10713 results for "800k fc coins Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Speciální balíčky na prázdniny a dovolené..dQVy"

in 42.98 milliseconds.

• NHLBI TOPMed: The Cleveland Family Study (CFS)

  The Cleveland Family Study (CFS) is one cohort involved in the WGS project. The CFS was designed to provide fundamental epidemiological data on genetic and non-genetic risk factors for sleep disordered breathing (SDB). In brief, the CFS is a family-based study that enrolled a total of 2284 individuals from 361 families between 1990 and 2006. The sample was selected by identifying affected probands who had laboratory diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. All first degree relatives, spouses and available second degree relatives of affected probands were studied. In addition, during the first 5 study years, neighborhood control families were identified through a neighborhood proband, and his/her spouses and first degree relatives. Each exam, occurring at approximately 4 year intervals, included new enrollment as well as follow up exams for previously enrolled subjects. For the first three visits, data, including an overnight sleep study, were collected in the participants' homes while the last visit occurred in a general clinical research center (GCRC). Phenotypic characterization of the entire cohort included overnight sleep apnea studies, blood pressure, spirometry, anthropometry and questionnaires. The GCRC exam (n=735 selected individuals) included more comprehensive phenotype data on a focused subsample of the larger cohort, to permit linking SDB phenotypes with cardio-metabolic phenotypes, with an interest in identifying genetic loci that are associated with these related phenotypes. In this last round of data collection, a subset of 735 individuals was selected based on expected genetic informativity by choosing pedigrees where siblings had extremes of the apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Participants underwent detailed phenotyping including laboratory polysomnography (PSG), ECG, spirometry, nasal and oral acoustic reflectometry, vigilance testing, and blood and urine collection before and after sleep and after an oral glucose tolerance test. A wide range of biochemical measures of inflammation and metabolism were assayed by a Core Laboratory at the University of Vermont. 994 individuals were sequenced as part of TOPMed Phase 1, including 507 African-Americans and 487 European-Americans. Among the sequenced individuals, 156 were probands with diagnosed sleep apnea, an additional 706 were members of families with probands, and 132 were from neighborhood control families. 298 individuals were sequenced as part of TOPMed Phase 3.5, including 169 African-Americans and 129 European-Americans. Among the newly sequenced individuals, 33 were probands with diagnosed sleep apnea, an additional 214 were members of families with probands, and 51 were from neighborhood control families. Please note: Phenotype and pedigree data are available through "NHLBI Cleveland Family Study (CFS) Candidate Gene Association Resource (CARe)", phs000284.

  Study phs000954

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-BioLINCC)

  Related StudiesWhole genome and whole exome data is available on a subset of participants with phs001411. ECG signal data is available with phs003562.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients. Lipid Therapy Trial: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood Pressure Trial: Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy: Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients. MIND Substudy: Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain. Participants10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy: A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Participants who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded. MIND Substudy: A subgroup of 2977 participants was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded participants aged Design Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy: EYE Substudy participants were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. MIND Substudy: The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses. Conclusions Glycemia Trial: As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, et al.,2008, PMID:18539917). Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial: Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Ismail-Beigi et al., 2010, PMID: 20594588) Lipid Therapy Trial: The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228404). Blood Pressure Trial: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228401). EYE Substudy: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20587587). MIND Substudy: Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Launer et al., 2011, PMID: 21958949).

  Study phs003551

• 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

• GEDI: A Developmental Model of Gene-Environment Interplay in SUDs: Combined Genotype Dataset from the "Great Smoky Mountains Study" and the "Caring for Children in the Community Study".

  1. Great Smoky Mountains Study (GSMS; Costello et al. 1996, 1997) Three cohorts of boys and girls, aged 9, 11, and 13 years at intake in 1993, were selected from a rural population of some 20,000 children using a household equal probability design. A two-phase procedure was used for White and African-American youth to increase power by oversampling children at risk for psychiatric and SUDs. Parents (usually mothers) of the first stage random population sample completed a questionnaire about their child&#39;s behavioral problems. Of 4,195 subjects selected, 95% (N=3,896) of parents completed the screen. All children scoring above a predetermined threshold (the top 25% of the total scores), plus a 10% random sample of the remaining 75%, were recruited for detailed interviews. Results can be back-weighted to population levels for analyses. Half of the sample consists of females, and 6% are African Americans, reflecting the population of the study area. The interviewed sample of white and African-American subjects was 1,070 (80% of those recruited). American Indian youth were oversampled (100%) because they are an understudied group known to be at high risk for stressful events, substance disorders, and mood disorders. Of 431 age-eligible children, 350 (81% boys, 49% girls) participated. Thus, the size of total GSMS sample is 1,070 + 350 = 1,420. Data collection is complete for ages 9-26, and age 30 interviews are in progress. By age 26 a total of 9,858 interviews had been completed; the average number of interviews per subject was seven, and by age 26, 97.3% completed two or more interviews. 2. The Caring for Children in the Community Study (CCC; Angold et al., 2002) This representative study of psychiatric illness and service use in African-American and White youth took place in four rural counties in the southeastern USA. The two-stage sampling design and methods are similar to those used in the GSMS. Of 4,500 youth randomly selected from the 17,117 9- to 17-year-olds in the public school&#39;s database, 3,613 (80.0%) were successfully contacted and agreed to complete the behavioral screen. Of the 1,302 selected to participate in the study, 920 (70.7%) interviews were completed. Because CCC was also the only study in GEDI to contain more than a very few African-American participants, these were omitted from the multi-site analyses. Reprinted with permission from Cambridge University Press from Costello et al., 2013: PMID: 23461817 References: Costello et al., 1996: PMID: 8956679 Costello et al., 1997: PMID: 9184514 Angold et al., 2002: PMID: 12365876

  Study phs000852

• Bladder Cancer Organoids as a Functional System to Model Different Disease Stages and Therapy Response

  The study 'Bladder Cancer Organoids as a Functional System to Model Different Disease Stages and Therapy Response' reports the genomic characterization at the single allele level upon Whole Exome Sequencing of Bladder Cancer (BLCa) Patient Tumor (PT) samples obtained from 18 patients and corresponding Patient Derived Organoids (PDOs), implementing the SPICE pipeline (Ciani Y et al). Our cohort included 21 PTs and 22 PDOs. In this study, we generated a unique biobank resource of BLCa organoids that encompasses a broad spectrum of disease stages. We demonstrated that PDOs retain cancer heterogeneity and mutational burden. Furthermore, we observed that BLCa PDO can have different morphologies which may reflect tumor-specific features. Indeed, a solid morphology may be associated with more advanced tumors, as supported by the high PDO genomic burden and high primary tumor stage. Moreover, with our drug screening pipeline, we demonstrated the clinical relevance and feasibility of using a BLCa PDO-based drug assay for comparing the standard of care (SOC) drugs with compounds not currently in use for BLCa. Response to SOC was highly heterogeneous with approximately 50% of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and 33% of muscle invasive bladder cancer PDOs showing no or minimal response. The most effective targeted therapy was lapatinib. We used an integrative analysis of drug response profiles with matched PDO genomic analysis to determine enrichment thresholds for candidate markers of therapy resistance and sensitivity. Importantly, by assessing the clinical history of longitudinally sampled cases, the clonal evolution of the disease could be determined and matched with PDO drug response profiles.

  Study phs003149

• Genomic Studies of Bipolar Disorder in a Large Cohort from The Netherlands

  The transcriptomes of whole blood samples of a large cohort of individuals from the Netherlands were assayed using RNA-seq. These whole blood samples included patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, family members of patients, and healthy controls. Within the whole blood dataset, about 600 of the samples were sequenced to an average of 13.9 million mapped reads per sample, while about 2,000 were sequenced to an average of 5.9 million mapped reads per sample, in order to assess changes in power to detect eQTLs based on sample size. We find that expression, defined as the log transcripts per million reads (TPMs), is highly correlated when comparing the moderate (13.9M) and lower (5.9M) coverage datasets.&nbsp;Additionally, a subset of about 150 individuals provided fibroblast cell lines which were assessed for the levels of gene expression using RNA-seq at an average of 50 million mapped reads per sample. We use downsampling techniques to generate synthetic datasets derived from this real fibroblast RNA-Seq data to explore the relationship between coverage and number individuals in an eQTL analysis.&nbsp;Corresponding individual-level genotypes for the samples included in the expression matrix are also made available. The genotypes were derived from multiple other project cohorts, each using different genotyping platforms including OmniExpress Exome, Global Screening Array, Illumina550, and PsychChip. A Plink file set of these cohorts is provided here after merging the separate project file sets and extracting only the individuals who have expression data also provided here; quality control for SNP-missingness is recommended.&nbsp;We demonstrate in this study that given a fixed budget, eQTL discovery power can be increased by lowering the sequencing depth per sample to allow for an a greater number of individuals sequenced.&nbsp;

  Study phs002856

• The Human Phenotype Project (HPP) is a large-scale deep-phenotype prospective longitudinal and ethnically diverse cohort

  The Human Phenotype Project (HPP) is a large-scale deep-phenotype prospective longitudinal and ethnically diverse cohort and biobank that we established. To date, approximately 28,000 participants have enrolled in the study, with over 13,000 having completed their initial visit. The project is aimed at identifying novel molecular signatures with diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic value, and at developing AI-based predictive models for disease onset and progression. A unique feature of the HPP is its deep and longitudinal profiling that includes medical history, lifestyle and nutritional habits, vital signs, anthropometrics, blood tests, continuous glucose and sleep monitoring, imaging modalities and molecular profiling of the transcriptome, genetics, gut, vaginal and oral microbiome, metabolome and immune system. For several of these modalities, the HPP is the first or largest cohort of its kind. Our analyses of this data provide novel insights into the variation of phenotypes with age and ethnicity, highlighting the importance of having ethnically diverse cohorts and the need for establishing age-dependent norms. We demonstrate how the HPP can be used to unravel personalized molecular signatures of disease by comparison to patient-specific and disease-specific matched healthy controls. Leveraging the extensive dietary and lifestyle HPP data, we systematically identify associations between lifestyle factors and health outcomes. Finally, we present a multi-modal foundation AI model that is trained using self-supervised learning on diet and CGM data and outperforms existing methods in predicting future onset of disease. We extend this AI framework to integrate all data modalities of each subject as a continuous sequence of diverse medical events, creating a digital twin that can simulate interventions and predict health trajectories and outcomes.

  Study EGAS00001008040

• Whole genome sequencing of a breast cancer cohort with known functional homologous recombination status

  Optimal patient selection for PARP inhibitors and double strand break (DSB) inducing chemotherapy is of great clinical importance. In principle, the use of these therapies can be extended beyond germline BRCA1/2 mutated cancers. Although several methods for detection of BRCA-like tumors have been developed, a golden standard is lacking. We have developed the RECAP test, a functional HR assay exploiting the formation of RAD51 foci in proliferating cells after ex vivo irradiation of fresh primary breast cancer (BrC) tissue. The RECAP test seems robust and has an advantage over genetic tests, due to its functional character for exploring the HR phenotype. Another type of HRD test is the BRCAness classifier, which is based on specific genomic patterns derived from copy number data of BRCA1/2 mutated BrCs that also occur in sporadic cancers. The BRCAness classifier is a robust test that is easily applicable in the clinic and has also been validated to predict in vivo response to high dose chemotherapy in clinical trials. More recently, a new HRD test based on genomic signatures which can be extracted from whole genome sequencing has been published, HRDetect. Studies comparing these different HRD tests within the same cohort of patients do not yet exist. Here, we have the unique opportunity to compare three HRD tests within the same cohort. We aim to compare three different HRD tests (RECAP, BRCAness classifier and HRDetect) within the same cohort of primary BrCs (n=41). As a secondary aim, we will analyze additional genetic alterations in HRD tumors (both BRCA-deficient and BRCA-proficient HRD tumors).

  Study EGAS00001005572

• A transcriptomic approach to understand patient susceptibility to pneumonia after abdominal surgery

  Rationale Nosocomial infections are a major healthcare challenge, developing in over 20% of patients aged 45 or over undergoing major-abdominal surgery, with postoperative pneumonia associated with an almost five-fold increase in 30-day mortality. Objectives To describe immune-pathways and gene-networks altered following major-abdominal surgery and identify transcriptomic patterns associated with postoperative pneumonia. Methods and Measurements From a prospective consecutive cohort (n=150) undergoing major-abdominal surgery whole-blood RNA was collected preoperatively and at three time-points postoperatively (2-6, 24 and 48hrs). Twelve patients diagnosed with postoperative pneumonia and 27 matched patients remaining infection-free were identified for analysis with RNA-sequencing. Main Results Compared to preoperative sampling, 3,639 genes were upregulated and 5,043 downregulated at 2-6hrs. Pathway-analysis demonstrated innate-immune activation with neutrophil-degranulation and Toll-like-receptor signalling upregulation alongside adaptive-immune suppression. Cell-type deconvolution of preoperative RNA-sequencing revealed elevated S100A8/9-high neutrophils alongside reduced naïve CD4 T-cells in those later developing pneumonia. Preoperatively, a gene-signature characteristic of neutrophil-degranulation was associated with postoperative pneumonia acquisition (P=0.00092). A previously reported Sepsis Response Signature (SRSq) score, reflecting neutrophil-dysfunction and a more dysregulated host response, at 48hrs postoperatively, differed between patients subsequently developing pneumonia and those remaining infection-free (P=0.045). Analysis of the novel neutrophil gene-signature and SRSq scores in independent major-abdominal surgery and polytrauma cohorts indicated good predictive performance in identifying patients suffering later infection. Conclusions Major-abdominal surgery acutely upregulates innate-immune pathways while simultaneously suppressing adaptive-immune pathways. This is more prominent in patients developing postoperative pneumonia. Preoperative transcriptomic signatures characteristic of neutrophil-degranulation and postoperative SRSq scores may be useful predictors of subsequent pneumonia risk.

  Study EGAS00001007229

• A catalog of the genetic causes of Hereditary Angioedema in the Canary Islands (Spain)

  Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease where known causes involve C1 inhibitor dysfunction or dysregulation of the kinin cascade. The updated HAE management guidelines recommend performing genetic tests to reach a precise diagnosis. Unfortunately, genetic tests are still uncommon in the diagnosis routine. Here, we characterized for the first time the genetic causes of HAE in affected families from the Canary Islands (Spain). Whole-exome sequencing data was obtained from 41 affected patients and unaffected relatives from 29 unrelated families identified in the archipelago. The Hereditary Angioedema Database Annotation (HADA) tool was used for pathogenicity classification and causal variant prioritization among the genes known to cause HAE. Manual reclassification of prioritized variants was used in those families lacking known causal variants. We detected a total of eight different variants causing HAE in this patient series, affecting essentially SERPING1 and F12 genes, one of them being a novel SERPING1 variant (c.686-12A&amp;gt;G) with a predicted splicing effect which was reclassified as likely pathogenic in one family. Altogether, the diagnostic yield by assessing previously reported causal genes and considering variant reclassifications according to the American College of Medical Genetics guidelines reached 66.7% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 30.1-91.0) in families with more than one affected member and 10.0% (95% CI: 1.8-33.1) among cases without family information for the disease. Despite the genetic causes of many patients remain to be identified, our results reinforce the need of genetic tests as first-tier diagnostic tool in this disease, as recommended by the international WAO/EAACI guidelines for the management of HAE.

  Study EGAS00001006547