19442 results for "Buy fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins This is the best service ever..VBsp"

in 18.02 milliseconds.

• High Density SNP Association Analysis of Lung Cancer

  This research builds upon an extensive resource of a case-control study that has been ongoing at the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center since 1991. To identify risk variants for lung cancer, we conducted a genome-wide association study. Cases are newly diagnosed, histologically-confirmed patients presenting at MD Anderson Cancer and who had not previously received treatment other than surgery. Controls are healthy individuals seen for routine care at Kelsey-Seybold Clinics, the largest physician group-practice plan in the Houston Metropolitan area. This lung GWAS led to the identification of a susceptibility locus for lung cancer at 15q25.1. We used data from 315,450 tagging SNPs in 1,154 current and former (ever) smoking cases of European ancestry and 1,137 frequency-matched, ever-smoking controls from Houston, Texas in the discovery followed by the replication of the ten SNPs most significantly associated with lung cancer in an additional 711 cases and 632 controls from Texas and 2,013 cases and 3,062 controls from the UK. Two SNPs, rs1051730 and rs8034191, were significantly associated with risk of lung cancer with combined analysis yielded odds ratios of 1.32 (P < 1X10-17) for both SNPs. These two SNPs mapped to a region of strong linkage disequilibrium within 15q25.1 containing PSMA4 and the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes CHRNA3 and CHRNA5. (Nat Genet. 2008 May;40(5):616-22. PMID:18385676)

  Study phs000753

• Small cell number RNA-seq (400 cells per sample)

  Transcriptional profiles for stemB and proB cells harvested from either primary or secondary xenografts. This dataset contains six types of samples: - diagnostic stemB cells harvested from primary xenografts - diagnostic proB cells harvested from primary xenografts - relapse stemB cells harvested from secondary xenografts injected with stemB cells from primary xenografts - relapse proB cells harvested from secondary xenografts injected with stemB cells from primary xenografts - relapse stemB cells harvested from secondary xenografts injected with proB cells from primary xenografts - relapse proB cells harvested from secondary xenografts injected with proB cells from primary xenografts

  Dataset EGAD50000001830

• 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

• Single cell targeted DNA-sequencing (and antibody sequencing) of high hyperdiploid B-ALL

  This dataset contains all sequencing data of the publication "Single-cell DNA and Surface Protein Characterization of High Hyperdiploid Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia at Diagnosis and During Treatment". We provide both the raw fastq-files as well as the processed data in the form of .h5 files. There are 13 patients: XJ176, XH135, XJ180, XI145, XI148, XI167, XI150, XJ175, XJ178, XI162, XF98, XG111 and XG115. Of 9 patients, also follow-up samples during/after treatment were sequenced: XJ180, XI145, XI148, XI167, XI150, XJ175, XJ178, XI162 and XG111. To identify the cell types and distinguish between normal and leukemic cells, cell surface proteins were also captured for 6 samples: XF98, XG111 (at diagnosis and during treatment), XG115, XI162 (after treatment) and XJ175 (after treatment). All samples were processed on the MissionBio platform with a custom amplicon panel, and DaB-seq for the combined targeted DNA and protein sequencing.

  Dataset EGAD50000000829

• WGS

  Whole Genome Sequencing

  Dataset EGAD00001001120

• A Chromatin Accessibility Atlas of the Developing Human Telencephalon

  Gene expression differs between cell types and regions within complex tissues such as the developing brain. To discover regulatory elements underlying this specificity, we generated genome-wide maps of chromatin accessibility in nine anatomically-defined regions of the developing human telencephalon. Additionally, we defined the histone modification landscape of the prefrontal cortex and generated chromatin accessibility maps of its upper and deep layers. We predicted a subset of open chromatin regions (18%) that are most likely to be active enhancers, many of which are dynamic with 26% differing between early and late mid-gestation and 28% present in only one brain region. These predicted regulatory elements (pREs) are enriched proximal to genes with expression differences across developmental stages, regions, and cortical laminae; they harbor distinct sequence motifs that suggest potential upstream regulators. We leveraged this atlas to predict and validate novel regulatory elements of genes that control cortex laminar identity and genes associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). These include enhancers proximal to FEZF2 and BCL11A that were validated in mouse, and an enhancer of ASD gene SLC6A1 containing two functional de novo mutations in individuals with ASD whose enhancer function we validated via CRISPRa. We also include data for transcription factor binding in mid-fetal cortex tissues, using CUT&RUN methods.

  Study phs002033

• RNA-seq of high grade serous ovarian tumours

  Somatic RNA for 40 samples matched to the WGS 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 EGAD00001009048

• RNA-seq of atypical 3q26 samples

  RNA was isolated using phenol-chloroform extraction followed by DNase digestion or using the Qiagen Allprep DNA/RNA kit and protocol (Qiagen, #80204). cDNA synthesis was done using the SuperScript II Reverse Transcriptase kit (Invitrogen). Quantitative real-time PCR was performed by using primers as described previously13,21 on the 7500 Fast Real-time PCR System (Applied Biosystems). Relative levels of gene expression were calculated using the ΔΔCt method

  Dataset EGAD00001006106

• 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

• 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