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

in 11.17 milliseconds.

• University of Miami Study on Genetics of Autism and Related Disorders (AutismDisorders)

  Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are neurodevelopmental in origin and characterized by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication accompanied by restricted and repetitive patterns of interest or behavior. With improved surveillance and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, the most recent prevalence studies suggest that ASD may affect as many as 1/166 children in the US. Treatments are limited resulting in little impact on the profound morbidity. Little is known about the etiology of ASD, but there is a strong genetic component. Genetic studies over the past decade have failed to identify definitive ASD genes, but have clearly shown that the underlying genetics are more complex than anticipated with the likelihood that multiple genes are acting independently and/or interactively. With this realization the field of ASD genetics is at a critical juncture. To move forward we must embrace new and creative paradigms to successfully dissect the genetic etiology of this disease. Specifically the current study will: Extend our ascertainment to the full range of ASD. We will increase our ASD dataset by collecting 600 families who meet clinical diagnostic criteria for the three most common ASDs: autism (AUT), Asperger disorder (ASP) and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-NOS (PDD-NOS). Phenotype assessment will be expanded to include the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and detailed seizure data. Ascertainment will focus on parent-child trios. Further characterize the ASD-associated variations in the Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) receptor (GABR) subunits. We will complete our GABR subunit variant analysis, including coding, UTR, regulatory, and conserved intronic sequence, concentrating on GABRA4 and GABRB1. We will also investigate the role of variation in other GABR subunits. All AUT specific findings will be examined in the entire ASD dataset. Identify the chromosome 19p ASD gene. Multiple genome-wide screens have provided significant evidence for linkage to Chromosome 19p and we have found evidence for significant association in the linked families within an ~3 Mb region. We will genotype 768 SNPs spaced at ~4 kb to refine the candidate region and delineate specific candidate genes for further testing. We will screen the strongest associated candidate genes for additional variants and evaluate evidence for association in the entire ASD dataset (SA5). Develop and apply the Phenotypic Homogeneity Distinction (PHD) algorithm for identification of the phenotypic signature of linkage and/or association signals. The PHD algorithm identifies phenotypic covariates that discriminate a target sample subset (e.g. the positively linked families or families carrying the associated risk allele) from its complement. The resulting PHD discriminators will define a homogeneous subset from our newly-ascertained ASD dataset to use, as a confirmatory dataset and for localization within genes under study in our other aims. Test for gene-gene interactions. To fully explain the spectrum of autism risk, we will test for interactions between genetic variations associated with ASD (such as those in GABR subunit genes). We will build upon our experience using the MDR method and extend our analyses across biological pathways using the entire ASD data set.

  Study phs000436

• Studying Glioblastoma in a Human Organoid Tumor Transplantation Model

  This study comprises two complementary investigations that leverage innovative human model systems and cutting-edge molecular profiling to dissect glioblastoma (GBM) heterogeneity and tumor-microenvironment interactions. The first study uses a novel Human Organoid Tumor Transplantation (HOTT) model, in which freshly dissociated GBM tumor cells from five patients were transplanted into human embryonic stem cell-derived cortical organoids. This system enables the interrogation of tumor and microenvironment interactions in a human-specific, developmentally relevant context. Using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and single-nucleus RNA-seq (snRNA-seq), the authors profiled over 216,000 cells, analyzing tumor heterogeneity across multiple media conditions. Ligand-receptor analysis (CellChat), immunofluorescence, and RNAScope were used to validate findings. The study revealed that the HOTT model faithfully recapitulates primary GBM cell types and microenvironmental components, and uncovered a novel bidirectional signaling axis mediated by PTPRZ1 that influences both tumor migration and cell fate in a context-dependent manner. PTPRZ1 is identified to be important for intercellular communication between tumor and microenvironmental cells, while PDGFRB, NOTCH3, HOPX, FAM107A, CLDN5, RGS5, FOXC1, SOX18 are key markers of the neurovascular progenitor that we identify to be a multipotent, restricted progenitor in GBM. Related datasets include the inclusion of immune cells in the HOTT system, termed “iHOTT”. The second study focuses on identifying and characterizing a rare but functionally potent neurovascular progenitor (NVP) population within GBM tumors. By generating a meta-atlas from seven publicly available GBM scRNA-seq datasets, the authors identified a unique tumor-derived cell population co-expressing neural progenitor and vascular markers. This population was validated in situ and in vivo through immunostaining and lineage tracing via DNA barcoding in the HOTT system. Functional knockdown of NVPs in a murine GBM model resulted in reduced cycling cells, altered tumor composition, and increased survival. Clonal analysis showed NVPs have dual potency to give rise to both neuronal and vascular-like tumor cells, contributing significantly to tumor cell diversity. Molecular technologies used across the studies include: Single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing DNA barcoding and clonal lineage tracing (CellTag) Population information: Tumor samples were obtained directly from multiple GBM patients (all IDH1 wild-type, adult), including core and peripheral tumor regions. Human cortical organoids derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) served as the microenvironment in the HOTT model. Principal findings include: HOTT recapitulates the heterogeneity and cell type fidelity of GBM, while enabling the study of tumor–microenvironment signaling. PTPRZ1 has opposing roles in tumor and microenvironment, influencing GBM cell migration and fate via non-catalytic mechanisms. A novel GBM neurovascular progenitor population (NVP) was identified, validated, and shown to contribute clonally to distinct tumor cell types. Elimination of NVPs in vivo reduces tumor aggressiveness and improves survival. Data to be available through dbGaP: Raw and processed single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-seq data (HOTT model and NVP studies) CellTag barcode-labeled scRNA-seq clonal lineage data Associated metadata including patient of origin, experimental condition, and sample annotations.

  Study phs003936

• 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.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• Evolutionary origin and methylation status of human intronic CpG islands that are not present in mouse

  Imprinting of the human RB1 gene is due to the presence of a differentially methylated CpG island (CGI) in intron 2, which is part of a retrogene derived from the PPP1R26 gene on chromosome 9. The murine Rb1 gene does not have this retrogene and is not imprinted. We have investigated whether the RB1/Rb1 locus is unique with respect to these differences. For this we have compared the CGIs from human and mouse by in silico analyses and found out that there are at least 2033 human intronic CGIs that are not present in the mouse. Among these CGIs, 104 show sequences similarities elsewhere in the human genome, which suggests that they arose by retrotransposition. We could narrow down the time points when most of these CGIs appeared during evolution. Their methylation status was analysed in two monocyte methylome datasets from whole genome bisulfite sequencing and in 18 published methylomes. Five CGIs appear to be differentially methylated, which suggests that they are subject of genomic imprinting. They are located in introns of the following genes: RB1, ASRGL1, PARP11, PDXDC1 and MYO1D. Four of these CGIs are parts of retrogenes. Our study supports the notion that imprinting builds on host defence mechanisms by which the genome protects itself against retrotransposed and foreign DNA and that the epigenetic fate of the retrotransposed DNA depends on selective forces at the integration site.

  Study EGAS00001000719

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API! This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Irish Covid19 WGS Alignment Data

  Dataset contains 483 Irish origin Individuals with Covid19. For WGS, Alignment has been done using BWA-mem (sention v 201808.03 ) and BAM file generated.

  Dataset EGAD00001010098

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

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

  Study phs001644

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (CCDG): Genetics of Orofacial Clefts and Related Phenotypes

  The purpose of this study is to investigate the genetics of orofacial clefts (OFCs) in a large study population, and importantly, to incorporate subclinical phenotypic features into these studies. Orofacial clefts (OFCs) comprise a significant fraction of human birth defects (about 1/700 live births (Rahimov et al. 2012) and represent a major public health challenge, as individuals with these anomalies require surgical, nutritional, dental, speech, medical and behavioral interventions, thus imposing a substantial economic and personal burden (Berk and Marazita 2002*). The most common forms include OFCs of the lip alone (CL, Figure 1A), CL plus cleft palate (CL+CP, Figure 1B) or of the palate only (CP, Figure 1C). Individuals born with OFC may have their first surgical repair at age 3 months, but this initial surgery is just the beginning of a lifetime of health burdens. An individual born with an OFC has a hospital use rate increased for most ages (up to 233% increase for children ages 0-10 years and 16% for middle aged adults (Wehby et al. 2012). Healthcare costs for children with OFCs are estimated to be 800% greater compared with their unaffected peers (Boulet et al. 2009). Data from Denmark show that people born with CL with or without CP (CL/P) have an increased mortality up to age 55, which may be attributed to an increased risk of suicide and/or certain cancers (Christensen et al. 2004). The focus of most OFC genetic research has been CL and/or CP. Furthermore, the majority of OFC, i.e. about 70% of CL/P and 50% of CP is considered "nonsyndromic" (Jones 1988), i.e. isolated anomalies with no other apparent cognitive or structural abnormalities. Figure 1 Sample OFC Types A: Bilateral Cleft Lip; B:Cleft Lip plus Cleft Palate; C:Cleft Palate Alone The factors leading to the majority of nonsyndromic OFCs are still unclear, particularly at an individual family level. As is true for many complex traits, substantial progress in gene identification has occurred in the OFC field in the last two years (Dixon et al. 2011; Marazita 2012). Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and sequencing studies to date by our research team and others have focused on genetic risk factors for overt CL/P and CPO-and have been very successful. A major finding from this work is that OFCs exhibit significant genetic heterogeneity, i.e., multiple genetic regions have been implicated (Beaty et al. 2010; Ludwig et al. 2012). Thus, approaches are needed to understand this genetic heterogeneity. Are there GxG interactions at work? Are there subsets of families, each due to a different gene? Our research group has shown that a promising approach to dissect the etiology of OFC is to focus on subclinical phenotypic features within entire cleft families (not just in affected cases, but also in their non-cleft relatives). These subtle features are believed to represent mild manifestations of the same underlying genetic susceptibility responsible for OFCs; as such, their inclusion in case-control and family-based genetic studies can help to clarify and refine the relationship between genotype and phenotype. The study population comprises a large number of families and individuals (~12,000 individuals) from multiple populations worldwide (Caucasians from the US and Europe, Asians from China and the Philippines, Mixed Native American/Caucasians from South America, and Africans from Nigeria and Ethiopia). There are cases, case families (nuclear families and extended kindreds), as well as controls with no history of OFC nor other developmental defects. *Berk NW, Marazita ML (2002) Costs of Cleft lip and Palate: Personal and Societal Implications. In: Wyszynski DF (ed) Cleft Lip and Palate: From Origin to Treatment. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp 458-467.

  Study phs000774

• Federated EGA

  Federated EGA Federated EGA Index Overview Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Documentation Overview Federated EGA is a global network of repositories enabling secure discovery and access to sensitive human data. Our vision is to accelerate scientific discovery and healthcare breakthroughs by creating the go-to worldwide sensitive human data resource. Our values are: Privacy & Trust: Ensuring privacy of data subjects, security of services and acting with integrity to build community trust.FAIRness: Driving reuse of data through standardisation of metadata and clear access policies.Diversity: Expanding our network and representing global diversity in the data we host to bring benefits worldwide. Federated EGA - European by name, global by nature Federated EGA collaborates with European and global initiatives (GA4GH, ELIXIR, 1+ Million Genomes Framework, GDI), demonstrating that a network for transnational discovery of and access to human data is possible. By providing a solution to emerging challenges around secure and efficient management of human omics and associated data, the FEGA Network fosters data reuse, enables reproducibility, and accelerates biomedical research. For general enquiries or to request more information about Federated EGA, please reach out to us here. Read more about the Federated EGA in our commentary in Nature Genetics! Learn more about setting up a Federated EGA Node in our onboarding documentation. Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Node Description Joined CEGA Central EGA is managed by the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and EMBL-EBI. The EGA has been a trusted repository for sensitive data since 2008. CEGA coordinates the FEGA network, hosts central services and the EGA catalogue. 2022 Finland FEGA Finland is hosted by CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd., which is the national ELIXIR Node in Finland. CSC is a state-owned company specialising in providing high-quality IT infrastructure and services for Finnish higher education and research. 2022 Germany The German Human Genome-Phenome archive (GHGA) is part of the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI). It is coordinated by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and includes over 20 academic partners. 2022 Norway FEGA Norway is a service by ELIXIR Norway, the Norwegian node of the European organisation ELIXIR. University of Oslo as a partner institution in ELIXIR Norway is hosting the service relying on the TSD infrastructure for sensitive data. ELIXIR Norway is a consortium of 5 Norwegian universities and is coordinated by University of Bergen. 2022 Spain FEGA Spain is co-hosted by the Barcelona Supercomputer Center (BSC) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), both part of ELIXIR Spain and the Spanish National Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine associated with Science and Technology (IMPaCT). 2022 Sweden FEGA Sweden is hosted by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS), which legally is part of Uppsala University. NBIS forms the bioinformatics platform at SciLifeLab and constitutes the Swedish node of the European organisation ELIXIR. 2022 Poland FEGA Poland is hosted by Biobank Lodz, which is part of University of Lodz. Biobank Lodz is an element of the infrastructure of the Regional Digital Medicine Centers established by the Medical Research Agency. 2022 Portugal FEGA Portugal is managed by BioData.pt, the distributed infrastructure for Life and Health data for Portugal. This entity is a non-profit association of 15 life sciences R&I organisations spread across the country, and the home of ELIXIR Node in Portugal. 2023 Canada Canadian Genome-phenome Archive is part of the Pan Canadian Genome Library, with the mandate to allow the secure and responsible sharing and analysis of Canadian genomic information. 2024 Switzerland Swiss FEGA is hosted by SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which is the national ELIXIR Node in Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss FEGA Partnership which includes 4 other key partners (ETH Zurich, Health 2030 Genome Center, Swiss Data Science Center and Switch). 2025 Documentation Title Version Description Mission, vision, values Federated EGA Mission, vision, values 1.0 The official Mission-Vision-Values statement for FEGA, produced and formally approved by the FEGA Strategic Committee in September 2025. Structure and Organisation Federated EGA Structure and Organisation 2.0 The structure of the FEGA network and service expectations, responsibilities and commitments. FEGA is organised into three tiers: Central EGA, FEGA Nodes and FEGA Affiliates. Strategic Committee Federated EGA Strategic Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Strategic Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to provide direction and strategic planning for the FEGA network. The committee receives input from, and provides feedback for the EGA Strategic Committee. Operations Committee Federated EGA Operations Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Operations Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to review operational performance and coordinate technical roadmaps of FEGA Nodes and Central EGA. The committee receives advice from, and provides operational reporting to the FEGA Strategic Committee. Guidelines Node Operations guidelines 2.1 An overview of the operational areas which require resources in order to create a FEGA Node. The document is based on more than 15 years' experience of EMBL-EBI and CRG operating the EGA and initial expericences of the inaugural FEGA Nodes. The operational areas of responsability are in line with the FEGA Maturity Model, which guides establishment and operation of FEGA Nodes. Collaboration Federated EGA Node Collaboration Agreement 1.3 Nodes are welcome to make a copy of this current version of the CA to start its review with their legal teams and understand the responsibilities of joining FEGA. Nevertheless, this version (the one with a watermark) shall not be signed: the official version needs to be obtained from FEGA prior signing through its official channels.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/federated-ega