Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.
A case-control study was designed with 80 participants diagnosed with Barrett's Esophagus (BE) selected from a larger case-cohort study (Li et al., 2014, PMID: 24253313) within the Seattle Barrett's Esophagus Program (SBEP) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The study included 40 cases with BE with non-cancer outcomes, "NCO", who did not progress to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA), and 40 controls who progressed to an endoscopically detected, incident EA (cancer outcome, "CO"). For each patient, two timepoints were evaluated (T1 and T2). NCO were matched to CO based on age at T1 (T1=first endoscopy with sufficient sample availability), and time between T1 and T2 (T2 in CO=time of diagnosis of incident EA). In 10 NCO, a third time point (T3), a mean of 13.2 years after T1, was also sequenced. Mapped endoscopic biopsies, at 1/3 and 2/3 annotated distances from the gastroesophageal junction within the Barrett's segment, were sampled per patient at each timepoint. Each biopsy was purified to separate BE epithelium from stroma, and DNA was extracted from purified epithelium for 60X WGS and 2.5M SNP array; normal control blood (N=62) or normal gastric sample (N=18) were analyzed by 30X WGS and 2.5M SNP array. An additional seven normal gastric biopsy samples in seven patients with normal control blood were also sequenced at 60X as controls. All research participants contributing clinical data and esophageal samples to this study provided written informed consent, subject to oversight by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center IRB Committee D (Reg ID 5619).
Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders, affecting approximately 4% of individuals at some time in their lives. More than 30% of people with epilepsy continue to have seizures despite treatment, and improved approaches to treatment and prevention are sorely needed. In the search for new strategies to reduce the burden of disease, the discovery of specific genes that influence risk offers a novel opportunity to clarify pathogenic mechanisms, identify susceptible individuals prior to seizure onset, and treat and prevent seizures in people at risk. Despite clear evidence of the importance of genetics in susceptibility to epilepsy, only limited progress has been made in identifying the specific genes that influence risk. One of the greatest challenges for genetic research on this disorder is its extreme clinical and genetic heterogeneity. Although epilepsy is broadly defined by recurrent unprovoked seizures, it is so variable in its clinical manifestations, natural history, and treatment response that most epileptologists view it as a collection of different syndromes ("epilepsies") with distinct etiologies. The genetic effects on susceptibility are also likely to be extremely variable, ranging from rare variants with high penetrance (some of which produce Mendelian patterns of inheritance) to common variants with low penetrance. Recent findings strongly suggest that rare gene variants play a major role in the genetic architecture of the epilepsies. The purpose of this study was to discover new genetic risk factors for epilepsy. The primary approach was to use whole-genome sequencing to interrogate classes of genetic variants, including very rare variants, in multiplex families. Our main hypothesis was that, in at least some proportion of these families, a single variant would explain all instances of epilepsy. Variants identified within the families could then be tested for cosegregation within the family and also validated by seeing enrichment in sporadic epilepsy cases. Furthermore, understanding the impact of rare variation in epilepsy also has the potential to provide insight into the genetic architecture of other complex human diseases. Our analysis focused on families containing multiple individuals with non-acquired (idiopathic or unknown cause) epilepsy under the hypothesis that these would be enriched for genetic control. The families studied had been previously collected and phenotyped in detail, and contain an average of 3.8 individuals per family with a range of different types of epilepsy. We selected one or two affected individuals from each family for sequencing. This work has generated NGS data on 60 samples from 29 multiplex epilepsy families. We have established that, under a monogenic model of inheritance, sequencing pairs of distantly related relatives is an effective method for reducing the number of candidate variants. Critically, we have found that no single variant can explain a large proportion of these epilepsy families. This work emphasizes that identifying causal variants among the many genetic candidates found in this work will require very large sample sizes and gene-based analyses.
A comprehensive constellation of somatic non-silent mutations and copy number (CN) variations in ocular adnexa marginal zone lymphoma (OAMZL) is unknown. By utilizing whole-exome sequencing in 69 tumors we define the genetic landscape of OAMZL. Mutations and CN changes in CABIN1 (30%), RHOA (26%), TBL1XR1 (22%), and CREBBP (17%) and inactivation of TNFAIP3 (26%) were among the most common aberrations. Candidate cancer driver genes cluster in the B-cell receptor (BCR), NFkB, NOTCH and NFAT signaling pathways. One of the most commonly altered genes is CABIN1, a calcineurin inhibitor acting as a negative regulator of the NFAT and MEF2B transcriptional activity. CABIN1 deletions enhance BCR-stimulated NFAT and MEF2B transcriptional activity, while CABIN1 mutations enhance only MEF2B transcriptional activity by impairing binding of mSin3a to CABIN1. Our data provide an unbiased identification of genetically altered genes that may play a role in the molecular pathogenesis of OAMZL and serve as therapeutic targets.
The oesophageal project will focus on adenocarcinoma which is increasing in incidence in the UK and other developed countries and has a very poor outcome. The primary aims of this project are to deeply sequence tumour and normal genomic DNA (including the precursor condition Barrett’s oesophagus when material is available) to provide a comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations. This will be achieved through a UK-wide network of hospitals involved in a research collaboration called the OCCAMS consortium. The goal of this project is to use high quality clinical material with accurately annotated clinic-pathological, treatment and outcome data.
Genome-wide studies have uncovered multiple independent signals at the RREB1 locus associated with altered type 2 diabetes risk and related glycaemic traits. However, little is known about the function of the zinc finger transcription factor Ras-responsive element binding protein 1 (RREB1) in glucose homeostasis or how changes in its expression and/or function influence diabetes risk.
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a tumour entity with unmet medical need. To assess the therapeutic potential of oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) against PDAC, different oncolytic viruses (OVs) are currently investigated in clinical trials. However, systematic comparisons of these different OVs in terms of efficacy against PDAC and biomarkers predicting therapeutic response are lacking. We screened fourteen patient-derived PDAC cultures for their sensitivity to five clinically relevant OVs, namely serotype 5 adenovirus Ad5-hTERT, herpes virus T-VEC, measles vaccine strain MV-NIS, reovirus jin-3, and protoparvovirus H 1PV using live cell analysis, quantification of viral genome/gene expression, cell viability as well as cytotoxicity assays. Sensitivity was correlated with transcriptome profiles to identify potential predictive biomarkers for response to OVT. Patient-derived PDAC cultures showed individual response patterns to OV treatment. Twelve of fourteen cultures were responsive to at least one OV, with no single OV proving superior or inferior across all cultures. Known host factors for distinct viruses were retrieved as potential biomarkers. Compared to the basal-like molecular subtype, the quasi-mesenchymal subtype of PDAC was more sensitive to H-1PV, jin-3, and T-VEC. Expression of viral entry receptors did not correlate with sensitivity to OV treatment. Rather, cellular pathways controlling immunological, metabolic, and proliferative signalling appeared to determine outcome. For instance, high baseline expression of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) correlated with relative resistance to oncolytic measles virus, whereas cGAS expression was associated with exceptional response. Combination treatment of MV-NIS with a cGAS inhibitor improved tumour cell killing in several PDAC cultures.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with peritoneal metastases (CRPM) have limited treatment options and the lowest CRC survival rates. We trialed the possibility of organoid directed precision treatment for CRPM patients. CRPM organoids (peritonoids) isolated from patients underwent next-generation sequencing and medium-throughput drug panel testing ex vivo to identify specific drug sensitivities for each patient. We measured the utility of such a service including: success of peritonoid generation, time to cultivate peritonoids, reproducibility of the medium-throughput drug testing, and documented changes to clinical therapy as a result of the testing. Peritonoids were successfully generated and validated from 68% (19/28) of patients undergoing standard care. Genomic and drug profiling was completed within 8 weeks and a formal report ranking drug sensitivities was provided to the medical oncology team upon failure of standard care treatment. This resulted in a treatment change for 2 patients, one of whom had a partial response despite previously progressing on multiple rounds of standard care chemotherapy. The barrier to implementing this technology in Australia is the need for drug access and funding for off-label indications. In conclusion, our approach is feasible, reproducible and can guide novel therapeutic choices in this poor prognosis cohort, where new treatment options are urgently needed. This platform is relevant to many solid organ malignancies.
Tumours of different types may arise from a single cell with at least one malignant mutation. Accumulation of subsequent hits generates lineages of cells with different cancer transformation power; thus, every clone follows an autonomous evolution, and several clones may co-exist into the same solid or liquid tumour. Clonal evolution studies are not new: the conceptual power of this approach has been recognized since the early ’80, especially in leukaemia patients. Nonetheless, these studies greatly benefit from recent technological improvements -machineries and protocols-, which enable ever-increasing sequencing depth, allowing the detection of low frequency variants and consequently more tumour clones. Note: the figure belongs to the original paper and is owned by the authors. Researchers at the University of Kyoto in Japan, have indeed used state of the art knowledge to investigate the clonal evolution of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in a large panel of patients. CML progresses from a majoritarian benign chronic phase into an often fatal blast crisis phase. It is nowadays known that blast crisis are triggered by genetic instability and disrupted DNA repair, which lead to accumulation of DNA mutations. The use of thyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the Philadelphia chromosome have enormously improved the treatment of blast crisis, nonetheless resistant patients are still a medical challenge. Yotaro Ochi and collegues used Whole Exome Sequencing of paired chronic phase and blast crisis samples to depict the genetic landscape of progression from the first to the second stage of the disease (as illustrated in their figure). Their results were published in Nature Communication on this May 2021. They used a dataset previously deposited at the EGA (EGAS00001003071) and their new generated data have been made available under accession number EGAS00001005075. Their analysis of the occurring mutations contribute to understanding the mechanisms of CML evolution and therefore develop a protocol for early management of patients with a TKI resistance signature. Up to date, the EGA hosts 99 clonal evolution studies, developed in several cancer types, including myeloma, renal carcinomas and ovarian cancer, in addition to various leukaemia subtypes, where this approach has been more widely applied and produced important results and seminal papers. From a pan-cancer point of view, the definition of tumour architecture through clonal evolution studies is instrumental to unravel the mechanisms of disease progression and treatment-resistance insource. At the EGA, we are honoured to contribute to exciting and important science advances with our service!
A subset of available tumors (with matched blood) from patients enrolled in a phase I clinical trial testing a recombinant poliovirus, published by Desjardins et al. NEJM 2018 (PMID:29943666), were analyzed by whole exome sequencing and RNA-seq. It was discovered that low tumor mutation burden correlated with survival outcome, and also discovered that low tumor mutation burden correlated with higher inflammatory gene signatures by RNA-seq.
