19072 results for "Buy fc coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins They are the best FC seller..nEoY"

in 21.93 milliseconds.

• 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

• Prostate Cancer Upgrading Reference Set

  This study aimed to investigate clinical, demographic, and molecular features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer [ISUP Grade Group 1 (GG1)] at biopsy who underwent radical prostatectomy, and for whom an increased tumor grade (ISUP Grade Group 2 or above) was subsequently detected in the resected prostate. This phenomenon is termed upgrading. In collaboration with the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN), a blinded reference set was established to facilitate upgrading biomarker detection and validation. A prospective, multi-institutional, cohort of men with the GG1 prostate cancer and intention to undergo prostatectomy was recruited. Biospecimens (blood, urine) were collected and this biorepository comprises the official EDRN Upgrading Reference Set (URS). Recording of case-control status (case = upgrading at prostatectomy, control = no upgrading at prostatectomy) was coordinated by the Data Management and Coordinating Center (DMCC) of the EDRN, who ensured blinding of all participating researchers. A subset of the reference set (n = 192) was chosen to undergo whole genome sequencing (WGS) for the investigation of a germline genomic biomarker of upgrading. Variant calls from all sequenced URS whole genomes are available through dbGaP, with the exception of one sample for which sequencing was not successful. Among investigated clinical features, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and percent of cancer in pre-prostatectomy positive biopsy cores were significantly associated with upgrading. Two polygenic risk score-based biomarkers were computed in the genetic sub-cohort and tested against case-control status. Neither was predictive of upgrading.

  Study phs003670

• NHLBI TOPMed - NHGRI CCDG: The BioMe Biobank at Mount Sinai

  The IPM BioMe Biobank, founded in September 2007, is an ongoing, broadly-consented electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical care biobank that enrolls participants non-selectively from the Mount Sinai Medical Center patient population. BioMe currently comprises >42,000 participants from diverse ancestries, characterized by a broad spectrum of longitudinal biomedical traits. Participants are enrolled through an opt-in process and consent to be followed throughout their clinical care (past, present, and future) in real-time, allowing us to integrate their genomic information with their EHRs for discovery research and clinical care implementation. BioMe participants consent for recall, based on their genotype and/or phenotype, permitting in-depth follow-up and functional studies for selected participants at any time. Phenotypic and genomic data are stored in a secure database and made available to investigators, contingent on approval by the BioMe Governing Board. BioMe uses a "data-broker" system to protect confidentiality. Ancestral diversity - BioMe participants represent a broad racial, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity with a distinct and population-specific disease burden. Specifically, BioMe participants are of African (AA), Hispanic/Latino (HL), European (EA) and other/mixed ancestry. BioMe participants are predominantly of African (AA, 24%), Hispanic/Latino (HL, 35%), European (EA, 32%), and other ancestry (OA, 10%). Participants who self-identify as Hispanic/Latino further report to be of Puerto Rican (39%), Dominican (23%), Central/South American (17%), Mexican (5%) or other Hispanic (16%) ancestry. More than 40% of European ancestry participants are genetically determined to be of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. With this broad ancestral diversity, BioMe is uniquely positioned to examine the impact of demographic and evolutionary forces that have shaped common disease risk. Phenotypes available in BioMe - BioMe has a high-quality and validated set of fully implemented clinical phenotype data that has been culled by a multi-disciplinary team of experienced investigators, clinicians, information technologists, data-managers, and programmers who apply advanced medical informatics and data mining tools to extract and harmonize EHRs. BioMe, as a cohort, offers a great versatility for designing nested case-control sample-sets, particularly for studying longitudinal traits and co-morbidity in disease burden. Biomedical and clinical outcomes: The BioMe Biobank is linked to Mount Sinai's system-wide Epic EHR, which captures a full spectrum of biomedical phenotypes, including clinical outcomes, covariate and exposure data from past, present and future health care encounters. As such, the BioMe Biobank has a longitudinal design as participants consent to make all of their EHR data from past (dating back as far as 2003), present and future inpatient or outpatient encounters available for research, without restriction. The median number of outpatient encounters is 21 per participant, reflecting predominant enrollment of participants with common chronic conditions from primary care facilities. Environmental data: The clinical and EHR information is complemented by detailed demographic and lifestyle information, including ancestry, residence history, country of origin, personal and familial medical history, education, socio-economic status, physical activity, smoking, dietary habits, alcohol intake, and body weight history, which is collected in a systematic manner by interview-based questionnaire at time of enrollment. The IPM BioMe Biobank contributed ~10,600 DNA samples for whole genome sequencing to the TOPMed program. Samples were selected for the Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) and the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) working groups. Using a Case-Definition-Algorithm (CDA), we identified ~4,100 individuals with CAD (~50% women) and ~3,000 individuals as controls (65% women). In addition, we identified ~800 individuals with COPD (62% women) and 1800 individuals as controls (72% women). Another 600 BioMe participants with Atrial Fibrillation, all of African ancestry, were included.

  Study phs001644

• 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

• Single_Cell_Sequencing_of_Sperm__scSperm_

  The aim of this project is to genotype and sequence single spermatozoa from two men, one in his twenties and the other in his seventies. The resulting data is used to quantify the mutations that have arisen in the gametes of both individuals in order to better understand the effect of aging on mutation rates and modes.Project Outline. In order to quantify mutations, semen from two individuals are sequenced. 48 single sperm cells are isolated from each individual, and their DNA is extracted. The resulting genomes are amplified using PicoPlex, GenomiPhi MDA, Repli-G MDA, and MALBAC. QC step is applied to check the quality of WGA DNA using standard Sequenom plex (26 SNPs). A subset of 32 amplification products which pass the intiall QC, are genotyped using Affymetrix SNP6 chips. 12 of the genotyped amplification products are also sequenced. In addition, one multi-cell sample per individual is sequenced as a reference and for validation purposes.Altogether, 12 single cell sperm genomes and two multi-cell genomes are sequenced, coming to a total of 14 genomes. Of the single cell sperm genomes, 2 are sequenced to 50x coverage, and the other 10 to 25x coverage. Both multi-cell genomes are sequenced to 25x coverage.

  Study EGAS00001000935

• Genome-wide DNA-methylation assessment by MethylCap-seq and Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChips: an independent large-scale comparison

  DNA-methylation is an important epigenetic feature in health and disease. Two cost-efficient genome-scale methodologies to assess DNA-methylation are MethylCap-seq and Illumina's Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChips (HM450). However, objective information regarding the best-suited methodology for a specific research question is scant. Therefore, we performed a large-scale evaluation on a set of 70 brain tissue samples obtained from 65 glioblastoma and 5 non-tumoral brain tissues, using a gold standard free Bayesian modeling procedure. While conditional specificity was adequate for both approaches, conditional sensitivity was systematically higher for HM450. Also the genome-wide characteristics were compared, revealing that the HM450 probes assess less than 10% of the regions identified as methylated by MethylCap-seq. Hence the latter method may detect more potentially relevant DNA-methylation, defined by either functional location or previously reported differentially methylated candidate regions. Our results therefore indicate that – at least for the tissue under study - both methodologies are complementary, with a higher sensitivity for HM450, but a far larger genome-wide coverage for MethylCap-seq. Note that here only the relevant MethylCap-seq data is deposited, for the HM450 data we refer to GEO (GSE60274).

  Study EGAS00001001191

• Somatic Genome Dynamics of Barrett's Esophagus Patients with Non-Cancer and Cancer Outcomes

  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).

  Study phs001912

• 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

• Stratton__WGS___RCC___Japan

  The Stratton team uses DNA sequencing for somatic mutations to advance understanding of the causes of cancer. In particular, the investigation of “mutational signatures”, which report the mutational processes operative over the lifetime of each individual, to understand whether they are generated by endogenous or exogenous exposures and the extent to which these vary between human populations. Our work brings together global cancer epidemiology and genomics and is particularly characterised by large-scale multinational studies.

  Study EGAS00001008001

• Autoimmune-wide landscape of circulating CD4+ T cells unveils disease-specific heritability and phenotypic changes

  While CD4+ T cells are involved in autoimmunity, how they contribute to the pathogenesis is unclear due to their cellular heterogeneity. Here, to analyze the heterogeneity, we utilized decomposition-based transcriptome characterization for evaluating non-discrete subsets of CD4+ T cells in addition to canonical clustering strategies. This approach identified 12 independent transcriptional gene programs governing whole CD4+ T cell heterogeneity, which can explain the ambiguity of the canonical clustering.

  Study JGAS000578