19276 results for "Buy fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins This is the best service ever..VBsp"

in 26.70 milliseconds.

• RNA-seq of high grade serous ovarian tumours

  Somatic RNA for 37 samples was extracted using the Qiagen Qiasymphony RNA protcol (cat no 931636). The tissue was initially homogenised using a Qiagen Bioruptor, followed by the manufacturers recommended protocol (including DNase digestion). The resulting RNA the underwent quality control as follows: firstly, A260 and A280nm were measured on a Denovix DS-11 Fx to qualitatively illustrate A260/280nm and A260/230nm ratios as measures of RNA purity. A260/280 had to be 2.0 and A260/230 had to be 2.0-2.2. Then RNA was quantified using LifeTechnologies Qubit RNA BR kit (cat no Q10210). RNAseq was carried out by the Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility on an Illumina NExtSeq500. Total RNA samples were assessed on the Agilent Bioanalyser (Agilent Technologies, #G2939AA) with the RNA 6000 Nano Kit (#5067-1512) for quality and integrity of total RNA, and then quantified using the Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, #Q32866) and the Qubit RNA HS assay kit (#Q32855). Libraries were prepared from total-RNA sample using the NEBNext Ultra 2 Directional RNA library prep kit for Illumina (#E7760S) with the NEBNext rRNA Depletion kit (#E6310) according to the provided protocol. 400ng of totalRNA was then added to the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) depletion reaction using the NEBNext rRNA depletion kit (Human/mouse/rat) (#E6310). This step uses specific probes that bind to the rRNA in order to cleave it. rRNA-depleted RNA was then DNase treated and purified using Agencourt RNAClean XP beads (Beckman Coulter Inc, #66514). RNA was then fragmented using random primers before undergoing first strand and second strand synthesis to create cDNA. cDNA was end repaired before ligation of sequencing adapters, and libraries were enriched by PCR using the NEBNext Multiplex oligos for Illumina set 1 and 2 (#E7500). Final libraries had an average peak size of 271bp. Libraries were quantified by fluorometry using the Qubit dsDNA HS assay and assessed for quality and fragment size using the Agilent Bioanalyser with the DNA HS Kit (#5067-4626). Sequencing was performed using the NextSeq 500/550 High-Output v2 (150 cycle) Kit (# FC- 404-2002) on the NextSeq 550 platform (Illumina Inc, #SY-415-1002). Libraries were combined in an equimolar pool based on the library quantification results and run across 5 High-Output Flow Cell v2.5.

  Dataset EGAD00001010139

• Deep multi-region whole-genome sequencing reveals heterogeneity and gene-by-environment interactions in treatment-naive, metastatic lung cancer

  Our understanding of genomic heterogeneity in lung cancer is largely based on the analysis of early-stage surgical specimens. Here we used endoscopic sampling of paired primary and intrathoracic metastatic tumors from 11 lung cancer patients to map genomic heterogeneity inoperable lung cancer with deep whole-genome sequencing. Intra-patient heterogeneity in driver or targetable mutations was predominantly in the form of copy number gain. Private mutation signatures, including patterns consistent with defects in homologous recombination, were highly variable both within and between patients. Irrespective of histotype, we observed a smaller than expected number of private mutations, suggesting that ancestral clones accumulated large mutation burdens immediately prior to metastasis. Single-region whole-genome sequencing of from 20 patients showed that tumors in ever-smokers with the strongest tobacco signatures were associated with germline variants in genes implicated in the repair of cigarette-induced DNA damage. Our results suggest that lung cancer precursors in ever-smokers accumulate large numbers of mutations prior to the formation of frank malignancy followed by rapid metastatic spread. In advanced lung cancer, germline variants in DNA repair genes may interact with the airway environment to influence the pattern of founder mutations, whereas similar interactions with the tumor microenvironment may play a role in the acquisition of mutations following metastasis.

  Study EGAS00001003830

• med-pchic-dac

  The data are accessible under the terms of the following Data Access Agreement that needs to be filled in, signed (by yourself and your institution’s official contact) and returned by email to med-pchic-dac@lists.cam.ac.uk

  Dac EGAC00001000523

• Whole genome sequencing data of high-grade serous ovarian cancer samples (set 8a)

  Whole genome sequencing data of 26 high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) patients (87 samples) sequenced with MGISEQ-2000 and HiSeq X Ten.

  Dataset EGAD00001011304

• PROstate Cancer Medically Optimized Genome Enhanced ThErapy (PROMOTE) of Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPC) Patients Treated with Abiraterone Acetate

  The Prostate Cancer Medically Optimized Genome-Enhanced Therapy (PROMOTE) study uses genetic clues in castration-resistant prostate cancer that may identify an individualized treatment approach for men with the disease. Understanding the molecular biology behind castration-resistant prostate cancer has led to more treatment options, but there are still no definite conclusions about which specific drug best treats patients - maximum suppression of cancer growth while minimizing side effects. The PROMOTE study explores the genetic characteristics of each tumor to predict these treatment paradigms for the future, resulting in more effective and less toxic options for patients. Our long-term goal is to improve treatments for men with advanced prostate cancer by using genomic sequencing to increase life span and quality of life. We also will uncover novel vulnerable targets in the cancer genome that may provide new drug therapies. PARTICIPATION Eligible participants are men: With castration-resistant prostate cancer or prostate cancer not responding to hormone treatments About to begin abiraterone acetate therapy Agreeable to undergoing two tumor biopsies During the study, participants travel to Mayo Clinic for an initial biopsy (before beginning abiraterone acetate) and a second biopsy approximately three months later. The cell tissue collected is analyzed to identify gene alterations in the tumor that could eventually be targeted with treatments. Tissue is preserved for future research. Participants can continue to be treated by their local cancer care team during this period and beyond. In addition, the Mayo team carefully monitors participants' cancer via follow-up studies and the genetic signature of tumors that were biopsied so that patients may benefit from future treatments.

  Study phs001141

• Investigating Host Genetic Risk Factors for Tuberculosis in Highly Endemic South African Populations

  It is apparent from our recent population genetic and admixture mapping work 1–3 that a substantial part of the ancestral input into the South African Coloured (SAC) population is from the San or Khoe groups, which are not well represented in publicly available genetic databases. It is a reasonable assumption that the SAC population in the Western Cape may have derived more genetic input from the present KhoeSan population in the Northern Cape than the San residing in Namibia. It was concluded by our group that it is indeed the southern African KhoeSan group, the ≠Khomani, that best represent the KhoeSan contribution seen in the SAC 4. More recently, it has been shown that there are ancestry related increases in TB susceptibility, especially with increased Bantu-speaking African and KhoeSan ancestry 5. We aim to elucidate the epidemiological and human-host genetic risk factors for TB and the immunological pathways modulating TB infection. The proposed sub-study will enroll people evaluated for TB at Northern Cape community health clinics and their contacts from their households and/or community. We will conduct a demographic interview, collect saliva, which will be used for genetic analysis, and blood to determine latent TB infection status and capture immunological responses to mycobacterial infections at the cellular level and RNA sequencing.

  Study EGAS00001007850

• CTN - 0051: Extended-Release Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine for Opioid Treatment (X:BOT)

  The overarching goal of CTN-0051 is to foster adoption of new relapse-prevention pharmacotherapies in community-based treatment programs (CTPs) where these could have a substantial public health impact. To this end CTN-0051 will assess the comparative effectiveness of extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX, Vivitrol®), an opioid antagonist recently approved and indicated for the prevention of relapse to opioid dependence, versus buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX, Suboxone®), a high affinity partial agonist indicated for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, as pharmacotherapeutic aids to recovery. The study is conducted in 8 CTN-affiliated CTPs that provide or partner with detoxification services (inpatient/residential) which have the capacity to maintain participants opioid-free for approximately 3-7 days, have the capacity to provide medication-assisted therapy, and can provide a minimum of one group or individual counseling session per week during the 24-week treatment period. Up to 600 eligible participants will be randomized to treatment with XR-NTX or BUP-NX for 24 weeks (sufficient to include 350 participants who are randomized more than 72 hours after their last opioid). To maximize generalizability, the point of randomization is flexible, from shortly after program admission until just prior to program discharge. The primary goal of the study is to estimate the difference, if one exists, between XR-NTX and BUP-NX in the distribution of the time to relapse (i.e., loss of persistent abstinence) during the 6-month trial. The primary outcome measure is the time to the event, with the event called relapse. Secondary objectives are to: (1) compare outcome on XR-NTX versus BUP-NX across a range of clinical safety and secondary efficacy domains, (2) explore demographic, clinical, and genetic predictors of successful treatment and moderators of differential effectiveness (i.e., what variables may help clinicians choose which of these treatments is best for a given patient), and (3) collect a limited dataset to permit analyses of economic costs and benefits of the two treatments.

  Study phs002876

• ICR96 exon CNV validation series

  A resource for assessment of exon CNV calling methods in targeted NGS data, we here present the ICR96 exon CNV validation series. The dataset includes high-quality sequencing data from a targeted NGS assay (the TruSight Cancer Panel) together with Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) results for 96 independent samples. 66 samples contain at least one validated exon CNV and 30 samples have validated negative results for exon CNVs in 26 genes. The dataset includes 46 exon CNVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM and PTEN, giving excellent representation of the cancer predisposition genes most frequently tested in clinical practice. Moreover, the validated exon CNVs include 25 single exon CNVs the most difficult exon CNV to detect.

  Dataset EGAD00001003335

• IMCISION DNAseq

  Standard-of-care (SOC) surgery for locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is intensive and results in 30‒50% five-year overall survival. Anti-PD1 immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) durably improves survival rates in recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. We report on the non-randomized phase Ib/IIa IMCISION trial (NCT03003637) of 32 HNSCC patients treated with two doses neoadjuvant nivolumab (NIVO MONO, n=6, phase Ib arm A) or two doses of nivolumab plus a single dose of ipilimumab (COMBO, n=26, 6 in phase Ib arm B and 20 in phase IIa) prior to surgery and, if indicated, adjuvant radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant ICB was feasible in all phase Ib patients, meeting the phase Ib primary feasibility endpoint. One phase IIa patient had progressive disease precluding surgery. Primary tumor pathological response (phase IIa primary endpoint), defined as the % change in viable tumor cells from baseline biopsy to on-treatment resection, was evaluable in 29 patients. . We observed a major pathological response (MPR, 90‒100% response) in 8/23 (35%) evaluable COMBO and 1/6 (17%) NIVO MONO patients. None of the patients with MPR after NIVO MONO or COMBO developed a tumor relapse after 24.0 months median follow-up. FDG-PET-based total lesion glycolysis identified MPR patients prior to surgery. A baseline AID/APOBEC-associated mutational profile and an on-treatment decrease in hypoxia signature expression were observed in MPR patients. Our data indicate that neoadjuvant NIVO MONO and COMBO are safe in HNSCC, and that particularly COMBO ICB shows encouraging effectivity. IMCISION provides rationales for future HNSCC trials aiming to pre-operatively select patients with a likely MPR after neoadjuvant ICB for de-escalation of SOC.

  Study EGAS00001005466

• Wilm's tumor sequencing data

  No. of samples: 80 (28 ULP-WGS, 26 WES, 26 RNA-SEQ) File types: FASTQ (28 ULP-WGS, 19 WES, 18 RNA) and BAM (7 WES, 8 RNA) Technology used: Sequencing - Illumina Novoseq 6000; Map/Align - Illumina DRAGEN v3.7.5; Genome assembly - GrCh38p13 Filename nomenclature: - SampleName_Passage_SampleType_TissueType_SequencingType - Passage of: PX = unknown; PZ = from patient; P0 = first passage from patient on plastic; P1 = first passage from plastic/PDX/organoid - SampleType: STN = normal; STT = tumor - SampleType STN: 00 = tissue unknown; 01 = adjacent normal; 02 = fibroblast; 03 = germline blood; 21 = cell line from patient tissue; 22 = cell line from PDX; 23 = cell line from patient fibroblast - SampleType STT: 00 = tissue unknown; 01 = primary tumor; 21 = cell line from patient; 22 = cell line from PDX - TissueType: WT = Wilm's tumor; 00 = kidney unknown; 01 = kidney left; 02 = kidney right - SequencingType: 00 = unknown; 02 = ultra-low pass whole-genome sequencing; 20 = whole-exome; 61 = bulk RNA-sequencing

  Dataset EGAD00001011111

• Longitudinal sampling in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma

  Ultra-deep next-generation panel-sequencing on 59 FFPE-samples (20 LTR, 26 relapsed (rHL: 11 initial-diagnosis, 15 relapse) and 13 primary-refractory (prHL: 8 initial-diagnosis, 5 progression) from 44 cHL-patients applying a hybrid-capture approach. Data was processed as described in the publication and mark duplicated bam files were uploaded.

  Dataset EGAD50000000210

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Version 3 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3-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. Available Data The ROC Cardiac Epistry version 3 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015. This is separate from versions 1 and 2 because of the major changes in how and which data were collected. Version 3 represents the following major changes to the structure and data collection: separate ED Arrival and Hospital Admits forms, mandatory ED and Hospital elements and a revamped CPR Process form. 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 included: 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 There were 120,306 participants. 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 phs003726

• NHLBI TOPMed: TReating Children to Prevent EXacerbations of Asthma (TREXA)

  TREXA is a 44-week randomized, double-blind, double-masked, four-treatment, parallel trial that will evaluate the weaning strategy that provides the best protection against the development of exacerbations in children whose asthma is acceptably controlled on a low dose of ICS (per NAEPP guidelines). Following the 4 weeks of the run-in period on a 1x dose of ICS (100 µg fluticasone b.i.d. or its equivalent), children who do not meet the definition of acceptable asthma control will be randomized to the parallel BADGER protocol; those who meet the definition of acceptable asthma control will be enrolled into the 44-week treatment phase of the study. The primary outcome measure will be time to first exacerbation requiring a prednisone course.

  Study phs001732

• OpACIN-neo – A Multicenter Phase 2 Study to identify the Optimal neo-Adjuvant Combination scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab – Whole exome sequencing

  The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo study (NCT02977052) to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomised to one of three dosing schedules: arm A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; arm B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; or arm C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. Pathological responses occurred in 24 (80%) patients in group A, 23 (77%) in group B, and 17 (65%) in group C. The 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (p<0.001). High tumor mutational burden (TMB) and high interferon-gamma-related gene expression signature score (IFN-γ score) were associated with pathologic response and low risk of relapse; pathologic response rate (pRR) was 100% in patients with high IFN-γ score/high TMB, patients with high IFN-γ score/low TMB or low IFN-γ score/high TMB had pRRs of 91% and 88%; while patients with low IFN-γ score/low TMB had a pRR of only 39%. These data demonstrate long-term benefit in patients with a pathologic response and show the predictive potential of TMB and IFN-γ score.

  Study EGAS00001004832

• OpACIN-neo – A Multicenter Phase 2 Study to identify the Optimal neo-Adjuvant Combination scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab – RNA sequencing

  The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo study (NCT02977052) to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomised to one of three dosing schedules: arm A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; arm B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks; or arm C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. Pathological responses occurred in 24 (80%) patients in group A, 23 (77%) in group B, and 17 (65%) in group C. The 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (p<0.001). High tumor mutational burden (TMB) and high interferon-gamma-related gene expression signature score (IFN-γ score) were associated with pathologic response and low risk of relapse; pathologic response rate (pRR) was 100% in patients with high IFN-γ score/high TMB, patients with high IFN-γ score/low TMB or low IFN-γ score/high TMB had pRRs of 91% and 88%; while patients with low IFN-γ score/low TMB had a pRR of only 39%. These data demonstrate long-term benefit in patients with a pathologic response and show the predictive potential of TMB and IFN-γ score.

  Study EGAS00001004833

• Single cell RNA sequencing of colorectal cancer patients (KUL5)

  All libraries were sequenced on Illumina NextSeq or NovaSeq6000 until sufficient saturation was reached.

  Dataset EGAD00001008585

• A Multi-Gene Mutation Classification of 468 Colorectal Cancers Reveals a Prognostic Role for APC

  Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a highly heterogeneous disease, for which prognosis has been relegated to clinic-pathologic staging for decades. There is a need to molecularly stratify subpopulations of CRC to better predict outcome and assign therapies. Here we report targeted exome sequencing of 1,321 cancer-related genes on 468 tumor specimens, which identified a subset of 17 genes that best classify CRC, with APC (Gene ID: 324) playing a central role in predicting overall survival. APC may assume 0, 1, or 2 truncating mutations, each with a striking differential impact on survival. Tumors lacking any APC mutation carry a worse prognosis than single APC mutation tumors, but tumors with two APC mutations and KRAS (Gene ID: 3845) and TP53 (Gene ID: 7157) mutations confer the poorest survival among all the subgroups examined. Our study demonstrates a substantial prognostic role for APC and suggests that sequencing of APC may have clinical utility in the routine staging and potential therapeutic assignment for CRC.

  Study phs001111

• Whole Exome Sequencing of paired gDNAs and PPGL tumor DNA from patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease

  Fastq files from Whole Exome Sequencing of 12 paired germline DNA (from blood/saliva) and 14 PPGL tumor DNA (from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks from surgery) from patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease (CCHD) and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). Sequencing was performed using the Illumina HiSeq4000.

  Dataset EGAD50000001201

• Whole Genome Sequencing of Therapy-Related Myeloid Neoplasms

  The dataset consists of: 51 paired tumor/normal WGS samples (26 tumors and 25 normals), and 13 normal targeted samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001010026

• BLUEPRINT release August 2016, ChIP-Seq for band form neutrophil, on genome GRCh38

  ChIP-Seq data for 4 band form neutrophil sample(s). 26 run(s), 23 experiment(s), 23 analysis(s) on human genome GRCh38. Part of BLUEPRINT release August 2016. Analysis documentation available at http://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/blueprint/releases/20160816/homo_sapiens/README_chipseq_analysis_ebi_20160816

  Dataset EGAD00001002454

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• Single-nucleus RNA-sequencing data of kidney biopsies from patients with primary FSGS, maladaptive FSGS, proteinuric controls and healthy controls

  This dataset includes FASTQ files of single-nucleus RNA sequencing of cryopreserved kidney biopsy cores from adult patients with diagnosed primary FSGS (n = 9, all nephrotic), maladaptive FSGS (n = 9, not nephrotic), proteinuric controls (PLA2R-positive membranous nephropathy, n = 3), and healthy controls (n = 4). A total of 120,751 high-quality nuclei were identified, including 2,471 podocytes and 1,574 parietal epithelial cells (PECs). In addition to the raw FASTQ files, the dataset includes processed data files from all 25 samples, generated using Seurat in R: barcode files, features, count matrices, and associated metadata. Details regarding the bioinformatics pipeline can be found at https://github.com/lambrechtslab/FSGS_Deleersnijder_et_al

  Dataset EGAD50000001557

• Cancerous Adaptive Dosing Melanoma WGS Dataset

  Illumina NovaSeq 6000 30x WGS of 26 samples, each with up to 5 matched timepoints. Timepoints A,B,C,D,and E correspond to Pretreatment, Week 3, Week 6, Week 9, and Week 12 after treatment, respectively. Additional sample metadata (sample recurrence, treatment course, age, sex, comorbidities, etc.) are present in sample description.

  Dataset EGAD00001010926

• WGS

  Whole Genome Sequencing

  Dataset EGAD00001001120

• WTCCC case-control study for Hypertension

  WTCCC genome-wide case-control association study for Hypertension (HT) using the 1958 British Birth Cohort and the UK National Blood Service collections as controls.

  Study EGAS00000000009