21147 results for "Buy fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins The process was smooth and quick..ivNx"

in 59.71 milliseconds.

• Osteosarcoma WGS on multiple tissue samples from six patients

  Osteosarcoma is a primary bone tumor that exhibits a complex genome characterized by gross chromosomal abnormalities. Osteosarcoma patients often develop metastatic disease, resulting in limited therapeutic options and poor survival rates. To gain knowledge on the mechanisms underlying osteosarcoma heterogeneity and metastatic process, it is important to obtain a detailed profile of the genomic alterations that accompany osteosarcoma progression. Therefore, in this study we performed WGS on multiple tissue samples from six patients with osteosarcoma, including the treatment naïve biopsy of the primary tumor, resection of the primary tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, local recurrence and distant metastases.

  Dataset EGAD50000000475

• FIGHT-207: Anonymized Genomic Alterations and Clinical Responses

  Background: FIGHT-207 was a phase 2 study of the FGFR1-FGFR3 inhibitor pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic or unresectable solid tumor malignancies harboring activating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene alterations. Population information: 107 patients were divided into 3 cohorts: FGFR1–FGFR3 fusions/rearrangements; n=49 Activating FGFR1–FGFR3 non-kinase domain single nucleotide variants (SNVs); n=32 FGFR1–FGFR3 kinase domain mutations or variants of unknown significance (VUS) with potential pathogenicity; n=26 Participants on study had tumors that were grouped into the following histologies based on ≥ 5 patients: Cholangiocarcinoma, gynecologic cancers (cervical, endometrial, uterine), central nervous system (glioblastoma, low-grade pediatric glioma, astrocytoma), pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, urothelial tract/bladder cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other (adrenal cancer, anal cancer, cancer of unknown primary origin, colorectal cancer, gastric/gastroesophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, giant cell bone tumor, head and neck cancer, lung neuroendocrine cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell cancer, sarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor). Among the efficacy-evaluable participants, 99 had both independent review committee (IRC) central best overall response (BOR) and tissue NGS- data; 2 additional patients had Not Evaluable (NE) as central BOR Baseline tissue targeted NGS data (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) of genomic alterations are reported for N=101 participants Baseline plasma targeted NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of genomic data are reported for N=83 participants; data at disease-progression are reported for N=78 participants. Principal Findings: The FIGHT-207 study provided evidence of clinical benefit of pemigatinib in multiple histologies, explored the clinical actionability of various FGFR1-FGFR3 gene alterations, and leveraged the depth of translational data from targeted NGS analysis of baseline samples and plasma samples obtained at baseline and end of treatment to provide key insights into the biology of FGFR inhibition and the clinical utility of FGFR inhibitors. The FIGHT-207 article (pending in Nat.Med. NMED-A128973B) reports evidence suggesting clinical acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition via secondary FGFR mutations as well as emerging co-mutations in other oncogenic and tumor suppressor pathways. This study also provides evidence of acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in multiple histologies beyond cholangiocarcinoma and urothelial cancers in a systemic correlative analysis of post-progression ctDNA in a trial. Data available through dbGaP: Anonymized information for 101 participants with both IRC central BOR evaluation (including 2 patients with NE as BOR) and tissue NGS data, including tumor histology, enrollable FGFR alteration, and outcome. Genomic alterations determined by baseline tissue NGS (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) Genomic alterations determined by plasma NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of ctDNA analysis at baseline (n=83) and at end of treatment/ disease progression (n=78) including genomic alterations that were not assessed to be Germline SNPs.

  Study phs003590

• Genomics of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

  Despite the growing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to increased hepatitis C virus infection and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in Western populations, the genetic determinants of this cancer have yet to be established. A minority (15-20%) of HCC occurs in livers without cirrhosis or other chronic disease. Because the liver is functionally preserved in these patients and surgical resection of the tumor may be performed safely, and because of the scarcity of livers available for transplantation, non-cirrhotic patients undergo surgical resection for HCC treatment. These resected tumors present investigatory opportunities in two ways: First, they provide tumor specimen which have not been treated with chemotherapy and embolization. Second, the absence of cirrhosis may provide an unconfounded background from which to investigate the genetic tumorigenesis of HCC. In livers with cirrhosis, genetic instability is prevalent as assessed by assays for microsatellite instability, loss of heterozygosity and aberrant DNA methylation. In contrast, in livers without cirrhosis, the non-tumor tissue surrounding HCC have been found to have fewer genetic aberrations. It has been postulated that the pathologic process of cirrhosis may result in the accumulation of many "passenger"; as well as "driver" mutations, and that the examination of the HCC cancer genome may be facilitated in non-cirrhotic livers because of the absence of an accumulated background noise of mutations.

  Study phs001106

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

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

  Study phs000669

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? The most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. How can I add my dataset to the cBioPortal instance? In order to link your data to the cBioPortal, you must register it as a normal dataset in the Submitter Portal. For more information, please refer to the cBioPortal documentation. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Whole_exome_sequencing_for_HELIC

  The HELIC study has been whole genome sequencing individuals from 2 Greek isolatedpopulations at 1x depth. The genotype calling process crucially involves a VQSR stepfollowed by imputation-based refinement. We have been investigating optimal ways toincrease calling accuracy. To aid us in setting appropriate parameters for VQSR and otherQC steps, we have carried out whole exome sequencing of a small number ofHELIC samples.

  Study EGAS00001000602

• Prognostic and therapeutic significance of leukemia subtypes and minimal residual disease measurements in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with contemporary risk-directed trial: a cohort study

  Background Genomic analyses to identify leukemia subtypes and refinement of minimal residual disease (MRD) determination are two recent advances that would have substantial impact on the management of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, the combined application of these two approaches to determine the prognostic and therapeutic significance of MRD measurement and full spectrum of leukemia subtypes in the context of contemporary risk-directed therapy has not been studied comprehensively.MethodsBetween October 29, 2007 and March 26, 2017, 598 consecutive children with newly diagnosed ALL were enrolled in a clinical trial at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Patients were provisional classified according to the presenting clinical and laboratory features including immunophenotype and cytogenetics. Patients with ETV6-RUNX1 and high hyperdiploid B-progenitor ALL were provisionally included in the low-risk groups; those with TCF3-PBX1, hypodiploidy and T-cell ALL in the standard (intermediate)-risk group; and patients with BCR-ABL1, KMT2A and early T-cell precursor ALL in the high-risk group. Final risk assignment was based primarily on MRD levels measured by flow cytometry on Day 15 (≥1%) and Day 42 (<0.01% or ≥1%) of remission induction. Using genomic classification based on cytogenetics and genomic analysis (single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis and transcriptome, exome, and genome sequencing), patients were classified into 17 subtypes. The primary aim was to determine the event-free survival, overall survival and cumulative risk of relapse according to specific leukemia subtypes and MRD levels on Days 8, 15 and 42 of remission induction. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549848.FindingsPatients with ETV6-RUNX1, high hyperdiploidy and DUX4-rearranged B-ALL all received low- or standard-risk therapy, and had the highest 5-year event-free survival rates: 98.4% (95% CI, 95.9-100), 95.3% (91.2-99.4), and 95.0% (84.2-100), respectively. All 142 patients with Day 8 MRD<0.01%, except two with KMT2A-rearranged ALL and one with TCF3-PBX1, were in continuous complete remission. The TCF3-PBX1, PAX5alt, T-cell, early T-cell precursor, iAMP21 and hypodiploid ALL had intermediate outcome with 5-year event-free survival rates ranging from 80.0% (39.4-100) to 88.2% (71.7-100). Patients with KMT2A-rearranged, BCR-ABL1, BCR-ABL1-like and ETV6-RUNX1-like ALL had the worst outcomes, with 5-year event-free survival rates between 64.1% (43.9-84.3) and 76.2% (51.9-100), despite most patients receiving standard- or high-risk therapy. Treatment intensification based on MRD and genotype improved outcome. Relapse did not occur in any of the patients with ETV6-RUNX1, DUX4-rearranged, TCF3-PBX1, iAMP21, ZNF384-rearranged, hypodiploid, or BCR-ABL1-like B-ALL who had day 15 MRD≥1% and received standard-risk therapy. However, day 42 MRD<0.01% did not preclude relapse in patients with intermediate-risk or unfavorable subtypes including TCF3-PBX1, PAX5alt, T-cell, iAMP21, BCR-ABL1, BCR-ABL1-like, ETV6-RUNX1-like, KMT2A-rearranged, and MEF2D-rearranged ALL, despite intensified treatment in the standard- or high-risk arms. InterpretationContemporary risk-directed treatment based on genotypes and MRD can cure virtually all patients with ETV6-RUNX1, hyperdiploid>50 and DUX4-rearranged ALL. While intensified treatment improve outcome for patients with high MRD during induction, substantial proportions of patients with intermediate-risk or unfavorable subtypes would still relapse even achieving negative MRD status at the end of induction and require novel therapeutics to improve outcome.

  Study EGAS00001004739

• Emirati Diploid Single Samples Assemblies

  This study, as part of the Emirati Genome Project, aims to establish a foundational pangenome reference to advance precision medicine in the United Arab Emirates. We are generating single-sample diploid whole genome assemblies for 30 Emirati nationals using deep PacBio HiFi sequencing. This process yielded 60 distinct assemblies representing both the maternal and paternal genomes for each individual. The resulting high-quality reference will capture the unique genetic landscape of the Emirati population, thereby accelerating translational research and genomic discovery.

  Study EGAS50000001233

• Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA)

  The Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) Cohort was created by a RC2 "Grand Opportunity" grant that was awarded to the Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics (AG036607; Schaefer/Risch, PIs). The RC2 project enabled genome-wide SNP genotyping (GWAS) to be conducted on a cohort of over 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its RPGEH. The purpose of the RPGEH is to facilitate research on the genetic and environmental factors that affect health and disease by linking together clinical data from electronic health records, survey data on demographic and behavioral factors, and environmental data from various sources, with genetic data derived from biospecimens collected from participants. At the time of the award of the RC2 project in late 2009, the RPGEH had established a cohort of about 140,000 individuals who had answered a detailed survey, provided saliva samples for extraction of DNA, and given broad consent for the use of their data in studies of health and disease. To maximize the diversity of the resulting sample, the GERA cohort was formed by including all racial and ethnic minority participants with saliva samples (N = 20,925; 19%); the remaining participants were drawn sequentially and randomly from white non-Hispanic participants (89,341; 81%). A total of 110,266 participant samples were included to ensure that at least 100,000 were successfully assayed. The resulting GERA cohort is 42% male, 58% female, and ranges in age from 18 to over 100 years old with an average age of 63 years at the time of the RPGEH survey (2007). The sample is ethnically diverse, generally well-educated with above average income. Approximately 69% of the participants are married or living with a partner. Length of membership in KPNC averages 23.5 years. UCSF and RPGEH investigators worked with the genomics company Affymetrix to design four custom microarrays for genotyping each of the four major race-ethnicity groups included in the GERA Cohort, described in detail in Hoffmann et al., 2011a and 2011b. Following genotyping and quality control procedures, and after removal of invalid, discordant, or withdrawn samples, about 103,000 participants were successfully genotyped. The resulting genotypic data were linked to survey data and data abstracted from the electronic medical records. As described below, all RPGEH participants were mailed new consent forms with explicit discussion of the placement of data in the NIH-maintained dbGaP. About 77% of participants returned completed consent forms, resulting in a final sample size of 78,486 participants in the GERA Cohort with data for deposit into dbGaP. Origins of the RPGEH GERA Cohort The goal in creating the RPGEH GERA cohort was to create a large, multiethnic, and comprehensive population-based resource for research into the genetic and environmental basis of common age-related diseases and their treatment, and factors influencing healthy aging and longevity. The GERA Cohort consists of a diverse cohort of more than 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health (RPGEH). KPNC is an integrated health care delivery system with a population of about 3.3 million people in northern California. The membership of KPNC is representative of the general population in the 14 county area in which facilities are located, although the membership is underrepresented for the extremes of income at both ends of the spectrum. The RPGEH utilizes the longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) of KPNC to obtain clinical, laboratory, imaging and pharmacy information on all cohort members, to which personal demographic, behavioral and health characteristics have been added through member surveys. The GERA Cohort comprises a subsample of the RPGEH participant cohort, and was created through the RC2 award from the NIA, NIMH, and NIH Common Fund as described above. GERA Study Design The GERA Cohort is a subsample, as described above, of the longitudinal cohort enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente RPGEH. The RPGEH cohort includes about 400,000 survey participants of whom about 200,000 have provided broad consent and a sample of saliva or blood for use in studies of genetic and environmental factors in health and disease. The GERA Cohort was developed from a mailed survey sent to all adult members of KPNC who had been members for two years or more in 2007. All survey respondents were contacted and asked to complete a consent form; those who completed consent forms were asked to provide a saliva sample. Additional male participants were added to the RPGEH through inclusion of the Northern California sample of the California Men's Health Study (CMHS) cohort of about 40,000 men from KPNC, ages 45-69 years old at the time of the CMHS survey in 2002-2003. The CMHS participants contributed about 15,400 saliva samples to the RPGEH and were eligible for inclusion in the GERA Cohort. CMHS participants were included according to the same sampling design as for the RPGEH cohort as a whole. Specifically, all minority participants were selected for inclusion in order to maximize representation of minorities in the GERA Cohort, and Non-Hispanic White participants were selected at random to complete the sample of 110,266 GERA Cohort participants. GERA Genotypic Data High-density genotyping was conducted at UCSF using custom designed Affymetrix Axiom arrays, as described in Hoffmann et al. (2011a; 2011b). To maximize genome-wide coverage of common and less common variants, four specific arrays were designed for individuals of Non-Hispanic White (EUR), East Asian (EAS), African-American (AFR), and Latino (LAT) race/ethnicity. There was broad overlap among the SNPs on the arrays, which were designed using a hybrid greedy imputation algorithm (Hoffmann et al., 2011b) applied to genotype information validated by Affymetrix from the 1000 Genomes Project. However, in order to capture low frequency variants specific to particular race-ethnicity groups, SNP content varies between arrays. A more detailed description of the process of genotyping and results is included in Genotyping of DNA Samples. Description of the analyses of population structure and development of principal components for adjustment of population structure is included in Population Structure Analysis. GERA Phenotypic Data RPGEH and CMHS Survey Data. The sources of data on demographic and behavioral factors deposited in dbGaP for the GERA Cohort are the RPGEH and CMHS surveys. Data on common demographic factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education and on behavioral factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index, have been cleaned, edited, reconciled between the two surveys, and compiled into summary indices, where appropriate, for deposition into dbGaP. A more complete description of the survey variables is included in Survey Variables Documentation. Please note that the terms of use of the GERA Cohort Data, as specified in the Data Use Certification (DUC), prohibit the use of survey variables as outcomes in analyses. For example, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of education or smoking is not permitted as specified by the DUC. Only health conditions can be used as outcome variables in analyses. Health Conditions derived from Kaiser Permanente Electronic Medical Records. Data on the occurrence of health conditions in participants in the GERA Cohort have been derived from summarizing ICD-9 coded diagnoses in Kaiser Permanente's electronic medical records. An algorithm that aggregates specific ICD-9 codes into appropriate diagnostic groups for selected conditions is applied to outpatient and inpatient databases; see Disease and Conditions Definitions Documentation for details. The criterion for including a condition as "present" for a participant is the occurrence of two or more diagnoses within a diagnostic category occurring on separate days. Two or more is used as the criterion in order to reduce false positives due to mistakes or rule-out diagnoses. When compared with validated disease registries, the criterion of 2+ diagnoses yields high specificity and good sensitivity. ICD-9 codes in the electronic records are specified in several ways. For outpatient visits occurring during the period 1995 to 2006, diagnoses were assigned by the treating physician who endorsed specific diagnoses on an optically scanned list that varied by specialty. Beginning in 2006 with the advent of an integrated, fully electronic medical record, outpatient diagnoses are made by physicians/ providers using a pull down menu. Discharge diagnoses from inpatient stays are specified by physicians and coded by specially trained coders. Databases of ICD-9 codes for diagnoses assigned at outpatient visits, or as one of the discharge diagnoses following inpatient stays, are complete and available for all KPNC members dating back to 1995. Although the average length of KPNC membership among GERA cohort members is 23.5 years in 2007, not all have been members since 1995, so the history for some conditions, such as those that are not chronic or recurrent, may not be complete for all cohort members. The year of first membership in KPNC is included as a variable in the list of survey variables, enabling investigators to estimate the number of years of observation of each Cohort member. RPGEH Access and Collaborations Website and Procedures The RPGEH maintains a web portal for inquiries and applications for collaboration and access to data. The url is: https://rpgehportal.kaiser.org/. RPGEH has an application process and an Access Review Committee that reviews applications for collaboration and use. For more details, please contact RPGEH through the website.

  Study phs000674

• National Institute on Aging (NIA) Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Initiative: The Multiplex Family Study

  Multiplex Family StudyThe purpose of the NIA Genetics Initiative: Multiplex Family Study is to identify families with multiple members diagnosed with late-onset Alzheimer's Disease. Families will be characterized clinically and blood samples will be collected to establish cell lines. If a blood sample is not available, autopsy samples will be collected for DNA extraction and storage. Our goal is to recruit 1,000 families over the course of the study. Clinical and demographic data from these families will be collected at the local site and coded data, without identifiers, will be sent and included in a national database of families with Alzheimer's Disease. This database, along with the biological samples, will be housed at the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer's Disease (NCRAD) at Indiana University. The Center or provider and the Cell Repository must sign a Material Transfer Agreement for shipment of biological samples and phenotypic data to NCRAD. The biological samples and data from these families will be available to qualified researchers, who must sign a Material Transfer Agreement before receiving DNA and data. An oversight committee known as the Cell Bank Advisory Committee (CBAC) will review and monitor the process of family identification and enrollment, data collection, the establishment of cell lines and access to samples. LOAD CIDR ProjectThe first 362 families of the Multiplex Family Study (including 2,105 family members) were included in a 6K SNP genome-wide scan at the NIH-supported, Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). An additional 297 unrelated, healthy controls were also genotyped at CIDR. The average age of onset of AD in the genotyped sample is 74 years and 62% of the sample is women. While primarily Caucasian, 3% are African-American, and 3% are of Hispanic ancestry. 72% of the families had at least 2 affected siblings, whereas 21% had 3 or more sampled affected individuals and 7% had 4 or more genotyped, affected family members.

  Study phs000160

• The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation

  In this study, we will apply a multi-staged approach to reveal genes harboring rare variants that are associated with aggressive PCa. Whole-exome sequencing (Aim 1a) of 2,774 aggressive cases and 2,776 non-aggressive cases of European ancestry will be conducted followed by rare variant analysis of single sites and gene burden testing to identify novel susceptibility loci/genes for aggressive disease. We will validate the most significantly associated genes (~500) through targeted sequencing in an additional 6,415 aggressive and 5,586 non-aggressive cases and 1,890 controls (Aim 1b). Next, we will investigate the clinical predictive utility of the genes/variants identified in 2,291 cases in the STHM3 trial who are undergoing biopsy based on PSA and genetic risk score stratification (Aim 2). Through this tiered approach we expect to significantly advance knowledge of aggressive PCa etiology and health disparities as well as guide the development of early detection and prognostic strategies for the subset of men who are most susceptible to this fatal form of disease. In this case-case study of aggressive vs non aggressive prostate cancer, aggressive cases are defined as prostate cancer as cause of death, (T4 disease or T3 disease) and Gleason 8+. Non-aggressive cases are men with T1/2 disease and Gleason ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and CONTRIBUTING SITES CAPS, PROCAP, STHM1, STHM2: Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2016/818), Swedish Research Council (2014/2269).STHM3: Stockholm County Council (Stockholms Läns Landsting).MEC: Funding provided by the National Cancer Institute: Understanding Ethnic Differences in Cancer, 2U01CA164973 and The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation, 5R01CA196931-02.ATBC: The ATBC Study is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and by U.S. Public Health Service contract HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services.COSM: The Swedish Research Council/National Research Infrastructure Grant (VR 2014/6397; VR 2015/5997) The Swedish Cancer Foundation (CAN 2013/456; CAN 2016/727)CPSII: The authors express sincere appreciation to all Cancer Prevention Study II participants and to each member of the study and biospecimen management group. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study-II cohort.MCCS/APCS/PCFS: The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria and further supported by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants 209057 and 396414. The Aggressive Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (APCS) was funded by NHMRC grant 623204. The Prostate Cancer Family Study (PCFS) was fully funded by Cancer Council Victoria. Cancer Council Victoria funds the continuing maintenance and updating of the MCCS, APCS and PCFS. Cases and their vital status are ascertained and followed up through the Victorian Cancer Registry and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database.PLCO: The Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and also by the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London which has additional infrastructure support provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The national cohorts are supported by: Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam- Rehbruecke (DIfE), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy, Compagnia di SanPaolo and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS) - Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, and the Catalan Institute of Oncology - ICO (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C8221/A19170 and C8221/A29017 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk; MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford). (United Kingdom). DFCI: Linda and Arthur Gelb and Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky. HPFS and PHS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by U01 167552 and P01 CA228696 from the National Cancer Institute, and with support from the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490 and HL34595.Northwestern: P50CA180995 (Catalona) 08/01/15 – 07/31/20 NIH/NCI SPORE in Prostate Cancer; The Urological Research FoundationPROMPT: MRC UK - Project reference G0500966, Cambridge BRC infrastructure funding, Cambridge Biomedical Research Campus (BRC-1215-20014), CRUK Cambridge Cancer Centre infrastructure funding (they are requesting this statement is written in blue for publications).ICR: This work was supported by the NIH R01 grant 5R01CA196931-02. The samples from the UK were from UKGPCS and PrompT. The UKGPCS study was supported by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We 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. We also acknowledge The Institute of Cancer Research, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK for their ongoing support. 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.Funding:CIDR grant X01HG008336

  Study phs001524

• Study to investigate the prevalence of leukaemic mutations in whole blood DNA in a cohort of blood donors

  The aim of this study is to ascertain whether leukaemic mutations exist within the blood of people with otherwise normal haematopoeisis. To satisfy this aim we plan to look for 7 known leukaemic mutations in the whole blood DNA of a large cohort of blood donors who have normal haematopoesis. Genomic regions around mutational sites have been amplified using a 2 step PCR process which involves barcoding of individual patients

  Dataset EGAD00001001319

• scRNAseq of distal colon biopsies from patients with ulcerative colitis and healthy controls

  scRNAseq dataset of colonic epithelium from distal colon biopsies from 4 patients with ulcerative colitis and 4 healthy individuals. Includes 11 samples split into three conditions: healthy, healthy margin and ulcerated. Dataset includes raw Fastq files and processed csv count matrices. Fastq files are divided into 4 lanes and into index (I1) and read (R1, R2) files. Count matrices contain comma-separated values with cell barcodes as column names and gene names as row names. Cell Ranger (v3.0.1) software from 10x Genomics was used to process the output and align the reads. The refdata-cellranger-GRCh38-3.0.0 reference was downloaded from the 10x Genomics website. First, cellranger mkfastq function was used to demultiplex raw base call files into FASTQ files. Then, the FASTQ files were aligned and filtered with cellranger count function.

  Dataset EGAD00001010167

• Paired-WGS Sequencing of Primary lymphomas of the central nervous system (PCNSL)

  26 Tumor/Control pairs of WGS data of PCNSL tumors, sequenced on either Illumina HiSeq2000/2500 instruments or HiSeq X Ten. The controls are blood or buffy coat samples in most cases.

  Dataset EGAD00001007806

• SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS OF IN VITRO ERYTHROPOIESIS

  We are developing a protocol to differentiate mouse and human induced pluripotent stem (IPS) and embryonic stem (ES) cells towards the haematopoietic pathway to generate erythrocytes in vitro. This system has many applications such as the study of the role of specific genes and human polymorphisms in infectious diseases such as malaria, as well as haematological diseases such as myelodysplastic syndrome. The nature of the in vitro differentiation process means that a heterogeneous population of cells is generated. In order to understand the types of cells produced with our protocol, we have performed a single cell analysis, which has the power to reveal the different populations of cells and their characteristics. For this, a cDNA library has been made that needs to be sequenced to obtain the gene expression profiles of the different cells. With this information we will be able to assess the quality of the differentiation protocol and improve it in order to produce better cells for the downstream applications.This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/

  Dataset EGAD00001000979

• The Vaginal Microbiome: Disease, Genetics and the Environment

  The vagina is an interactive interface with the environment, and as such is covered by a protective epithelial surface. This surface is colonized by a biofilm consisting of bacteria and other microorganisms, which through a variety of mechanisms serve to protect the host from invasion by pathogens. Alterations in the normal vaginal microflora; i.e., dysbioses, particularly those associated with bacterial vaginosis, the most common disorder of the female reproductive tract, contribute to risk of sexually transmitted infections, infection by HIV, and are associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes including but not limited to spontaneous preterm birth. Physiologic alterations in the host (e.g., menopause and pregnancy), which are beginning to be investigated as potential selective conditions for change in the "normal" vaginal flora, and their impact on disease susceptibility and transmission, remain to be more definitively elucidated. The effects of chronically abnormal physiologic states (e.g., diabetes mellitus) on normal vaginal flora have not been well described or studied. Finally, an almost unexplored area of inquiry is the genetic contribution, including race/ethnicity, to the establishment and maintenance of a "normal" vaginal flora, under normal and physiologically altered circumstances. Our research will shed light on how the vaginal microbiome contributes to adverse obstetrical outcomes and sexually transmitted infections in diverse populations. This project addresses the following questions: First: Do the genes of the host contribute to the composition of the vaginal microbiome? We hypothesize that a woman's genetic composition significantly affects the ability of certain commensal, parasitic and pathogenic microbes to colonize and/or infect the genital tract. Thus, we will compare and quantify the microbial populations inhabiting the vaginas of monozygotic and dizygotic twins from the Mid Atlantic Twin Registry, and, in the process, address the question of whether there is a relationship between the microbiomes of the vagina, mouth and GI tract. Second: What changes in the vaginal microbiome are associated with common physiological perturbations or non-infectious pathological states of the host?We hypothesize that "altered" physiologic (pregnancy, menopause) and pathologic (chronic disease, hysterectomy) conditions, or environmental "exposures" (exogenous hormones, antibiotics, chronic immunosuppressant, smoking; douching) can predictably alter the vaginal microenvironment. These alterations will lead to changes in microbial populations within the vagina. Changes in the microbial populations may have impacts, positive or more likely negative, on the spontaneous and future well-being of the affected individual. We are characterizing the effects of these "altered" physiologic and pathologic conditions, and environmental exposures, on the composition of the vaginal microbiome. Finally, we are examining the impact of the important physiological changes incurred during pregnancy on the composition of the microbiome of the female reproductive tract. Third: What changes in the vaginal microbiome are associated with relevant infectious diseases and conditions? We are testing the hypothesis that infectious diseases predictably alter the vaginal microbiome, and that these changes have an impact on the disease susceptibility, process, and outcome. A predilection for bacterial vaginosis, vaginitis, HIV infection, or other sexually transmitted diseases, is likely associated with a women's vaginal microbial composition. Thus, we will characterize samples from women with a variety of these infectious conditions to determine the contribution of their microbiomes to the disease process and susceptibility. We are addressing these questions using a combination of high throughput 'nextgen' sequencing technologies. Early studies were performed using the Roche 454 FLX and the first generation Illumina Genome Analyzer II instruments and more recently employing Illumina MiSeq and HiSeq 2500 and 4000 platforms, installed in the Genomics Core of the Nucleic Acids Research Facilities at VCU. Thus, segments of the 16S rRNA genes are amplified from the complex samples taken from various target sites in and around the vagina of each study participant. These segments are sequenced and subjected to taxonomic classification protocols to identify and quantify the bacterial taxa present in each sample. Additionally, total DNA isolated from these samples are subjected to shotgun sequence analysis to empirically reconstruct the metabolic potential of these microbiomes. Finally, specific bacterial clones are completely sequenced and analyzed to associate the unavoidable strain and isolate diversity with the clinical phenotypes presented.

  Study phs000256

• Evolving epigenomics of immune cells in type 1 diabetes at single nuclei resolution

  The appearance of diabetes-associated autoantibodies is the first detectable sign of the disease process leading to type 1 diabetes (T1D). Evidence suggests that T1D is a heterogenous disease, where the type of antibodies first formed imply subtypes. Here, we followed 49 children, who subsequently presented with T1D and 49 matched controls, profiling single-cell epigenomics at different time points of disease development. Quantitation of cell and nuclei populations as well as transcriptome and open-chromatin states indicated robust, early, replicable monocyte lineage differences between cases and controls, suggesting heightened pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion early among cases. The order of autoantibody emergence in cases showed variation across lymphoid and myeloid cells, potentially indicating cellular immune response divergence. The strong monocytic lineage representation in peripheral blood immune cells before seroconversion and the weaker differential coordination of these gene networks close to clinical diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early life as a critical phase in T1D development.

  Study EGAS50000000863

• Public Access Defibrillation Community Trial (PAD)(PAD-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Community Trial sought to evaluate broad implementation of Public Access Defibrillators (PAD) in urban community units. Survival to hospital discharge of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was the main outcome measure. Survival was compared in community units (e.g., apartment or office buildings, gated communities, sports venues, senior centers, shopping malls) served by non-medical responders trained in CPR and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), to units receiving the traditional optimum community standard of care (i.e., rescuers trained to recognize a cardiac emergency, call 911, and initiate CPR). Background Sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) remains a significant cause of death, in spite of recent declines in overall mortality from cardiovascular disease. Existing methods of emergency resuscitation are inadequate due to time delays inherent in transporting trained responders with defibrillation capabilities to the side of the OOH-CA victim. Existing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems typically combine paramedic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services with some level of community involvement, such as bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. Some communities include automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at isolated sites or in mobile police or fire vehicles. Such an approach typically varies in effectiveness, with an incremental improvement in effectiveness seen in communities that organize and integrate services with the existing EMS system. However, optimal improvement in survival from sudden OOH-CA may require a program that utilizes volunteer non-medical responders (who may not have a traditional duty to respond to an emergency) trained to use AEDs. Participants The PAD trial was a prospective, randomized community based trial. More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study arms had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Participants with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean: 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 perecnt), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). Conclusions Community units with volunteers trained in CPR and AEDs had significantly more participants surviving to hospital discharge than units with volunteers trained to use CPR only. There were 30 survivors among 128 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR+AED units and 15 survivors among 107 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR only units (p = 0.03). Serious adverse effects were rarely reported. No volunteers received inadvertent shocks, and no participants were shocked unnecessarily. AED maintenance problems were infrequent. A few participating volunteers reported severe stress related to responding to emergency situations. Although residential complexes represented 16% of the units and 29% of the treatable cardiac arrests, only 5% of the survivors were from residential complexes. Such information should be helpful for individual facilities that are considering implementing PAD programs. (NEJM 2004; 351:637-46).

  Study phs003858

• Single Cell and Spatial Transcriptomics Studies of Fibrosis in Prospective Registry in IBD Study at MGH and GI Disease and Endoscopy Registry

  Stricturing disease or fibrosis is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), often requiring surgical intervention. This process is caused by the abnormal deposition of extracellular matrix in the context of inflammation, and thus involves crosstalk between multiple cell types including fibroblasts and immune cells. To understand the cellular interactions involved in fibrosis, we performed single cell and spatial transcriptomic analyses of biopsy or resection samples from IBD patients, diverticulitis patients or controls.For single cell analyses, intestinal samples were processed within three hours of collection by first stripping the epithelial layer with EDTA and then enzymatically digesting the underlying tissue. Cells from both the epithelial and tissue fractions were separately loaded in two channels on a 10x Chromium controller and libraries were generated with the 3'v3 Chemistry pipeline before sequencing on an Illumina sequencer. The resulting sequence data was demultiplexed and analyzed with the CellRanger pipeline to generate raw fastq files and processed gene-count matrices for each sample.For spatial transcriptomic analyses, intestinal resection samples were snap frozen in OCT (optimal cutting temperature embedding medium). Blocks were cut into 10μm sections in a cryostat and transferred to a 10x Genomics Visium slide v1. Spatially barcoded libraries were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions and sequencing on an Illumina sequencer. The resulting sequence data was processed with the SpaceRanger pipeline to generate fastq files and processed barcode-count matrices. Using the samples deposited here, we defined 68 fine-grained cell types across the ileum and colon of control and fibrotic intestinal tissues. We show that intestinal strictures were characterized by increased immune cells - including IgG+ plasma cells and CCR7hiCD4+ T cells - and inflammatory fibroblasts. We also define the transcriptional differences associated with fibrosis, with inflammatory fibroblasts in particular showing broad changes in gene expression. Spatial transcriptomics showed that key subsets colocalize within diseased tissues and identified additional populations such as interstitial cells of Cajal and enteric neurons. Further, we mapped gene expression onto intestinal biogeography, finding that known genetic risk loci are enriched within discrete spatial modules, defined by the presence of inflammatory fibroblasts and lymphoid follicles. Altogether, our datasets chart the key transcriptomic and cellular networks in stricturing CD and highlight the spatial organization of multicellular genetic risk factors.

  Study phs003943

• Recurrent somatic mutations in POLR2A define a distinct subset of meningiomas

  RNA polymerase II mediates the transcription of all protein-coding genes in eukaryotic cells, a process that is fundamental to life. Genomic mutations in this enzyme have not been previously linked to any pathology in humans, a testament to its indispensable role in cell biology. Based on a combination of next-generation genomic analyses of 775 meningiomas, we report that recurrent somatic p.Gln403Lys or p.Leu438_His439del mutations in POLR2A, which encodes the catalytic subunit of RNA polymerase II1, are sufficient to hijack this essential enzyme and drive neoplasia. POLR2A mutant tumors reveal dysregulation of key meningeal identity genes, including WNT6 and ZIC1/ZIC42,3. In addition to POLR2A, NF2, SMARCB1, TRAF7, KLF4, AKT1, PIK3CA and SMO4-8, we also report somatic mutations in AKT3, PIK3R1, PRKAR1A, and SUFU in meningiomas. Our results identify a role for essential transcriptional machinery in driving tumorigenesis and define mutually exclusive meningioma subgroups with distinct clinical and pathological features.

  Study EGAS00001001916

• A_study_of_the_genetic_basis_of_evation_by_Acute_Myeloid_Leukaemia_of_Graft_vs_Leukaemia_effects_after_allogeneic_bone_marrow_transplantation

  Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is an aggressive and molecularly diverse disease with a poor overall survival of 20-25%. With an annual incidence of 2.9 per 100,000, AML is currently the commonest myeloid malignancy in Europe, yet the two main therapeutic options for this disease, anthracyclines and purine analogues, have remained unchanged for over 20 years. Currently patients are stratified at diagnosis according to a series of clinicopathological parameters (e.g. age, white cell count and presence/absence of previous clonal haematological disease) and molecular markers (e.g. chromosomal translocations/deletions, aneuploidy and mutations in genes such as FLT3 and NPM1). Patients with adverse prognostic features, whose prognosis is particularly poor (e.g. <15% long-term survival) are offered treatment with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo-BMT) if a sibling or unrelated donor is available. This can significantly improve survival (e.g. up to 40% long-term survival in some contexts), albeit at the expense of significant toxicity and transplant-related mortality (TRM). Allo-BMT is thought to work in part by allowing the delivery of large doses of chemotherapy followed by haemopoietic "rescue" with donor haemopoietic stem cells (haemopoietic failure would otherwise ensue). However, potentially the most potent effect of allo-BMT is the cytotoxic effect of donor lymphocytes against AML blasts, a phenomenon known as graft-vs-leukaemia (GVL) effect. Increasingly, transplants using reduced chemotherapy intensity (mini-allografts) are being used that partially circumvent the toxicity from chemotherapy and rely on GVL to effect cure. Nevertheless, AML relapse after allo-BMT still occurs at a significant rate of up to 80% depending on the type of transplant. There is accumulating evidence that genetic events in residual leukaemic cells enable them to evade immunodetection and therefore survive the GVL effect and expand to cause relapse. The most striking example of this is the loss of HLA antigens after transplants in which donor and recipient are not fully HLA-matched. In these cases, the leukaemia "deletes" the genomic region containing the disparate HLA antigen which was preferentially targeted as "foreign" by the GVL effect. However, the genetic basis of immune evasion in the majority of transplants, which are fully HLA matched, is not known. One possibility is that loss of genes coding for antigens outside the HLA locus but which are also targets of GVL may operate, alternatively genetic events that affect processes downstream of immunological cytotoxicity may be responsible.The identification of genetic events that mediate immune evasion would not only facilitate the understanding of this process but can help plan therapeutic interventions that improve the outcomes of allogeneic transplantation for AML and other disorders. We intend to study this by conducting exome sequencing on 6 cases of AMLs from patients that attend my clinic at Addenbrooke's hospital and have relapsed after allogeneic transplantation. Samples from AML diagnosis, remission/normal and AML relapse (total n=18) will be studied to identify somatic mutations in the primary AML and those acquired by the relapsed clone. The 18 samples will also be studied by array CGH to detect regions of genomic amplification or deletion.

  Study EGAS00001000145

• Search for Susceptibility Genes for Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 1 Diabetes (GoKinD study participants and parents), NIDDK

  Genetics of Kidneys in Diabetes (GoKinD) study is an initiative aimed at identifying susceptibility genes for diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. A large number of individuals with type 1 diabetes were screened to identify two subsets, one with clear-cut kidney disease and another with normal renal status despite long-term diabetes. Those who met additional entry criteria and consented to participate were enrolled. When possible, both parents were also enrolled to form family trios. Altogether, GoKinD includes 3043 participants comprising 931 cases, 944 singletons, 268 pairs of parents of cases, and 316 pairs of parents of control. Accessible as a GAIN database are 905 of the cases, 890 of the controls, 10 pairs of parents of cases and 10 pairs of parents of controls (dbGaP phs000018 Search for Susceptibility Genes for Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 1 Diabetes (GoKinD study participants), GAIN). The other parents and the remaining cases and controls are available by a separate application process through NIDDK. Interested investigators may request the DNA collection and corresponding clinical data for GoKinD participants using the instructions and application form available at http://www.niddkrepository.org or by contacting the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

  Study phs000088

• Search for Susceptibility Genes for Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 1 Diabetes (GoKinD study participants), GAIN

  Genetics of Kidneys in Diabetes (GoKinD) study is an initiative aimed at identifying susceptibility genes for diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. A large number of individuals with type 1 diabetes were screened to identify two subsets, one with clear-cut kidney disease and another with normal renal status despite long-term diabetes. Those who met additional entry criteria and consented to participate were enrolled. When possible, both parents were also enrolled to form family trios. Altogether, GoKinD includes 3043 participants comprising 931 cases, 944 singletons, 268 pairs of parents of cases, and 316 pairs of parents of control. Accessible as a GAIN database are 905 of the cases, 890 of the controls, 10 pairs of parents of cases and 10 pairs of parents of controls. The other parents and the remaining cases and controls are available by a separate application process through NIDDK (dbGaP phs000088 Search for Susceptibility Genes for Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 1 Diabetes (GoKinD study participants and parents), NIDDK). Interested investigators may request the DNA collection and corresponding clinical data for GoKinD participants using the instructions and application form available at Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Consent groups and participant set Diabetic complications only (DCO): 1825 (904 cases, 881 controls, 40 others)

  Study phs000018

• RNAseq data to study PRPF6 regulated splice forms in colon cancer cell lines

  Alternative splicing plays critical roles in differentiation, development, and cancer (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Chen and Manley, 2009). The recent identification of specific spliceosome inhibitors has generated interest in the therapeutic potential of targeting this cellular process (van Alphen et al., 2009). Using an integrated genomic approach, we have identified PRPF6, an RNA binding component of the pre-mRNA spliceosome, as an essential driver of oncogenesis in colon cancer. Importantly, PRPF6 is both amplified and overexpressed in colon cancer, and only colon cancer cells with high PRPF6 levels are sensitive to its loss. Our data clearly point to an important role for PRPF6 in colon cancer growth and suggest that a better understanding of its role in alternative splicing in colon cancer is warranted. To determine the specific alternative splice forms that PRPF6 regulates in colon cancer, we plan three experiments: 1. The first involves knocking down expression of PRPF6 in two different cancer cell lines with 3 different siRNAs, and then completing RNA-seq to determine the gene expression changes that occur relative to a non-targeting control siRNA. Because of the role for PRPF6 in pre-mRNA splicing, we especially want to quantify the changes in splice-specific forms of all genes genome-wide to identify genes whose splicing is altered upon PRPF6 knockdown. 2. The second involves immunoprecipitating PRPF6 from two different cancer cell lines and isolating any RNA that is bound to PRPF6, since PRPF6 is an RNA-binding protein. We then want to carry out RNA-seq to identify which RNA molecules co-immunoprecipitated with PRPF6. This will help us determine possible functions for PRPF6 in regulating colon cancer growth. 3. The third involves overexpressing PRPF6 in cell lines and then carrying out RNA-seq to identify any changes in splice-specific gene expression. This will allow us to determine whether increased PRPF6 expression is sufficient to drive alternative splicing changes.

  Study EGAS00001000761

• Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium - OncoArray Genotypes

  The data come from 9 studies participating in the Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium (ECAC). ECAC data included in this dbGaP submission include OncoArray data from 4486 endometrial cancer cases genotyped at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Samples were genotyped using the Illumina OncoArray beadchip 500K SNP custom array. Details of the genotyping process and sample selection are included in O'Mara et al, Identification of nine new susceptibility loci for endometrial cancer. Nature Communications (PMID:30093612).

  Study phs001885

• A Scalable, GMP-Compatible, Autologous Organotypic Cell Therapy for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa

  Gene editing in induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells has been hailed for enabling new cell therapies for various monogenetic diseases including dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB). However, manufacturing, efficacy, and safety roadblocks have limited the development of genetically corrected, autologous iPS cell-based therapies. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Cell Therapy (DEBCT), is a new generation, Good Manufacturing Practice-compatible (cGMP), reproducible, and scalable platform to produce autologous clinical-grade iPS cell-derived organotypic induced skin composite (iSC) grafts to treat incurable wounds of patients lacking type VII collagen (C7). DEBCT uses a single step, combined, high-efficiency reprogramming, and CRISPR-based genetic correction to generate genome scar-free, COL7A1 corrected clonal iPS cells from primary patient fibroblasts. Validated iPS cells are converted into epidermal, dermal, and melanocyte progenitors with a novel 2D organoid differentiation protocol, followed by CD49f enrichment and expansion to minimize maturation heterogeneity. iSC product characterization by single cell transcriptomics was followed by mouse xenografting for disease correcting activity at 1 month and toxicology analysis at 1-6 months. Culture-acquired mutations, potential CRISPR-off target effects, and cancer-driver variants were evaluated by targeted and whole genome sequencing. iPS cell-derived iSC grafts were reproducibly generated from four recessive DEB patients with different pathogenic mutations. Organotypic iSC grafts onto immune-compromised mice developed into stable stratified skin with functional C7 restoration. Single cell transcriptomic characterization of iSCs revealed prominent holoclone stem cell signatures in keratinocytes and the recently described Gibbin-dependent signature in dermal fibroblasts. The latter correlated with enhanced graftability. Multiple orthogonal sequencing and subsequent computational approaches identified random and non-oncogenic mutations introduced by the manufacturing process. Toxicology revealed no detectable tumors after 3-6 months in DEBCT-treated mice. In conclusion, DEBCT successfully overcomes previous roadblocks and establishes a robust, scalable, and safe cGMP manufacturing platform for the production of a CRISPR-corrected autologous organotypic skin graft to heal DEB patient wounds.

  Study phs003271

• 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

• University of Michigan Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER)

  Overview. The personalization of therapy for cancer will require molecular characterization of unique and shared genetic aberrations. In particular, patients who have a sarcoma or other rare cancers and are candidates for clinical trials could potentially benefit by identifying eligibility for "targeted" drugs based on the "actionable" genes in their specific tumor. Growing technological advances in genomic sequencing has now made it possible to consider the use of sequence data in a clinical setting. For instance, comprehensive testing that includes whole exome and transcriptome sequencing may identify biomarkers for predictive or prognostic purposes and thereby inform treatment choices and prevention strategies. Thus, the translation of high throughput next generation sequencing would support a "personalized" strategy for cancer. However, the translation of clinical sequencing bears unique challenges including identifying patients who could benefit, developing informed consent and human subjects protections, outlining measurable outcomes, interpreting what results should be reported and validated, and how results should be reported. In addition, we know very little about how patients and clinicians will respond to the potentially confusing and overwhelming amount of information generated by genomic sequencing, and we lack model processes for clinically evaluating and presenting these data. For the promise of our innovative biotechnologies to be realized, "translational genomics" research that evaluates genomic applications within real-world clinical settings will be required. This proposal brings together expertise at the University of Michigan including clinical oncology, cancer genetics, genomic science/bioinformatics, clinical pathology, social and behavioral sciences, and bioethics in order to implement this clinical cancer sequencing project. Three integrated Projects have the following themes: Project 1) "Clinical Genomic Study" will identify patients with a rare cancer (i.e., 15 out of 100,000 individuals per year) who are eligible for clinical trials, consent them to the study, obtain biospecimens (tumor tissue, germline tissue), store clinical data, and assemble a multi-disciplinary Sequencing Tumor Board to deliberate on return of actionable or incidental genomic results; Project 2) "Sequencing & Analysis" will process biospecimens and perform comprehensive sequencing and analysis of tumors to identify point mutations, copy number changes, rearrangements/gene fusions, and aberrant gene expression; Project 3) "Ethics & Psychosocial Analysis" will observe the expert review process for evaluating sequence results and will examine the clinician and patient response to the informed consent process, delivery of genomic sequence results, and use of genomic results.

  Study phs000673

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Metatranscriptomic Sequencing of Pre-Transplant Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Pediatric Stem Cell Transplant Patients

  Children with malignancies, immunodeficiencies, and other life-threatening diseases sometimes receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as a treatment for their disease. The HCT process can be complicated by the development of lung disease from infection, alloreactivity, or other causes. To identify patients at-risk for post-HCT lung disease, this study uses metatranscriptomic RNA sequencing of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) obtained prior to HCT. Sequencing results are associated with the development of post-HCT lung injury. 

  Study phs002208

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Epigenetic memory of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in monocyte-derived macrophages

  Immune memory is key to effective antimicrobial responses, but the impact of mRNA vaccines on this process is not fully understood. Our research shows that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines alter the epigenetic profile of human macrophages, specifically enhancing histone acetylation, which is linked to immune training. Significant epigenetic changes, along with increased cytokine release, require two vaccine doses. However, these effects diminish over time but can be restored with a booster dose six months later, maintaining a strong pro-inflammatory response.

  Dataset EGAD50000000495

• The landscape of somatic mutation in normal colorectal epithelial cells

  The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence has provided a paradigmatic framework for understanding the successive somatic genetic events and consequent clonal expansions leading to cancer. As for most cancer types, however, understanding of the earliest phases of colorectal neoplastic change, which may occur in morphologically normal tissue, is comparatively limited because of the difficulty of detecting somatic mutations in normal cells. Each colorectal crypt is a small clone of cells derived from a single recently-existing stem cell. Here, we sequenced hundreds of normal crypts from 42 individuals. Signatures of multiple mutational processes were revealed, some ubiquitous and continuous, others only found in some individuals, in some crypts or during some phases of the cell lineage from zygote to adult cell. Likely driver mutations were present in ~1% of normal colorectal crypts in middle-aged individuals, indicating that adenomas and carcinomas are rare outcomes of a pervasive process of neoplastic change across morphologically normal colorectal epithelium.

  Dataset EGAD00001004193

• 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

• 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

• Next Generation Sequencing of Stage IV Squamous Cell Lung Cancers Reveals an Association of PI3K Aberrations and Evidence of Clonal Heterogeneity in Patients with Brain Metastases

  Putative oncogenic pathways in squamous cell lung cancer have been recently characterized, although their biologic repercussions in patients is largely unknown. This study sought to discover potential clinical manifestations of major pathways in squamous cell lung cancer, particularly the PI3K pathway. Two key findings emerged: patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer whose tumors harbored upstream PI3K aberrations had significantly worse survival and a higher burden of metastatic disease. In addition, brain metastases were significantly more common in these patients than in others. Paired lung primary/brain metastasis genotyping, including RNA sequencing and whole exome sequencing, uncovered a high degree of genetic heterogeneity between lung/brain pairs, and identified potential regulators of the metastatic process to brain.

  Study phs000907

• 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