14343 results for "PLOS+ONE+Pennsylvania+German+ACS+language+code+pdc+open+access+study"

in 50.00 milliseconds.

• A Phase I Study with a Personalized Neoantigen Cancer Vaccine in Melanoma

  Effective anti-tumor immunity in humans has been associated with presence of T cells targeting neoantigens that arise from non-silent tumor-specific mutations. Here we conducted whole-exome sequencing of tumor and normal cells from individual patients to identify mutations. We assessed the expression of mutated alleles by RNA-sequencing of tumor. We demonstrated the feasibility, safety and immunogenicity of a vaccine that targets up to 20 personal neoantigens predicted to be presented by the autologous patient tumor.Antigen-specific CD8+ T cells that can recognize and eliminate cancer cells play a crucial role in anti-tumor immune responses. Here we conducted single-cell sequencing of cells infiltrating melanoma specimens originating from 4 patients and determine the TCR clonality of the CD8+ tumor infiltrating cells. We investigated the relationship between T cell clonality and phenotypic cell states coupling single-cell transcriptome to single-cell TCR seq. The surface expression of a panel of protein was detected in parallel using CITE-Seq antibodies. Sorted tumor and peripheral blood specimens were processed in parallel.In order to discover cancer antigens derived from annotated and unannotated protein-coding regions of the genome, we carried out matched ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq), RNA-sequencing, and whole genome sequencing on one of the patients, as well as Ribo-seq on an additional patient. We used it to discover novel or unannotated open reading frames (nuORFs), their expression levels, as well as somatic mutations within them to predict potential neoantigens.

  Study phs001451

• RNA sequencing data of 142 samples from 142 patients with HER2+ breast cancer treated with letrozole or tamoxifen (SOLTI PAMELA trial)

  PAMELA (NCT01973660) is a non-randomized, open-label, multicentric, prospective translational research study in stage I-IIIA HER2+ breast cancer designed to evaluate the ability of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes to predict pCR in the breast (pCRB) following 18 weeks of neoadjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab (+/- hormonal therapy if hormone receptor [HR] positive). Patients with HR+ disease received letrozole (if postmenopausal) or tamoxifen (if pre-menopausal). The primary objective was to compare the pCRB rates of the HER2-E versus the non-HER2-E subtypes in the intent-to-treat population.

  Study EGAS00001006410

• Germline variants in patients with rare cancers and their implications for precision cancer medicine: experiences from the Multicenter MASTER Trial by the German Cancer Consortium (HIPO_021)

  The era of precision oncology entails an increasing amount of molecular data from tumor sequencing in research and diagnostics. In this setting, germline variant analysis may add clinical benefits for patients and family members. In this study, we evaluated germline variants from genome/exome matched tumor-blood sequencing in 1.485 advanced cancer patients within a prospective observational study carried out by the German Cancer Consortium. Included patients had cancers of rare entities (79.2%) or were under the age of 51 at first diagnosis (76.6%). Ten percent of the patients harbored pathogenic germline variants in 35 tumor predisposition genes with autosomal-dominant inheritance such as BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, RB1, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, SDHB etc., while 4.6% of the patients were carriers of pathogenic germline variants in 18 genes with autosomal-recessive inheritance of tumor predisposition. Based on pathogenic germline variants, 14% of the patients received genetic counselling recommendations in the molecular tumor board report. Forty five percent of pathogenic germline variants supported a molecular treatment recommendation, which was implemented for 28 patients. Furthermore, we compared our approach and results to previous studies, broadening the insight into pan cancer germline findings but also revealing differences between studies on various levels, such as cohort demographics, tumor entities, gene nominations, variant detection and variant interpretation. Our data support the importance of germline variant interpretation in precision oncology studies for patients and their families, if applicable. However, guidelines for evaluation and reporting of germline variants in the context of genetic tumor profiling need to be established and further research on the relevance of germline mutations as biomarkers for treatment recommendations is needed.

  Study EGAS00001005537

• Development and Validation of a Prognostic and Predictive 32-Gene Signature for Gastric Cancer

  We applied this signature to a 567-patient GC cohort to establish genomic-based molecular subtypes and then used a support vector machine to build a molecular subtype-based risk-scoring model. Both source code and supplementary datasets for risk score prediction are available at https://github.com/hwanglab/Yonsei_gastric_cancer_32genes.

  Dataset EGAD00001008091

• PEVOsq

  The PEVOData PEVOsq basket trial is an open-label, multi-center, phase II trial investigating the combination of pembrolizumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor) with vorinostat (a histone deacetylase inhibitor). This trial focuses on treating patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous carcinomas, including cancers of the cervix, head and neck, anus, vulva/vagina, penis, and lung. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination, with pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks and vorinostat daily. Outcomes include overall response rate and progression-free survival.

  Study EGAS50000000731

• Investigating low frequency variants in CAD/MI cases, controls and pedigrees using whole exome sequencing and custom pulldowns

  The Cardiogenics re-sequencing study will consist of three parts: Eight pools of 25 individuals will be sequenced using a Nimblegen hybrid-capture solution specific to miRNA sequences, 80 pools of 25 individuals will be sequenced using a custom Agilent SureSelect array covering genes associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI), 10 individuals from families with a history of CAD/MI will be exome sequenced using the Sanger exome array. The experiment will use the early onset patients from the German MI cohort and the UK BHF CAD/MI cohort both of which have strong family history. For controls we will consider individuals from the UKBS and KORA cohorts.

  Dataset EGAD00001000400

• Single cell epigenomic study of H3-K27M mutant diffuse midline glioma across age and location

  This dataset contains the open chromatin profiles of 8 patient H3-K27M mutant DMGs utilizing the single-cell/nucleus assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing (snATAC-seq)

  Dataset EGAD00001010170

• Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN): A Phase II, RCT of Mesenchymal Stem Cells & Cardiac Stem Cells in Subjects With Ischemic HF (CONCERT HF-BioLINCC)

  Data Access Note: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), alone or in combination, in participants with ischemic heart failure.Background The prognosis of heart failure (HF) caused by chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction), hereby referred to as “ischemic HF”, remains poor. Many studies have explored the use of various types of stem or progenitor cells in participants with chronic ischemic HF, with encouraging results. Several clinical trials have suggested that MSCs and CPCs are both safe and beneficial in participants with ischemic HF. At the time of this study, no information was available on the efficacy of MSCs and CPCs in humans, however, both cell types have been shown to attenuate left ventricle (LV) dysfunction in animal models. Preclinical models indicate that combining MSCs and CPCs increases the therapeutic effects, but this had not yet been tested in humans. The CONCERT-HF study was initiated to assess whether autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, can be manufactured and delivered to participants with ischemic HF; are well-tolerated; and improve LV function, quality of life, and functional capacity, and/or reduce scar size. Participants A total of 125 participants were randomized with 33 participants randomized to the MSCs and CPCs group, 29 participants to the MSCs alone group, 31 participants to the CPCs alone group, and 32 participants to the placebo group. Design The CONCERT-HF study was a multi-center Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSCs alone, CPCs alone, and their combination compared with placebo as well as each other in patients with ischemic HF. In Stage 1 (open label, lead-in study) participants were randomized 1:1 to either a standard-of-care control group (i.e., they did not undergo harvest, mapping, or injection procedures) or combination therapy (MSCs + CPCs, as described for Stage 2) to complete safety assessments. Once approval was granted for Stage 2, participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatments: placebo, autologous MSCs (target dose, 150 × 106 cells), autologous CPCs (target dose, 5 × 106 cells), or a combination of autologous MSCs and CPCs. At the harvest visit, right ventricular endocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed in participants randomized to receive CPCs alone or a combination of MSCs and CPCs. Participants randomized to receive MSCs alone or placebo had a sham procedure (right heart catheterization without EMB). All participants underwent a bone marrow aspiration and approximately 14 weeks later had transendocardial, electromechanically-guided injections of study product. Visits occurred at 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after study product injection. A telephone contact took place at 24 months to assess the participant's current medications, as well as morbidity and mortality. Study endpoints included measures of safety, feasibility, and efficacy. Safety outcomes included all adverse events grade 2 and higher, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to HF (death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and HF exacerbation not requiring hospitalization). Efficacy endpoints included quality of life, MRI measures of LV function and structure, functional capacity, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Conclusions In patients with ischemic HF, autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, are safe and feasible; CPCs were associated with a reduction in the incidence of MACE related to HF compared to placebo; MSCs, either alone or in combination with CPCs, were associated with improved quality of life; these seemingly beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs on clinical outcome were not associated with changes in LV function or structure; and combination therapy with MSCs and CPCs was associated with the best clinical outcomes with respect to both MACE related to HF and quality of life.

  Study phs004055

• National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: The current release of the NETT study dataset includes follow-up data through May of 2013.Objectives: To compare lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema, and to identify participant selection criteria for lung volume reduction surgery.Background: Lung-volume-reduction surgery has been proposed as a palliative treatment for severe emphysema. Effects on mortality, the magnitude and durability of benefits, and criteria for the selection of participants have not been established.Participants: A total of 1,218 participants with severe emphysema underwent pulmonary rehabilitation and were randomly assigned at 17 centers to undergo lung-volume-reduction surgery (bilateral stapled wedge resection) or to receive continued medical treatment. Participants were randomized after a 6-10 week pulmonary rehabilitation period and participants with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) that was 20 percent or less of predicted and a homogeneous distribution of emphysema or carbon monoxide diffusing capacity 20 percent or less of predicted were not eligible for randomization due to poor post-surgery prognosis for death or functional improvement.Conclusions: Overall, lung-volume-reduction surgery increases the chance of improved exercise capacity but does not confer a survival advantage over medical therapy. It does yield a survival advantage for participants with both predominantly upper-lobe emphysema and low base-line exercise capacity. Participants previously reported to be at high risk and those with non-upper-lobe emphysema and high base-line exercise capacity are poor candidates for lung-volume-reduction surgery, because of increased mortality and negligible functional gain. (NEJM 2003;348:2059-2073).

  Study phs004077

• Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis in a Family of Discordant Twins With Non-Syndromic Microtia and Hemifacial Microsomia: Identification of Novel Candidate Genes and Variants

  This research is a non-NIH effort to discover the pathogenesis of non-syndromic microtia and to detect potential candidate genes. Microtia (OMIM 600674, 612290, 251800) is a spectrum of congenital anomalies and facial abnormalities, 90% of the cases followed by hearing loss. Two types of the disease are described in terms of connection to the affected syndromes: anomalies (syndromic) and only clinical manifestation (non-syndromic) associated with other symptoms. Though the exact pathogenesis of microtia remains unknown, pathogenic genes of majority of the microtia syndromic types have been identified. However, the genetic mutation of the non-syndromic microtia has not been confirmed. In this study, whole genome sequencing (WGS) was utilized to screen mutations in monozygotic discordant twins of congenital microtia-atresia and their family members. One of the twins, along with her grandfather, was discordant for microtia-atresia. By bioinformatic analysis of the WGS data from monozygotic twins with microtia and their non-microtia relatives, we proposed that among 28 identified potential genes, 4 of them (CNOT1, ODAD4, TBX15, and GIPC3) could be more responsible for non-syndromic microtia development and phenotypic features. Interested investigators may request to access the DNA genomic sequencing data of the study participants via dbGaP authorized access. In addition to raw genomic sequencing data, datasets of germline mutations and candidate gene mutations may also be available for investigators to request.

  Study phs003216

• National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA): Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) Genome-Wide Genotyping

  The Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) is a multisite observational cohort study that recruited a large cohort of geographically diverse participants. Enrollment of participants began in late 2004 at five (one domestic and four international) sites, in which all groups used the same protocol-directed methods to provide uniform evaluations; collect oral, ocular, and rheumatologic data; and collect specimens. The sites were located at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China; Rigshopitalet (formerly at Glostrup Hospital), Copenhagen, Denmark; Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan; King's College, London, UK (joined in 2007); and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). In 2009, Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA were added as additional SICCA sites. UCSF is the coordinating center for SICCA. All specimens and data collected for SICCA are housed at UCSF. To facilitate the research focused on understanding the genetics of Sjögren'sSjögren's syndrome, high-density SNP genotype data and SICCA clinical information are being made available to the research community. This includes participants recruited from all SICCA research groups (RG). These participants (3,382), blood relatives (439), and unrelated healthy controls (25) had their whole blood or saliva sample (Oragene) extracted for DNA for the GWAS at the UCSF DNA Bank. Eighty eight percent of the participants are women, most are of European or Asian ancestry and the median age is 55. To assess potential batch effects when doing case-control comparisons using planned external controls, 30 DNA samples from each of three studies were genotyped with SICCA DNA samples: The Genetic Architecture of Smoking and Smoking Cessation - Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND) - PI: Laura Bierut. NEI-Age-related disease study (AREDS) - Genetic Variation in Refractive Error Substudy - PI: Dwight Stambolian. Controls from the National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH's) Human Genetics Initiative. Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia - PI: Pablo V. Gejman. Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia - nonGAIN Sample (MGS_nonGAIN) - PI: Pablo V. Gejman. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data quality control, dbGaP preparation and posting, and imputation to 1000 Genomes to increase SNP density was performed by the Center for Biomedical Statistics at the University of Washington. Data analysis was performed at UCSF using software PLINK, EIGENSOFT, and SNPTEST.

  Study phs000672

• How to use EGA Webin?

  EGA Webin EGA Webin serves as a platform for registering metadata for array based submissions, large scale sequence submission as well as for legacy EGA submission accounts (ega-box-XXXX). For large scale submitters of sequence data you have also the option to submit metadata via XMLS programmatic submission, while new submitters are advised to utilise the Submitter Portal for their submissions. You can request a legacy EGA submission account (ega-box-XXXX) by populating this form. Please, allow two business days for our Helpdesk team to contact you after populating this form. WEBIN actions: Register metadata for a sequence submission Register study, samples, experiments, runs, DAC, policy and dataset/s after file upload. Register components for your array-based metadata submission Register study, samples, DAC or policy before uploading files. Edit existing submission metadata Change or update previously submitted metadata. Register metadata for a sequence submission Ensure that all sequence files have been encrypted before uploading them to your submission account using the EgaCryptor. Go to the EGA Webin and log in using your submission account name (ega-box-XXX) and password. Register components of your metadata submission Study Samples Data Access Committee (DAC) Data access policy Dataset For array-base submissions: Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy may all be registered BEFORE file upload and dataset registration through the array-base template. Register your Study Go to the “Studies (Projects)” box Click on “Register Study” and fill in the information related to your study. Click on “Submit”, this will save the information and generate an EGA study ID. To use the study accession number in a publication, the study has to be previously released on the EGA website, we suggest the following format: "Sequence 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 on https://ega-archive.org and “The European Genome-phenome Archive in 202 "(10.1093/nar/gkab1059)" Register your Samples Go to the “Samples” box Click on “Register Samples” Select “Download spreadsheet to register samples” and customise your template, there is a default EGA template (EGA default checklist) but more attributes can be added if required. For the EGA default checklist, there are mandatory,recommended and optional attributes. As well custom fields which can be added if required. Mandatory attributes Field Name Description tax_id Taxonomy ID of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Entries in the NCBI Taxonomy database have integer taxon IDs. See our tips for sample taxonomy here scientific_name Scientific name of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Scientific names typically follow the binomial nomenclature. For example, the scientific name for humans is Homo sapiens. sample_alias Unique name of the sample. If not selected system will auto generate an unique alias sample_title Title of the sample sample_description Description of the sample phenotype *** Where possible, please use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe your phenotypes. Recommended attributes Field Name Description subject_id Identifier for the subject where the sample has been derived from gender * Sex Optional attributes Field Name Description sex sex of the organism from which the sample was obtained disease_site Affected organ sample type Affected organ donor_id ** Identifier of the donor where the sample has been derived from *Gender should be described as 'male', 'female' or 'unknown'. If 'unknown' due to a known sex chromosome aneuploidy, please create a user defined attribute called 'Sex chromosome karyotype' and add the appropriate value, for example, 'XXY'. **Donor id (Subject id) should be a de-identified subject handle. If unknown, please add 'unknown' to the field. ***Phenotypes should, where possible, be an Experimental Factor Ontology accession. If a term cannot be found to describe your phenotype please use free text. All sample phenotypes considered important for further analysis of the data should be provided (for example, tumour type), additional phenotype attributes can be created by defining your own attributes; use the notion 'phenotype2', 'phenotype3', etc. After you have customised the fields for the sample submission, download the template and fill in the information. Example of the sample template: Finally upload the sample template to get the EGA accession IDs for the samples. Register your Data Access Committee (DAC) Further information on the role of your DAC Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dacs” Input the information about the DAC and register at least one main DAC contact. Register your Data Access Policy Your Data Access Policy provides the terms and conditions of data use, this is also referred to as the Data Access Agreement (DAA). Completion of a DAA by the applicant/s should form part of the application process to the Data Access Committee (DAC). Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Policies” Select the DAC to which this policy will be linked to and fill in the policy information. Submitting your Runs and Analyses This section is only for sequence data submission, for array-based submission it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata Runs Registration Go to the “Raw Reads (Experiments and Runs)” box Click on “Submit Reads” Select “Download spreadsheet template for Read submission” Select the template corresponding to your submission type For the templates you have the option to customise the optional fields. To check their description click on “Show Description “ Download the template and fill in the required information. Example of the runs template: We recommend that Fastq, BAM, and CRAM read files are submitted using Webin-CLI When using this interface instead of Webin-CLI, raw sequences must be uploaded in one of the supported data formats before they can be submitted. The files can be uploaded using FTP or Aspera. The study and the sequenced samples must be pre-registered before the raw reads are submitted. Please note that each individual study and sample should be registered only once. You will be asked to provide information about the sequencing libraries and instruments. Submitting your Dataset This section is only for sequence data submissions, for array based submissions it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata The dataset describes the data files, defined by the run (EGARXXXXXXXXXXX) and analysis (EGAZXXXXXXXXXXX) accessions that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Data Access Committee and Data Access Policy. As a result, you must have registered your Reads and experiments, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy before submitting your Dataset. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of, for example, a case control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Please contact EGA Helpdesk for further assistance. Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dataset” Select the Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy Register your dataset After submitting your dataset you should contact the EGA Helpdesk to provide a release date for your dataset. Datasets are automatically held (i.e. not released) unless they are affiliated to a study that has already been released. Edit/update existing submission metadata Go to the “Report” section of the object you would like to edit. Locate the object and click on the arrow under action. An option menu will be displayed. Objects can be edited through their XML or with the WEBIN menu. After an object has been edited, changes would be available on the website until the submission is released again. Please contact the EGA Helpdesk if you require further assistance.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/EGA_webin

• Bulk RNA-sequencing datasets from Caco-2 cells under normal or inflamed conditions treated with 4HTBZ or vehicle.

  This dataset contains 4 bulk RNA sequencing files (.fastq.gz) and a metadata file (.csv) from Caco-2/TC7 intestinal epithelial cells under normal or inflamed conditions, followed by treatment with 4HTBZ or vehicle. The cDNA libraries were prepared with the QuantSeq 3′ mRNA-Seq Kit (Lexogen, Inc.) and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq4000 system. The metadata file provides sample information (experimental condition and code identifier). Raw sequencing reads were quality-checked with FastQC, trimmed with Trimmomatic, and aligned to the human reference genome (GRCh38) using HISAT2.

  Dataset EGAD50000001759

• Genotype data for The admixture histories of Cabo Verde - genotype data

  Datasets used in the article "The genetic and linguistic admixture histories of the islands of Cabo Verde" by Laurent R et al. eLife 2023 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79827 - URL: https://elifesciences.org/articles/79827) As per Materials and Methods herein, the genotype data corresponds to 2,118,722 autosomal SNPs genotyped from the IlluminaOmni 2.5 Million BeadChip for 233 Cabo Verdean volunteer participants, family unrelated at the 2nd degree based on population genetics analyses (see Material and Methods). SNP rsID, Chromosome position and genetic position in (bp) are in Build GRCh38. Cabo Verdean individuals are designated with an alphanumeric unique code

  Dataset EGAD00001008979

• Whole transcriptome and 97 antibodies of one healthy bone marrow

  Whole transcriptome sequencing using BD Rhapsody with 97 antibodies of a healthy young adult bone marrow (Young3/BM3) mononuclear cells from iliac crest aspirations. Please note raw and integrated gene expression data, cell type annotation, metadata and dimensionality reduction are available as Seurat v3 objects through figshare. Access links is https://figshare.com/s/901bcddb9ee18e226031.

  Dataset EGAD00001008186

• Joint Addiction, Aging, and Mental Health (JAAMH) Data Access Committee General Research Use Datasets

  This collection contains all the Joint Addiction, Aging, and Mental Health (JAAMH) Data Access Committee General Research Use Datasets authorized individual-level genomic datasets currently in dbGaP that are approved for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model Data Use Certification Agreement. The public posting of Genomic Summary Results is allowed. Access to this study collection will include additional authorized individual-level GRU datasets that become available. Renewal of this study collection is required annually. To request access to this study collection, select phs003202 in the dbGaP Authorized Access System.

  Study phs003202

• Joint Addiction, Aging, and Mental Health Data Access Committee General Research Use Datasets (GSR Restricted) Collection

  This collection contains the Joint Addiction, Aging, and Mental Health Data Access Committee's authorized individual-level genomic datasets currently in dbGaP that are approved for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model Data Use Certification Agreement. The public posting of Genomic Summary Results are not allowed. Access to this study collection will include additional authorized individual-level GRU datasets that become available. Renewal of this study collection is required annually. To request access to this study collection, select phs003421 in the dbGaP Authorized Access System.

  Study phs003421

• Mosaic structural variation sample

  Mosaic Normal-Tumor genomes are generated from real normal-tumor pairs with validated somatic variants. In this case, validated variants from the GRIDSS2 paper. Mosaic genomes were generated using GenomeMosaicMaker, an open-source software tool designed and implemented for this specific purpose. The variants provided in the VCF truth file for each mosaic tumor/normal pair were annotated using funnSV for SVs and VEP for SNVs and indels. All CRAM files are aligned to GRCh37. Please see https://github.com/EUCANCan/oncoliner and https://github.com/Computational-Genomics-BSC/GenomeMosaicMaker for more information.

  Study EGAS50000000460

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Characterization of patient-derived xenograft models of myxoid liposarcoma either sentitive or resistant to trabectedin

  Two patient-derived xenograft model of myxoid liposarcoma one sensitive and one resistant to trabectedin. The aim of the study was to study the resistance to the drug.

  Study EGAS00001003715

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Trauma Epidemiologic Registry (Trauma Epistry) (ROC-Trauma Epistry-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Available Data: This dataset only includes traumatic injury participants. For ROC cardiac arrest Epistry data please see: ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2 and ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3.Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital traumatic injury responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of people that experience traumatic injury; to more fully establish the burden of traumatic injury; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Traumatic injury is a major public health problem generating substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden on society. The majority of seriously injured persons are initially evaluated and cared for by prehospital providers, however the effect of EMS systems, EMS clinical care, and EMS interventions on trauma patient outcomes is largely unknown. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region.The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Previous trauma registries have generally focused primarily on hospitalized patients with limited prehospital information. Registries may also exclude trauma cases at far ends of the spectrum, such as those who die in the field or in a non-trauma center and/or patients that are treated and released. These limitations do not allow for detailed, outcome-based assessments of EMS system factors necessary to define prehospital resuscitation best practices. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital traumatic injuries matched to hospital-based outcomes in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 13,830 traumatic events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital traumatic injuries in the ROC regions. Cases were identified through review of emergency response system records including dispatch centers, EMS ground agencies, and air medical services. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads (Newgard, et al., 2008, PMID: 18482792).

  Study phs003809

• Hydroxyurea to Prevent Organ Damage in Children with Sickle Cell Anemia (BABY HUG) Phase III Clinical Trial and Follow-Up Observational Studies I and II

  Sickle cell anemia is associated with substantial morbidity from acute complications and organ dysfunction beginning in the first year of life. In 1995, the Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea (MSH) (dbGaP phs002348) demonstrated that, in adults, hydroxyurea is effective in decreasing the frequency of painful crises, hospitalizations for crises, acute chest syndrome, and blood transfusions by 50%. The phase I/II study of hydroxyurea in children (HUG KIDS) demonstrated that children have a response to hydroxyurea similar to that seen in adults in terms of increasing fetal hemoglobin levels and total hemoglobin, and decreasing complications associated with sickle cell anemia. In addition, this study demonstrated that the drug does not adversely affect growth and development between the ages of 5 and 15. A pilot study of hydroxyurea (HUSOFT) given to children between the ages of 6 months and 24 months demonstrated that the drug was well tolerated and that the fetal hemoglobin levels rose and remained elevated compared to baseline with continued hydroxyurea administration. A Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) met on April 12, 1996 to review the results of the MSH trial and the progress to date of the HUG KIDS study. The SEP recommended that NHLBI undertake the BABY HUG trial. The BABY HUG Randomized Controlled Trial concluded that hydroxyurea treatment in very young children seemed to have an acceptable safety profile and to reduce complications of sickle cell anemia. However, more data were needed on the long-term safety of hydroxyurea use in very young children. As a result, follow-up studies were initiated. The Follow-Up Study II provided longer follow-up than Follow-Up Study I, and included more assessment types than Follow-Up Study I.The BABY HUG program consisted of three related studies, each of which has associated datasets and bio-specimens. A randomized controlled trial comparing hydroxyurea to placebo in very young children with sickle cell anemia (BABY HUG Randomized Controlled Trial) The first observational follow-up study of children from the randomized controlled trial (BABY HUG Follow-Up Study I). All children in Follow-Up Study I were offered the option of taking open-label hydroxyurea, with treatment decisions made by the family and the clinical team caring for the child. The second observational follow-up study of children from BABY HUG Follow-Up Study I. All children in Follow-Up Study II were offered the option of taking open-label hydroxyurea, with treatment decisions made by the family and the clinical team caring for the child.The purpose of the Randomized Controlled Trial was to determine if hydroxyurea can safely prevent early end organ damage in very young children with sickle cell anemia. The purpose of the BABY HUG Follow-up Study I was to provide structured follow-up of the children enrolled in the BABY HUG Randomized Controlled Trial, in order to characterize the long-term toxicities and unexpected risks (if any) associated with treatment with hydroxyurea at an early age. The objective of Follow-Up Study II was to obtain additional data about the long-term safety and efficacy of hydroxyurea use in children with Sickle Cell Anemia through at least the first decade of life.Instructions for requesting individual-level data are available on BioData Catalyst at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/data/. Apply for data access in dbGaP. Upon approval, users may begin accessing requested data in BioData Catalyst. For questions about availability, you may contact the BioData Catalyst team at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/contact.

  Study phs002415

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) Collection of General Research Use Datasets

  This individual-level collection of datasets contains all the RADx Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) studies in dbGaP for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model RADx Data Use Certification Agreement. Access to this study collection will include additional authorized individual-level GRU datasets that become available. Renewal of this study collection is required annually. Access to studies in this collection is on the RADx® Data Hub. To request access to this study collection, select phs003832 in the dbGaP when submitting a data access request.

  Study phs003832

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Tech Program (RADx-Tech) Collection of General Research Use Datasets

  This individual-level collection of datasets contains all the RADx® Tech Programs (RADx-Tech) studies in dbGaP for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model RADx Data Use Certification Agreement. Access to this study collection will include additional authorized individual-level GRU datasets that become available. Renewal of this study collection is required annually. Access to studies in this collection is on the RADx® Data Hub. To request access to this study collection, select phs003831 in the dbGaP when submitting a data access request.

  Study phs003831

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Radical (RADx-rad) Collection of General Research Use Datasets

  This individual-level collection of datasets contains all the RADx® Radical (RADx-rad) studies in dbGaP for General Research Use (GRU) and have no further limitations beyond those outlined in the model RADx Data Use Certification Agreement. Access to this study collection will include additional authorized individual-level GRU datasets that become available. Renewal of this study collection is required annually. Access to studies in this collection is on the RADx® Data Hub. To request access to this study collection, select phs003834 in the dbGaP when submitting a data access request.

  Study phs003834