer (EPIC). The frequency that each specific food items were eaten was recorded and we also obtained average fruit and vegetable consumption as a cross-check. In total, 1591 cases and 739 controls provided a DNA sample. The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I/II): The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I- colon and NCCCS II-rectal) were population-based case-control studies conducted in 33 counties of North Carolina. Cases were identified using the rapid case ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon (cecum through sigmoid colon) between October 1996 and September 2000 were classified as potential cases in the NCCCS I. The NCCCS II included patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, or rectum (hereafter collectively referred to as rectal cancer) between May 2001 and September 2006. Additional eligibility requirements were: aged 40-80 years, residence in one of the 33 counties, ability to give informed consent and complete an interview, had a driver&#39;s license or identification card issued by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (if under the age of 65), and had no objections from the primary physician in regards to contacting the individual. Controls, identified and sampled during the respective study dates, were selected from two sources. Potential controls under the age of 65 were identified using the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles records. For those 65 years and older, records from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used. Controls were matched to cases using randomized recruitment strategies. Recruitment probabilities were done using strata of 5-year age, sex, and race groups. Dietary information was collected using a modified version of the semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed at the National Cancer Institute. In addition, participants were asked about vitamin and mineral supplementation, special diets, restaurant eating, sodium use, and fats used in cooking. In NCCCS I, 515 colorectal cases and 687 matched controls were sent for genotyping. In NCCCS II, 796 colorectal cases and 823 controls were sent from the NCCCS II for genotyping. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age, race, and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Race and sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978) [PMID: 248266]. Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989 -1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed from which DNA was isolated from either buffy coat or buccal cells for genotyping. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of advanced adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through June 1, 2011. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma more than 1 cm in diameter and/or with tubulovillous, villous, or high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month/year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. A total of 272 cases and 236 matched controls were sent to CIDR for the advanced adenoma case-control set. Northern Swedish Health and Disease Study (NSHDS): Comprises over 110,000 participants, including approximately one third with repeated sampling occasions, from three population-based cohorts (Dahlin et al., 2010; Myte et al., 2016) [PMID: 20197478; PMID: 27367522]. The largest is the ongoing Vasterbotten Intervention Programme, in which all residents of Vasterbotten County are invited to a health examination upon turning 30 (some years), 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Extensive measured and self-reported health and lifestyle data, as well as blood samples for central biobanking in Umea, Sweden, are collected at the health exam. Leucocyte DNA samples for 1&#58;1-matched CRC case-control sets from the NSHDS, of which 878 samples are included in this study, have been selected for genotyping. This is in addition to 354 samples from the NSHDS previously analyzed as part of the multicenter EPIC cohort. Cancer-specific and overall survival data are available for all patients. For at least 425 patients, archival tumor tissue has been analyzed for the BRAF V600E mutation and by sequencing codon 12 and 13 for KRAS mutations, as well as for MSI screening status by immunohistochemistry and for an eight-gene CIMP panel using quantitative real-time PCR (MethyLight). Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI, OSUMC): OCCPI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01850654) is a population-based study of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in one of 51 hospitals throughout the state of Ohio from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The OCCPI was created to decrease CRC incidence in Ohio by identifying patients with hereditary predisposition (statewide universal tumor screening for newly diagnosed CRC patients), increase colonoscopy compliance for first-degree relatives of CRC patients, and encourage future research through the creation of a biorepository. The 51 Ohio hospitals participating in the OCCPI were selected to represent a cross-section of clinical centers in the state based on high reported volume of CRC patients, affiliation with a high volume hospital, or interest in participation. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained by the individual hospitals, Community Oncology Programs, or by ceding review to the OSU IRB. Written informed consent was obtained. A total of 2139 colorectal cases were genotyped. Patients were considered eligible for this study if they were age 18 or older at the time of enrollment, if they had a surgical resection (or biopsy if unresectable) in the state of Ohio demonstrating an adenocarcinoma of the colorectum from 1&#47;1&#47;13 - 12&#47;31&#47;16. Matched control samples were selected from the Ohio State University Medical Center&#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank in an identical way to the selection for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study (please refer to the description for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study). Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. In the observational (control) arm, buccal cells were collected via mail using the &#34;swish-and-spit&#34; protocol and participation rate was 65%. Details of this study have been previously described (Huang et al., 2016) [PMID&#58; 27673363] and are available online (http://dcp.cancer.gov/plco). For this study 1651 advanced adenoma cases and 1392 controls were selected for genotyping. Selenium and Vitamin E Prevention Trial (SELECT): The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial which explored using selenium and vitamin E alone and in combination to prevent prostate cancer in healthy men (Lippman et al., 2009) [PMID&#58; 19066370]. Secondary endpoints included the prevention of colorectal and lung cancers. SELECT was conducted at 427 sites and centers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico; 35,533 men 55 years and older (50 or older if African American) were randomized beginning August 22, 2001. Supplementation was discontinued on October 23, 2008 due to futility. 308 colorectal cancer cases and 308 matched controls were selected from the SELECT population and sent for genotyping. Screening Markers For Colorectal Disease Study and Colonoscopy and Health Study (SMS-REACH): Details on this study population were previously reported (Burnett-Hartman et al., 2014) [PMID&#58; 24875374]. Participants were enrollees in an integrated health-care delivery system in western Washington State (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington) aged 24-79 years who underwent an index colonoscopy for any indication between 1998 and 2007 and donated a buccal-cell or blood sample for genotyping analysis. Study recruitment took place in 2 phases, with phase 1 occurring in 1998-2003 and phase 2 occurring in 2004-2007. Persons who had undergone a colonoscopy less than 1 year prior to the index colonoscopy, persons with inadequate bowel preparation for the index colonoscopy, and persons with a prior or new diagnosis of colorectal cancer, a familial colorectal cancer syndrome (such as familial adenomatous polyposis), or another colorectal disease were ineligible. Patients diagnosed with adenomas or serrated polyps and persons who were polyp-free at the index colonoscopy (controls) were systematically recruited during both phases of recruitment. Approximately 75% agreed to participate and provided written informed consent. Based on medical records, persons who agreed to participate and those who refused study participation were similar with respect to age, sex, and colorectal polyp status. Study protocols were approved by the institutional review boards of the Group Health Cooperative and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle, Washington). A total of 575 cases and 508 matched were selected for the study. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age_ref, race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. The Women&#39;s Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts&#58; a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg&#47;d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg&#47;d] or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg&#47;d) and vitamin D (400 IU&#47;d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS)examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed cases of invasive colorectal cancers, or deaths from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from September 30, 2015 database. Controls were participants free of colorectal cancer (invasive or in situ) as of September 30, 2015. Potential cases and controls were excluded if they (1) were non-White; (2) had history of colorectal cancers at baseline; (3) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (4) DbGAP ineligible; (5) had &#60;1.25ug of DNA; (6) selected for WHI study M26 Phase I or II; (7) selected for WHI study AS224 and also included in the imputation project. A total of 578 cases and 104,429 controls met the eligibility criteria. Each case was matched with 1 control (1&#58;1) that exactly met the following matching criteria: age (&#43;&#45;5 years), 40 randomization centers (exact), WHI date (&#43;&#45;3 years), CaD date (&#43;&#45;3 years), OS flag (exact), HRT assignments (exact), DM assignments (exact), and CaD assignments (exact). Control selection was done in a time-forward manner, selecting one control for each case from the risk set at the time of the case&#39;s event. The matching algorithm was allowed to select the closest match based on a criteria to minimize an overall distance measure (Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized matching of cases to controls. Technical Report #56, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN. April 1995). Each matching factor was given the same weight. When exact matches could not be found, the matching criteria were gradually relaxed among unmatched cases and controls until all cases had found matched controls. Using the matching criteria specified above, 559 of the 578 eligible cases found exact matches. The matching criteria was then relaxed to &#58; Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, DM flag, CaD flag. 17 of the remaining 19 unmatched cases found matched controls. By matching on Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, the remaining 2 unmatched cases found their matches.

  Study phs001415

• PyEGA3 download client

  PyEGA3 Checks prior to download - Is the dataset available for download? Most datasets are available using the PyEGA3 Download client, except for specific legacy datasets. For these ones, refer to Live Outbox distribution, an alternative way to download these datasets.If the dataset you've been granted access to begins with the ID EGAD5XXXXXXX, please refer to the Live Outbox distribution. If the dataset you have been granted access to contains encrypted data (filename ending in .gpg), contact EGA Helpdesk for detailed information on how to download these files.General Information The PyEGA3 download client is available at its GitHub repository. In its README you will find a step by step guide on how to use it to download files you have been granted access to. PyEGA3 implements the GA4GH-compliant HTSGET protocol supporting requests over genomic ranges. This enables the download of specific regions of interest rather than the entire file. HTSGET is not possible for all the files held by EGA: if the dataset does not contain index files (e.g. filename ending in *.crai), then genomic range requests cannot be performed. The maximum number of connections allowed is 30. If more than 30 connections are used, the download client will encounter 500 errors. The recommended number of connections for maximum output is one. Check out our video tutorial! Frequently Asked Questions General questions How do I download the datasets to which I have been granted access? After setting up your EGA download account, you can proceed to download using the EGA download client – PyEGA3. The pyEGA3 download client is a python-based tool for viewing and downloading files from authorised EGA datasets. This download client is continuously being developed for more user-friendly download experiences. Can I download the dataset’s metadata via the download client? No, the download client cannot be used to download metadata. Registered EGA users can download metadata of an authorised dataset by logging into the EGA webpage and navigating to the dataset of choice. Approximately two thirds down the page you will find the option to download the metadata as a zip file. How do I download large datasets as quickly as possible? The main EGA download client is pyEGA3 download client, a python-based tool for viewing and downloading files from authorised EGA datasets.We could exceptionally consider the option of an Aspera download for users experiencing very slow download rates or facing particular issues.Contact the EGA Helpdesk for further information. Pre-requirement and Installation What are the major requirements for the PyEGA3 download client installation and usage? The PyEGA3 client is compatible with any OS with Python 3.6+ installed. The client requires a connection to the internet, sufficient space on the destination drive, and the EGA download account credentials. Where can I find the PyEGA3 download client installation and download instructions? We strongly recommend checking our video tutorial demonstrating the usage of PyEGA3 from installation to file download. More detailed information is available at PyEGA3 GitHub. What ports are required for the PyEGA3 download client to function? PyEGA3 makes HTTPS calls to the EGA Data API (https://ega.ebi.ac.uk:8443). This port 8443 must be reachable from the location where PyEGA3 is executed to avoid timeouts. PyEGA3 download client How to update the PyEGA3 download client to be on the latest version? Updating the client to the latest version can be achieved by running the following command: pip3 install pyega3 --upgrade I do not have an active EGA account. Can I test the download with the PyEGA3 download client? An EGA download test account (ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk) has been created for troubleshooting and training purposes. The test account does not require an EGA username and password because it contains publicly accessible files from the 1000 Genomes Project. More information about the use of this account and log in details are available at pyEGA3. I lost my connection while the download was in progress. Does this mean that I have to download the file again from the start? The PyEGA3 download client supports automatic resumption of downloads. To enable quicker download speeds, the API breaks files into up to four segments and downloads them in parallel. With the resume feature, downloads will automatically resume if you encounter any errors or if the connection is interrupted. How can I improve the overall download speed of the PyEGA3 download client? Download speeds can be optimised using the --connections parameter which will parallelise download at the file level. If the --connections parameter is provided, all files >100Mb will be downloaded using the specified number of parallel connections. It is important to note that files are still downloaded sequentially, so using multiple connections does not mean downloading multiple files in parallel. The maximum number of connections allowed is 30. If more than 30 connections are used, the download client will encounter 500 errors. The recommended number of connections for maximum output is one. Why is my file taking a long time to be saved? Please note that when a file is being saved, it goes through two processes. First, the downloaded file "chunks" are pieced back together to reconstruct the original file. Secondly, PyEGA3 calculates the checksum of the file to confirm that the file was downloaded successfully. Larger files will take more time to reconstruct and validate the checksum. Why is the HTSGET protocol not working with my dataset of interest? PyEGA3 implements the GA4GH-compliant htsget protocol for supporting requests over genomic ranges. This exciting new feature means that for data files with accompanying index files (e.g. .crai for CRAM files) users can download specific regions of interest rather than the entire file, saving both time and storage space. Please note that in order for the genomic range requests to work for a BAM, CRAM or VCF file there must be an associated BAI, CRAI or TBI file, respectively. If the dataset does not contain these index files then genomic range requests cannot be performed. After download Do I need to decrypt data files downloaded through the pyEGA3 download client? Files are transferred over secure HTTPS connections and received unencrypted, thus there is no need for decryption after data download. What is the purpose of an MD5 file? After the download completes, file integrity is verified using checksums. The PyEGA3 download client automatically verifies each file’s unencrypted md5 after download to ensure that the file was downloaded correctly from the EGA. Errors Why do I get a “400 Client Error” while trying to access the download client? Ensure that your credentials are formatted correctly. Please contact the EGA Helpdesk if you are unsure about your account’s username (i.e. your email address). Why do I get a “500 Server Error”? It is important to note that files are still downloaded sequentially, so using multiple connections does not mean downloading multiple files in parallel. The maximum number of connections allowed is 30. If more than 30 connections are used, the download client will encounter 500 errors. The recommended number of connections for maximum output is one. Otherwise, 500 server errors are internal server errors from EGA’s end. Retry after some time and, if the 500 error persists: check our homepage or Twitter for any outage information or report it to EGA Helpdesk. Why do I get a “slice error”? This type of error occurs when one slice download was prematurely interrupted. Please re-start the same download. The download client will pick up any partial download and download any missing slices. Why do I get the error “Dataset' EGADXXXXXXXXXXX' is not in the list of your authorised datasets”? Please note that the data access was given to the email (username) provided to the Data Access Committee (DAC) in your official request. Therefore, you shall check that the account that you are using is the same one that you sent to the DAC. Why do I get “ERROR:root:Failed to obtain IP address”? This might mean that the connection ports are blocked. Check that the port 8443 is reachable.In case the port is reachable and the error persists, please try to modify the file pyega3.py on line 44 in the python module installation: Replace endpoint = 'https://ipinfo.io/json' with endpoint = 'https://api.myip.com' Why do I get the error “Invalid username, password or secret key - please check and retry”? Make sure that you are using the correct credentials (username and password) and there is no typo. Contact EGA Helpdesk if the problem persists.

  Documentation access/download/files/pyega3

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! The EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal

• OncoArray: Prostate Cancer

  Original description of the study: From ELLIPSE (linked to the PRACTICAL consortium), we contributed ~78,000 SNPs to the OncoArray. A large fraction of the content was derived from the GWAS meta-analyses in European ancestry populations (overall and aggressive disease; ~27K SNPs). We also selected just over 10,000 SNPs from the meta-analyses in the non-European populations, with a majority of these SNPs coming from the analysis of overall prostate cancer in African ancestry populations as well as from the multiethnic meta-analysis. A substantial fraction of SNPs (~28,000) were also selected for fine-mapping of 53 loci not included in the common fine-mapping regions (tagging at r2&#62;0.9 across &#177;500kb regions). We also selected a few thousand SNPs related with PSA levels and/or disease survival as well as SNPs from candidate lists provided by study collaborators, as well as from meta-analyses of exome SNP chip data from the Multiethnic Cohort and UK studies. The Contributing Studies: Aarhus: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Patients treated for prostate adenocarcinoma at Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby (Aarhus, Denmark). Source of controls: Age-matched males treated for myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary angioplasty, but with no prostate cancer diagnosis based on information retrieved from the Danish Cancer Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. AHS: Nested case-control study within prospective cohort. Source of cases: linkage to cancer registries in study states. Source of controls: matched controls from cohort ATBC: Prospective, nested case-control. Source of cases: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline. Source of controls: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline BioVu: Cases identified in a biobank linked to electronic health records. Source of cases: A total of 214 cases were identified in the VUMC de-identified electronic health records database (the Synthetic Derivative) and shipped to USC for genotyping in April 2014. The following criteria were used to identify cases: Age 18 or greater; male; African Americans (Black) only. Note that African ancestry is not self-identified, it is administratively or third-party assigned (which has been shown to be highly correlated with genetic ancestry for African Americans in BioVU; see references). Source of controls: Controls were identified in the de-identified electronic health record. Unfortunately, they were not age matched to the cases, and therefore cannot be used for this study. Canary PASS: Prospective, Multi-site, Observational Active Surveillance Study. Source of cases: clinic based from Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, University of California at San Francisco, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, University of Washington, VA Puget Sound. Source of controls: N/A CCI: Case series, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Cross Cancer Institute. Source of controls: N/A CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): Case-Control, Prospective, Observational, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients, treated in French departments of Urology, who had histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were recruited as participating in a systematic health screening program and found unaffected (normal digital rectal examination and total PSA &#60; 4 ng/ml, or negative biopsy if PSA &#62; 4 ng/ml). COH: hospital-based cases and controls from outside. Source of cases: Consented prostate cancer cases at City of Hope. Source of controls: Consented unaffected males that were part of other studies where they consented to have their DNA used for other research studies. COSM: Population-based cohort. Source of cases: General population. Source of controls: General population CPCS1: Case-control - Denmark. Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPCS2: Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPDR: Retrospective cohort. Source of cases: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Source of controls: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center ACS_CPS-II: Nested case-control derived from a prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Identified through self-report on follow-up questionnaires and verified through medical records or cancer registries, identified through cancer registries or the National Death Index (with prostate cancer as the primary cause of death). Source of controls: Cohort participants who were cancer-free at the time of diagnosis of the matched case, also matched on age (&#177;6 mo) and date of biospecimen donation (&#177;6 mo). EPIC: Case-control - Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK. Source of cases: Identified through record linkage with population-based cancer registries in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Germany and Greece, follow-up is active and achieved through checks of insurance records and cancer and pathology registries as well as via self-reported questionnaires; self-reported incident cancers are verified through medical records. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer EPICAP: Case-control, Population-based, ages less than 75 years at diagnosis, H&#233;rault, France. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all public hospitals and private urology clinics of d&#233;partement of H&#233;rault in France. Cases validation by the H&#233;rault Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Population-based controls, frequency age matched (5-year groups). Quotas by socio-economic status (SES) in order to obtain a distribution by SES among controls identical to the SES distribution among general population men, conditionally to age. ERSPC: Population-based randomized trial. Source of cases: Men with PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam. Source of controls: Men without PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam ESTHER: Case-control, Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all hospitals in the state of Saarland, from 2001-2003. Source of controls: Random sample of participants from routine health check-up in Saarland, in 2000-2002 FHCRC: Population-based, case-control, ages 35-74 years at diagnosis, King County, WA, USA. Source of cases: Identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER cancer registry. Source of controls: Randomly selected, age-frequency matched residents from the same county as cases Gene-PARE: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients that received radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Source of controls: n/a Hamburg-Zagreb: Hospital-based, Prospective. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases seen at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Source of controls: Population-based (Croatia), healthy men, older than 50, with no medical record of cancer, and no family history of cancer (1st &#38; 2nd degree relatives) HPFS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the HPFS cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the HPFS cohort IMPACT: Observational. Source of cases: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. Source of controls: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has not been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. IPO-Porto: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Early onset and/or familial prostate cancer. Source of controls: Blood donors Karuprostate: Case-control, Retrospective, Population-based. Source of cases: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 237 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending public and private urology clinics; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 148 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa. Source of controls: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 277 controls recruited from men participating in a free systematic health screening program open to the general population; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 134 controls recruited from subjects attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa KULEUVEN: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases recruited at the University Hospital Leuven. Source of controls: Healthy males with no history of prostate cancer recruited at the University Hospitals, Leuven. LAAPC: Subjects were participants in a population-based case-control study of aggressive prostate cancer conducted in Los Angeles County. Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program rapid case ascertainment system. Eligible cases included African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with a first primary prostate cancer between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. Eligible cases also had (a) prostatectomy with documented tumor extension outside the prostate, (b) metastatic prostate cancer in sites other than prostate, (c) needle biopsy of the prostate with Gleason grade &#8805;8, or (d) needle biopsy with Gleason grade 7 and tumor in more than two thirds of the biopsy cores. Eligible controls were men never diagnosed with prostate cancer, living in the same neighborhood as a case, and were frequency matched to cases on age (&#177; 5 y) and race/ethnicity. Controls were identified by a neighborhood walk algorithm, which proceeds through an obligatory sequence of adjacent houses or residential units beginning at a specific residence that has a specific geographic relationship to the residence where the case lived at diagnosis. Malaysia: Case-control. Source of cases: Patients attended the outpatient urology or uro-onco clinic at University Malaya Medical Center. Source of controls: Population-based, age matched (5-year groups), ascertained through electoral register, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia MCC-Spain: Case-control. Source of cases: Identified through the urology departments of the participating hospitals. Source of controls: Population-based, frequency age and region matched, ascertained through the rosters of the primary health care centers MCCS: Nested case-control, Melbourne, Victoria. Source of cases: Identified by linkage to the Victorian Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer MD Anderson: Participants in this study were identified from epidemiological prostate cancer studies conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Houston Metropolitan area. Cases were accrued in the Houston Medical Center and were not restricted with respect to Gleason score, stage or PSA. Controls were identified via random-digit-dialing or among hospital visitors and they were frequency matched to cases on age and race. Lifestyle, demographic, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. MDACC_AS: A prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Men with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer meeting eligibility criteria for a prospective cohort study of active surveillance at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Source of controls: N/A MEC: The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) is comprised of over 215,000 men and women recruited from Hawaii and the Los Angeles area between 1993 and 1996. Between 1995 and 2006, over 65,000 blood samples were collected from participants for genetic analyses. To identify incident cancer cases, the MEC was cross-linked with the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries in California and Hawaii, and unaffected cohort participants with blood samples were selected as controls MIAMI (WFPCS): Prostate cancer cases and controls were recruited from the Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine using sequential patient populations as described previously (PMID:15342424). All study subjects received a detailed description of the study protocol and signed their informed consent, as approved by the medical center&#39;s Institutional Review Board. The general eligibility criteria were (i) able to comprehend informed consent and (ii) without previously diagnosed cancer. The exclusion criteria were (i) clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases; (ii) chronic inflammatory conditions; and (iii) infections within the past 6 weeks. Blood samples were collected from all subjects. MOFFITT: Hospital-based. Source of cases: clinic based from Moffitt Cancer Center. Source of controls: Moffitt Cancer Center affiliated Lifetime cancer screening center NMHS: Case-control, clinic based, Nashville TN. Source of cases: All urology clinics in Nashville, TN. Source of controls: Men without prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. PCaP: The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is a multidisciplinary population-based case-only study designed to address racial differences in prostate cancer through a comprehensive evaluation of social, individual and tumor level influences on prostate cancer aggressiveness. PCaP enrolled approximately equal numbers of African Americans and Caucasian Americans with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer from North Carolina (42 counties) and Louisiana (30 parishes) identified through state tumor registries. African American PCaP subjects with DNA, who agreed to future use of specimens for research, participated in OncoArray analysis. PCMUS: Case-control - Sofia, Bulgaria. Source of cases: Patients of Clinic of Urology, Alexandrovska University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria, PrCa histopathologically confirmed. Source of controls: 72 patients with verified BPH and PSA&#60;3,5; 78 healthy controls from the MMC Biobank, no history of PrCa PHS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort PLCO: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Men with a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Source of controls: Controls were men enrolled in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial without a diagnosis of cancer at the time of case ascertainment. Poland: Case-control. Source of cases: men with unselected prostate cancer, diagnosed in north-western Poland at the University Hospital in Szczecin. Source of controls: cancer-free men from the same population, taken from the healthy adult patients of family doctors in the Szczecin region PROCAP: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were ascertained from the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study, a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients with localized prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PROGReSS: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases from the Hospital Cl&#237;nico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Source of controls: Cancer-free men from the same population ProMPT: A study to collect samples and data from subjects with and without prostate cancer. Retrospective, Experimental. Source of cases: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals. Source of controls: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals ProtecT: Trial of treatment. Samples taken from subjects invited for PSA testing from the community at nine centers across United Kingdom. Source of cases: Subjects who have a proven diagnosis of prostate cancer following testing. Source of controls: Identified through invitation of subjects in the community. PROtEuS: Case-control, population-based. Source of cases: All new histologically-confirmed cases, aged less or equal to 75 years, diagnosed between 2005 and 2009, actively ascertained across Montreal French hospitals. Source of controls: Randomly selected from the Provincial electoral list of French-speaking men between 2005 and 2009, from the same area of residence as cases and frequency-matched on age. QLD: Case-control. Source of cases: A longitudinal cohort study (Prostate Cancer Supportive Care and Patient Outcomes Project: ProsCan) conducted in Queensland, through which men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from 26 private practices and 10 public hospitals were directly referred to ProsCan at the time of diagnosis by their treating clinician (age range 43-88 years). All cases had histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer, following presentation with an abnormal serum PSA and/or lower urinary tract symptoms. Source of controls: Controls comprised healthy male blood donors with no personal history of prostate cancer, recruited through (i) the Australian Red Cross Blood Services in Brisbane (age range 19-76 years) and (ii) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (age and post-code/ area matched to ProsCan, age range 54-90 years). RAPPER: Multi-centre, hospital based blood sample collection study in patients enrolled in clinical trials with prospective collection of radiotherapy toxicity data. Source of cases: Prostate cancer patients enrolled in radiotherapy trials: CHHiP, RT01, Dose Escalation, RADICALS, Pelvic IMRT, PIVOTAL. Source of controls: N/A SABOR: Prostate Cancer Screening Cohort. Source of cases: Men &#62;45 yrs of age participating in annual PSA screening. Source of controls: Males participating in annual PSA prostate cancer risk evaluations (funded by NCI biomarkers discovery and validation grant), recruited through University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and affiliated sites or through study advertisements, enrolment open to the community SCCS: Case-control in cohort, Southeastern USA. Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: SCCS entry population. Source of controls: SCCS entry population SCPCS: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Health Care Financing Administration beneficiary file SEARCH: Case-control - East Anglia, UK. Source of cases: Men &#60; 70 years of age registered with prostate cancer at the population-based cancer registry, Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre, East Anglia, UK. Source of controls: Men attending general practice in East Anglia with no known prostate cancer diagnosis, frequency matched to cases by age and geographic region SNP_Prostate_Ghent: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Men treated with IMRT as primary or postoperative treatment for prostate cancer at the Ghent University Hospital between 2000 and 2010. Source of controls: Employees of the University hospital and members of social activity clubs, without a history of any cancer. SPAG: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Guernsey. Source of controls: Guernsey STHM2: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PCPT: Case-control from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial SELECT: Case-cohort from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial TAMPERE: Case-control - Finland, Retrospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Identified through linkage to the Finnish Cancer Registry and patient records; and the Finnish arm of the ERSPC study. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer UGANDA: Uganda Prostate Cancer Study: Uganda is a case-control study of prostate cancer in Kampala Uganda that was initiated in 2011. Men with prostate cancer were enrolled from the Urology unit at Mulago Hospital and men without prostate cancer (i.e. controls) were enrolled from other clinics (i.e. surgery) at the hospital. UKGPCS: ICR, UK. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Royal Marsden hospital and nationwide NCRN hospitals. Source of controls: Ken Muir&#39;s control- 2000 ULM: Case-control - Germany. Source of cases: familial cases (n=162): identified through questionnaires for family history by collaborating urologists all over Germany; sporadic cases (n=308): prostatectomy series performed in the Clinic of Urology Ulm between 2012 and 2014. Source of controls: age-matched controls (n=188): age-matched men without prostate cancer and negative family history collected in hospitals of Ulm WUGS/WUPCS: Cases Series, USA. Source of cases: Identified through clinics at Washington University in St. Louis. Source of controls: Men diagnosed and managed with prostate cancer in University based clinic. Acknowledgement Statements: Aarhus: This study was supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council (now Innovation Fund Denmark) and the Danish Cancer Society. The Danish Cancer Biobank (DCB) is acknowledged for biological material. AHS: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119). ATBC: This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, HHSN261201000006C, and HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. BioVu: The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center&#39;s BioVU which is supported by institutional funding and by the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975-01 (which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant 2 UL1 TR000445-06). Canary PASS: PASS was supported by Canary Foundation and the National Cancer Institute&#39;s Early Detection Research Network (U01 CA086402) CCI: This work was awarded by Prostate Cancer Canada and is proudly funded by the Movember Foundation - Grant # D2013-36.The CCI group would like to thank David Murray, Razmik Mirzayans, and April Scott for their contribution to this work. CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): None reported COH: SLN is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship COSM: The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Foundation CPCS1 &#38; CPCS2: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, DenmarkCPCS1 would like to thank the participants and staff of the Copenhagen General Population Study for their important contributions. CPDR: Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences HU0001-10-2-0002 (PI: David G. McLeod, MD) CPS-II: The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. CPS-II thanks the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, and cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health; Greek Ministry of Education (Greece); the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); the Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); the Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andaluc&#237;a, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020), Red de Centros RCESP, C03/09 (Spain); the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Sk&#229;ne and V&#228;sterbotten, Fundacion Federico SA (Sweden); the Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom). EPICAP: The EPICAP study was supported by grants from Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Ligue d&#233;partementale du Val de Marne; Fondation de France; Agence Nationale de s&#233;curit&#233; sanitaire de l&#39;alimentation, de l&#39;environnement et du travail (ANSES). The EPICAP study group would like to thank all urologists, Antoinette Anger and Hasina Randrianasolo (study monitors), Anne-Laure Astolfi, Coline Bernard, Oriane Noyer, Marie-H&#233;l&#232;ne De Campo, Sandrine Margaroline, Louise N&#39;Diaye, and Sabine Perrier-Bonnet (Clinical Research nurses). ERSPC: This study was supported by the DutchCancerSociety (KWF94-869,98-1657,2002-277,2006-3518, 2010-4800), The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311, 62300035), The Dutch Cancer Research Foundation (SWOP), and an unconditional grant from Beckman-Coulter-HybritechInc. ESTHER: The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden W&#252;rttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. The ESTHER group would like to thank Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Heiko M&#252;ller, Karina Dieffenbach, Katja Butterbach for valuable contributions to the study. FHCRC: The FHCRC studies were supported by grants R01-CA056678, R01-CA082664, and R01-CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC would like to thank all the men who participated in these studies. Gene-PARE: The Gene-PARE study was supported by grants 1R01CA134444 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, PC074201 and W81XWH-15-1-0680 from the Prostate Cancer Research Program of the Department of Defense and RSGT-05-200-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society. Hamburg-Zagreb: None reported HPFS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by grants UM1CA167552, CA133891, CA141298, and P01CA055075. HPFS are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians&#39; Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. IMPACT: The IMPACT study was funded by The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, CR-UK Project grant (C5047/A1232), Cancer Australia, AICR Netherlands A10-0227, Cancer Australia and Cancer Council Tasmania, NIHR, EU Framework 6, Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia, and Philanthropic donation to Northshore University Health System. We acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust. IMPACT acknowledges the IMPACT study steering committee, collaborating centres, and participants. IPO-Porto: The IPO-Porto study was funded by Funda&#231;&#228;o para a Ci&#234;ncia e a Tecnologia (FCT; UID/DTP/00776/2013 and PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014) and by IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP-16-2012 and CI-IPOP-24-2015). MC and MPS are research fellows from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, N&#250;cleo Regional do Norte. SM is a research fellow from FCT (SFRH/BD/71397/2010). IPO-Porto would like to express our gratitude to all patients and families who have participated in this study. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the the Frech National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la ProstateKarusprostate thanks S&#233;verine Ferdinand. KULEUVEN: F.C. and S.J. are holders of grants from FWO Vlaanderen (G.0684.12N and G.0830.13N), the Belgian federal government (National Cancer Plan KPC_29_023), and a Concerted Research Action of the KU Leuven (GOA/15/017). TVDB is holder of a doctoral fellowship of the FWO. LAAPC: This study was funded by grant R01CA84979 (to S.A. Ingles) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Malaysia: The study was funded by the University Malaya High Impact Research Grant (HIR/MOHE/MED/35). Malaysia thanks all associates in the Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF) and the Malaysian Men&#39;s Health Initiative (MMHI). MCCS: MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553, and 504711, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MCC-Spain: The study was partially funded by the Accion Transversal del Cancer, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI09/00773-Cantabria, PI11/01889-FEDER, PI12/00265, PI12/01270, and PI12/00715), by the Fundaci&#243;n Marqu&#233;s de Valdecilla (API 10/09), by the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) Scientific Foundation and by the Catalan Government DURSI grant 2009SGR1489. Samples: Biological samples were stored at the Parc de Salut MAR Biobank (MARBiobanc; Barcelona) which is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (RD09/0076/00036). Also sample collection was supported by the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya sponsored by Pla Director d&#39;Oncologia de Catalunya (XBTC). MCC-Spain acknowledges the contribution from Esther Gracia-Lavedan in preparing the data. We thank all the subjects who participated in the study and all MCC-Spain collaborators. MD Anderson: Prostate Cancer Case-Control Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388. MDACC_AS: None reported MEC: Funding provided by NIH grant U19CA148537 and grant U01CA164973. MIAMI (WFPCS): ACS MOFFITT: The Moffitt group was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park). NMHS: Funding for the Nashville Men&#39;s Health Study (NMHS) was provided by the National Institutes of Health Grant numbers: RO1CA121060. PCaP only data: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. For HCaP-NC follow-up data: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. For studies using both PCaP and HCaP-NC follow-up data please use: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) and the Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study are carried out as collaborative studies supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052 and the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS, respectively. For any PCaP data, please include: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. For studies using PCaP DNA/genotyping data, please include: We would like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). For studies using PCaP tissue, please include: We would like to acknowledge the RPCI Department of Urology Tissue Microarray and Immunoanalysis Core for our tissue processing, storage and sample disbursement. For studies using HCaP-NC follow-up data, please use: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the HCaP-NC study for their important contributions. For studies that use both PCaP and HCaP-NC, please use: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP and HCaP-NC studies for their important contributions. PCMUS: The PCMUS study was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2-2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012) with additional support from the Science Fund of Medical University - Sofia (contract 51/2009; 8I/2009; 28/2010). PHS: The Physicians&#39; Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490, and HL34595. PHS members are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians&#39; Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. PLCO: This PLCO study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIHPLCO thanks Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the screening center investigators and staff of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We thank Mr. Thomas Riley, Mr. Craig Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, and Ms. Shannon Merkle at Information Management Services, Inc., for their management of the data and Ms. Barbara O&#39;Brien and staff at Westat, Inc. for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We also thank the PLCO study participants for their contributions to making this study possible. Poland: None reported PROCAP: PROCAP was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (08-708, 09-0677). PROCAP thanks and acknowledges all of the participants in the PROCAP study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skilful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. We acknowledge The NPCR steering group: P&#228;r Stattin (chair), Anders Widmark, Stefan Karlsson, Magnus T&#246;rnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andr&#233;n, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, G&#246;ran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Roy Ehrnstr&#246;m. PROGReSS: The PROGReSS study is founded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (INT15/00070; INT16/00154; FIS PI10/00164, FIS PI13/02030; FIS PI16/00046); the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PTA2014-10228-I), and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER 2007-2013). ProMPT: Founded by CRUK, NIHR, MRC, Cambride Biomedical Research Centre ProtecT: Founded by NIHR. ProtecT and ProMPT would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK. Cancer Research UK grants (C8197/A10123) and (C8197/A10865) supported the genotyping team. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research which funds the Cambridge Bio-medical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment (PROMPT) collaborative (grant code G0500966/75466) which has funded tissue and urine collections in Cambridge. We are grateful to staff at the Welcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Addenbrooke&#39;s Clinical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK for their help in conducting the ProtecT study. We also acknowledge the support of the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the DOH HTA (ProtecT grant), and the NCRI/MRC (ProMPT grant) for help with the bio-repository. The UK Department of Health funded the ProtecT study through the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99). The ProtecT trial and its linked ProMPT and CAP (Comparison Arm for ProtecT) studies are supported by Department of Health, England; Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466, and The NCRI, UK. The epidemiological data for ProtecT were generated though funding from the Southwest National Health Service Research and Development. DNA extraction in ProtecT was supported by USA Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280, Yorkshire Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the ProtecT study research group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health of England. The bio-repository from ProtecT is supported by the NCRI (ProMPT) Prostate Cancer Collaborative and the Cambridge BMRC grant from NIHR. We thank the National Institute for Health Research, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the Human Research Tissue Bank (Addenbrooke&#39;s Hospital), and Cancer Research UK. PROtEuS: PROtEuS was supported financially through grants from the Canadian Cancer Society (13149, 19500, 19864, 19865) and the Cancer Research Society, in partnership with the Minist&#232;re de l&#39;enseignement sup&#233;rieur, de la recherche, de la science et de la technologie du Qu&#233;bec, and the Fonds de la recherche du Qu&#233;bec - Sant&#233;.PROtEuS would like to thank its collaborators and research personnel, and the urologists involved in subjects recruitment. We also wish to acknowledge the special contribution made by Ann Hsing and Anand Chokkalingam to the conception of the genetic component of PROtEuS. QLD: The QLD research is supported by The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Project Grants (390130, 1009458) and NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and Cancer Australia PdCCRS funding to J Batra. The QLD team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the urologists, pathologists, data managers and patient participants who have generously and altruistically supported the QLD cohort. RAPPER: RAPPER is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1094/A11728; C1094/A18504) and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre funding (C1467/A7286). The RAPPER group thank Rebecca Elliott for project management. SABOR: The SABOR research is supported by NIH/NCI Early Detection Research Network, grant U01 CA0866402-12. Also supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant to the Cancer Therapy and Research Center from the National Cancer Institute (US) P30 CA054174. SCCS: SCCS is funded by NIH grant R01 CA092447, and SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SCPCS: SCPCS is funded by CDC grant S1135-19/19, and SCPCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). SEARCH: SEARCH is funded by a program grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. SNP_Prostate_Ghent: The study was supported by the National Cancer Plan, financed by the Federal Office of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium. SPAG: Wessex Medical ResearchHope for Guernsey, MUG, HSSD, MSG, Roger Allsopp STHM2: STHM2 was supported by grants from The Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linn&#233; Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, number 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; The Swedish Research Council (number K2010-70X-20430-04-3) and The Swedish Cancer Society (numbers 11-0287 and 11-0624); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;rs minne; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), number 2012-0073STHM2 acknowledges the Karolinska University Laboratory, Aleris Medilab, Unilabs and the Regional Prostate Cancer Registry for performing analyses and help to retrieve data. Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Britt-Marie Hune for their enthusiastic work as research nurses. Astrid Bj&#246;rklund for skilful data management. We wish to thank the BBMRI.se biobank facility at Karolinska Institutet for biobank services. PCPT &#38; SELECT are funded by Public Health Service grants U10CA37429 and 5UM1CA182883 from the National Cancer Institute. SWOG and SELECT thank the site investigators and staff and, most importantly, the participants who donated their time to this trial. TAMPERE: The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland (251074), The Finnish Cancer Organisations, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (X51003). The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). TAMPERE would like to thank Riina Liikanen, Liisa Maeaettaenen and Kirsi Talala for their work on samples and databases. UGANDA: None reported UKGPCS: UKGPCS would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. UKGPCS should also like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses, data managers, and consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. UKGPCS would like to thank all urologists and other persons involved in the planning, coordination, and data collection of the study. ULM: The Ulm group received funds from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). WUGS/WUPCS: WUGS would like to thank the following for funding support: The Anthony DeNovi Fund, the Donald C. McGraw Foundation, and the St. Louis Men&#39;s Group Against Cancer.

  Study phs001391