10670 results for "800k fc coins Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Speciální balíčky na prázdniny a dovolené..dQVy"

in 10.93 milliseconds.

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024

• A Pilot Trial of Complement Inhibition Using Eculizumab to Overcome Platelet Transfusion Refractoriness in HLA Allo-Immunized Patients

  Platelet transfusion can be a life-saving procedure in preventing or treating serious bleeding in patients who have low and/or dysfunctional platelets. Heavily transfused patients frequently develop human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allo-immunization resulting in platelet transfusion refractoriness and a high risk for life-threatening thrombocytopenia. Data suggest complement activation leading to the destruction of platelets bound by HLA allo-antibodies may play a pathophysiologic role in platelet refractoriness. We conducted a pilot trial to investigate the use of eculizumab to treat platelet transfusion refractoriness in allo-immunized patients with severe thrombocytopenia. We hypothesized that when we treated patients having platelet refractoriness with eculizumab, platelet counts would increase to higher numbers after platelet transfusions, decreasing the risk of bleeding complications associated with having a low platelet count. The response of the treatment was assessed by the corrected platelet count increment (CCI) 10 - 60 min and 18 - 24 h post transfusion, and any requirement for subsequent platelet transfusions following eculizumab. Reference 1 (PMID: 32086819) contains the main results for this trial.

  Study phs003212

• RTEL1 mutation as a modifier of Dyskeratosis Congenita in a family with a Telomerase RNA (hTR) template mutation and variant telomeric repeats

  Vertebrate telomeres, the sequences protecting the end of linear chromosomes, are composed of conserved hexameric GGTTAG repeats. Here we present a C50>A telomerase RNA template mutation that results in the incorporation of the variant telomeric repeat GTTTAG in a family with dyskeratosis congenita primarily presenting as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The mutant telomerase is characterized by decreased processivity in direct telomerase activity assays and in vivo based on data from Illumina next-generation whole genome sequencing and Oxford Nanopore Technologies long-read telomere sequencing. The latter provided positional mutant repeat information that revealed the inheritance and maintenance of proximal mutant repeats in individuals who did not inherit the template mutation. Additionally, we describe an RTEL1 nonsense mutation that is associated with very short telomeres in progeny harboring wild-type telomerase and inherited mutant telomeric repeats in the absence of overt clinical phenotypes. In contrast, co-inheritance of the RTEL1 nonsense and TERC r.C50>A mutations coincided with severe early-onset DC phenotypes in two individuals.

  Study EGAS50000001644

• Introducing Federated EGA Affiliates: a newly defined tier in the Federated EGA Network

  We're happy to announce that we are now accepting Affiliates in the Federated EGA Network! Federated EGA is a global network of repositories enabling secure discovery and access to sensitive human data. Currently, Federated EGA consists of Central EGA (CEGA), which serves the global community, and nine national Nodes that serve respective jurisdictions. Did you know that the Federated EGA (FEGA) has always envisioned a third tier within the network? This brings us to FEGA Affiliates, recently defined in the newly approved "Federated EGA Structure and Organisation" document. This new tier broadens the range of institutions or organisations that can become part of FEGA. Thus begins a new era for the network. What is a FEGA Affiliate? A FEGA Affiliate archives and serves controlled-access data within its own governance scope, while still participating in federated discovery through the EGA catalogue. Affiliates can be individual organisations or institutions, healthcare genomics initiatives, consortia of institutions, as well as project-specific consortia (national or international). In practical terms, a FEGA Affiliate: Hosts and safeguards the data it archives. Submits non-personal metadata to CEGA so studies are discoverable and can receive EGA accessions. Manages permissions and data access workflows for its datasets. Provides data access and/or distribution, along with support, to authorised users. Key takeaways about FEGA Affiliates FEGA is now organised into three tiers: CEGA, FEGA Nodes, and FEGA Affiliates. Affiliates archive data from their own organisation and/or selected partner institutions (for example, an international consortium). Affiliates make studies discoverable through the EGA catalogue by submitting non-personal metadata for accessioning. Access decisions and conditions are managed locally by the Affiliate (e.g. distribution or access in a trusted research environment). Are you considering whether your institution or project might be a good fit as a FEGA Affiliate? Would you like to learn more about this tier? We have published a blog post that addresses potential common questions, providing answers on this topic. You can read it here.

  Blog fega-affiliates

• Genome-wide mutational consequences of nucleotide excision repair-deficiency through XPC deletion in a human adult stem cell culture

  Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is one of the main DNA repair pathways that protect cells against genomic damage. Deficiency in this pathway can contribute to the development of cancer and accelerate aging. NER-deficiency is an important determinant for cancer treatment outcome, as NER-deficient tumors are selectively sensitive to cisplatin treatment. While NER-deficiency has been linked to mutational Signature 5, not all NER-deficient tumors are characterized by a high Signature 5 contribution, illustrating the importance to further characterize the mutational consequences of NER-deficiency. Here, we analyzed the mutational profile of a human adult stem cell (organoid) culture that is deficient in NER through XPC deletion by CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing, and subsequent whole-genome sequencing analysis of a clonally derived organoid. We found that XPC deletion results in an increase in base substitution load and specifically induces Signature 8 mutations, a mutational signature with previously unknown etiology. Presence of Signature 8 may, therefore, serve as a novel biomarker for NER-deficient tumors and could improve personalized treatment strategies.

  Study EGAS00001002681

• Functional screening on patient-derived organoids identifies a therapeutic bispecific antibody that triggers EGFR degradation in LGR5+ tumor cells

  Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) have demonstrated predictive value in prospective clinical trials supporting selection of personalized treatments. Because PDOs retain the organization and physiological functions of their source tissue, PDO biobanks could also be an ideal substrate to screen for novel therapeutic interventions. Here we describe a large-scale functional screen of dual targeting bispecific antibodies (bAbs) on a colorectal cancer (CRC) PDO biobank to target their dependency on cancer stem cells. A novel drug discovery pipeline was assembled where therapeutic bAb panels generated against WNT and receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) targets were functionally evaluated by high content imaging to capture the complexity of PDO responses across a wide range of different CRCs and paired normal colonic mucosa samples. Our strategy resulted in a bAb that specifically triggers EGFR degradation in LGR5+ CSCs and that exhibits unique therapeutic properties such as potent growth inhibition of KRAS mutant CRCs, blockade of metastasis initiation in preclinical models and minimal toxicity towards normal LGR5+ colon stem cells.

  Study EGAS00001004584

• Proteogenomic analysis reveals RNA as a source for tumor-agnostic neoantigen identification (H021)

  Systemic pan-tumor analyses may reveal the significance of common features implicated in cancer immunogenicity and patient survival. Here, we provide a comprehensive multi-omics data set for 32 patients across 25 tumor types for proteogenomic-based discovery of neoantigens. By using an optimized computational approach, we discover a large number of tumor-specific and tumor-associated antigens. To create a pipeline for the identification of neoantigens in our cohort, we combine DNA and RNA sequencing with MS-based immunopeptidomics of tumor specimens, followed by the assessment of their immunogenicity and an in-depth validation process. We detect a broad variety of non-canonical HLA-binding peptides in the majority of patients demonstrating partially immunogenicity. Our validation process allows for the selection of 32 potential neoantigen candidates. The majority of neoantigen candidates originates from variants identified in the RNA data set, illustrating the relevance of RNA as a still understudied source of cancer antigens. This study underlines the importance of RNA-centered variant detection for the identification of shared biomarkers and potentially relevant neoantigen candidates.

  Study EGAS00001006706

• Single-cell RNA sequencing of a PBMC collected from a male with 45,X/48,XYYY karyotype

  Dac EGAC00001002373

• Tumor sample of a serious ovarian carcinoma

  Tumor sample of a serious ovarian carcinoma

  Dataset EGAD00001000139

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-BioLINCC)

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

  Study phs003483