19224 results for "Buy fc coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins They are the best FC seller..nEoY"

in 28.68 milliseconds.

• Molecularly matched targeted therapies plus radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation (N2M2/NOA-20 phase I/IIa umbrella trial)

  Background: Patients with glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation are unlikely to benefit from temozolomide (TMZ). Trials aiming at replacing TMZ with targeted agents in not molecularly selected patient populations have failed. Methods: This phase I/IIa umbrella trial aimed at showing safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of targeted compounds in addition to standard radiotherapy initiated within 42 days postoperatively. Molecular diagnostics and bioinformatic evaluation are performed within 28 days after surgery. Stratification for treatment takes place in five subtrials, including alectinib, idasanutlin, palbociclib, vismogedib and temsirolimus, according to the best matching molecular alteration. Patients without matching alterations are randomized between subtrials without strong biomarkers using atezolizumab and asunercept and TMZ as standard of care. Primary objective of the phase I parts of the trial was dose finding or dose validation. In the phase IIa trials, centrally determined progression-free survival at six months (PFS-6) is used as endpoint for efficacy with interim analyses for futility (H0: p=0.231). Results: From May 2018 through July 2022, 301 patients were enrolled and 228 treated in 13 German NOA sites. The alectinib and vismodegib subtrials were closed since no molecularly matching patients were accrued; the idasanutlin subtrial was closed prior to the optimal dose at nine patients at discretion of the company providing the drug. The TMZ subtrial showed a PFS-6 of 18.52% (10/54 patients) (p=0.831) and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.1 months. Asunercept: PFS-6 of 15.4% (4/26) (p=0.8825) and OS of 12.8 months. Atezolizumab: PFS-6 of 21.4% (9/42) (p=0.660) and OS of 11.7 months. Palbociclib with patients demonstrating CDK4 amplification or CDKN2A/B codeletion: PFS-6 of 24.4% (10/41) (p=0.4823) and OS of 12.6 months. Temsirolimus with patients demonstrating mTOR activation: PFS-6 of 39.1% (18/46) (p=0.0109) and OS of 15.4 months. The regimen-limiting toxicity (RLT)-rate is 34.8%, which is insignificantly above the predefined unacceptable rate for RLTs of 30%. Most RLTs had severity grade 3, one RLT had severity grade 4. No RLTs resulted in death. Conclusions: N2M2 allows for elaborate molecular testing being integrated into the treatment decision and efficient determination of treatment activity for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. There is clinical activity of temsirolimus in patients with tumors harboring an activated mTOR pathway although this is not positively prognostic without mTOR inhibition; there is no clinical activity for asunercept and atezolizumab in not molecularly selected patients and also palbociclib in molecularly selected patients.

  Study EGAS00001008033

• Establishment of an iPSC Repository Derived from Healthy Volunteers

  Understanding the interaction between genetic variation and epigenetic variation remains a challenge due to the confounding role of environmental factors. We propose that human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are an excellent model to study the relationship between genetic variation and epigenetic variation while controlling for consistent environmental factors. In this study, we have created a comprehensive resource of high-quality genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic data of six iPSC lines and three iPS-derived cell types (NSC, Motor Neuron, Monocyte) from three healthy donors. We found that epigenetic variation is most strongly associated with genetic variation at the iPSC stage, and that relationship weakens as epigenetic variation increases in the differentiated cells. Additionally, cell-type is a stronger source of epigenetic variation than genetic variation, highlighting that humans are far more similar than they are different, regardless of genetic background. Further, we have elucidated a utility of studying epigenetic variation in iPSCs and their derivatives for identifying important loci for GWAS studies and the cell-types in which they may be acting.

  Study phs003649

• Recurrent somatic DICER1 mutations in non-epithelial ovarian tumors

  Background: Germline truncating mutations in DICER1, an RNase III-type endoribonuclease essential for processing of microRNAs, are seen in families with the pleuropulmonary blastoma-family tumor and dysplasia syndrome; these individuals have a propensity to develop non-epithelial ovarian tumors (i.e. sex-cord stromal and germ cell tumors). Methods: We sequenced the whole transcriptomes or exomes of 14 non-epithelial ovarian tumors and noted closely clustered mutations in the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 in four cases. Using Sanger sequencing, we then analyzed additional ovarian tumors for mutations in this region. The impact of the mutations on the enzymatic activity of Dicer1 was determined using in vitro RNA cleavage assays. Results: RNase IIIb domain DICER1 mutations were found in 30/102 non-epithelial ovarian tumors (29%), predominantly Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (26/43, 60%), including 4/4 from individuals with germline DICER1 mutations. The mutations were restricted to metal binding sites within the RNase IIIb catalytic centres critical for miRNA interaction and cleavage, and were somatic in all 14 cases where germline DNA was available for testing. Of 266 epithelial ovarian and endometrial cancers tested, one case, an ovarian carcinosarcoma, had a hotspot mutation. In vitro, the mutant DICER proteins showed reduced RNase IIIb activity but retained RNase IIIa activity. Conclusions: Somatic missense mutations of the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 are common in non-epithelial ovarian tumors. Genetic, pathologic, and functional evidence suggest that these mutations do not obliterate DICER1 function, rather, they alter it in specific cell types, a novel mechanism through which perturbed microRNA expression is oncogenic.

  Study EGAS00001000135

• ACTIV-6: COVID-19 Outpatient Randomized Trial to Evaluate Efficacy of Repurposed Medications

  This study is a platform protocol designed to be flexible so that it is suitable for a wide range of settings within healthcare systems and in community settings where it can be integrated into routine COVID-19 testing programs and subsequent treatment plans. This platform protocol will enroll participants in an outpatient setting with a confirmed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. Each appendix will describe a repurposed medication (study drug) to meet the protocol objectives. When only one study drug/appendix is under study, allocation between study drug and placebo will be 1:1. If multiple study drugs/appendices are under study, participants will also be randomized among the study drugs for which eligibility is confirmed. Since the route of administration of each study drug may differ, the placebos may also differ. To achieve blinding and an equitable randomization probability, a two-step randomization process will be used.In the first step, the participant will be randomized m:1 active study drug to placebo, where m is the number of active study drugs for which the participant is eligible. Then, participants will be randomized among the m study drugs for which they are eligible. Participants will carry their ‘study drug' versus ‘placebo' randomization with them into the study drug appendix. In this way, a participant allocated to placebo who is randomized to study drug A will be given the placebo that matches study drug A. This achieves equal probability of exposure to a placebo or an active study drug, and equitable distribution among all study arms for which a participant is eligible. Sites will be informed to which study drug appendix the participant is randomized, but not whether they are allocated to the study drug arm or placebo arm within that appendix. For analysis, concurrent placebo participants who were eligible for the study drug appendix will be pooled. This will result in approximately a 1:1 allocation ratio for any study drug to placebo. If a study drug appendix is stopped for efficacy and becomes standard of care, the active study drug arm may serve as a concurrent placebo for other study drugs.Participants will receive complete supply of repurposed medication (study drug) or placebo with length of treatment and amount of study drug/placebo depending on the study drug appendix and arm to which they are randomized.This study is designed so that it can be done completely remotely. However, screening and enrollment may occur in person at sites and unplanned study visits may occur in person or remotely, as deemed appropriate by an investigator for safety purposes. Participants will be on-study for up to 180 days, during which they will complete various questionnaires.

  Study phs003941

• The ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling - Tumour Heterogeneity Challenge

  Tumors are composed of many different cell types, ranging from the normal tissue micro-environment, infiltrating immune cells and tumour cells. This group of tumour cells is itself intrinsically highly heterogeneous, driven by the rapid mutation rate of cancer cells to become a mixture of different sub-populations. These different types of cells, called subclones, have different sets of mutations in their DNA. Because some subclones evolve from others, many subclones share mutations. While it is increasingly easy to determine what mutations are present in the tumor, it remains very difficult to determine which subclones have which mutations. The task of assigning mutations to subclones is called subclonal reconstruction.The ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling - Tumour Heterogeneity Challenge (SMC-Het) is an international effort to improve standard methods for subclonal reconstruction: to quantify and genotype each individual cell population present within a tumor. The goal of this challenge is to identify the best subclonal reconstruction algorithms and to identify the conditions that affect their performance.

  Study EGAS00001002092

• 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

• NHLBI TOPMed: Best ADd-on Therapy Giving Effective Response (BADGER)

  BADGER is a 56-week randomized, double-blind, three-treatment, three-period cross-over trial that will evaluate the differential improvement in control that is achieved following three separate treatment interventions in children whose asthma is not acceptably controlled on a low dose of ICS (per NAEPP guidelines). All participants will enter an 8-week run-in period during which time they will receive a dose of 1x ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/day). During this 8-week time period, running 2-week averages to establish the lack of acceptable asthma control will be calculated. Thus, a child could qualify for randomization at any time during this 8-week run-in period. This approach should maximize both patient safety and successful enrollment. Children will continue to receive 1x ICS during the entire treatment phase. During each period of the treatment phase, they also will receive one add-on therapy in the form of LABA, LTRA or additional 1x ICS. The order of the add-on therapy assignment will be determined by randomization into one of six treatment sequences (order determined randomly). Each treatment period will be 16 weeks in length; the initial 4 weeks of each period will be considered to be the washout period for the previous treatment. The primary outcome measures will be frequency of asthma exacerbations, asthma control days, and FEV1.

  Study phs001728

• Analyzing Somatic Mutagenesis in Systemic Sclerosis

  The study was undertaken with the aim of estimating differences in the mutational burden in lung tissues from healthy vs systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. SSc is an auto-immune disease, with patients often developing cancer. However, the etiology of this phenomenon is poorly understood. As such we sought to uncover potential molecular mechanisms prevalent within SSc tissues that might be potentiating cancer. Samples were randomly collected from individuals from two broad ethnic groups, European (EA) and African American (AA). In total, samples were obtained from 7 individuals belonging to the EA group and 4 individuals from the AA group. For this study, ethnicity was not included as a confounding variable, given that the data set has roughly comparable number of individuals from both ethnicities for the healthy and SSc cohorts. Study participants ranged in age from 37-63 years old. Median age (52 years old) of healthy individuals was comparable to the SSc cohort (~48 years old). Participants were self-described as current/former smokers or non-smokers. Lung tissues were obtained under a protocol approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent statements were provided to the University of Pittsburgh IRB by the study participants/patients. Sample sizes were determined by the ability of bulk lung fibroblast tissues to stably propagate in culture until single cell clones could be obtained. Samples for which sufficient cell density could not be achieved for downstream high-depth sequencing analysis were excluded from the study and are not reported. Five or greater than 5 samples are collected from each cohort including healthy and SSc patients. Subjects were allocated to two basic cohorts based on diagnosis at the time of explant. Participants with no reported lung anomalies were allocated to the "healthy" cohort, whereas individuals with reported lung abnormalities, primarily SSc with pulmonary fibrosis and/or hypertension were allocated to the "SSc" cohort. All tissue samples were cultured, propagated and processed in identical fashion without requiring individual-specific protocols. Additionally, equivalent amounts of DNA were used for preparing sequencing libraries from both cohorts, and all samples were sequenced using Illumina whole genome sequencing (WGS) and analyzed using identical computational pipelines. Our study primarily discovered that there is a significantly higher burden of somatic mutations in SSc samples, compared to healthy samples. We observed an overall increase in a range of mutations in genomes of SSc patients, including single base substitutions, indels, structural variants and copy number alterations. Additionally, we uncovered a novel mutation signature associated with SSc samples, hinting at the activity of POLH in these samples, and highlighting the potential nexus between inflammation, DNA damage, and cancer.

  Study phs003700

• Detection of cancers three years prior to diagnosis using plasma cell-free DNA

  A major goal of early cancer detection is to identify subclinical disease when the tumor burden is low, so that treatments are more effective. But how early can cancers be detected prior to clinical signs or symptoms? This question can be answered only through the evaluation of participants whose clinical course has not been altered by the study itself. We here describe such an evaluation, performed on prospectively collected plasma samples from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, including 26 participants diagnosed with cancer and 26 matched controls. At the index time point, eight of these 52 participants scored positively with a multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test. All eight of these participants were diagnosed with cancer within 4 months after blood collection. In six of these 8 participants, we were able to assess an earlier plasma sample collected 3.1 to 3.5 years prior to clinical diagnosis. In four of these six participants, the same mutations detected by the MCED test could be identified, but at 8.6 to 79-fold lower levels. These results demonstrate that it is possible to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) more than three years prior to clinical diagnosis, and provide benchmark sensitivities required for the success of ctDNA-based tests for this purpose.

  Study EGAS00001008068

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024