21024 results for "Buy fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins The process was smooth and quick..ivNx"

in 51.21 milliseconds.

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Novel de novo pathogenic variant in the GNAI1 as a cause of severe disorders of intellectual development with autistic features

  Our probands A and B are boys-monozygotic twins with the clinical diagnosis of severe intellectual impairment, developmental stagnation, and dysphasia. They were diagnosed at the Department of Medical Genetics and Genomics (University Hospital Brno). Parents provided written informed consent, which was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Masaryk University and Ethics Committee of University Hospital Brno. Peripheral blood samples were collected in sterile heparinized tubes for cytogenetic analysis. Genomic DNA samples were obtained from 1 ml peripheral blood in EDTA, according to the standard DNA isolation process using the MagNaPure system (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland). Quality and quantity were checked using a DeNovix DS-11 Spectrophotometer (DeNovix Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA) and Qubit® 2.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).

  Dataset EGAD00001007736

• Modeling glioblastoma invasion using human brain organoids and single-cell transcriptomics

  We performed scRNA-seq of patient-derived glioblastoma cells alone or after co-culture with human iPSC-derived cerebral organoid cells. Transcriptional changes implicated in the invasion process that are coherent across patient samples indicate that GBM cells reactively upregulate genes required for their dispersion. Potential interactions between GBM and organoid cells identified by an in silico receptor-ligand pairing screen suggest functional therapeutic targets.

  Study EGAS00001003852

• All you need to know about the new Submitter Portal

  In September we launched new services for all EGA users, including a new version of the former Submitter Portal. Our main objective with this Portal is to transform the metadata submission in a simplified and user-friendly method. Although it is possible to find documentation about the Submitter Portal on our website, we wanted to highlight the new features in this article. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the Submitter Portal and who doesn't? Users with an old submission account (ega-box) can already access the new Submitter Portal. If it is the first time that you want to access, it is time to request a submitter role linked to the EGA User. In the form, it is mandatory to explain which type of data you want to deposit, the size of your submission, add any comment you’d like us to read, and manage the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA) document. This document should be checked by the legal department of your institution and signed by a person with authority to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. Note that we provide a DPA template for new Users; it can be found and downloaded in the Submitter Request section. With the DPA signed and the Submitter Request sent, it is time to wait for our Helpdesk team to validate the request. Metadata submission now can be collaborative It is possible to add collaborator(s) to your submissions. Only registered EGA Users will appear on the search bar. When adding a collaborator, it is mandatory to define the permission granted: Read only: collaborators with this permission can check if the information of the submission is correct but cannot modify anything. Read & write: collaborators with this label can register new objects and modify the registered ones. We wanted to save time for submitters that usually rely on the same collaborators. For that, we have implemented the possibility of adding the same collaborators from previous submissions; all you need to do is to search the submission, and the exact set of EGA users will have access to your submission. You can check the collaborators and their permissions at any point of the submission by going to the collaborators section. Even adding more people to complete the submission is allowed by following the same steps: looking for the EGA User and defining the permission granted (please, note that during the submission it is not possible to add collaborators from previous submissions). Use external links to complement the study information When filling the information about the study we recommend users to enrich the submission with complementary fields such as PubMeds IDs, custom tags and external links. External links are used to connect a study to an external repository. We have implemented an external link to Euro-Bioimaging for a European Project (EuCanImage). Now, we are looking forward to keeping increasing the list of external repositories! Choose the expected release date for your metadata to be searchable on our website Once all the metadata objects are registered it is time to finalise the submission so that the Helpdesk team can approve it. In the new version of the Submitter Portal users can choose the expected release date for the metadata to be searchable on the EGA website. Please, note that the selected date will have a minimum of one week margin from the day of finalisation. This time is necessary for your files to be archived and for the submission to be validated by the Helpdesk Team. Are you looking for the Array submission within the Submitter Portal? Our Submitter Portal does not support array submissions. The submission of Array-based metadata must be done using the EGA programmatic submission. You will find our Array-based format template and all the necessary information on our website, and you can find all the steps in our submission quickguide! More information about the submission process at the EGA Our Team has developed an extended documentation related to metadata submission. A good first step is to take a closer look at the Submission FAQ. To have a general overview of all the metadata submission process we recommend taking a glimpse of our take-the-tour or watching the tutorial available on our YouTube Channel. Don't miss our section on EGA Schemas, to learn more about how the EGA is built. It can be useful to fully ensure that your submissions comply with the EGA's standards and contribute to a valuable and accessible genomic resource.

  Blog new-submitter-portal

• Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) - OncoArray Genotypes

  The data come from 40 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). CIMBA recruits individuals with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The majority of carriers were recruited through cancer genetics clinics offering genetic testing, and were enrolled into national or regional studies. The remainder were identified by population-based sampling of cases, or community recruitment. Eligibility to participate is restricted to carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who were 18 years or older at recruitment. Information collected included amongst other variables: age at recruitment; ages at breast and ovarian cancer diagnosis; and estrogen receptor (ER) status. Samples were genotyped using the Illumina OncoArray beadchip 500K SNP custom array. Details of the genotyping process and sample selection are included in Phelan et al, Identification of twelve new susceptibility loci for different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer, Nat Genet. 2017 May;49(5):680-691 (PMID:28346442), and Milne et al, Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen receptor negative breast cancer, Nat Genet (in press).

  Study phs001321

• Molecular Tumor Board to Inform on Personalized Medicine for a Man with Advanced Prostate Cancer

  Purpose: Molecular profiling of cancer is increasingly common as part of routine care in oncology, and germline and somatic profiling may provide insights and actionable targets for men with metastatic prostate cancer. However, all reported cases are of deidentified individuals without full medical and genomic data available in the public domain. Patient and Methods: We present a case of whole genome tumor and germline sequencing in a patient with advanced prostate cancer, who has agreed to make his genomic and clinical data publicly available in an accompanying personal testimonial. Results: We describe an 84-year-old Caucasian male with a Gleason 10 oligometastastic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Whole-genome sequencing provided insights into his tumor’s underlying mutational processes and the development of an SPOP mutation. It also revealed an androgen-receptor dependency of his cancer which was reflected in his durable response to radiation and hormonal therapy. Potentially actionable genomic lesions in the tumor were identified through a personalized medicine approach for potential future therapy, but at the moment, he remains in remission, illustrating the hormonal sensitivity of his SPOP-driven prostate cancer. We also placed this patient in the context of a large prostate-cancer cohort from the PCAWG (Pan-cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes) group. In this comparison, the patient's cancer appears typical in terms of the number and type of somatic mutations, but it has a somewhat larger contribution from the mutational process associated with aging. Conclusion: We combined the expertise of medical oncology and genomics approaches to develop a molecular tumor board to integrate the care and study of this patient, who continues to have an outstanding response to his combined modality treatment. This identifiable case potentially helps overcome barriers to clinical and genomic data sharing.

  Study EGAS00001004648

• HLA-DR is absent in primitive macrophages through epigenetic silencing of master regulator CIITA

  The earliest macrophages are generated during embryonic development from erythro-myeloid progenitors (EMPs) via primitive haematopoiesis. This process is poorly understood in humans and in the mouse is thought to be spatially restricted to the yolk sac. Human fetal placental macrophages, Hofbauer cells (HBC), arise during the primitive haematopoietic wave at ~18 days post conception. Here we identify a population of placental erythro-myeloid progenitors (PEMPs) in the early human placenta that give rise to HBC. PEMP are fetal CD34+CD43+ progenitors found exclusively at early gestational timepoints. Transcriptomic analyses reveal that PEMP have conserved features of primitive yolk sac EMPs, including the lack of HLF expression. Using in vitro single-cell culture experiments we show that PEMP generate HBC-like cells that completely lack HLA-DR expression  and demonstrate that this is a conserved feature of all macrophages generated by primitive haematopoiesis in humans. Finally, we demonstrate that the class II transactivator, CTIIA, the master regulator HLA-DR expression, is epigenetically silenced during primitive haematopoiesis, leading to HLA-DRneg macrophages. These findings demonstrate that HBC are derived locally from PEMP and establish the human placenta as an additional site of primitive haematopoiesis.

  Study EGAS00001006981

• Relation between transcriptome, karyotype and age in cases of sex chromosome aneuploidies.

  Why women live longer than men is still an open question in human biology. Sex chromosomes have been proposed to play a role in the observed sex gap in longevity, and the Y male chromosome has been suspected of having a potential toxic genomic impact on male longevity. It has been hypothesized that transposable element (TE) repression declines with age, potentially leading to detrimental effects such as somatic mutations and disrupted gene expression, which may accelerate the aging process. Given that the Y chromosome is rich in repeats, age-related increases in TE expression could be more pronounced in males, likely contributing to their reduced longevity compared to females. In this work, we first studied whether TE expression is associated with the number of sex chromosomes in humans. We analyzed blood transcriptomic data obtained from individuals of different karyotype compositions: 46,XX females (normal female karyotype), 46,XY males (normal male karyotype), as well as males with abnormal karyotypes, such as 47,XXY, and 47,XYY.

  Study EGAS50000001009

• Relation between transcriptome, karyotype and age in cases of sex chromosome aneuploidies.

  Why women live longer than men is still an open question in human biology. Sex chromosomes have been proposed to play a role in the observed sex gap in longevity, and the Y male chromosome has been suspected of having a potential toxic genomic impact on male longevity. It has been hypothesized that transposable element (TE) repression declines with age, potentially leading to detrimental effects such as somatic mutations and disrupted gene expression, which may accelerate the aging process. Given that the Y chromosome is rich in repeats, age-related increases in TE expression could be more pronounced in males, likely contributing to their reduced longevity compared to females. In this work, we first studied whether TE expression is associated with the number of sex chromosomes in humans. We analyzed blood transcriptomic data obtained from individuals of different karyotype compositions: 46,XX females (normal female karyotype), 46,XY males (normal male karyotype), as well as males with abnormal karyotypes, such as 47,XXY, and 47,XYY.

  Study EGAS00001007462

• How mitochondrial DNA research can benefit from data reuse through EGA?

  Mitochondria are the only cellular organelles harbouring their own DNA, which encodes for proteins essentials in its respiration process. Despite its discovery in 1960, Mitochondrial DNA is often overlooked compared to nuclear DNA. Indeed, not all sequencing technologies capture a good representation of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). Recently, Ed Reznik's team (The Ed Reznik Lab | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) carried out a massive analysis and reanalysis of single cells WGS (whole genome sequencing) produced with an amplification-free protocol (Direct library prep, DLP). As they demonstrated in the paper Single-cell mtDNA dynamics in tumors is driven by coregulation of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes - PMC, DLP is more effective in catching mtDNA compared to classical single-cell sequencing. These data allowed the team to unravel mtDNA dynamics in tumoral and normal samples, highlighting how mtDNA and nuclear DNA are co-regulated and their ratio is critical for phenotype. Data reuse to achieve the greatest results For this project, Reznik's team re-used data from 3 studies stored at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGAS00001006343, EGAS00001004448 and EGAS00001003190) that comprised a total of 602 datasets. All of them were initially produced by the teams of Sam Aparicio and Sohrab P. Shah at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, where Ed Reznik is a promising group leader. This demonstrates, once again, that networking, collaboration and data sharing can achieve the greatest results when coupled with innovative and smart ideas. At the EGA we are proud to provide the scientific community with an infrastructure to enable all those very smart ideas out there to find the right data to be tested.

  Blog mitochondrial-dna-research

• OMKar

  The whole genome karyotype refers to the sequence of large chromosomal segments that make up an individuals genotype. karyotype analysis, which includes descriptions of aneuploidies and other rearrangements is crucial for understanding genetic risk factors, for diagnosis, treatment decisions, and genetic counseling linked to constitutional disorders. The current karyotyping standard is based on microscopic examination of chromosomes, a complex process that requires high expertise and offers Mb scale resolution. Optical Genome Mapping (OGM) technology can identify large DNA lesions in a cost-effective manner. In this paper, we developed OMKar, a method that uses OGM data to create a virtual karyotype. OMKar processes Structural (SV) and Copy Number (CN) Variants as inputs and encodes them into a compact breakpoint graph. It recomputes copy numbers using Integer Linear Programming to maintain CN balance and then identifies constrained Eulerian paths representing entire donor chromosomes. In tests using 38 whole genome simulations of constitutional disorders, OMKar reconstructed the karyotype with 88% precision and 95% recall on SV concordance and 95% Jaccard score on CN concordance. We applied OMKar to 50 prenatal, 41 postnatal, and 63 parental samples from ten different sites. OMKar reconstructed the correct karyotype in 144 out of 154 samples, covering 25 of 25 aneuploidies, 32 of 32 balanced translocations, and 72 of 82 unbalanced variations. Detected constitutional disorders included Cri-du-chat, Wolf-Hirschhorn, Prader-Willi deletions, Down, and Turner syndromes. Importantly, it identified a plausible genetic mechanism for five cases of constitutional disorder that were not detected by other technologies. Together, these results demonstrate the robustness of OMKar for OGM-based karyotyping.

  Study EGAS00001008245

• Cellular and Molecular Investigations of Human Hearts

  We aim to discover gene regulatory networks that govern heart morphogenesis in the early fetal heart. To this end, we have performed single-nucleus ATAC-seq on cells derived from 2 human hearts at 15 weeks post conception to define the chromatin profiles and genomic regulatory networks for these in vivo specific cardiomyocyte lineages during development, from which the FASTQ files are available through dbGAP. This information will help us understand the process of heart morphogenesis early in development and may further our understanding of how congenital heart disease impacts development.

  Study phs003473

• 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

• How to upload Crypt4GH files

  Uploading files Users who hold an ega-box-XXX account can upload files using either INBOX or FTP. Users who have a Submitter role associated with their email will only be able to upload files using INBOX. Before uploading your files, please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters in their naming convention, such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &. This can cause issues with the archiving process, leading to problems for end users. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited storage. To manage the available resources, we enforce a limit of 10TB per submission account at any one time. If you exceed this limit, a “permission denied” message will be displayed. This will prevent you from uploading more files, but connecting to your inbox.For submissions larger than 10TB, please perform uploads in 10TB batches: register all the metadata and then finalise the submission. Upload the next batch of files and repeat the same metadata registration and finalisation process until you have completed the file upload. Further information can be found in the SP documentation. INBOX FTP The INBOX is only compatible with files encrypted using the Crypt4gh tool Before uploading If you are not a registered EGA user, you will first need an EGA user account. Please note that it may take a few days for your account to be activated, as it needs to be vouched for by the EGA Helpdesk. Once your account is validated, you will be able to request a submitter role. [Optional] Meanwhile, you can create and add your public key to your EGA account profile. This option is not available for old submission accounts (e.g., ega-box-NNN). As soon as you have been granted a submitter role, you will be able to connect with your username and password to the EGA inbox using the SFTP protocol. If you have also registered a public key in your profile, you can also connect using this key. To upload files to your account, you can use the graphical user interface (GUI) or the command line. Graphical User Interface (GUI)We recommend using FileZilla, a free, open-source FTP client. However, you can use any other GUI that allows connecting over the SFTP protocol. For FileZilla as your GUI, follow these steps to upload files: Create a new connection in Site Manager (File > Site Manager) and select the following options (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer ProtocolHost: __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__Logon Type: Key fileUser: your EGA usernameKey file: Path/to/your/private_keyFigure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers.Click Connect, and you will log in remotely to your home directory. You can think of this folder as a storage "in the EGA cloud" in which you will add your files for the EGA. The uploading area has three folders:To-encrypt: Files uploaded in this folder will be encrypted automatically on the fly.Encrypted: Files uploaded in this folder must already be encrypted with Crypt4gh. Upload your files here if your connection is unstable or you have problems completing the upload into-encrypt.Etc: This folder contains two files that allow the server to show you your username and group instead of some internal numbers. Please do not upload files here; otherwise, you will obtain a permission denied error. Find the files you want to upload by browsing your local storage (left side of your screen in FileZilla). Select all the files you want to upload, then right-click on them and select Upload (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually uploading files to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can transfer data from their local storage to the "EGA cloud" by following the depicted steps Please note that regardless of which folder you upload your files in, both folders (to-encrypt, encrypted) will point to the same path (/) (Figure 3). Therefore, you will see your files in both folders. Figure 3: Both folders, to-encrypt and encrypted, point to the same path (/)" If your connection is unstable, please encrypt your files first using Crypt4gh. Then upload them to the ‘encrypted’ folder. The example above shows how to connect to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using the private key. However, if you prefer to log in using your credentials, you can do so. Please go to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)  for more information. SFTP command line To upload files securely to your private area of the EGA, you can use SFTP(Secure File Transfer Protocol) with your favorite FTP client. Here's what you need to know to get started: Connect to the target host __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__. This is the new hostname for the EGA SFTP service. Log in with your EGA username and key files (or password). Upload files to your private EGA inbox to ensure that only you can access the files. By following these steps, you can securely upload your files to the EGA for safe storage and sharing. Using the SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal and type sftp username@hostnameEnter your EGA passwordTo see a list of available SFTP commands, type helpsftp> put – Upload filesftp> get – Download filesftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’sftp> pwd – Display remote working directorysftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’sftp> lpwd – Display local working directorysftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directorysftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directoryType the "put" command to upload files. For example: put *.bamUse the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). After uploading- Once you have uploaded files to the inbox, please bear in mind that the checksum needs to be calculated, which can take up to two days. You will only be able to link your files to a run/analysis once the encrypted checksum has been calculated.- When linking your files to the 'Run' or 'Analysis', ensure that the file name matches the file path '/name' in the INBOX folder.- Please delete the files from your SFTP INBOX after all the runs/analyses have been registered and files are ingested (SP > Files > Files ingested). This will clear your inbox space an allow you to upload more files. This will also prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal inbox. Frequently Asked Questions Specific to the inbox What username should I use to log in to my inbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username.  If you have forgotten your registered username, please contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. How are checksums calculated in your inbox? If you encrypt the file beforehand and upload it to the "encrypted" folder, the unencrypted checksum will not be calculated until the file is ingested (i.e., until it is used in a run/analysis). If the file is uploaded to the "to-encrypt" folder, then both checksums are calculated.Please bear in mind that after files have been uploaded to the inbox, the checksum must be calculated, which can take from a few hours to two days.  Specific to using keys to authenticate Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/inbox

• Genome-wide analysis of HPV integration in human cancers reveals recurrent, focal genomic instability

  Genomic instability is a hallmark of human cancers, including the 5% caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Here we report a striking association between HPV integration and adjacent host genomic structural variation in human cancer cell lines and primary tumors. Whole genome sequencing revealed HPV integrants flanking and bridging extensive host genomic amplifications and rearrangements, including deletions, inversions and chromosomal translocations. We present a model of ³looping² by which HPV integrant-mediated DNA replication and recombination may result in viral-host DNA concatemers, frequently disrupting genes involved in oncogenesis and amplifying HPV oncogenes E6 and E7. Our high-resolution results shed new light on a catastrophic process, distinct from chromothripsis and other mutational processes, by which HPV directly promotes genomic instability.

  Study EGAS00001000599

• Development and Use of Network Infrastructure for High-Throughput GWA Studies

  The "Development and Use of Network Infrastructure for High-Throughput GWA Studies" project is collaboration between Group Health Cooperative (GH), the University of Washington (UW), and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC). It is one of 5 sites participating in The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) with additional funding from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The overall eMERGE project is designed to assess whether linking biorepositories of patients in healthcare delivery systems with electronic medical records (EMRs) is an efficient strategy for high-throughput genome wide association (GWA) studies and whether information can be pooled across sites. The primary phenotype in the Group Health/UW Aging and Dementia eMERGE study project is dementia. Phenotyped participants originated from four population-based sources. Seattle-area members of GH (a large integrated health care system in Washington State) consented and enrolled in 1) the University of Washington Alzheimer&#39;s Disease Patient Registry (ADPR) and 2) the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study, 3) Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP), a population-based DNA, plasma and serum biobank of 20,000 adults, 4) Vanderbilt&#39;s BioVU, a de-identified DNA biobank. The ADPR (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is a population-based registry of incident dementia cases designed to identify all new dementia cases within GH from 1987 to 1996. Potential dementia cases were identified through referrals from primary care physicians, mental health services, and neurologists, as well as review of CT scans, neurology, emergency room, geriatrician, and mental health clinic logs, and hospital discharge diagnoses. Medical history, physical, laboratory testing, and neuropsychological testing were performed on all consenting potential cases. These data were reviewed by a consensus conference including a neuropsychologist, study physicians, and an epidemiologist. After discussion of the case, dementia status is assigned using DSM-III-R criteria. Alzheimer&#39;s disease status was assigned using the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke-Alzheimer&#39;s Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria. The study base of the ADPR population was stable with an attrition rate of less than 1%/year. The ACT study (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is an ongoing community-based cohort study designed to determine the incidence of Alzheimer&#39;s Disease (AD), other types of dementia, and cognitive impairment and to determine risk factors for these conditions. The original cohort of 2,581 was enrolled in 1994-1996. An expansion cohort of 811 was enrolled in 2000-2002. Continuous enrollment to keep 2,000 persons enrolled and at-risk for dementia outcomes was begun in 2005. To date the study has accrued more than 4,000 participants. Dementia-free participants are enrolled in this cohort and evaluated every two years by study personnel with many evaluations including an assessment of cognitive functioning using the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), which is an extended version of the Mini-Mental State Examination that has been widely used in epidemiological studies of the elderly. Persons with CASI scores lower than 86 or in whom interviewers suspect unusual cognitive decline are followed up with dementia diagnostic evaluations which include physical and neurological examinations and neuropsychological tests. Medical records are reviewed, and laboratory tests and neuroimaging are obtained if not available. The dementia diagnoses and dementia subtypes are determined during a consensus conference attended by the examining clinicians and other study physicians, a neuropsychologist, and research nurse. After discussion of the case, dementia status is assigned using DSM-IV criteria. Alzheimer&#39;s disease status was assigned using NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Individuals diagnosed with dementia are seen again one year following diagnosis using the same procedures. Individuals not diagnosed with dementia are returned to the pool of at-risk individuals and are seen at their next routinely scheduled biennial visit. The ACT sub-sample is stable; for the original cohort, median enrollment in GH was 19 years prior to joining the ACT study, and 85% of the cohort has &#8805; 10 years of GH enrollment. DNA for the ADPR participants were obtained through a companion study, Genetic Differences in Cases and Controls (PI: Walter Kukull; NIH/NIA R01 AG007584). DNA obtained through both studies were extracted from blood using Gentra Systems Puregene methods. DNA concentration is determined by UV optical density. All samples are checked for quality by OD 260/280 ratio. For long-term storage, samples are aliquoted and stored at -70&#176;C. The Marshfield study, Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP), a population-based DNA, plasma and serum biobank of 20,000 adults. PMRP was started in 2002 as a 3 Phase project. Completed in April 2004, the objectives of Phase I were to build and develop a large population-based biobank with DNA, plasma and serum samples to facilitate genomics research. Phase 1 was also to educate, inform and consult with the Marshfield Epidemiologic Study Area population and communities concerning potential studies, create the DNA foundation of the personalized medicine database and build the bioinformatics tools to store securely and analyze genotypic and phenotypic data. Phase I tasks included operation of the ethics and security advisory board, scientific advisory board and community advisory group. More than 18,000 residents aged 18 and above from 19 different zip codes surrounding Marshfield, WI were invited to participate in Phase I. After providing written informed consent, participants completed brief questionnaires that included questions about demographics, some environmental exposures, family history of disease, and adverse drug reactions, as well as family members living in the area. Participants provided 50ml of blood from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum samples were stored. The informed consent process allowed access to electronic medical records and included language about non-disclosure of personal research results. A tick-off box was included so that participants could either allow or decline subsequent recontact for future research studied. The objectives of Phase II are to create the phenotypic database, establish the scientific and administrative infrastructure to support genetic mapping of the DNA and the initial discovery projects and genotype a sufficient portion of the genetic material to support these discovery projects. The objectives of Phase III are to expand the discovery projects, complete the genotyping of the genetic database and expand physician/health care provider education and community consultation. The Vanderbilt BioVU model uses discarded blood leftover from clinical care and de-identified clinical information, both of which are tracked with a Research Unique Identifier that is permanently disconnected from the medical record number used to generate it. The Vanderbilt IRB determined that the project does not qualify as "human subject" research under &#167;46.102(f)(1)(2). The program has been reviewed by OHRP twice (the latest immediately prior to launch), and the determination of the Vanderbilt IRB that the project is consistent with the 8/10/2004 guidance has been validated. The model includes a simple opt out mechanism developed for patients who do not wish to have their samples included. Planning (including community involvement, ethics and IRB discussions, focus groups, development of operating procedures and pilot studies to assess them) began in May 2004, and the resource commenced sample collection in February 2007 and as of May 2009 contains approximately 56,000 samples. The current resource will be available to all Vanderbilt investigators who sign a Data Use Agreement. The resource represents Vanderbilt&#39;s broad patient population and thus provides a potential resource for research in a range of common and rare diseases as well as drug response or medication safety. BioVU patient protection model: There has been extensive involvement by the ethics community and the IRB to put in place procedures to provide privacy protection. The overall protection plan is multifaceted and includes a combination of technology and policy: (1) creation of the SD described above; (2) return of only the specific clinical data items requested by investigators (rather than the complete de-identified chart); (3) submission of any specific proposed project to the IRB and to a separate protocol review committee, both of which must approve; (4) implementing a Data Use Agreement that permits only approved queries and data analyses, specifically prohibits attempts at re-identification (at the risk of institutional sanctions), and mandates redeposit of all genetic information generated in a research study back into a genomic database; and (5) tracking and auditing all use.

  Study phs000234

• 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).&nbsp;&nbsp; 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 &#945;-tocopherol or &#223;-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 &#945;-tocopherol, 20mg &#223;-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 (&#177; 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (&#177; 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&#8217;s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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&#8217; license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter&#8217;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 &#223; 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 S&#246;derberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;r&#8217;s Minne, Karlsson&#8217;s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his 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.&nbsp;

  Study phs001120

• Federated discovery and sharing of genomic data using Beacons

  The Beacon Project is a Global Alliance for Genomics & Health (GA4GH) initiative that enables genomic and clinical data sharing across federated networks. The project is working toward developing regulatory, ethics and security guidance to ensure proportionate safeguards for distribution of data according to the GA4GH-developed “Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data”. Within this Nature Biotechnology Correspondence a description of the Beacon protocol and how it can be used as a model for the federated discovery and sharing of genomic data is offered to the community. A Beacon is defined as a web-accessible service that can be queried for information about a specific allele. A user of a Beacon can pose queries of the form “Have you observed this nucleotide (e.g., C) at this genomic location (e.g., position 32,936,732 on chromosome 13)?” to which the Beacon responds with either “yes” or “no.” In this way, a Beacon allows allelic information of interest to be discovered by a remote searcher with no reference to a specific sample or patient, thereby mitigating privacy risks. The Beacon API (represented as a RESTful web application) provides a technical specification that a Beacon server must implement. The specification is open source and available online here. To simplify the process of lighting a Beacon, a free, open-source reference implementation of the latest specification has been developed. GA4GH is promoting different levels of data access (open, registered, and controlled) for convenience and for compatibility across its projects. Each so-called access tier has distinct visibility and requirements for authorization. For example, ‘open access’ Beacons are accessible to anonymous users of the internet, whereas ‘registered access’ Beacons are accessible to registered users (for example, bona fide researchers and clinicians) who have agreed to a set of conditions of data use. Many of the largest genomic archives, such as dbGaP, the European Genome-phenome Archive and the European Variation Archive, have provided access to variation data through Beacons for some or all of their datasets. Beacons can be interconnected through the Beacon Network, a directory and search engine for Beacons. Although individual Beacons answer the question “Have you observed this allele?”, the Beacon Network answers the question “Who has observed this allele?”. Beacons can be freely registered to the Beacon Network and can be searched independently or in aggregate with other connected Beacons.

  Blog federated-discovery-using-beacons

• The dataset of Southeast Borneo individuals (Banjar and Ngaju ethnic groups) was used as comparative data to determine the Asian parental population of the Malagasy. Our study found strong support for an origin of the Asian ancestry of Malagasy among the Banjar.

  Malagasy genetic diversity results from an exceptional proto-globalisation process that took place over a thousand years ago across the Indian Ocean. Previous efforts to locate the Asian origin of Malagasy have highlighted Borneo broadly as a potential source, but so far no firm source populations have been identified. Here, we have generated genome-wide data from two Southeast Borneo populations, the Banjar and the Ngaju, together with published data compiled from populations across the Indian Ocean region. We find strong support for an origin of the Asian ancestry of Malagasy among the Banjar. This group emerged from the long-standing presence of a Malay Empire trading post in Southeast Borneo, which favoured admixture between the Malay and an autochthonous Borneo group, the Ma’anyan. Reconciling genetic, historical and linguistic data, we show that the Banjar, in Malay-led voyages, were the most probable Asian source among the analysed groups in the founding of the Malagasy gene pool.

  Study EGAS00001001841

• Effects of 2DG, Galactose, or Oligomycin on the epigenome remodeling induce by T cells activation.

  T cell activation is known to require a metabolic shift towards glycolysis, triggered by TCR-engagement . To substantiate the role of glycolysis in transcriptional reprogramming during antigen-driven T cell activation, we utilized a well-established ex-vivo model to recapitulate the process of antigen stimulation without the requirement for additional antigen-presenting cells . We initially explored and validated the conditions for both metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming. Antigen-mediated CD4+ T cells activation initiates context-specific gene-expression programs that drive effector functions and cell fates through changes in the epigenetic landscape . To evaluate global changes in histone modifications, we isolated CD4+ T cells from peripheral blood (PB) of healthy control (HC) human donors and either maintained them in resting conditions or stimulated with anti-CD3/CD28 for 24h. Rapid changes in the CD4+ epigenome and transcriptome were observed within 24h as measured by RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) and H3K27ac chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by DNA-sequencing (ChIP-seq).To explore the requirement for metabolic reprogramming in regulating transcriptional responses after initial TCR engagement, CD4+ T cells from PB of healthy donors were isolated and activated in either the presence or absence of oligomycin (inhibitor of ATP synthase blocking the production of ATP by OXPHOS), 2-deoxyglucose (2DG; competitively inhibiting production of glucose-6-phosphate from glucose), or replacement of glucose with galactose. Galactose is metabolized through glycolysis, utilizing the Leloir pathway which is energy neutral, forcing cells to use all the pyruvate production to sustain the TCA cycle for OXPHOS and ATP synthesis at the expense of lactate production. Employing ChIP-seq and RNA-seq, inhibition of OXPHOS-mediated ATP production by oligomycin had only a limited effect on H3K27-acetylation or activation-induced transcription during the first 24h of activation. In contrast, inhibition of glycolysis by 2DG treatment compromised both H3K27-acetylation and transcriptional changes. However, under conditions of galactose-metabolism where lactate production is abrogated, activated CD4+ T cells were still able to globally remodel H3K27 acetylation and reprogram the transcriptome.

  Study EGAS00001007115

• Genetic architecture of disease in Greenland is shaped by demographic history, fine-structure, and selection - WGS data

  This data was generated as part of the project titled "Genetic architecture of disease in Greenland is shaped by demographic history, fine-structure, and selection." The study was carried out to investigate the genetic architecture of the Greenlandic population and the consequences it has for disease mapping, diagnosis and prediction.

  Study EGAS50000000657

• Genetic architecture of disease in Greenland is shaped by demographic history, fine-structure, and selection - MEGA chip data

  This data was generated as part of the project titled "Genetic architecture of disease in Greenland is shaped by demographic history, fine-structure, and selection." The study was carried out to investigate the genetic architecture of the Greenlandic population and the consequences it has for disease mapping, diagnosis and prediction.

  Study EGAS50000000658

• PE-CGS: Optimizing Engagement of Hispanic Colorectal Cancer Patients in Cancer Genomic Characterization Studies

  Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Hispanic/Latinos (H/L) are the largest and fasting growing ethnic group in the US, and cancer is the leading cause of death among H/L in the US. Therefore, we need to fully understand the full complexity of the molecular etiology of cancer in this ethnic group. For instance, although incidence rates of CRC are lower among Latinos as compared to Whites or African Americans, Hispanics with metastatic disease have shorter overall survival when adjusted for health care setting, demographics, disease characteristics and treatment factors. H/L also tend to be diagnosed at a younger age and with higher stage, and we have previously reported that Mexican H/L in California have the greatest proportion of young (The Cancer Genome Atlas has provided a deep overview of the molecular taxonomy of CRC in 594 cases, however, less than 1% of the cases (n=5) were H/L. Therefore, it is imperative for us to take more detailed assessment of the molecular genomic landscape of CRC in H/L. One of the major issues likely limiting our ability to perform these large genomic initiatives in minority patients is that Patient or Participant Engagement practices may not be investigated to identify best practices for accruing and consenting patients into clinical translational biomedical research studies. This concept of Participant Engagement is critically important for both the patients and the translational cancer research community. Optimizing and improving our approaches for directly engaging patients at initial contact, throughout the course of a translational genomic study, and during the time of return of results is likely to lead to stronger relationships between the medical community and patients, but could also lead to significant improvement in outcomes for patients and for the cancer care community as a whole. As such, we propose the creation of the USC Center for Optimization of Participant Engagement in Cancer Characterization (COPECC) with a focus on optimizing the engagement of Latinos in CRC Genomic Characterization research studies. USC COPECC would serve as a member of the NCI U2C Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Our investigative team includes experts in all relevant areas of research for genomic characterization, participant engagement, and engagement optimization. We have an established platform for consenting patients into cancer genomics studies that will serve as a standard process. The overall goal of USC COPECC is to generate results on participant engagement optimization and CRC genomic research that will be shared with the broader community to distribute best practices for engaging Latinos in hopes of improving overall outcomes for CRC in this underserved population.

  Study phs003985

• Mutational bias in spermatogonia impacts the anatomy of regulatory sites in the human genome

  Mutation in the germline is the ultimate source of genetic variation, but little is known about the influence of germline chromatin structure on mutational processes. Using ATAC-seq, we profile the open chromatin landscape of human spermatogonia, the most proliferative cell-type of the germline, identifying transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) and PRDM9-binding sites, a subset of which will initiate meiotic recombination. We observe an increase in rare structural variant (SV) breakpoints at PRDM9-bound sites, implicating meiotic recombination in the generation of structural variation. Many germline TFBSs, such as NRF, are also associated with increased rates of SV breakpoints, apparently independent of recombination. Singleton short insertions (&gt;=5 bp) are highly enriched at TFBSs, particularly at sites bound by testis active TFs, and their rates correlate with those of structural variant breakpoints. Short insertions often duplicate the TFBS motif, leading to clustering of motif sites near regulatory regions in this male-driven evolutionary process. Increased mutation loads at germline TFBSs disproportionately affect neural enhancers with activity in spermatogonia, potentially altering neurodevelopmental regulatory architecture. Local chromatin structure in spermatogonia is thus pervasive in shaping both evolution and disease.

  Study EGAS00001005366

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Versions 1 and 2 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: The ROC Cardiac Epistry versions 1 and 2 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from December 1, 2005 to April 1, 2011. ROC Cardiac Epistry 3 includes cardiac arrest cases captured between 2011 and 2015, and introduced significant changes in how and which data were collected.For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data, please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest;to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes.Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 109,326 cardiac arrest events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003803