19385 results for "Cheap fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is official EA Sports partner for FC 26 coins That was the fastest delivery ever..fxB4"

in 20.47 milliseconds.

• UAMS Smoldering Myeloma Myeloma Sequencing

  Identifying high risk smoldering myeloma patients and progression mechanism is a prerequisite to implement effective inception strategies and curve myeloma related morbidity and mortality. We hypothesize that genomics may help identify determinants of progression that may help predict outcome and offer effective chemo preventive targets. Eighty-two patients underwent a custom targeted panel sequencing with an additional capture for the translocation loci. These results were compared to 223 newly diagnosed patients (EGAS00001003223 and EGAD00001004117) and 17 MGUS and 10 early myeloma patients. DNA was obtained from either CD138+ cells from the bone marrow of multiple myeloma patients (tumor) or from stem cell harvests or peripheral blood cells from the same patient (control). 100 ng of DNA was fragmented, end-repaired, and adapters ligated using the HyperPlus kit (KAPA Biosystems). After PCR amplification the libraries were hybridized with probes against either a targeted panel consisting of 140 genes and chromosomal regions (Nimblegen) using SeqCap reagents (Nimblegen). Hybridized libraries underwent further amplification before being sequenced on a NextSeq500 (Illumina) using 75 bp paired end reads. Overall, these data highlight the importance of dysregulation of the MAPK pathway in the progression to MM.

  Study EGAS00001003629

• International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts

  Oral clefts represent the most common group of craniofacial birth defects in humans, and include cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and cleft palate (CP). Oral clefts have a complex and heterogeneous etiology, with strong evidence for both genetic and environmental causal factors. Candidate gene studies and genome wide linkage studies have yielded compelling but inconsistent evidence that multiple genes control risk, and several studies have shown evidence for interaction between genes and environmental exposures, especially maternal smoking and nutrient intake. This consortium pulls together a very large collection of cases and their parents from multiple populations, and offers a unique opportunity to expand the search for genes controlling risk to the genome wide level. The specific aims are: To conduct a genome wide analysis on 2000+ case-parent trios ascertained through a case with isolated, non-syndromic CL/P or CP to test for linkage and disequilibrium. Initial analysis will consist of individual tests for gene effects while simultaneously testing for GxE interaction with common maternal exposures including vitamin supplementation, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption (which have all been implicated as environmental risk factors for oral clefts). To use haplotypes in tests for GxE interaction incorporating population specific estimates. Since haplotype frequencies vary among populations, trios will be assigned haplotypes in a stratified estimation and then a pooled test statistic will be constructed. To test for interaction between SNPs in different genes showing evidence of influencing risk in a test for GxG interaction. To test for interaction between genes and maternal biomarkers using trios from Utah where measures of plasma folate, vitamin B-6, homocysteine and zinc in mothers are available. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to oral clefts through large-scale genome-wide association studies of well-characterized cases and their parents from multiple populations. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000094

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Patients with Coccidioidomycosis

  BackgroundValley Fever is typically an infection of the lungs caused by the fungi Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. The incidence of Coccidioidomycosis (CM), or infection with Coccidioides, has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. This is particularly true in the Southwest of the United States, where people often breathe fungal spores that arise from the soil. Reasons for increased infection rates are thought to include population growth and construction in these endemic regions, an increase in the number of people whose immune systems are compromised due to infection or treatment with drugs required for organ transplants, climate change, as well as improved testing practices and greater physician awareness. Mild CM most commonly presents itself with flu-like symptoms and rashes, which can last weeks to months. Individuals with compromised immune systems, specifically-- substantial suppression of the immune cells known as T cells, can develop severe pulmonary and disseminated disease. Infection that remains localized to the lungs is referred to as pulmonary disease, but when the infection spreads out of the lungs into other parts of the body it represents a more serious condition referred to as a disseminated disease, or disseminated CM. In nature, Coccidioides spp. exists as mold and lives in dust and soil. When the contaminated soil or dust is disturbed by human activity, animals, or weather, the Coccidiodies spores are released into the air. Airborne spores are taken up by breathing and settle in the lungs. Once in the moist and warm environment of the lung, spores transform into spherules, which divide and become filled with smaller spores, called endospores. When the spherules get large enough, they rupture and release these endospores, which can spread and disseminate to surrounding tissue. The cycle then repeats itself as these endospores develop into new spherules3. Different ethnic groups have been described to vary in their susceptibility to developing disseminated CM after initial infection with Coccidioides. For example, evidence suggests that African-American and Filipino patients suffer the disseminated disease at a greater rate than other ethnicities. The suggestion that race plays a role in the clinical expression of the disease is still a source of debate amongst the scientific community and any genetic mechanisms responsible for these differences have yet to be fully elucidated. If our genetic makeup influences our ability to limit the spread of infection, finding which DNA differences cause these variances could provide clues to how the body successfully fights infection, and provide opportunities to boost the body’s ability to do this. Further, if we are able to identify the specific genetic risk factors that correlate with the development of disseminated infection, physicians could perform genetic screenings to identify high-risk patients and provide them with preemptive antifungal therapy prior to developing disseminated disease.The genome, made up of DNA, contains all of the information needed for humans to develop and grow. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) allow us to look for inherited differences that are more common between people who share a particular trait, for example, height or susceptibility to certain diseases, compared to those who do not share the trait. Although some traits and diseases are controlled by a single gene, the majority are influenced by contribution from several, or even many, different genes. To find evidence of genes that contribute to specific traits, GWAS typically compares genome information from large numbers of people who have a particular disease (referred to as “cases”) looking for DNA sequences that are common among these samples, and are different from DNA sequences seen in large numbers of people who lack the trait, but are as much like the cases as possible (referred to as “controls”). The DNA sequence data from each group, cases versus controls, are analyzed to see if there are specific genomic differences that tend to be associated with the disease. MethodsTwo separate GWAS approaches were taken to look for genetic differences that could be responsible for the observed differences between the different patient populations we are studying. The first method, known as genotyping, scans for differences at a set of positions across the genome, which includes both the genes that encode our proteins and the larger amount of DNA that does not. The second method, known as exome sequencing, allows us to compare the entire sequence of the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.  For this study, DNA from patients with either pulmonary or disseminated CM were genotyped and exome sequenced to look for DNA differences that are associated with one condition or the other. All patients were at least 18 years old, had no evidence of immunosuppression, and had proven or probable pulmonary coccidioidomycosis according to established diagnostic criteria. Of these patients, a subset demonstrated disseminated disease, i.e., they showed evidence of coccidioidal infection outside of the thorax by biopsy/aspiration, had radiographic imaging, and show positive coccidioidal serology. Our criteria for including patients with the pulmonary disease were that they must not require ongoing antifungal treatment or show evidence of active CM (in skin test positive patients), show no evidence of extrapulmonary dissemination, and have no evidence of ongoing pulmonary infection (pulmonary nodules are accepted) beyond six months from diagnosis.Patient DNA was purified from blood or from sputum samples by the labs of our collaborators, Drs. George Thompson (UC Davis School of Medicine) and John Galgiani (University of Arizona Health Sciences). Genome-wide association (GWAS) analysis was carried out to look for candidate loci associated with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, taking into account the population structure of the samples. Single nucleotide or insertion/deletion variants were identified from whole-exome sequences (WES) using the Picard/BWA/GATK pipeline. ResultsTable 1. Pulmonary versus Disseminated Cases of Coccidiomycosis for GWAS, Sorted by EthnicityEthnicityPulmonary CasesDisseminated CasesAsian85Black/African American1664Caucasian/White4015Filipino03Hispanic/Latino3414Indian21Mexican American1039Pacific Islander01Samoan03Vietnamese10Unknown16917More than one race02Total373134Table 1 shows the number of samples analyzed from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, and patient ethnicity, where known. In all, we worked with 507 samples, including 134 samples from patients with disseminated disease and 373 samples from patients with pulmonary disease. Of these, 505 samples were genotyped using the Multi-Ethnic Global Array from Illumina Inc. In addition, we were able to generate whole-exome sequence from 498 patient samples. No significant associations were detected that differed between samples from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease; that is, no particular DNA sequences were found to be significantly enriched in patients with disseminated disease compared to patients with pulmonary disease. The ability to detect genetic association between specific sequences and genetically determined traits is influenced by several factors, including how many patient samples are available to compare, how many different genes contribute to the trait and how strong their contributions are. When the number of genes is small and the contribution of each gene is great, smaller numbers of patient samples are needed to detect an association. When more genes are involved, or the contribution from each gene is more modest, larger numbers of patient samples must be examined. While we were not able to detect any associated within this study, it does not mean that subsequent studies would not find this connection. Our study suggests significantly more samples should be analyzed in further studies.Whole-exome sequences were generated from 498 samples and were aligned to reference sequences to identify positions where the sequences differed from the reference. These data are being analyzed to determine if any variants are associated with pulmonary, versus disseminated, disease. 

  Study phs002170

• What is metadata?

  What is metadata? Data represents units of information and metadata can be seen, simply put, as data about other data. For example, in a simple experiment in which a patient genome was sequenced, there are multiple and diverse fields of metadata: from the biological sex of the patient to the sequencing platform used. Another way to understand metadata, following our genomic experiment example, is going through the different layers of (meta)data: One of the basic units of information (data) would be the sequence of nucleotides (e.g. GCTGG and GCCGG). This DNA sequence can be contextualised within a chromosome by providing its locus (e.g. β-globin gene). This data, the locus, is about other data, the sequence of nucleotides, which would render it metadata. We can go one step further, and provide more context, by giving the associated phenotype of each of these sequences: GCTGG corresponds to a healthy individual, while GCCGG corresponds to a person with β-thalassaemia. Once again, this data is contextualising the data we have provided up to this point, which makes it metadata. With this simple example, what we are doing is adding layers of data that describe the ones below. Had we given the sequences alone, little would be possible from the researchers' point of view. But, now that the data has its accompanying metadata, a researcher could compare both sequences and their phenotypes to infer a possible cause of the disorder. Each layer of information broadens the possible applications of the data. Now that we know what metadata is, it is time to emphasise the importance of submitting good quality metadata. The quality of the metadata will determine whether the data is usable, discoverable, and interpretable by researchers and clinicians. One example that highlights the importance of good quality metadata is the description of biological sex of a patient: while the terms "female," "girl," or "woman" all represent the same concept, they are not harmonised. These different representations of a concept can create confusion and errors in data analysis. By applying standard definitions and terminologies to biological sex metadata, we can avoid misunderstandings and facilitate the integration of different datasets.  In order to comply with the FAIR principles and, more specifically, to allow for the (meta)data to be interoperable (i.e. used universally and unambiguously), we need to place some standards onto the (meta)data EGA  archives. These can be as simple as asserting that the given patient's biological sex is one of the correct terms (e.g. female or male); or as complex as multiple layers and combinations of validation steps with existing records. You can find further details on how EGA manages these standards on our metadata model page.

  Documentation submission/metadata/what-is-metadata

• Germline elongator mutations in sonic hedgehog medulloblastoma

  Cancer genomics has illuminated a wide spectrum of genes and core molecular processes contributing to human malignancy. Still, the genetic and molecular basis of many cancers remains only partially explained. Genetic predisposition accounts for 5-10% of cancer diagnoses and genetic events cooperating with known somatic driver events are poorly understood. Analyzing established cancer predisposition genes in medulloblastoma (MB), a malignant childhood brain tumor, we recently identified pathogenic germline variants that account for 5% of all MB patients. Here, by extending our previous analysis to include all protein-coding genes, we discovered and replicated rare germline loss-of-function (LoF) variants across Elongator Complex Protein 1 (ELP1) on 9q31.3 in 15% of pediatric MBSHH cases, thus implicating ELP1 as the most common MB predisposition gene and increasing genetic predisposition to 40% for pediatric MBSHH. Inheritance was verified based on parent-offspring and pedigree analysis, which identified two families with a history of pediatric MB. ELP1-associated MBs were restricted to the molecular SHHa subtype and were characterized by universal biallelic inactivation of ELP1 due to somatic loss of chromosome 9q. The majority of ELP1-associated MBs exhibited co-occurring somatic PTCH1 (9q22.32) alterations, suggesting that ELP1-deficiency predisposes to tumor development in combination with constitutive activation of SHH signaling. ELP1 is an essential subunit of the evolutionary conserved Elongator complex, whose primary function is to enable efficient translational elongation through tRNAs modifications at the wobble (U34) position. Biochemical, transcriptional, and proteomic analyses revealed that ELP1-associated MBSHH are characterized by a destabilized core Elongator complex, loss of Elongator-dependent tRNA modifications, codon-dependent translational reprogramming, and induction of the unfolded protein response (UPR), consistent with deregulation of protein homeostasis due to Elongator-deficiency in model systems. Our findings suggest that genetic predisposition to proteome instability is a previously underappreciated determinant in the pathogenesis of pediatric brain cancer. These results provide strong rationale for further investigating the role of protein homeostasis in other pediatric and adult cancer types and potential opportunities for novel therapeutic interference.

  Study EGAS00001004126

• Longitudinal_profiling_of_the_immune_response_to_Plasmodium_vivax_in_naive_hosts_by_RNA_sequencing

  Plasmodium vivax offers unique challenges for control and elimination, and may prove a tougher hurdle to overcome than Plasmodium falciparum. And yet compared to P. falciparum we know very little about the innate and adaptive immune responses that need to be harnessed to reduce disease and transmission. We recently generated a blood bank of a new clonal field isolate of P. vivax (PvW1) for human challenge studies and used systems immunology tools to track the host response throughout infection and convalescence. As part of this study, RNA-sequencing was used to resolve changes in whole blood gene expression through time in 6 volunteers (7-9 time-points per volunteer). In summary, these data show that P. vivax induces two distinct transcriptional programmes in whole blood during and after infection. During infection, transcriptional profiling reveals the rapid mobilisation of an emergency myeloid response, which leads to systemic inflammation and the recruitment of all major T cell subsets into lymphoid tissues. Six days after infection, this innate response subsides and a transcriptional signature of proliferation is revealed. This most likely represents widespread activation of lymphocytes, which return to the circulation after parasite clearance - transcriptional profiling of T cells at this time-point could therefore reveal the outcomes of critical cell-cell interactions that take place within the spleen during infection. This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/

  Study EGAS00001003847

• Searching for variants associated with endometriosis

  We explored regulatory mechanism of a SNP on chromosome 9p21 associated with endometriosis by leveraging “allele-specific” functional genomic approaches. By re-sequencing 1.29 Mb of 9p21 region and scrutinizing DNase-seq data from the ENCODE project, we prioritized rs17761446 as a candidate functional variant that was in perfect linkage disequilibrium with the original GWAS SNP (rs10965235) and located on DNase I hypersensitive site. Chromosome conformation capture followed by high-throughput sequencing revealed that the protective G allele of rs17761446 exerted stronger chromatin interaction with ANRIL promoter. We demonstrated that the protective allele exhibited preferential binding affinities to TCF7L2 and EP300 by bioinformatics and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analyses. ChIP assays for histone H3 lysine 27 acetylation and RNA polymerase II reinforced the enhancer activity of the SNP site. The allele specific expression analysis for eutopic endometrial tissues and endometrial carcinoma cell lines showed that rs17761446 was a cis-regulatory variant where G allele was associated with increased ANRIL expression.

  Study EGAS00001001741

• Gut microbiome dynamics unravelled with metagenomics sequencing

  It has been already several years since we discovered that microbial therapeutics like Faecal Microbiota Transplantation can be used to treat Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with great success. The concept has challenged us to test the limits of our knowledge with the perspective to improve health in the most diverse conditions like Parkinson disease, depression, autism and obesity, just to mention a few. Note: the figure belongs to the original paper and is owned by the authors. Allyson L.Bird and colleagues from Genentech Inc. (San Francisco) recently published an interesting study building up on the key concept that “As microbial therapeutics are increasingly being tested in diverse patient populations, it is essential to understand the host and environmental factors influencing the microbiome.” The authors of this work analysed 1359 gut microbiome samples using shotgun metagenomics sequencing.  The results of the comparison done between microbiota composition across the different groups showed that biological sex is the strongest driver of diversity, while aging (age range studied: 20–69) appears to be the second factor. As smartly outlined in the authors’ own graphical abstract (figure to the left), Bacteroidota species consistently increased with donors' age while Actinobacteriota species, including Bifidobacterium, decreased. This study also integrated data from oncological patients to draw cancer-related evidences. After correcting the biases for technical and geographic differences, they found that cancer patients show significantly altered gut bacterial communities compared with their healthy counterparts. Eg. E.coli was found to be increased in cancer patients together with Bacteroidota/Firmicutes ratios. By comparing sequential samples taken from the same donors (413) within short-distance time points, the authors found that in the short term, intra-individual differences were less than the inter-individual ones, indicating a certain community stability being the norm. One of the pivotal points from this interesting study is that the data proceeds from extremely well-defined and selected donors. Specifically, the data for 949 selected healthy donors came from the Milieu Intérieur (MI) Consortium and extensive metadata, including demographic variables, serological measures, dietary information, and systemic immune profiles, are available. This precise stratification allowed for the robust detection of smaller changes, compared to former works. All sequencing data has been deposited in the EGA archive under the accession number EGAS00001004437. Enjoy this amazing open access paper published in the Experimental Journal of Medicine on January 2021.

  Blog gut-microbiome-dynamics-unravelled

• Programmatic submission based on XML

  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.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

• Prenatal lead exposure is associated with decreased cord blood DNA methylation of the glycoprotein VI gene involved in platelet activation and thrombus formation

  Early-life lead exposure impairs neurodevelopment and later exposure affects the cardiovascular system. Lead has been associated with reduced global 5-methylcytosine DNA methylation, suggesting that lead toxicity acts through epigenetic mechanisms. The objective of this study is to clarify how early life lead exposure alters DNA methylation of specific genes, using an epigenomic approach. We measured lead concentrations in urine (gestational week, GW, 8) and erythrocytes (GW 14), using ICP-MS, for 127 pregnant mothers recruited in the MINIMat food and supplementation cohort in rural Bangladesh. Cord blood DNA methylation was analyzed with the Infinium HumanMethylation450K BeadChip and top sites were validated by methylation-sensitive high-resolution melt curve analysis. Maternal urinary lead concentrations (divided into quartiles) showed significant (after adjustment for FDR) inverse associations with methylation at nine CpGs. Three of these sites were in the 5’ end, including the promoter, of glycoprotein IV (GP6); cg18355337 (q=0.029, β=-0.30), cg25818583 (q=0.041, β=-0.18) and cg23796967 (q=0.047, β=-0.17). The methylation in another CpG site in GP6 was close to significant (cg05374025, q=0.057, β=-0.23). The erythrocyte lead concentrations (divided into quartiles) were also inversely associated with CpG methylation in GP6, although this was not statistically significant after FDR-adjustments. Eight CpG sites in GP6 constituted a differentially methylated region in relation to urinary lead (p=0.005, q=0.48) and erythrocyte lead (p=0.007, q=0.46). In conclusion, we found that moderate prenatal lead exposure appear to epigenetically affect GP6, a key component of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation, suggesting a novel link between early lead exposure and cardiovascular disease later in life.

  Study EGAS00001001575