543 results for "Daguerre+Crater+floor+materials+origin+nearby+crater+Chinese+name"

in 11.90 milliseconds.

• 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

• EGA metadata schema

  EGA Schemas In this page, you will find information on how the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) manages its metadata standards using both XML Schema Definition (XSD) and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) formats. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. This information may be of your interest if you are planning to learn more about how the EGA is built and how to wrap around it for other processes. Nevertheless, if you are a common user (e.g. submitter or requester), you would not have to worry about these schemas nor their format, since they are implemented in user-friendly ways for you. Metadata standards are rules that define how to format and structure data of metadata objects (i.e. entities), like EGA's samples or experiments in a consistent manner. These objects are the nodes of the metadata model of the EGA (Figure 1). Figure 1. Diagram of EGA's metadata model. The model's building blocks are objects (e.g. sample), which can reference each other (e.g. an experiment referencing the used samples). Once your files are uploaded, they can also be referenced by Runs and Analyses. The submission object is an object itself that compiles many others. At EGA, we inherit our metadata schemas from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), and we have expanded them to include bespoke objects such as "Policy", "Dataset", and "DAC" (Data Access Committee) for our specific use-case: handling sensitive human data. See below a list of all our metadata objects and some context for each. Metadata Object EGA accession Description Examples of metadata fields Study EGAS… Information about the study Study type, study title, study abstract… Sample EGAN… Information about the used samples in the experiment or analysis Taxon ID, scientific name, biological sex, phenotype… Experiment EGAX… Information about the performed experiment Used libraries, sequencing platform, reference to the used samples… Analysis EGAZ… Contains information about the analysis Type of analysis, used assembly, reference sequence… Run EGAR… The run holds information about the files containing the raw reads generated in a run of sequencing Platform, spot descriptor, raw file references… DAC EGAC… Contains information about the Data Access Committee (DAC) DAC contacts, contact emails… Policy EGAP… Contains the Data Access Agreement (DAA) and policy which its usage complies with Policy text, data use ontologies (DUO) codes… Dataset EGAD… Contains the collection of runs/analysis to be subject to controlled access Dataset type, compilation of Run's and Analysis' IDs There are two different sets of schemas, based on their formats, in which the EGA accepts metadata: XSDs (for XML files) and JSON Schemas (for JSON files). EGA's XML Schema Definition . When programmatic submissions are pushed through the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) system, XML format is used. The schemas that are applied for this format are defined in XML Schema Definition (XSD) files, which can be found at ENA's GitHub repository. You can find more information on how to validate and submit your data programmatically in our programmatic submission documentation. Furthermore, see at our GitHub repository some XML examples with either made-up values (similar to what you would submit) or descriptive values for each field (just for documentation). EGA's JSON Metadata Schemas . When programmatic submissions are pushed through the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) system, JSON format specifications are used instead. See the full JSON specifications for further details. In conclusion, the EGA metadata schemas are crucial for maintaining the quality and consistency of submitted data. By understanding and following the rules outlined in these schemas, you can ensure that your submissions comply with the EGA's standards and contribute to a valuable and accessible genomic resource. Sample checklists Besides the standards in our schemas, we have another layer called Sample checklists. These are another system that the EGA inherits from ENA, and specifies what attributes are required or allowed for a sample object. The EGA uses these checklists to enforce that, for example, a sample object has the three mandatory attributes: subject ID, sex and phenotype of the individual the sample was taken from. When you submit to EGA, our checklist is automatically selected by default.

  Documentation submission/metadata/ega-schema

• New England-Based Case-Control Study of Ovarian Cancer

  The case-control data provided to dbGaP were collected under NCI grant number CA54419 which had 3 enrollment phases: I (1992-1997), II (1998-2002) and III (2003-2008). Altogether, CA54419 funded 15 years of data and specimen collection, resulting in one of the longest running population based case-control studies of ovarian cancer. The study goal was to examine reproductive factors, lifestyle exposures, and genetic background in relation to ovarian cancer risk. The project recruited cases from Eastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and became known as the New England-based Case-Control study (NECC) of ovarian cancer. 3957 ovarian cancer cases diagnosed at ages 18-80 and residing in Eastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire were identified through tumor boards and registries. Of these, 3083 (78%) were eligible and among those eligible, 2203 (71%) were enrolled. After excluding 127 non-epithelial and 35 mixed mesodermal tumors, 2041 cases with epithelial tumors of ovarian, primary peritoneal, and fallopian tube origin, including borderline malignancies were included. On average, cases were interviewed 10 months after their diagnosis. A pathologist reviewed pathology reports and recorded histologic subtype, grade, and stage. Mixed ovarian cancers described as predominantly one type were classified as that type. Undifferentiated, transitional cell tumors, or mixed serous/transitional cell tumors were counted as serous. Other mixed epithelial, malignant Brenner, and unspecified epithelial tumors were classified as other. 2100 controls were identified through random digit dialing (RDD), driver-license lists, and town-resident lists. During the first funding phase from 1992 to 1997, 420 (72%) controls identified through RDD and 102 (51%) through town-resident lists agreed to participate. From 1998 to 2008, only town-resident lists were used to identify potential controls. 4366 controls were identified, of whom 1426 (33%) were ineligible if they had died, moved, or were seriously ill or if they did not have a working telephone, speak English, or have at least one ovary. Of eligible controls, 1362 (46%) declined to participate by phone or via &#39;opt-out&#39; postcard and 1578 (54%) were enrolled. Controls were frequency matched to cases by 5-year age groups and region of residence. In all phases, after written informed consent, demographic information, reproductive and medical history, and habits were assessed by in-person or telephone interview (in a few instances). All of the questions were framed with respect to a reference date defined as 1 year before the diagnosis date for women in the case group and the date of interview for those in the control group. This study was approved by institutional review boards at Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center and Dartmouth Medical Center.

  Study phs001034

• Using Genomics to Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities in the African Diaspora

  Differences in breast cancer incidence and mortality rates between North American Caucasian and African American women are well-described and transcend socioeconomic issues. Black women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger median age; have more clinically aggressive disease and stage-for-stage; and have higher mortality rates than age-matched Caucasian women. Black women in West Africa, the origin of the slave trade in the US in the 19th century and thus the founder population for most African Americans, have even higher rates of early-onset, poor-prognosis breast cancer than African American women. Racial difference in the distribution of intrinsic molecular subtypes has been well characterized in the US and throughout the African Diaspora as well. Despite the large efforts on characterizing racial/ethnic differences, however, the reasons women of African ancestry are disproportionately affected by breast cancer incidence and mortality remain poorly understood - largely due to paucity of data on inherent genomic differences that contribute to the disparities in incidence and progression of breast cancer across populations. West Africa Breast Cancer Study (WABCS) is an initiative that aims to comprehensively understand the genetic architecture of breast cancer in West Africans, the founder population of a large proportion of black women in the United States. The objective of the study was to provide a better understanding of the molecular genetic factors that influence prognosis in Nigerian breast cancer patients, and determine which of these alterations may be amenable to available therapy. To that end, we examined the molecular features of breast cancers of indigenous African women using a combination of whole-genome, whole-exome, and transcriptome sequencing (WGS, WES, and RNA-seq) on 194 tumors from Nigerian patients. The goal of this project was to obtain answers to two related research questions using an unscreened population without genetic admixture in Nigeria: 1) why are women of African ancestry more likely to develop aggressive young onset breast cancer? 2) What are the associated genomic and non-genomic risk factors? We hypothesize that the genomic determinants of breast cancer molecular subtypes in women of African ancestry are also molecular drivers of tumor progression and represent targets for interventions to improve clinical outcomes and close the mortality gap. By identifying causal links between genetic variants that promote aggressive tumor progression in Nigerian women in comparison to women from different population found in TCGA and ICGC, the present dataset will have significant public health impact on millions of women in the African Diaspora. The potential to identify novel pathways for interventions to reduce the increasing mortality gap between women of African and European ancestry is huge

  Study phs001687

• FIGHT-207: Anonymized Genomic Alterations and Clinical Responses

  Background: FIGHT-207 was a phase 2 study of the FGFR1-FGFR3 inhibitor pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic or unresectable solid tumor malignancies harboring activating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene alterations. Population information: 107 patients were divided into 3 cohorts: FGFR1&#8211;FGFR3 fusions/rearrangements; n=49 Activating FGFR1&#8211;FGFR3 non-kinase domain single nucleotide variants (SNVs); n=32 FGFR1&#8211;FGFR3 kinase domain mutations or variants of unknown significance (VUS) with potential pathogenicity; n=26 Participants on study had tumors that were grouped into the following histologies based on &#8805; 5 patients: Cholangiocarcinoma, gynecologic cancers (cervical, endometrial, uterine), central nervous system (glioblastoma, low-grade pediatric glioma, astrocytoma), pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, urothelial tract/bladder cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other (adrenal cancer, anal cancer, cancer of unknown primary origin, colorectal cancer, gastric/gastroesophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, giant cell bone tumor, head and neck cancer, lung neuroendocrine cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell cancer, sarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor). Among the efficacy-evaluable participants, 99 had both independent review committee (IRC) central best overall response (BOR) and tissue NGS- data; 2 additional patients had Not Evaluable (NE) as central BOR Baseline tissue targeted NGS data (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) of genomic alterations are reported for N=101 participants Baseline plasma targeted NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of genomic data are reported for N=83 participants; data at disease-progression are reported for N=78 participants. Principal Findings: The FIGHT-207 study provided evidence of clinical benefit of pemigatinib in multiple histologies, explored the clinical actionability of various FGFR1-FGFR3 gene alterations, and leveraged the depth of translational data from targeted NGS analysis of baseline samples and plasma samples obtained at baseline and end of treatment to provide key insights into the biology of FGFR inhibition and the clinical utility of FGFR inhibitors. The FIGHT-207 article (pending in Nat.Med. NMED-A128973B) reports evidence suggesting clinical acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition via secondary FGFR mutations as well as emerging co-mutations in other oncogenic and tumor suppressor pathways. This study also provides evidence of acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in multiple histologies beyond cholangiocarcinoma and urothelial cancers in a systemic correlative analysis of post-progression ctDNA in a trial. Data available through dbGaP: Anonymized information for 101 participants with both IRC central BOR evaluation (including 2 patients with NE as BOR) and tissue NGS data, including tumor histology, enrollable FGFR alteration, and outcome. Genomic alterations determined by baseline tissue NGS (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) Genomic alterations determined by plasma NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of ctDNA analysis at baseline (n=83) and at end of treatment/ disease progression (n=78) including genomic alterations that were not assessed to be Germline SNPs.

  Study phs003590

• Single cell sequencing reveals the origin and the order of mutation acquisition in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

  Next-generation sequencing has provided a detailed overview of the various genomic lesions implicated in the pathogenesis of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL). Typically, 10 to 20 genomic lesions are found in T-ALL cells at diagnosis. However, it is currently unclear in which order these mutations are acquired and in which progenitor cells this is initiated. To address these questions, we used targeted single-cell sequencing of total bone marrow cells and CD34+CD38- multipotent progenitor cells for 4 T-ALL cases. Hierarchical clustering detected a dominant leukemia clone at diagnosis, accompanied by a few subclones harboring only a fraction of the mutations. We developed a graph-based algorithm to determine the order of mutation acquisition. Two of the four patients had an early event in a known oncogene (MED12, STAT5B) amongst various pre-leukemic events. Intermediate events included loss of 9p21 (CDKN2A/B) and acquisition of fusion genes, while NOTCH1 mutations were typically late events. Analysis of CD34+CD38- cells and myeloid progenitors revealed that in half of the cases somatic mutations were detectable in multipotent progenitor cells. We demonstrate that targeted single cell sequencing can elucidate the order of mutation acquisition in T-ALL and that T-ALL development can start in a multipotent progenitor cell.

  Study EGAS00001002830

• Characterization_of_individual_foci_of_multicentric_multifocal_breast_cancer_using_targeted_next_generation_sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the “quadrants” of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients’ survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Study EGAS00001000407

• A Genome-Wide Association Study of Heroin Dependence

  This collaboration of Australian and American investigators aims to identify genes associated with liability for heroin dependence. The project uses a case-control design in which cases met lifetime DSM-IV criteria for heroin dependence. Controls included assessed individuals who did not meet DSM-IV heroin dependence criteria and unassessed general population controls. Cases and controls were obtained from the several large investigations including: The Comorbidity and Trauma Study, Heroin Dependence in Western Australia, the OZ-ALC Study, a Twin Study of Mole Development in Adolescence, and ongoing genetic studies of substance dependence conducted by investigators at Yale and collaborating institutions. These projects are briefly described below. The Comorbidity and Trauma Study (PI: Elliot Nelson), a retrospective case-control study examining genetic and environmental factors contributing to heroin dependence liability. The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and was run in collaboration with Washington University, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR), and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales. Case participants were recruited from maintenance clinics in the greater Sydney area. Control participants were recruited from employment centres and community centres, open street malls, and local press servicing the same geographical area as the opioid maintenance treatment clinics and either denied recreational use of opioids or had used these drugs recreationally fewer than 11 times lifetime. The prevalence in these individuals of non-opioid licit drug dependence and illicit drug dependence as well as childhood trauma exposure and other psychiatric disorders is elevated considerably versus estimates of similar measures in Australian general population samples. Participants provided blood samples as a source of DNA and completed a comprehensive psychiatric diagnostic interview based on the Semi-Structured Assessment of the Genetics of Alcoholism - Australia (SSAGA-OZ) augmented with sections drawn from other instruments assessing childhood trauma exposure, family history, and screening for borderline personality disorder. Heroin Dependence in Western Australia (PI: Sybille Schwab) is a study focusing both on genetic contributions to heroin dependence and response to naltrexone treatment of the disorder. Participants completed a clinical assessment and provided blood samples during their treatment at the Perth Naltrexone Clinic now name as the Fresh Start Recovery Programme. Funding for the project was provided by the Australia Government&#39;s National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant # 513862; PI: Sybille Schwab) Affected subjects from ongoing genetic studies of substance dependence conducted by investigators at Yale (PI: Joel Gelernter) and collaborating institutions were collected in the course of several NIDA-funded studies. Those included in the current set were assessed by means of the SSADDA (Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism). All are opioid dependent European-Americans, and all list heroin as the opioid must used. Most were collected at Yale University School of Medicine or University of CT School of Medicine under the supervision of Drs Joel Gelernter and Henry Kranzler. Control subjects were also collected in the course of several NIDA- and NIAAA-funded studies. Those included in the current set were assessed by means of the SSADDA (Semi-structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism). Most were collected at Yale University School of Medicine or University of Connecticut School of Medicine under the supervision of Drs Joel Gelernter and Henry Kranzler. The OZ-ALC Study (PI: Andrew Heath) consists of a large group of twins and their family members ascertained from the general population Australian Twin Registry who have participated in ongoing research projects. For the control investigation, we have selected individuals who do meet criteria for illicit drug dependence who have had GWAS genotyping with the Illumina Human CNV370-Quad. Inclusion of individuals with alcohol dependence or nicotine dependence was minimized. For a more detailed description of the study, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/study.cgi?study_id=phs000181.v1.p1 The Twin Study of Mole Development in Adolescence (PI: Nick Martin) is an ongoing investigation of melanocytic naevi funded by the Australian Government&#39;s National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant # 389891; PI: Nick Martin). For the current project, unassessed parents of these twins will serve as a control group. These individuals will either have been previously genotyped with the Illumina Human 610-Quad BeadChip or will be genotyped as part of the current project. Parents have largely survived the period of risk for heroin dependence and, by virtue of their participation in this research, are very likely to have a prevalence of heroin dependence lower than that in the general population (i.e., &#60;0.7&#37;). In order to understand the immune modulatory effect of opioids across peripheral blood immune populations, a second study (PI: Christine S. Cheng) analyzed single cell RNA-seq profiles from the PBMCs of a subset of case participants and control participants from the Comorbidity and Trauma Study (PI: Elliot Nelson). The study assessed and identified transcriptional changes between opioid dependent and control samples across naive and LPS stimulated immune populations.

  Study phs000277

• Distribution of data using Live Distribution

  Live Distribution Welcome to the documentation for using the Live Distribution feature for distributing data files securely through the EGA platform. This guide will walk you through the process of downloading encrypted files and decrypting them using Crypt4GH. Please follow the steps below to ensure a smooth experience. Before Downloading Create an EGA user. Make sure that you have the permissions to download the dataset of interest. In case you don’t have access, request access to the dataset. Add your Crypt4GH-compatible public key to your EGA account. Please allow a few hours for your public key to be synced with your profile. Afterwards, you will be able to connect to your EGA outbox using the SFTP protocol. Download Graphical User Interface (GUI) You can use any GUI that supports SFTP connections, such as FileZilla, an open-source FTP client. For Filezilla as your GUI, follow these steps to download files: Open FileZilla and access Site Manager (File > Site Manager). Create a new connection with the following settings (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer Protocol Host: __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ Logon Type: Key file User: your EGA username Key file: path/to/your/private_key Figure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the EGA outbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. Click Connect to access your Outbox. This folder serves as your storage space within the EGA cloud, containing files accessible for download in a secure way. Browse the remote directory on the right side of the FileZilla screen. Select the files you wish to download, right-click, and choose Download (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually downñoad files from __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can downñoad data from the EGA outbox to their local storage by following the depicted steps SFTP command line You can also use the SFTP command line to securely download files from the EGA Outbox. Using SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal window Enter the following command to connect: sftp username@hostname Enter your EGA password To see a list of available sftp commands type help sftp> put – Upload file sftp> get – Download file sftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’ sftp> pwd – Display remote working directory sftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’ sftp> lpwd – Display local working directory sftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directory sftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directory Type get command to download files. For example: get encrypted_file.c4gh Use the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). Convenient SSH settings Include the following settings in your SSH config file, located in ~/.ssh/config Host __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ EGA-outbox hostname __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ User username IdentityFile path/to/the/private/key Replace username and path/to/the/private/key with the appropriate settings, and you will be able to connect to the __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ simply using sftp EGA-outbox. How to decrypt Files archived at the EGA are encrypted based on Crypt4GH. Hence, to decrypt the files you need to install Crypt4GH. You can install a python implementation of it, with pip install crypt4gh or directly from the Github repository pip install git+https://github.com/EGA-archive/crypt4gh.git After installing Crypt4GH, decrypt files using the following command: crypt4gh decrypt --sk /path/private/key < encrypted_file.c4gh > decrypted_filename The command reads the encrypted file from stdin (with <) and output the decrypted version to stdout (with >). Replace encrypted_file.c4gh and decrypted_filename with the appropriate filenames but make sure to not use the same filename for both reading and writing because your SHELL would then truncate both files before you even read or write. Frequently Asked Questions What username should I use to log in to my outbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username, not your email address. Therefore, if you registered a username different from your email address when creating your EGA account, you must use that username to log in. If you have forgotten your registered username, please, contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. I see that some files in my dataset have 'unavailable' as extension. What should I do? Within your Outbox, you'll find a list of all the datasets available for download. Occasionally, certain files may be marked as "unavailable". These unavailable files can be identified by the "unavailable" extension added to their filenames (e.g. filename.fastq.gz.unavailable.c4gh). If you encounter an unavailable file that you need, please reach out to our Helpdesk. We'll promptly work on making the file accessible for download as soon as possible. Specific to using keys Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation access/download/files/live-outbox

• NHLBI TOPMed: MESA and MESA Family AA-CAC

  The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a study of the characteristics of subclinical cardiovascular disease (disease detected non-invasively before it has produced clinical signs and symptoms) and the risk factors that predict progression to clinically overt cardiovascular disease or progression of the subclinical disease. MESA researchers study a diverse, population-based sample of 6,814 asymptomatic men and women aged 45-84. Thirty-eight percent of the recruited participants are white, 28 percent African-American, 22 percent Hispanic, and 12 percent Asian, predominantly of Chinese descent. Comprehensive phenotypic and pedigree data for MESA study participants are available through dbGaP entry phs000209. MESA Participants were recruited from six field centers across the United States: Wake Forest University, Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and University of California - Los Angeles. Each participant received an extensive physical exam and determination of coronary calcification, ventricular mass and function, flow-mediated endothelial vasodilation, carotid intimal-medial wall thickness and presence of echogenic lucencies in the carotid artery, lower extremity vascular insufficiency, arterial wave forms, electrocardiographic (ECG) measures, standard coronary risk factors, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle factors, and psychosocial factors. Selected repetition of subclinical disease measures and risk factors at follow-up visits allows study of the progression of disease. Blood samples have been assayed for putative biochemical risk factors and stored for case-control studies. DNA has been extracted and lymphocytes cryopreserved (for possible immortalization) for study of candidate genes and possibly, genome-wide scanning, expression, and other genetic techniques. Participants are being followed for identification and characterization of cardiovascular disease events, including acute myocardial infarction and other forms of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and congestive heart failure; for cardiovascular disease interventions; and for mortality. In addition to the six Field Centers, MESA involves a Coordinating Center, a Central Laboratory, and Central Reading Centers for Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound, and Electrocardiography (ECG). Protocol development, staff training, and pilot testing were performed in the first 18 months of the study. The first examination took place over two years, from July 2000 - July 2002. It was followed by five examination periods that were 17-20 months in length. Participants have been contacted every 9 to 12 months throughout the study to assess clinical morbidity and mortality. MESA Family The general goal of the MESA Family Study, an ancillary study to MESA funded by a grant from NHLBI, is to apply modern genetic analysis and genotyping methodologies to delineate the genetic determinants of early atherosclerosis. This is being accomplished by utilizing all the current organizational structures of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and Genetic Centers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and University of Virginia. In the MESA Family Study, the goal is to locate and identify genes contributing to the genetic risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), by looking at the early changes of atherosclerosis within families (mainly siblings). 2128 individuals from 594 families, yielding 3,026 sibpairs divided between African Americans and Hispanic-Americans, were recruited by utilizing the existing framework of MESA. MESA Family studied siblings of index subjects from the MESA study and from new sibpair families (with the same demographic characteristics) and is determining the extent of genetic contribution to the variation in coronary calcium (obtained via CT Scan) and carotid artery wall thickness (B-mode ultrasound) in the two largest non-majority U.S. populations. In a small proportion of subjects, parents of MESA index subjects participating in MESA Family were studied but only to have blood drawn for genotyping. The MESA Family cohort was recruited from the six MESA Field Centers. MESA Family participants underwent the same examination as MESA participants during May 2004 - May 2007. DNA was extracted and lymphocytes immortalized for study of candidate genes, genome-wide linkage scanning, and analyzed for linkage with these subclinical cardiovascular traits. While linkage analysis is the primary approach being used, an additional aspect of the MESA Family Study takes advantage of the existing MESA study population for testing a variety of candidate genes for association with the same subclinical traits. Genotyping and data analysis will occur throughout the study.

  Study phs001416