847 results for "1m coin team fc 26 Besök Buyfc26coins.com Hjälpsamma och vänliga medarbetare i kundservice..wTD1"

in 93.07 milliseconds.

• A panel of reference haplotypes for imputing complement component 4 (C4) gene structural variation

  Neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders have substantial epidemiological correlations (Benros et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2013, PMID: 23760347) and broad, genome-wide patterns of shared genetic risk (Pouget et al., Hum Mol Genet, PMID: 31211845; Tylee et al., Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2018, PMID: 30325587). Some cases of psychosis involve autoantibodies against the NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, or other synaptic proteins (reviewed in Dalmau et al, Lancet Neurol 2011, PMID: 21163445). The related autoimmune conditions lupus and Sjogren's Syndrome also involve the development of autoantibodies. The possibility that neuropsychiatric disorders can have molecular mechanisms in common with autoimmune disorders - for example, that psychosis involves an inflammatory or autoimmune component in some patients, or that immune molecules are re-used in the brain to underlie other important biological activities (Stevens et al., Cell 2007, PMID: 18083105) - could open novel therapeutic possibilities for neuropsychiatric disorders. At a genetic level, the strongest genetic associations of schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren's Syndrome to common genetic variation involve associations to genetic markers in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) locus. Bipolar disorder in some studies also associates with variation in or near the MHC locus, though less strongly than schizophrenia does. Intriguingly, the same specific SNPs appear to associate strongly with schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren's; these strongly associating SNPs span a genomic segment that includes the HLA class II genes (which have an important role in antibody production) and the complement component 4 (C4) genes. The specific genes and alleles responsible for these associations need to be completely defined, and the extent to which they represent shared or distinct genetic influences in neuropsychiatric and autoimmune illnesses needs to be clarified. The complement component 4 (C4A and C4B) genes are present in the MHC locus, between the class I and class II HLA genes. C4A and C4B commonly vary in genomic copy number and encode complement proteins with distinct affinities for molecular targets. The complex genetic variation at C4 - arising from many alleles with different numbers of C4A and C4B genes - has been challenging to analyze in large cohorts. We recently developed an approach to this problem based on imputation: people share long haplotypes with the same combinations of SNP and C4 alleles, such that C4A and C4B gene copy numbers can be imputed from SNP data (Sekar et al., Nature 2016, PMID: 26814963). In the current work, to analyze C4 in large cohorts, we developed a way to identify C4 alleles from whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, then analyzed WGS data from 1,234 individuals to create a large multi-ancestry panel of 2,530 reference haplotypes of MHC SNPs and C4 alleles that can then be imputed into still-larger cohorts for which SNP data are available. With this dbGaP submission, we make this reference panel available for other studies. Protocols and software for imputing C4 alleles into genome-wide SNP data, and for performing molecular analyses on the C4 genes (such as direct measurement of copy number from genomic DNA), can be found on the McCarroll Lab web site (http://mccarrolllab.org/resources). We are also working to create additional reference panels for imputation of C4 alleles that will be based on still-larger and more diverse population samples; links to these will also be available on the McCarroll Lab web site as we create and validate them.

  Study phs001992

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation on Helicopter Study (PROHS) (ROC-PROHS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: To observe if patients with severe traumatic injuries evacuated to level 1 trauma centers on air ambulances who received prehospital red blood cells and/or plasma had decreased in-hospital mortality compared to patients who received only crystalloids.Background: Injury is the leading cause of death in adults and children between the ages of 1 and 44 years. However, approximately 40% of in-hospital deaths among injured patients involve massive truncal hemorrhage that is considered potentially salvageable. Multiple retrospective military and civilian studies have reported that transfusion involving blood component ratios approaching whole blood are associated with significant decreases in 24-hour and 30-day mortality among injured patients. Furthermore, prehospital transfusion (PHT) studies from military and civilian hospitals have shown that prehospital transfusion of plasma and red blood cells (RBCs) is not only feasible, but associated with improved coagulation status on arrival. Prehospital resuscitation practices in the US differ significantly in approach, with most systems using crystalloids while a few offer RBCs or a combination of plasma and RBCs. No large multicenter civilian studies have evaluated the use of prehospital plasma and RBCs in severely injured patients compared to crystalloids.Participants: A total of 25,118 trauma patients were admitted during the 10 month enrollment period to the nine participating centers, of which 2341 arrived by helicopter, and 1058 met the highest risk criteria. Of the high risk sub-set, 585 arrived on helicopters with blood products available and 473 patients arrived via helicopters without blood available. One hundred forty two patients (24%) of those transported on helicopters with blood products available actually received PHT and 916 patients did not.Design: PROHS was a multicenter, prospective pragmatic, observational study of prehospital resuscitation approaches. There were no study guidelines dictating resuscitation practice (i.e., use of blood products or end of resuscitation). Of the 9 participating Level I trauma centers, 5 had helicopter systems with plasma and/or RBCs while the other 4 had helicopter systems that used only crystalloid resuscitation. All patients arriving to the participating center's trauma emergency department via helicopter directly from the scene were screened and had initial data collected. Of that group, all patients who met the highest risk category or received blood during transport were followed by direct observation during the initial resuscitation period and then indirectly through medical chart review until hospital discharge or 30 days after admission (whichever occurred first).The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality at 3 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days. Other outcome measures included length of hospital stay, number of ICU days, number of ventilator days, blood product usage, GOSE score at discharge, number of patients with complications, and number of patients who required hemostatic devices. Conclusions:Because of the unexpected imbalance in injury severity between systems with and without blood products on helicopters, all analyses were inconclusive. With few units transfused to each patient and small outcome differences between groups, large randomized studies will be required to detect significant survival differences in this important population.

  Study phs003826

• GEnomics and Transcriptomics of Human INsulinoma (GETHIN)

  The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) The common forms of diabetes - Types 1 and 2 - ultimately result from a deficiency of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) study was performed in order to identify novel approaches to inducing human pancreatic beta cells to replicate and regenerate. As a corollary, developing drugs that are able to expand human beta cell mass in people with diabetes should reverse diabetes. Unfortunately, identifying druggable pathways that can enhance human beta cell replication has been a major challenge. In 2017, there is only one class of drugs - the harmine analogues - that can induce human beta cells to replicate, and in this case, higher replication rates are desirable. Thus, identifying additional drugs and druggable pathways is a priority in diabetes research. Insulinomas are rare, benign adenomas of the pancreatic beta cell that cause excess insulin production and hypoglycemia: exactly the opposite of Types 1 and 2 diabetes. Beta cell proliferation rates in insulinomas are abnormally high. Thus, the premise for The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma study is that benign human insulinomas hold the genomic and transcriptomic "recipe", and the repertoire of druggable pathways, that can be exploited to induce regeneration or replication of human beta cells in diabetes. Because, insulinomas are so rare, are almost always benign (non-malignant), and are easily resected by laparoscopic surgery, little attention has been paid to understanding the genomics or transcriptomics of insulinoma. There are at present only three published studies employing next-gen sequencing in insulinoma (PMID:24326773; PMID:25787250; and PMID:25763608). These studies contained 10, 7 and 8 insulinomas, respectively, and highlighted likely mutations in YY1 and MEN1. Our goal was to markedly expand the database and to add RNAseq to these earlier studies. The GETHIN study reports next-gen sequencing on 38 insulinomas, by far the largest series of human insulinomas subjected to next-gen sequencing (see the Selected publications section for reference). This includes paired (genomic plus tumor) whole exome sequencing on 26 human insulinomas (22 sequenced at Mount Sinai, 4 downloaded from Cao et al, PMID:24326773), and 25 sets of RNAseq from insulinomas, some of which also had paired whole exome sequencing, and some of which did not. The insulinoma RNAseq was compared to RNAseq from 22 sets of FACS-sorted normal human beta cells. Since insulinomas are so rare, the 38 insulinomas were collected by several investigators at several institutions over several decades, but most (22 whole exome sets, and all RNAseq) were sequenced at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. The current dataset contains whole exome sequencing and RNAseq on the 11 insulinomas harvested at Mount Sinai. The four from Cao et al can be retrieved from Cao et al PMID:24326773. Fastq files from the remaining 23 insulinomas will be added as the local IRBs and Institutional Certifications are acquired. Complete patient data are provided in our Nature Communications report. Going forward, our intention is to expand this series, with the goal of sequencing 100 human insulinomas. These will be added to dbGaP as they accrue. Paired-end whole exome sequencing (mean usable sequencing depth 79X and 105X for blood and insulinoma, respectively) was performed using an Illumina HiSeq 2500. Insulinoma and sorted normal beta cell RNAseq was performed on Ribozero and polyA paired end libraries using the Illumina HiSeq 2500. Complete sequencing and bioinformatic details are provided in our Nature Communications report. The principal findings from the study are that although each insulinoma has a different set of presumptive driver mutations, the majority converge on genes that are members of the Polycomb Complex, Trithorax Complex and other epigenetic modifying enzymes. In addition, 20% of insulinomas have copy number loss or loss of heterozygosity of all or most of chromosome 11, and the majority display abnormalities in CpG methylation and imprinting control on the imprinted Chr 11 p15.5-15.4 region that contains INS, IGF2, CDKN1C, KCNQ1, and other genes involved in beta cell specification and proliferation.

  Study phs001422

• TRanscriptomic ANalySis of left ventriCulaR gene Expression (TRANSCRibE)

  Myocardial ischemia occurs when there is a mismatch between coronary oxygen delivery and metabolic requirements of the myocardium, which may be clinically manifested during angina, coronary angioplasty or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Myocardial ischemia may lead to a spectrum of myocardial stunning, hibernating myocardium, and ultimately cell death if the ischemic insult is severe. In the human heart, irreversible damage begins after approximately 20 to 40 minutes of oxygen deprivation. Observed molecular and cellular changes of myocardial ischemia are characteristic of an inflammatory response, but the exact mechanisms that underlie this pathological process are unclear and may not be full emulated by animal models of ischemia or infarction. Thus, we felt it valuable to investigate a human ischemia model. During cardiac surgery, CPB with aortic cross-clamping (AoXC) and cardioplegic arrest is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and suitable operative conditions. However, despite the use of cardioprotective strategies, AoXc during CPB is accompanied by a variable, yet obligate ischemic period lasting 1 to 3 hours, resulting in hypoxia, metabolic substrate depletion, reperfusion injury, apoptosis, and necrosis. Cardiac specific biomarkers of ischemia and infarction, including troponin, are elevated even after routine coronary artery bypass graft surgery and correlate with the duration of ischemia from AoXc.This process of CPB provides us with the ability to examine the transcriptional profile before and after an expected, consistent, and reproducible human ischemic event, albeit induced by cold cardioplegic arrest and not coronary occlusion. In addition, the absence of reperfusion in this time period allows us to examine the transcriptomic response to intermittent ischemia, without having to account for the perturbations of reperfusion injury. Although various animal models have been used to examine the effects of ischemia on cardiac function, no human data exist which examine the early transcriptomic response to a left ventricular (LV) ischemic insult. We therefore characterized the effect of cold cardioplegia induced acute ischemia on the transcriptional profile of the LV by performing whole transcriptome next-generation RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery by sampling human LV tissue prior to, and after, the obligate ischemia during AoXC. We hypothesized that the cold cardioplegia induced ischemic injury will dramatically alter transcription in the human myocardium, and that we would identify genes and pathways, which will identify interventional targets for pharmacological therapy. Methods:We have collected left ventricle tissue samples and blood sample from patients undergoing heart surgery. We obtained punch biopsies (~3-5μg total RNA content) from the site of a routinely placed surgical vent in the anterolateral apical left ventricular wall of patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. After an average of 79 minutes of aortic cross-clamping with intermittent cold blood cardioplegia for myocardial protection every 20 minutes, a second biopsy was obtained in the same manner. Tissue samples were immediately placed in RNAlater® (Ambion, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), and after 48 hours at +4°C were stored at -80°C until RNA extraction. Total RNA was isolated with Trizol and RNA quality was assessed using the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). Libraries were prepared by poly(A) mRNA isolation and reverse transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), then sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq2000 or HiSeq2500 (Illumina, San Diego, CA). As samples were analyzed at different times, different read lengths were employed, initially using single-end reads (n=20) and then transitioning to paired end reads (n=216), ranging from 36 - 100 base pairs. Raw sequencing files were processed using Sickle, Skewer, and STAR software, and aligned to GrCh37 or UCSC Hg19. DNA was isolated from whole blood using standard methods. SNP genotyping was performed using the Illumina Omni2.5Exome-8 BeadChip array with additional exome content (Illumina, San Diego, CA) chip, version 1.1. We first phased and imputed 93 subjects using a phasing tool called SHAPEIT and an imputation tool called MINIMAC, with 1000 Genomes phase 1 version 3 for the reference panel. We then phased and imputed 26 more subjects using SHAPEIT, an imputation tool called IMPUTE2, and 1000 Genomes phase 3 version 5.

  Study phs001679

• Genetic Basis of Early Onset Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

  The study protocol was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (HSC-MS-11-0185). Study recruitment began on July 1, 2017, and concluded on March 30, 2022. After written informed consent, we enrolled probands with early onset BAV disease (EBAV), which we defined as individuals with BAV who were under the age of 30 at the time of first clinical event. Clinical events were defined as aortic replacement, aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, moderate or severe aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, large aneurysm (Z > 4.5), or intervention for BAV-related conditions. Those with hypoplastic left heart, known genetic mutations, genetic syndromes, or complex congenital heart disease were excluded. Samples were collected and genotyped as previously reported. For comparison, we analyzed a cohort of older individuals of European ancestry with sporadic BAV disease selected from the International BAV Consortium (BAVGWAS). Phenotypes were derived from record review with confirmation of image data whenever possible [25-26]. The computational pipeline for CNV analysis of Illumina single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data included three independent CNV detection algorithms.GenomeStudio was used to exclude samples with indeterminate sex or more than 5% missing genotypes, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with GenTrain = 0. Principal component analysis was used to remove outliers that did not cluster with European ancestry. Prior to CNV analysis, each dataset was trimmed by selecting a common set of 650,000 SNPs that were genotyped on each of the microarrays used in this study.Three independent algorithms (PennCNV, cnvPartition, and QuantiSNP) were used to generate CNV calls and sample-level quality statistics from SNP intensity data. PennCNV and QuantiSNP were run on Unix clusters and cnvPartition data were exported from GenomeStudio. The analysis was run using default configurations. PennCNV was used to generate QC data and remove CNV calls that intersect with polymorphic genomic regions. Samples that met any of the following criteria were excluded, standard deviation of the LogR ratio (obtained from PennCNV) > 0.35 or number of CNVs > 2 standard deviations above the mean for each data set. CNV calls less than 20 Kilobases in length and/or spanned by fewer than 6 probes were excluded. The overlap function for rare CNVs in PLINK was used to construct CNV regions (CNVRs) after adjacent regions were merged using PennCNV. LogR ratio (LRR) and B allele frequency (BAF) data at CNVRs and calls of interest were visualized in GenomeStudio for validation. For segregation analysis, GenomeStudio was used to determine the presence of CNVs in relatives.A total of 22,014 unselected control Illumina Genotypes obtained from the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes were analyzed using identical methods (S1 Table). The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) includes data on a cohort of 10,300 individuals who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) includes data on 37,000 individuals aged 50 above from 23,000 households across the United States. Principal component analysis was used to select European ancestry genotypes from these datasets for analysis. Datasets were paired for case-control analysis based on the concordance of log-transformed sample-level quality control statistics (number of CNV calls and standard deviation of logR ratios). Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests were used to compare CNV frequencies in cases and controls.Rare CNV functions in PLINK (v1.7) were used to perform permutation-based burden tests or gene set-based enrichment tests. Case control burden tests were restricted to CNVs that were longer than 110 Kb and less than 0.1% in frequency. CNV overlap functions in PLINK were used to identify rare CNVs that intersect between datasets or involve specific BAV or CHD genes . The list of candidate genes included 190 CHD genes that have strong cumulative evidence to cause BAV or related congenital malformations from human or animal model data. Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37 was used for CNV annotation [34].

  Study phs003705

• Neural Systems, Inhibitory Control, and Methamphetamine Dependence

  The Neural Systems, Inhibitory Control, and Methamphetamine Dependence study started in 2011 and is currently finishing data collection for its last participants. The study included methamphetamine abusing individuals and healthy control participants aged 18-55 years. Participants who qualified over the telephone were scheduled to visit the London Laboratory at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior for the In-Person Screening Phase. The screening procedures, usually scheduled over two visits, determined if participants were eligible to complete the subsequent study visits. Both groups completed identical screening procedures, with the exception of more in-depth drug use questions for the methamphetamine users. After providing written consent, participants completed questionnaires about their mood, medical, psychiatric and drug use history, personality and life experiences. They also provided a urine sample to determine what drugs they recently used and a breath sample to determine the carbon monoxide levels in their system. The drug screen tested for recent methamphetamine, cocaine, opiates/opioids, benzodiazepines, THC and other amphetamines. Methamphetamine participants needed to test positive for methamphetamine at admission. If methamphetamine participants tested positive for any drugs other than methamphetamine or marijuana, and if healthy control participants tested positive for any drugs other than marijuana, they were excluded from the study. Additionally, the urine samples of female participants were tested for pregnancy; pregnant females were also excluded. If no exclusionary criteria were met during the first screening visit, participants completed a second screening visit to ensure they were mentally and physically healthy enough to participate. The second screening visit included a psychiatric diagnostic interview (DSM-IV (SCID-I) for first 500 participants and the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview M.I.N.I for the last 50 participants). Additionally, laboratory tests and procedures were completed by the UCLA General Clinical Research Center and interpreted by a study physician. Laboratory tests included vital signs (heart rate--BPM, blood pressure, and respirations), an electrocardiogram (ECG) to record the electrical activity of the heart, and an 18-cc blood sample to perform laboratory tests which included a complete chemistry and metabolic panel, hepatic panel, Hepatitis-C tests, and HIV test. The laboratory tests from this blood sample ensured that participants' liver and kidneys were functioning normally, and that their standard blood counts (red cell, white cell, and salts) were also normal. If a Hepatitis-C (HCV) or HIV test was positive, participants were not allowed to continue in the study and their results were reported to the California State Health Department. Participants deemed eligible to continue in the methamphetamine group participated on an outpatient basis or were admitted to the UCLA Medical Center to participate on an inpatient basis for up to 10 days. Typically, detectable levels of methamphetamine in urinalysis remain for 2-3 days, therefore inpatient days 0-3 served as a "washout period" and the methamphetamine abusing inpatient participants provided daily urine samples to test for recent drug use and pregnancy (female participants only). Outpatient participants were also required to remain abstinent from all drugs except nicotine and marijuana for at least 4 days prior to study sessions. Self-reported abstinence for outpatients was verified by urine toxicology and saliva screening at every visit to UCLA before completion of study procedures. Neurocognitive assessments, about three hours each, typically took place on two separate days. The purpose of the neurocognitive sessions were to assess participants' intellectual and neurocognitive functioning. On either the same day as the neurocognitive testing or on separate days, both methamphetamine abusers and healthy controls were administered a structural MRI to collect information on brain structure.

  Study phs001197

• Natural Killer Cell Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies

  The "Natural Killer Cell Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies" study is an umbrella repository for data pertaining to multiple related clinical trials that aim to assess NK cell therapies as part of treatment strategies for a range of hematologic malignancies. Here, data from two trials, NCT03068819 and NCT02782546, are presented.Cytokine Induced Memory-like NK Cell Adoptive Therapy for Relapsed AML after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant in Children and Adults (NCT03068819)Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have extremely poor prognosis. Standard salvage chemotherapy and donor lymphocyte infusions (DLI) have little curative potential. Previous studies showed that natural killer (NK) cells can be stimulated ex vivo with interleukin-12 (IL-12), IL-15, and IL-18 to generate memory-like (ML) NK cells with enhanced anti-leukemia responses. We treated nine pediatric/YA patients with post-HCT relapsed AML with donor ML NK cells on a phase I trial. Patients received fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim followed two weeks later by infusion of DLI and ML NK cells from the original HCT donor. ML NK cells were successfully generated from haploidentical, matched-related and matched-unrelated donors. Following infusion, donor-derived ML NK cells expanded and maintained ML multidimensional mass cytometry phenotype for over 3 months. Furthermore, ML NK cells exhibited persistent functional responses as evidenced by leukemia-triggered IFN-gamma production. Following DLI and ML NK cell adoptive transfer, 4 of 8 evaluable patients achieved complete remission at day 28. Two patients maintained a durable remission for over 3 months with one patient in remission for greater than two years. No significant toxicity was experienced. This study demonstrates that in a compatible immune environment post-HCT, donor ML NK cells robustly expand and persist with potent anti-leukemic activity in the absence of exogenous cytokines. ML NK cells in combination with DLI present a novel immunotherapy platform for AML that has relapsed after allogeneic HCT. This trial was registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03068819.A Phase II Study of Cytokine Induced Memory-like NK Cell Adoptive Therapy after Haploidentical Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (NCT02782546)Natural killer (NK) cells are innate lymphoid cells that eliminate cancer cells, produce cytokines, and are being investigated as a nascent cellular immunotherapy. Impaired NK cell function, expansion, and persistence remain key challenges for optimal clinical translation. One promising strategy to overcome these challenges is cytokine-induced memory-like (ML) differentiation, whereby NK cells acquire enhanced anti-tumor function following stimulation with IL-12, IL-15, and IL-18. Here, reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) for HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) was augmented with same-donor ML NK cells on Day 7 and 3 weeks of N-803 (IL-15 superagonist) to treat patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the clinical trial (NCT02782546). In 15 patients, donor ML NK cells were well-tolerated and 87% of patients achieved a composite complete response at Day 28, which corresponded with clearing high-risk mutations, including TP53 variants. NK cells were the major blood lymphocytes for two months post-HCT with prolific expansion (1104-fold) over 1-2 weeks. Multidimensional mass cytometry and CITE-seq identified donor ML NK cells as distinct from conventional NK cells and persisting for over two months. ML NK cells expressed CD16, CD57, and high granzyme B and perforin, along with a unique transcription factor profile. ML NK cells differentiated in patients had enhanced ex vivo function compared to conventional NK cells from both patient and healthy donors. Overall, same-donor ML NK cell therapy with 3 weeks of N-803 support safely augmented RIC haplo-HCT for AML, with ML NK cells demonstrating enhanced in vivo persistence and functionality, overcoming barriers in the field.

  Study phs002681

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submissions. To start a new submission, click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase, you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only”, “Read & Write” or “Full Access”). Please note that to add a collaborator, they must also have a submitter role. When adding a collaborator, please enter the user’s full email address in the search field and select the user. For security reasons, the portal does not display partial matches, so the full email address must be entered.The collaborator option is available while the submission is open. In the event that the submission is closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you only need to make a small modification in any objects within the submission, for example, copy and paste a title or description of the submission. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on Add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv, and the sample will be created.Add a single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols, and machines. Experiments generate the connection between the samples and the study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments, and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample file linkage. Upload the run.csv, and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh.Add single run: select the file format, sample, and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded to your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF, and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA-specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). If you would like your dataset to be added to the cBioPortal instance, please review the cBioPortal documentation.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested, please delete them from your SFTP INBOX after finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more files to a closed submission, you will need to reopen the submission where the dataset is registered.Please note that you can only modify datasets that begin with the ID EGAD5XXXXXXX.  Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission ID (EGA0XXX). Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, simply register new metadata, such as runs or analyses, and the submission will automatically reopen and appear on the main page. You can also do a small edition, such as copying and pasting a title or description. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guide of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial, we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal

• 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'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 ~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 (+/- 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 = 297) and matched controls (n = 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 "Burgenland Prevention Trial of Colorectal Disease with Immunological Testing" (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 "Rudolfstiftung" and the "Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Sud", 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 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age and sex. Age was matched on +-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 (+- 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'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/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 (+-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' anonymized biological specimens and linked phenotypic data. The data and samples are collected under the protocol "Collection and Storage of Controls for Genetics Research Studies", 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 1:1. Matching was done on age at reference time (age_ref), race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on +-5 years. Sex and race were matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race with 1:1 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' 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/or with tubulovillous, villous, or highgrade 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. 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'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 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age, race, and sex. Age was matched on +-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 1:1-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 1/1/13 - 12/31/16. Matched control samples were selected from the Ohio State University Medical Center'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 "swish-and-spit" protocol and participation rate was 65%. Details of this study have been previously described (Huang et al., 2016) [PMID: 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: 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: 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 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age_ref, race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on +-5 years. The Women'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: 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/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/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/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/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 <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 (1:1) that exactly met the following matching criteria: age (+-5 years), 40 randomization centers (exact), WHI date (+-3 years), CaD date (+-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'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 : Age+-5, randomization centers, WHI date +- 3 years, CaD date +- 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, DM flag, CaD flag. 17 of the remaining 19 unmatched cases found matched controls. By matching on Age+-5, randomization centers, WHI date +- 3 years, CaD date +- 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, the remaining 2 unmatched cases found their matches.

  Study phs001415

• Spatial Transcriptomics of Vaccine Therapy With or Without Cyclophosphamide in Treating Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy for Stage I or Stage II Pancreatic Cancer That Can Be Removed by Surgery

  Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a rapidly progressing cancer that responds poorly to immunotherapies. Intratumoral tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) have been associated with rare long-term PDAC survivors, but the role of TLS in PDAC and their spatial relationships within the context of the broader tumor microenvironment remain unknown. Here, spatial transcriptomics data were generated from 16 pancreatic cancer patients treated with GVAX, whose tumors presented with induced intratumoral TLS. Resected tumor specimens were embedded in OCT media and freshly frozen. Sections were cut into 6.5 x 6.5 mm dimensions compatible with Visium spatial transcriptomics slides. TLS-positive tumor sections from 14 patients (14 tumor samples in total) and lymph nodes from remaining patients (2 lymph node samples in total) were selected by an expert pathologist for profiling. We used 4 Visium slides and covered the 16 capture areas with sections cut in a cryostat at 10 µm. The fresh frozen Visium protocol was followed according to manufacturer's recommendations (10x Genomics Spatial 3' v1). Tissue permeabilization and library construction was carried out according to the manufacturer's protocols. Permeabilization time was optimized to 30 minutes. The captured tissue sections were permeabilized to allow RNA to be captured onto the slide where it reverse-transcribed to cDNA. The cDNA was then amplified, and sequencing libraries were prepared using the 10x Genomics Visium Spatial Gene Expression Reagent Kit for Library Preparation. The libraries were then sequenced using an Illumina NovaSeq sequencer. The raw data obtained from the sequencing were processed using the SpaceRanger (spaceranger-1.2.0) pipeline for alignment onto the GRCh38-2020-A reference transcriptome quantification of gene expression. Unsupervised learning generated a TLS-specific spatial gene expression signature that significantly associates with improved survival in PDAC patients. These analyses demonstrate TLS-associated intratumoral B cell maturation.

  Study phs003862

• Metadata Public API

  Metadata Rest Endpoints Common Aspects Functionality Identifiers Requests and Responses Request Response Querying Querying by Object Cross-Querying by Object Common Aspects Functionality The Metadata REST API allows EGA users to request metadata from the EGA. Using this api you will be able to obtain the publicly available information from EGA study, sample, experiment, run, analysis, policy, dac and dataset. The API also allows for objects to be cross-referenced in order to obtain for example all the datasets linked to a dac. Identifiers EGA objects can be identified by their unique accession. These are ID's displayed everywhere, shared among all EGA locations and specific for each data type (More information on the list below) EGA Accession ID EGA Object description EGAS EGA Study Accession ID EGAC EGA DAC Accession ID EGAP EGA Policy Accession ID EGAN EGA Sample Accession ID EGAR EGA Run Accession ID EGAX EGA Experiment ID EGAZ EGA Analysis Accession ID EGAD EGA Dataset Accession ID EGAB EGA Submission ID EGAF EGA File Unique Accession ID Server Request and Response Request All the endpoints implement these two HTTP methods, GET and HEAD. Moreover, there is an authentication layer that allows to disclose the private information about each object if the user runs the endpoint with their token and has permissions to the related dataset. HTTP Method Description GET Returns the objects and their public information (including private information if the user has permissions) HEAD Returns the count of objects to be returned Response API responses are diverse but they always return a status call. Below you have a summary on what these codes mean and some tips that can help you troubleshooting them: HTTP Status Code Description Resolution 200 OK No error handling necessary 206 Partial Content Expected status code when paginating the results. No error handling necessary 400 BAD REQUEST Request incorrectly formulated 401 UNAUTHORISED/FORBIDDEN You do not have permissions over the object you are trying to access. / The authorised user is not permitted to make the given request. 404 NOT FOUND The object/resource you are trying to access does not exist. 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR This is a server-side error, try later. If the issue persists, contact the Heldpesk. Querying Querying by Object In the below documentation, worked examples can be found on how to use the API, to query about each unique EGA object. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/analyses/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/runs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/studies/{id} Worked example for the EGA data access committee(DAC) EGAC00001000514 https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000514 Points to notice Please, be advised that all EGA objects can be queried by using the same endpoint. For example: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets Returns all the datasets registered at the EGA. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets?limit=5&offset=15 Returns 5 results skipping the initial 15 results. Cross-Querying by Object The EGA REST API Metadata also allows for the crossquerying of public metadata. For example, should I want to query the datasets included in the ICGC DAC: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000010/datasets Below, you can find worked examples on how to perform the call to the API. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000645/analyses https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasetsEGAD00001000645/files https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/runs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/samples https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/EGAN00001092114/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/dacs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/studies There are more endpoints included in this category. Please, find all the possibilities (green tick) in the table below. Table The table displays in a ordered fashion the objects that can be crossreferenced using the metadata API. BY Analysis Dac Dataset Experiment Policy Run Sample Study File Analysis ✔ ✔ Dac ✔ ✔ Dataset ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Experiment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Policy ✔ Run ✔ ✔ ✔ Sample ✔ ✔* ✔ Study ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔* File ✔ *: These cross queries do not include data from Array-File submissions. Check out the SPEC

  Documentation discovery/metadata/public-metadata-api

• RNA-Seq in Patients with Primordial Dwarfism

  Transcriptome studies in patients with rare genetic diseases can potentially aid in the interpretation of likely causal genetic variation through identification of altered transcript abundance and/or structure. RNA-Seq is the most sensitive assay for both investigating transcript structure and abundance The primary aim of this pilot project is to investigate to what degree integrating exome-Seq and RNA-Seq data on the same individual can accelerate the identification of causal alleles for rare genetic diseases. There are two main strands to this: (i) identifying which variants discovered in exome-seq appear to be having a functional impact on transcripts, and (ii) identifying transcript outliers, especially among known causal genes, that may not necessarily have a causal variant identified from exome sequencing. The latter may identify the presence of causal variants that lie far from coding regions (e.g. the formation of cryptic splice sites deep within introns, or loss of long range regulatory elements), which can be confirmed with further targeted genetic assays. Just over 50% of all disease-causing variants recorded in the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) affect transcript structure and abundance (e.g. nonsense SNVs, essential splice site SNVs, frameshifting indels, CNVs). This pilot project will study RNA from lymphoblastoid cell-lines from 12 patients with primordial dwarfism syndromes, for 10 of these samples we have previously generate exome data as part of our collaboration with the group of Prof Andrew Jackson. The two remaining samples are positive controls where the causal mutation is known, and is known to affect transcript structure and/or abundance. Primordial dwarfism is a prime candidate for these RNA-seq studies because all known causal mutations to date have key roles in DNA replication and thus, unsurprisingly, the products of the causal genes are typically ubiquitously expressed. Each RNA will be sequenced, with two technical replicates (independent RT-PCR and libraries) per sample, and each replicate run in 1/2 of a HiSeq lane using 100bp paired reads. Samples preparation was as follows :The cells were grown to confluency, then pellets frozen at -80. RNA samples were prepared using the Qiagen RNeasy kit, then nanodropped and analyzed using the bioanalyzer to determine concentration and purity. This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/

  Dataset EGAD00001000640

• ELLIPSE Prostate Cancer Meta-Analysis and Genotyping

  The ELLIPSE Consortium is an international effort to discover risk loci for prostate cancer. It includes the meta-analysis of existing GWAS data as well as novel GWAS, exome, and iCOGS genotyping. The GWAS meta-analysis includes the following cases and controls from studies of European ancestry: UK GWAS stage 1 (Illumina Infinium HumanHap 550 Array: 1854 cases and 1894 controls), UK GWAS stage 2 (Illumina iSELECT: 3706 cases and 3884 controls), CAPS1 (Affymetrix GeneChip 500K: 474 cases and 482 controls), CAPS2 (Affymetrix GeneChip 5.0K: 1458 cases and 512 controls), BPC3 (Illumina Human610 Illumina: 2068 cases and 3011 controls), PEGASUS (HumanOmni2.5: 4600 cases and 2941 controls). The OMNI 2.5M genotyping was conducted for 977 prostate cancer cases from UKGPCS. The Exome SNP array genotyping was conducted for 4741 subjects from UKGPCS. The iCOGs genotyping was conducted for 10366 subjects which includes the Multiethnic Cohort (n=1648) and UKGPCS (n=8718). Below is a description of each study that contributed to the meta-analysis of men of European ancestry. Information about the studies that contributed to the multiethnic meta-analysis can be found on the associated study page and also in Conti et al (Nature Genetics, PMID:33398198).   UK GWAS Stage 1 (UK1) and Stage 2 (UK2): The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS) was first established in 1993 and is the largest prostate cancer study of its kind in the UK, involving nearly 189 hospitals. We are based at The Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey, and collaborate with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Our aim is to find genetic changes which are associated with prostate cancer risk. Our target is to recruit 26,000 gentlemen into the UKGPCS by 2017. Men are eligible to take part if they fit into at least one of the following groups: They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at 60 years of age or under (up to their 61st birthday). They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a first, second or third degree relative where at least one of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 years of age or under. They are affected and have 3 or more cases of prostate cancer on one side of their family. They are a prostate cancer patient at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We have to date recruited around 16,000 men on whom we have germline DNA and clinical data at diagnosis. The UK GWAS is based on genotyping of 541,129 SNPs in 1,854 individuals with clinically detected (non-PSA-screened) prostate cancer (cases) and 1,894 controls. 43,671 SNPs showing strong evidence of association in stage 1 were followed up by genotyping a further 3,268 cases and 3,366 controls from UK and Melbourne in stage2. CAPS1 and CAPS2: The CAPS (Cancer of the Prostate in Sweden) study represents a large Swedish population-based cancer study, comprising 3,161 cases and 2,149 controls, recruited between 2001 and 2003. Biopsy confirmed prostate cancer cases were identified and recruited from four out of six regional cancer registries in Sweden, diagnosed between July 2001 and October 2003. Clinical data including TNM stage, Gleason grade and PSA levels at time for diagnosis were retrieved through record linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Registry. Control subjects, who were recruited concurrently with case subjects, were randomly selected from the Swedish Population Registry and matched according to the expected age distribution of cases (groups of 5-year intervals) and geographic region. Whole blood was collected from all individuals for extraction of genomic DNA. A GWAS was conducted in two parts. In the first phase (CAPS1) 498 cases and 502 controls were genotyped, in the second phase 1,483 cases and 519 controls were genotyped. Genotyping was performed using the GeneChip Human Mapping 500K (CAPS1) and 5.0K (CAPS2) Array Set from Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA). The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, BPC3: BPC3 was a consortium of prospective cohort studies investigating genetic and gene-environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer. Each study selected cases and controls for this study as described below. The clinical criteria defining advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) were either obtained from medical records or cancer registries. The Gleason score source was either surgical specimens (radical prostatectomy or autopsy) or the diagnostic biopsy (needle biopsy or TURP). When multiple Gleason scores were available the surgical value was used. PLCO was removed from the analysis as the samples were included in the Pegasus GWAS described below. In total 2,473 advanced prostate cancer cases and 3,534 controls were included in the analysis following QC. ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: ATBC was a randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial to investigate whether α-tocopherol or ß-carotene supplementation reduced the incidence of lung or other cancers in male smokers. Between 1985 and 1988, 29,133 men ages 50 to 69 years were enrolled in the trial from Finland and randomized to supplementation (50 mg α-tocopherol, 20mg ß-carotene, or both) or placebo. Men with a prior history of cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ, were excluded from participating. Incident cancer cases are identified through linkage with the Finnish Cancer Registry, which has ~100% ascertainment of cancer cases nationwide. Cases included 249 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) from 1985 to 2003 with DNA available. Controls were 1,271 men selected previously for a GWAS of lung cancer in ATBC without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. CPSII, Cancer Prevention Study II: CPSII is a cohort study started in 1982 to investigate the relationship between dietary, lifestyle and other etiologic factors and cancer mortality. Approximately 1.2 million men and women enrolled in the study from 50 states in the U.S. In 1992, a subset of these participants (n= ~184,000) were enrolled in the CPSII Nutrition Cohort to examine the relationship between dietary and other exposures and cancer incidence. Blood samples were drawn from approximately 39,376 members of the Nutritional Cohort from 1998 to 2001, and buccal cells were collected from 69,467 members from 2001 to 2002. Cancer cases are identified by self-report through follow-up questionnaires followed by verification through medical records and/or linkage to state cancer registries as well as death certificates. A total of 660 advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) with a source of DNA were identified for this study. Controls were 660 men matched on ethnicity, date of birth, sample collection date and DNA type. EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: EPIC is a prospective study designed to investigate both genetic and non-genetic risk factors for different forms of cancer. Study participants were almost all white Europeans. Approximately 500,000 individuals (150,000 men) in EPIC were recruited between 1992 and 2000, from 23 centers in 10 European countries. Overall approximately 400,000 subjects also provided a blood sample at recruitment. The methods of recruitment and details of the study design are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, study participants completed an extensive questionnaire on both dietary and nondietary data at recruitment. The present study includes subjects from advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) matched to controls based on study center, length of follow-up, age at enrollment (± 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (± 1 hour). The advanced prostate cancer subjects were from 8 of the 10 participating countries: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). France and Norway were not included in the current study because these cohorts only included female subjects. All participants gave written consent for the research and approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board from all local institutions in the regions where participants had been recruited for the EPIC study. HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study: HPFS began in 1986 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study of 51,529 United States male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians 40 to 75 years of age. The baseline questionnaire provided information on age, marital status, height and weight, ancestry, medications, smoking history, disease history, physical activity, and diet. At baseline the cohort was 97% white, 2% Asian American, and 1% African American. The median follow-up through 2005 was 10.5 years (range 2-19 years). Self-reported prostate cancer diagnoses were confirmed by obtaining medical and/or pathology records. Prostate cancer deaths are either reported by family members in response to follow-up questionnaires, discovered by the postal system, or the National Death Index. Questionnaires are sent every two years to surviving men to update exposure and medical history. In 1993 and 1994, a blood specimen was collected from 18,018 men without a prior diagnosis of cancer. Prostate cancer cases are matched to controls on birth year (+/-1) and ethnicity. Controls are selected from those who are cancer-free at the time of the case’s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.   MEC, Multiethnic Cohort: The Multiethnic Cohort Study is a population-based prospective cohort study that was initiated between 1993 and 1996 and includes subjects from various ethnic groups - African Americans and Latinos primarily from Californian (great Los Angeles area) and Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, and European Americans primarily from Hawaii. State drivers’ license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter’s registration files were used, and, in California, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) files were used to identify additional African American men. All participants (n=215,251) returned a 26-page self-administered baseline questionnaire that obtained general demographic, medical and risk factor information. In the cohort, incident cancer cases are identified annually through cohort linkage to population-based cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in Hawaii and Los Angeles County as well as to the California State cancer registry. Information on stage and grade of disease are also obtained through the SEER registries. Blood sample collection in the MEC began in 1994 and targeted incident prostate cancer cases and a random sample of study participants to serve as controls for genetic analyses. PHS, Physicians Health Study:PHS was a randomized trial of aspirin and ß carotene for cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 U.S. male physicians ages 40-84 years at randomization; none had a cancer diagnosis at baseline. The original trial ended, but the men are followed. From 1982 to 1984, blood samples were collected from 14,916 physicians before randomization. Participants are sent yearly questionnaires to ascertain endpoints. Whenever a physician reports cancer, we request permission to obtain the medical records, and cancers are confirmed by pathology report. We obtain death certificates and pertinent medical records for all deaths. Follow-up for nonfatal outcomes in PHS is over 97% complete, and for mortality, over 99%. PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial:PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 754 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) from either arm of the trial. Of these cases, 317 were genotyped previously as part of Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS), a GWAS for prostate cancer. Controls included 1,491 men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer from the screening arm of the PLCO trial. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in genetic etiology studies of cancer and other traits. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the ten centers and the National Cancer Institute. PLCO was removed from the meta-analysis of the BPC3 studies as a consequence of PEGASUS below. PEGASUS, Prostate cancer Genome-wide Association Study of Uncommon Susceptibility loci: Pegasus is a genome-wide association nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 4,598 men of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer from either arm of the trial and controls included 2,941 men of European ancestry without a diagnosis of cancer from the screening arm, matched on age and year of randomization. All subjects provided informed consent, and the study approved by the institutional review board at the National Cancer Institute. Funding:This work was supported by the GAME-ON U19 initiative for prostate cancer (ELLIPSE): U19 CA148537. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233, U01-CA98710, U01-CA98216, and U01-CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). The ATBC study and PEGASUS 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 and HHSN261201000006C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. CAPS: The Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant: K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant: 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the Söderberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linnér’s Minne, Karlsson’s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Ami Rönnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skillful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. Hans Wallinder at Aleris Medilab and Sven Gustafsson at Karolinska University Laboratory are thanked for their good cooperation in providing historical laboratory results. UKGPCS would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grants: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Cancer UK), The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, 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. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758. 

  Study phs001120

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API 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 consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• Programmatic submission based on XML

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

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

• The Thrifty Microbiome: The Role of the Gut Microbiota in Obesity in the Amish

  Emerging evidence that the gut microbiota may contribute in important ways to human health and disease has led us and others to hypothesize that both symbiotic and pathological relationships between gut microbes and their host may be key contributors to obesity and the metabolic complications of obesity. Our "Thrifty Microbiome Hypothesis" poses that gut microbiota play a key role in human energy homeostasis. Specifically, constituents of the gut microbial community may introduce a survival advantage to its host in times of nutrient scarcity, promoting positive energy balance by increasing efficiency of nutrient absorption and improving metabolic efficiency and energy storage. However, in the presence of excess nutrients, fat accretion and obesity may result, and in genetically predisposed individuals, increased fat mass may result in preferential abdominal obesity, ectopic fat deposition (liver, muscle), and metabolic complications of obesity (insulin resistance, hypertension, hyperlipidemia). Furthermore, in the presence of excess nutrients, a pathological transition of the gut microbial community may occur, causing leakage of bacterial products into the intestinal lymphatics and portal circulation, thereby inducing an inflammatory state, further aggravating metabolic syndrome traits and accelerating atherosclerosis. This pathological transition and the extent to which antimicrobial leakage occurs and causes inflammatory and other maladaptive sequelae of obesity may also be influenced by host factors, including genetics. In the proposed study, we will directly test the Thrifty Microbiome Hypothesis by performing detailed genomic and functional assessment of gut microbial communities in intensively phenotyped and genotyped human subjects before and after intentional manipulation of the gut microbiome. To address these hypotheses, five specific aims are proposed: (1) enroll three age- and sex-matched groups from the Old Order Amish: (i) 50 obese subjects (BMI &gt; 30 kg/m2) with metabolic syndrome, (ii) 50 obese subjects (BMI &gt; 30 kg/m2) without metabolic syndrome, and (iii) 50 non-obese subjects (BMI &lt; 25 kg/m2) without metabolic syndrome and characterize the architecture of the gut microbiota from the subjects enrolled in this study by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA genes; (2) characterize the gene content (metagenome) to assess the metabolic potential of the gut microbiota in 75 subjects to determine whether particular genes or pathways are correlated with disease phenotype; (3) characterize the transcriptome in 75 subjects to determine whether differences in gene expression in the gut microbiota are correlated with disease phenotype, (4) determine the effect of manipulation of the gut microbiota with antibiotics on energy homeostasis, inflammation markers, and metabolic syndrome traits in 50 obese subjects with metabolic syndrome and (5) study the relationship between gut microbiota and metabolic and cardiovascular disease traits, weight change, and host genomics in 1,000 Amish already characterized for these traits and in whom 500K Affymetrix SNP chips have already been completed. These studies will provide our deepest understanding to date of the role of gut microbes in terms of &#39;who&#39;s there?&#39;, &#39;what are they doing?&#39;, and &#39;how are they influencing host energy homeostasis, obesity and its metabolic complications? PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: This study aims to unravel the contribution of the bacteria that normally inhabit the human gastrointestinal tract to the development of obesity, and its more severe metabolic consequences including cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. We will take a multidisciplinary approach to study changes in the structure and function of gut microbial communities in three sets of Old Order Amish patients from Lancaster, Pennsylvania: obese patients, obese patients with metabolic syndrome and non-obese individuals. The Old Order Amish are a genetically closed homogeneous Caucasian population of Central European ancestry ideal for genetic studies. These works have the potential to provide new mechanistic insights into the role of gut microflora in obesity and metabolic syndrome, a disease that is responsible for significant morbidity in the adult population, and may ultimately lead to novel approaches for prevention and treatment of this disorder.

  Study phs000258

• High-Risk Breast Cancer GWAS

  The GWAS includes High Risk Women from the following epidemiological studies of breast cancer, comprising a total of 3,719 cases and 3,642 controls (cases/controls: MEC, 0/200; ABCFR, 326/418; FCCC, 56/3; BCFR-UT, 66/32; CNIO-BC, 87/92; GESBC, 65/0; LIFE, 164/0; MARIE, 41/105; MAYO, 208/210; MNYR, 293/409; MSKCC, 310/0; NC-BCFR, 234/233; OFBCR, 553/560; POSH, 377/0; HBOC, 47/47; BBCS, 612/1333; UPENN, 280/0 This study was funded by a grant CA165038 to Christopher Haiman (University of Southern California) and John Hopper (University of Melbourne) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health. The contributing studies: Multiethnic Cohort (MEC). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164973 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health. Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry, the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry Cohort (OFBCR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Utah Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR-UT). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (MNYR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Northern California site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Study (CNIO-BC). This study has been partially funded by The Spanish Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) and the Spanish National Genotyping Center (CEGEN). Genetic Epidemiologic Study of Breast Cancer (GESBC). The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). Mammary Carcinoma Risk Factor Study (MARIE). This study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH). Funding for the POSH study was provided by Cancer Research UK (grant refs A7572, A11699, C22524), the Breast Cancer Campaign (grant number: 2013MayPR044) and from 2003-2006 by a grant from The Wessex Cancer Trust. Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH). Funding for the POSH study was provided by Cancer Research UK (grant refs A7572, A11699, C22524), the Breast Cancer Campaign (grant number: 2013MayPR044) and from 2003-2006 by a grant from The Wessex Cancer Trust. Hereditary Breast and ovarian Cancer: Genetic and Molecular Studies (HBOC). This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA58860 and The Lon V Smith Foundation: LVSF-44528. Mayo Clinic inherited breast and ovarian cancer study (MAYO). This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, NIH grants CA192393, CA176785, and an NIH CA116201 Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer. British Breast Cancer Study (BBCS); Mammographic oestrogens and growth factor study (MOG). The BBCS and the MOG study are funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledge NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). Genotyping of non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (UPENN). The study is supported by the Basser Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Rooney Family Foundation, NIH grants CA176785 and CA192393, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure and Macdonald Family Foundation. Clinical Significance of Germline BRCA Mutations (MSKCC). The study is supported by the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Research Initiative, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute 5P30 CA08748-40. Women&#39;s Learning the Influence of Family and Environment (LIFE). This study was supported by grants CA17054 and CA74847 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, No. 4PB-0092 from the California Breast Cancer Research Program of the University of California. Philadelphia site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC). This study is supported by NIH grant CA164920.

  Study phs000929

• 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

• A Phase I/II Trial of Sirolimus (Rapamune®) and Cyclosporine in Patients with Refractory Aplastic Anemia

  The most successful treatment for aplastic anemia is bone marrow transplantation. However, few patients are eligible for this procedure. For others, treatment usually consists of immunosuppressive agents, such as antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and cyclosporine. Unfortunately, even with immunosuppressive therapy, relapse is common. New combinations of medications may offer alternative and more effective treatment options. Sirolimus and cyclosporine are two drugs routinely used to suppress the immune system and prevent rejection in patients who have received organ transplants. While cyclosporine has been proven effective for treating aplastic anemia, sirolimus has not been tested for this disease. This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of sirolimus in combination with cyclosporine for treating individuals with aplastic anemia that have not responded to other treatments. This study will last at least 6 months. Participants will first be screened to verify diagnosis of aplastic anemia. The screening will include a physical examination, blood test, bone marrow biopsy from the pelvic bone, and review of medications and medical history. Individuals who are eligible will then start the first treatment period. Participants will receive two medications: cyclosporine will be taken twice a day and sirolimus will be taken once a day. Depending on side effects, the dose of either drug may be temporarily stopped or lowered. On Day 1, blood will be drawn and females will undergo a pregnancy test. Subsequent study visits will occur weekly for the first month, every 2 weeks for 2 months, and then once a month for the remainder of the study. Each visit will include a physical examination, vital sign assessment, and review of side effects and medications. Blood tests will be performed weekly for the first 3 weeks, and then every 2 weeks. After 6 months of treatment, if a participant has shown improvements in disease status without major side effects, the treatment will continue. Over time the doses may be lowered. If a participant has not improved while on the study medication, treatment will stop at 6 months. Whenever treatment is discontinued, the participant will again undergo a physical examination, blood tests, and bone marrow biopsy.

  Study phs000695

• Privacy Notice for Helpdesk service

  Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk service This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by dr. Thomas Keane, by: email at: tk2@ebi.ac.uk or post at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: telephone at +49 6221 387-8590, email at dpo@embl.org , or post at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, or post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eu post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from users of the service: Name Email address Job title Date and time when the support request was sent We will use your personal data for the following purposes: To provide uninterrupted user access to the service To better understand the needs of the users and guide future improvements of the service To create anonymous usage statistics 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? There are no personal data transfers to third countries or international organizations. 6. How long do we keep your personal data? Any personal data directly obtained from you will be retained as long as the service is live. Such duration serves the purpose of enabling scientific research and ensures legal compliance and facilitates internal and external audits if they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration. Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period. Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

  Documentation data-protection/privacy-notice/ega-helpdesk

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

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani&#39;s lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, &#62; 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• Gene Expression and Regulatory Networks in Human Leukocytes - Immunological Variation Consortium

  Profiling of gene expression with microarrays holds great potential for human health, for illuminating disease pathways or providing biomarkers to monitor disease or its resolution. Using high-throughput approaches for genotyping, immunophenotyping and gene expression analysis, the project will examine the basis for the control of gene expression in human immune cells, and how it is influenced by natural genetic variation or aging. In practice, the project will combine several cross-informative approaches: 1) Building on the established sample/data pipelines and robust protocols of the Immunological Genome (ImmGen) project, and on established cohorts of ethnically diverse healthy volunteers at hand, microarray techniques will be used to generate whole-genome expression profiles from purified naive CD4+ lymphocytes and monocytes from 600 healthy volunteers. A dense genetic map will be established for all donors. The results will elucidate how variation in the human genome affects the expression of immune genes, of key importance in understanding gene variants that bring susceptibility to immune or inflammatory disease. Computational analysis of these rich data will allow the reconstruction of regulatory connections between genes, helping to establish general modules and those specific of a given immune cell type. These data will be complemented by an orthogonal data group, generated from a restricted subset of 10 individuals, in which we will profile a larger set of 28 carefully delineated cell populations that exist in human blood. This work will also benefit from powerful interspecies comparison with similar experiments being performed in mice by ImmGen. 2) In addition, RNA from the same set of 28 defined cell populations will be probed with microarrays that explore other aspects of the transcriptome: i) microRNAs and other non-coding RNAs; ii) exon or splice junction arrays that will establish a map of differential splicing in human blood leukocyte. 3) The composition and reactivity of blood cells from the same donors will be established at the time of sample collection using high-throughput flow cytometry, correlating immune phenotypes with gene expression and genetic variation. 4) Genetic variability conditions the baseline levels of gene expression, but also the responsiveness to activating challenges. With samples from the same donors, NanoString technology for transcript counting will be used to analyze the transcriptional response of defined gene sets, representing response signatures of T or dendritic cells, for a fine-grained dissection of responses to different triggers (different bacterial ligands for dendritic cells, different cytokine environment for T cells). In keeping with the resource aspect of this project, all data and interpretations will be made publicly available rapidly upon curation, allowing public querying and browsing of the data, by using and evolving the existing web architectures of the ImmGen project, of the Broad Institute, and of international repositories. RELEVANCE: Exploration with DNA chips of the genome&#39;s expression microarrays holds great potential for human health, to better understand disease and to serve as diagnostic tools. Using a combination of high-throughput genomic techniques and computational biology, we will perform a broad exploration of gene expression in human blood cells across groups of African-American, Asian and European ancestry, asking how these profiles are affected by genetic variation or by age. These results will provide an invaluable reference benchmark for the interpretation of genetic and immunological studies. Additionally, over 90% of genetic variants associated with complex human traits map to non-coding regions, but little is understood about how they modulate gene regulation in health and disease. One possible mechanism is that genetic variants affect the activity of one or more cis-regulatory elements leading to gene expression variation in specific cell types. To identify such cases, in a second study we analyzed ATAC-seq and RNA-seq profiles from stimulated primary CD4+ T cells in up to 105 healthy donors. We found regions of accessible chromatin (ATAC-peaks) are co-accessible at kilobase and megabase resolution. 15% of genetic variants located within ATAC-peaks affected the accessibility of the corresponding peak (ATAC-QTLs). ATAC-QTLs have the largest effects on co-accessible peaks, are associated with gene expression, and are enriched for autoimmune disease variants. Our results provide insights into how natural genetic variants modulate cis-regulatory elements, in isolation or in concert, to influence gene expression. In another study we analyzed RNA-seq profiles from primary CD4+ T cells of two healthy donors at six time points from 0 to 72 hours after stimulation with bead-bound antibodies against CD3 and CD28.

  Study phs000815

• Implementation, Adoption, and Utility of Family History in Diverse Care Settings

  The purpose of this study is to address the key question of whether and how family health history (FHH) is adopted as a tool to more efficiently manage patients at risk for breast, colon, ovarian, and hereditary cancer syndromes as well as thrombophilia and coronary heart disease (CHD) and to provide evidence supporting clinical utility -- improved health behaviors in patients and physician screening recommendations. Five health care delivery organizations will participate in this demonstration project: Duke University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Air Force, Essentia Health, University of North Texas. Duke will serve as a coordinating center for this project (Pro00043372) as well as a site. Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures as intermediate clinical effectiveness measures for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and selected cancers as well as survey/formative data and electronic medical record (EMR) data will be used as outcomes measures. The research model is purposely designed to mimic clinical delivery as an important step toward widespread implementation and sustainability. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing usual care to the FHH guided preventive health model will be used. The completion of this project will result in an optimal strategy for integration of FHH data collection and clinical decision support (CDS) tools into an EMR and demonstrate the utility of the FHH intervention among diverse primary care patients, their settings, their providers, and the health systems that deliver their care. Specific Aim 1: To optimize the collection of patient entered FHH in diverse clinical environments for coronary heart disease, thrombosis, and selected cancers Specific Aim 2: To export FHH data to an open clinical decision support (open CDS) platform and return CDS results to providers and patients (and to EMRs where relevant). To explore the integration of genetic risk and FHH data at selected sites. Specific Aim 3: To assess the clinical and personal utility of FHH using a pragmatic observational study design to assess reach, adoption, integrity, exposure, and sustainability, and to capture, analyze, and report effectiveness outcomes at each stakeholder level: patient, provider, and clinic/system. Specific Aim 4: To take a leadership role in the dissemination of guidelines for a FHH intervention across in diverse practice settings. AAA Hypertension Lupus Multiple sclerosis Obesity Osteoporosis Thyroid disease Rheumatoid arthritis Blood clotting (6): Blood Clot (high risk features) Factor V PT mutation AT III deficiency Protein S deficiency Protein C deficiency Brain Disorders (5): Dementia Hemorrhagic stroke Ischemic stroke Macrocephaly Seizure Cancer/Adenomas (32): Bone cancer Brain cancer Breast cancer Colon cancer Adrenal cortex tumor Neuroendocrine tumor Paraganglioma Pheochromoctyoma Pituitary adenoma Medullary thyroid cancer Non-medullary (follicular or papillary) thyroid cancer Don&#39;t know type of thyroid cancer Thyroid nodule Other type of endocrine cancer Esophageal cancer Kidney cancer Leukemia Lipoma Liver cancer Muscle cancer Ovarian cancer Pancreatic cancer Prostate cancer Rectal cancer Retinoblastoma Melanoma Non-melanoma skin cancer Do not know type of skin cancer Small bowel cancer Stomach cancer Uterine cancer Other type of cancer Cardiovascular/heart/artery disease (5): Atrial fibrillation Carotid stenosis Heart attack/coronary artery disease Peripheral arterial disease Other heart disease Diabetes (3): Gestational diabetes Diabetes type I Diabetes type 2 Digestive Disorders (5): Colon polyp Crohn&#39;s disease Irritable bowel syndrome Ulcerative colitis Other digestive disorder Eye Disorder (3): Blindness Glaucoma Macular degeneration Hereditary Cancer Syndromes (22): Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome Cowden syndrome Familial adenomatous polyposis Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome Hereditary melenoma Hereditary papillary renal cancer syndrome Hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome Hereditary retinoblastoma Juvenile polyposis Li-Fraumeni syndrome Lynch syndrome Mutyh-associated polyposis Malignant hyperthermia susceptibility Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome Peutz-Jeghers syndrome Tuberous Sclerosis complex Von-Hippel Lindau syndrome Other hereditary cancer Hereditary Cardiovascular syndromes (10): Long qt Brugada Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Dilated cardiomyopathy Left ventricular non-compaction syndrome Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia Ehlers-Danlos syndrome Marfan syndrome Other hereditary cardiovascular syndrome High cholesterol (2): Hyperlipidemia Familial hypercholesterolemia Kidney Disease (6): Cystic kidney disease Diabetic kidney disease Kidney nephrosis Nephritis Nephrotic syndrome Other kidney disease Liver Disease (6): Alpha 1 antitrypsinase deficiency Auto-immune hepatitis Hereditary hemochromatosis Primary biliary cirrhosis Sclerosing cholangitis Wilson&#39;s disease Lung Disease (3): Asthma COPD/chronic bronchitis/emphysema Other lung disease Psychological disorder (14): Addiction ADHD Autism Bipolar Depression Eating disorder Intellectual disability Obsessive compulsive disorder Panic disorder Personality disorder PTSD Schizophrenia Social phobia Sickle cell/thalassemia (3): Sickle cell disease Sickle cell trait Thalassemia

  Study phs001641

• The African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium Study

  The AMBER Consortium Study was formed to pool interview data, questionnaire data, and biological samples from epidemiological studies of breast cancer in African-American women to discover the potential causes of early-onset and aggressive breast cancer in African-American women. AMBER is funded through a Program Project grant from the National Cancer Institute. Genetic data submitted to dbGaP come from participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, Women&#39;s Circle of Health Study, and Black Women&#39;s Health Study. The P01 consists of four scientific projects; the aims include follow-up on previous GWAS findings for breast cancer susceptibility in AA women as well as investigation of SNPs in candidate genes in biologically plausible pathways. These SNPs were genotyped using DNA from 3130 African-American women with breast cancer and 3700 controls. Descriptions of the original studies that provided the data and samples for this collaborative study are given below. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): a North Carolina population-based case-control study of breast cancer, conducted in three phases. The current study phase, phase 3 (years 2008-2014), includes women residents in 44 counties. CBCS phases 1 and 2 were conducted in 24 counties. Breast cancer cases are identified using Rapid Case Ascertainment in cooperation with the NC Central Cancer Registry. Controls were identified for phases 1 and 2 only (1993-1996 and 1996-2001), using Division of Motor Vehicles lists for women under age 65 and Health Care Financing Administration lists for women 65 and older. Randomized recruitment was used to oversample AA women and women under age 50. In-depth interviews are conducted by study nurses in participants&#39; homes to obtain information on potential risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples have been obtained from most participants. Overall response rates for Phases 1 and 2 were 74% for AA cases and 54% for AA controls. Phase 3, conducted in 44 counties from 2008-2014, includes cases only. The response rate for AA cases in Phase 3 was 70.5%. The Women&#39;s Circle of Health Study (WCHS): a multi-site case-control study in New York City (NYC) and New Jersey (NJ) aimed at evaluating risk factors for early and aggressive breast cancer in women of AA and EA ancestry. Recruitment in NYC took place between January 2002 and December 2008 and involved hospital-based ascertainment of cases, while controls were identified through random digit dialing (RDD). Recruitment at the NJ site started in March 2006 and is ongoing. Phase I of the study ended in April 2012 and covered seven counties in NJ. WCHS2 includes two additional counties. Cases in NJ were identified from 2006 to 2012 by the NJ State Cancer Registry using rapid case ascertainment. Controls were initially recruited though RDD (2006 to 2010) and later through community-based efforts (2009-2012). In-person interviews ascertained data on established and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples were obtained. Among eligible AA women, 75% in NY and 54% in NJ completed an interview and provided a biologic specimen. Black Women&#39;s Health Study (BWHS): an ongoing prospective cohort study of health and illness among U.S. black women, with a focus on cancer. The study began in 1995 when 59,000 AA women 21-69 years of age from across the United States completed a 14-page postal health questionnaire. The median age at entry was 38, and participants were residents of 17 states in mainland U.S.: Northeast, 28%; South, 30%; Midwest, 23%; West, 19%. The baseline questionnaire elicited information on a wide range of variables, including demographic factors, use of medical care, family history of breast cancer, reproductive and medical history, cigarette and alcohol use, weight, height, waist and hip circumference, medication use, diet, and exercise. Biennial follow-up questionnaires ascertain new cases of breast cancer and other illnesses and update covariate information. Medical record and cancer registry data are sought for all participants who report a diagnosis of breast cancer. As of 2014, approximately 80% of the baseline cohort have completed follow-up. DNA samples were obtained from about 50% of participants. BWHS data for the AMBER consortium were prepared as a nested case-control study, with controls frequency-matched to cases on year of birth, geographic region, and most recent questionnaire completed prior to the end of the at-risk period.

  Study phs000669

• A Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients Experiencing Musculoskeletal Adverse Events on NCIC CTG Trial MA.27 Evaluating Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer. A Collaboration Between the NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network and the RIKEN Yokohama Institute Center for Genomic Medicine.

  Source of Patients The source of the patients for this genome-wide case control study was MA.27, which was conducted as a multi-cooperative group effort under the auspices of the NCI Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. The NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG) serves as the coordinating group, with participation by the NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). MA.27 involved postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected invasive breast cancer with surgical margins clear of invasive carcinoma and DCIS in the following TMN categories (AJCC Version 6): pT1, pT2, pT3; pNx, pN0, pN1, pN2, pN3 (only when the sole basis is presence of 10 or more involved axillary nodes); MO. The primary tumor must have been ER and/or progesterone receptor positive. Patients were stratified by lymph node status at diagnosis, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and trastuzumab use and were randomized to 5 years of adjuvant therapy with anastrozole or exemestane. The trial was activated on May 26, 2003, and reached its accrual objectives on July 31, 2008, after the randomization of 6827 North American patients, with the majority (79%) providing DNA and consent for genetic testing. Non-North American patients were also entered by the International Breast Cancer Study Group but they did not contribute DNA. From 2003 to December 21, 2004, patients also underwent a second randomization to celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo but, after the entry of 1,622 patients, this treatment was discontinued because of reports of increased cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib. Case Definition for Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Cases were defined to have had at least one of the following six MSAE): 1. pain - joint, 2. pain - muscle, 3. pain - bone, 4. arthritis, 5. joint - function, 6. musculoskeletal - other. Cases were required to have at least grade 3 toxicity, according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, or go off treatment for any grade of the six MSAEs; and were required to have had an MSAE within the first two years (i.e., a MSAE occurring after 2 years was not be considered a case). Subjects were excluded from the case group who met the case definition while on celecoxib or in the three months after stopping celecoxib but subjects were allowed to be cases if they developed their first MSAE more than three months after stopping celecoxib. Study Design The design was a nested matched case-control study with two controls selected for each case. Random matching from the potential control group (i.e., risk-set sampling such that controls had at least the same length of followup as the timing of the case event) was done by matching the case on the following factors: 1. treatment arm (exemestane vs. anastrozole, blinded), 2. prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), 3. age at start of treatment (+/- 5 years), 4. Celecoxib allocation (yes vs. no). Attempts were made to exactly match each case with two controls according to the above criteria. If, however, controls could not be exactly matched, "close" matching was used to define a distance between each case and all potential controls in an optimal matching algorithm. Race is a potential confounding factor, and 94% of the MA.27 population is Caucasian, 3% are Black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian, and 1% are of unknown race. Because there are so few non-Caucasian participants, was restricted to only Caucasians. Following identification of cases and controls, the list was sent to the CALGB Pathology Coordinating Office (PCO) at Ohio State University Medical Center for plating of the samples. Other patient factors that might influence the association of SNP genotypes with a MSAE, either as confounding factors or as effect modifiers, were included as investigational covariates. These include 1. body mass index (BMI), 2. bisphosphonate use, 3. fractures in past 10 years, 4. baseline ECOG performance status, 5. prior hormone replacement therapy, 6. prior adjuvant radiotherapy, and 7. prior taxane treatment. An Honest Broker Process was utilized to ensure patient confidentiality. Genotype Assays and Quality Control A GWAS was performed with the Illumina Human610-Quad at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine. The DNA for all of the samples were adjusted to a concentration of 50 to 100 ng/&#181;L in a final volume of 50 &#181;L. The 96-well plates were designed to have a unique distribution pattern with x duplicates per plate to evaluate genotype concordance. Samples with &lt;98% call rate were removed from analyses. SNPs with ambiguous call will be excluded using the following criteria: 1. low signal intensity of each allele, 2. low cluster separation score, 3. SNP call rate &lt;0.98, 4. SNPs with Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium p-value &lt;0.001 were excluded. X-chromosome SNPs were used to validate female sex and quality control measures were examined across the different submitting centers. For all pairs of subjects, the percentage of matching genotypes were computed to screen for unexpected duplicate samples. All SNPs found to be associated with MSAE were subjected to visual inspection of the cluster plots to verify that the genotype clustering was adequate.

  Study phs000210