Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

Heart Failure Network Oral Iron Repletion Effects on Oxygen Uptake in Heart Failure (HFN IRONOUT-BioLINCC)

ObjectivesTo test the hypothesis that, compared to placebo, oral iron repletion in heart failure patients with iron deficiency improves exercise capacity after 16 weeks of therapy.Background Iron deficiency affects approximately one half of patients with symptomatic heart failure. The presence of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure is associated with reduced functional capacity, poorer quality of life, and increased mortality. Despite growing recognition of the significance of iron deficiency, randomized multicenter trials exploring the utility of oral iron supplementation, a therapy that is inexpensive, readily available, and safe, have not been performed in patients with heart failure. Moreover, patient characteristics and biochemical profiles that may influence responsiveness to oral iron in patients with heart failure have not been defined. Results of intravenous iron repletion trials have been favorable, but regularly treating patients with intravenous iron products is expensive and poses logistical challenges for outpatients. Therefore, the HFN-IRONOUT study was initiated to investigate the efficacy of oral iron in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). ParticipantsA total of 225 participants were enrolled, 111 randomized to receive oral iron and 114 randomized to receive the placebo. Design The HFN-IRONOUT study was a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial that enrolled participants at 23 sites in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either oral iron polysaccharide or placebo with the use of an automated web-based system. A permuted block randomization method (with 4 participants per block) was stratified by enrolling site and anemia status (defined as hemoglobin At baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks participants underwent studies including history and physical examination, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and 6-minute walk test. CPETs were performed using a 10 Watt/minute incremental ramp protocol and breath-by-breath measures of oxygen uptake were uniformly analyzed by the CPET Core Lab. Participants also underwent phlebotomy for biomarkers. Iron studies, including iron, total iron binding capacity, and ferritin, were measured at baseline and after 16 weeks to determine the extent to which oral iron led to iron repletion. The primary end point was the change in peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) after 16 weeks of therapy. Conclusions Among participants with HFrEF with iron deficiency, high-dose oral iron did not improve exercise capacity over 16 weeks.

Study phs003557

NHLBI TOPMed: The Genetic Epidemiology of Asthma in Costa Rica

This administrative supplement to the project, "The Genetic Epidemiology of Asthma in Costa Rica" (R37 HL066289) is in response to NOT-HL-14-029 to perform whole genome sequencing (WGS) on existing NHLBI populations. We focus on asthma because of its public health significance. Asthma affects 26 million U.S. children and adults, remains a major cause of morbidity (one-half million hospitalizations a year) and is the most common cause of school and work days lost. Asthma-related costs are estimated to be over $12.7 billion annually. The Asthma Probands for both the extended pedigrees and the trios utilized in this study were selected on the basis of a physician diagnosis of asthma; a history of recurrent asthma attacks or at least 2 respiratory symptoms; and either airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine or significant response to bronchodilator (Albuterol) administration. These criteria are identical to the criteria used in the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP). The three primary goals of this project are to: (1) identify common and rare genetic variants that determine asthma and its associated phenotypes (height, weight, IgE level, lung function, bronchodilator response, steroid treatment response) through whole genome sequencing (WGS); (2) perform novel family based association analysis of our WGS data to identify novel genes for asthma; and (3) integrate epigenomic and transcriptomic data with our WGS data and determine the epistatic interactions present using systems genomics approaches. Identification of the molecular determinants of asthma remains an important priority in translational science. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been successful in this regard, identifying at least 10 novel susceptibility genes for asthma. However, as with most complex traits, the variants identified by GWAS explain only a fraction of the estimated heritability of this disorder. Herein, we propose a novel family-based study design and state-of-the-art genome sequencing techniques to map a set of sequence variants for asthma and its associated phenotypes and assess the interrelationships of the identified genes and variants using systems genomics methods. We have assembled a team of investigators highly-skilled and expert in whole genome sequencing (Drs. Michael Cho and Benjamin Raby), genetic association analysis (Drs. Scott T. Weiss, Jessica Lasky-Su and Christoph Lange), integrative genomics (Drs. Raby, Kelan Tantisira, Augusto Litonjua and Dawn DeMeo), and systems genomics (Drs. Weiss, Amitabh Sharma, Lange and Raby) to address this important problem with both a novel study design and data set.

Study phs000988

Single-Cell Mitochondrial Mutation Lineage Tracing of Non-Dysplastic and Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus

This study addresses a critical knowledge gap in understanding Barrett's esophagus (BE), a common metaplastic condition and precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, by identifying lineage connections and cell states underlying its development and malignant transformation. We collected biopsies from 13 Barrett's esophagus patients undergoing routine surveillance endoscopy, sampling metaplastic tissue alongside normal squamous esophagus and gastric cardia tissues when clinically appropriate. Our novel approach integrated single-cell RNA sequencing of nearly 180,000 cells with mitochondrial DNA mutation analysis for lineage tracing, coupled with spatial transcriptomics and comprehensive whole-exome sequencing. For one patient with high-grade dysplasia, we performed detailed whole-exome sequencing analysis at 100x coverage on dissociated Barrett's esophagus cells alongside matched normal esophagus and gastric cardia tissues. This genomic profiling revealed critical genetic drivers of malignant transformation, including a truncating mutation in the mutation cluster region of APC (a negative WNT regulator), mutations in the tumor suppressor genes CDKN2A and TP53, and significant copy number alterations including loss of CDKN2A on chromosome 9. These genetic alterations corresponded with the transcriptional changes observed in our single-cell data, particularly WNT pathway dysregulation and the expansion of LGR5-expressing stem cells, providing molecular evidence for how single clones can initiate the dysplastic transformation. Data deposited in dbGaP consist specifically of the whole-exome sequencing raw files, processed variant calls, and copy number analyses from the single patient with high-grade dysplasia and matched normal esophagus and stomach control tissue. Whole exome sequencing was performed on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000. Sequencing data was preprocessed following the Genome Analysis Toolkit's (GATK) Best Practices. Sequencing data was analyzed with Mutect2 (GATK, v4.2.5.0) to identify short somatic mutations including single-nucleotide polymorphisms and insertions and deletions. The Barrett's esophagus sample was run with the two matched normals, as well as the publicly available germline resource somatic-hg38_af-only-gnomad.hg38.vcf.gz (GATK). Somatic variant calls were filtered using FilterMutectCalls (GATK) and loaded into the Integrative Genomics Viewer (v2.12.3) for identification of high-quality variants in known esophageal adenocarcinoma regulators. Copy number alterations in the Barrett's esophagus sample were estimated using CNVkit (v0.9.9). CNV, Mutect2, and SVC analyses will be made available through dbGAP. Copy number alterations in the Barrett's esophagus sample were estimated using CNVkit (v0.9.9) with the default run settings; a pooled reference was generated from the normal esophagus and stomach samples. Copy number results were plotted directly within CNVkit using the function scatter.

Study phs003949

Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): CO-CREATE-Ex: Community-engaged Optimization of COVID-19 Rapid Evaluation And TEsting Experiences

Cases of COVID-19 infection in San Diego have persistently remained high in the county's central and southern communities near the US/Mexico border, home to primarily Latino residents who have been one of the ethnic minority communities most impacted by COVID-19. To address this, our Phase I RADx-UP project partnered with San Ysidro Health (SYH), a federally qualified health center, and the Global Action Research Center (Global ARC), a social change organization, to co-create and demonstrate the impact of a PCR-based COVID-19 testing program in San Ysidro. To date, we have administered approximately 15,000 PCR tests for >10,000 community members (92% Latino) and received requests from SYH to scale-out the testing program to additional primary care clinic sites. Responsive to RFA-OD-22-006, we will continue working with our community (Global ARC) and clinical (SYH) partners to refine, specify, implement, and evaluate an implementation strategy bundle that optimizes COVID-19 testing, expanding beyond current PCR testing to focus on FDA-authorized COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. Use of self-administered rapid antigen tests will allow participants to build capacity to self-test and use health information technology to access additional clinic services. Based on initial implementation mapping with the project's established Community and Scientific Advisory Board, three implementation strategies were prioritized to accelerate sustained uptake of rapid COVID-19 testing. These three strategies include: (1) current, walk-up onsite free testing; (2) promotores-led COVID-19 test counseling and preventive care reminders; (3) vending machines that dispense FDA-authorized self-testing kits. Our primary objectives are to: 1) refine and operationalize our multi-component implementation strategy bundle and a related set of measures of success for rapid FDA- authorized COVID-19 testing and 2) implement and evaluate impact of our innovative, multilevel, and multicomponent implementation strategy bundle to optimize COVID-19 rapid testing among underserved, Latino communities using a roll-out implementation optimization study design across four clinics over 18 months. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the urgent and essential need to engage invested community parties continuously and meaningfully in public health research to reduce health disparities. This proposal is well-positioned to provide a set of strategies and measures of success that can be used in settings serving underserved communities while maintaining flexibility to adjust to the changing COVID-19 landscape.

Study phs003686

Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort) - Imaging

The Framingham Heart Study (FHS) is a population-based, observational cohort study initiated in 1948 to prospectively investigate the determinants of cardiovascular disease to guide public health prevention. The FHS began by recruiting an Original Cohort of 5,209 men and women between the ages of 30 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, who had not yet developed overt symptoms of cardiovascular disease or suffered a heart attack or stroke. The Original cohort Exam 1 took place between 1948 and 1953. Since that time the cohort has had a total of 32 biennial exams (ending in 2014) and event follow-up through 2022. In 1971, the FHS added the Offspring cohort, comprising 5124 children whose parents were enrolled in the Original cohort and the spouses of the children. This cohort on average has been examined every three to four years. However, there was an eight year gap between Exam 1 and Exam 2 and a seven year gap between Exam 7 and Exam 8. The latest exam (10) was completed in 2022. In 2002, the transgenerational FHS design was facilitated with the recruitment of 4095 children of the Offspring cohort (Third Generation), and 103 spouses of the Offspring who were not previously enrolled in the study (New Offspring Spouses, NOS). These cohorts have completed 3 exams through 2019. To reflect the changing demographic characteristics of the greater Framingham community, the FHS additionally recruited and enrolled 2 cohorts comprising racial and ethnic minority groups, termed Omni-1 and Omni-2, (n = 506 and 410, respectively) in 1995 and 2002, respectively. These cohorts included individuals of African American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Native American, and Pacific Islander descent. The OMNI-1 cohort have completed 5 exams through 2022. The OMNI-2 cohort have completed 3 exams through 2019. Data available for request include Echocardiogram images, available from the following exams in each cohort. Original Cohort: exams 18-32; Offspring cohort: exams 3-10; Third Generation, NOS and OMNI-2 cohorts: exams 1-3; OMNI-1 cohort: exams 1-5.CT image data at one or two timepoints were added for 4427 participants in the offspring, third generation, and OMNI1 and OMNI2 cohorts.Summary level phenotypes for the Framingham Cohort study participants can be viewed at the top-level study page phs000007 Framingham Cohort. Individual level phenotype data and molecular data for all Framingham top-level study and substudies are available by requesting Authorized Access to the Framingham Cohort study phs000007.

Study phs003593

The subclonal architecture of metastatic breast cancer: Results from a prospective community-based rapid autopsy program 'CASCADE'

Background: Understanding the cancer genome is seen as a key step in improving outcomes for cancer patients. Genomic assays are emerging as a possible avenue to personalised medicine in breast cancer. The majority of work in this area has targeted primary tumours however, and very few studies have performed comprehensive profiling of advanced disease. Evolution of the cancer genome during the natural history of breast cancer is largely unknown, as is the profile of disease at death. We sought to study in detail these aspects of advanced breast cancers that have resulted in lethal disease. Methods and Findings: Three patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and one patient with triple negative breast cancer underwent rapid autopsy as part of an institutional prospective community-based rapid autopsy program. Cases represented a range of management problems in breast cancer, including late relapse after early stage disease; de novo metastatic disease; discordant disease response and disease refractory to treatment. Between 5 and 12 metastatic sites were collected at autopsy together with available primary tumours and longitudinal metastatic biopsies taken during life. Samples underwent paired tumour-normal whole exome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism arrays. Subclonal architectures were inferred by jointly analysing all samples from each patient. Mutations were validated using high depth amplicon sequencing.Between cases, there were significant differences in mutational burden, driver mutations, mutational processes and copy number variation. Within each case, we found dramatic heterogeneity in subclonal structure from primary to metastatic disease and between metastatic sites, such that no single lesion captured the breadth of disease. Metastatic cross seeding was found in each case and treatment drove subclonal diversification. Subclones displayed parallel evolution of treatment resistance in some cases, and apparent augmentation of key oncogenic drivers as an alternative resistance mechanism. We also observed the key role of mutational processes in subclonal evolution.Limitations of this study include the potential for bias introduced by joint analysis of formalin fixed archival specimens with fresh specimens, and the difficulties in resolving subclones with whole exome sequencing. Other alterations that could define subclones such as structural variants or epigenetic modifications were not assessed. Conclusions: This study highlights the variety of mechanisms that shape the genome of metastatic breast cancer, and the value of studying advanced disease in detail. Treatment drives significant genomic heterogeneity in breast cancers which has implications for disease monitoring and treatment selection in the personalised medicine paradigm.

Study EGAS00001002153

GA4GH

Standards The EGA is a long-standing supporter of the Global Alliance for Genomics & Health (GA4GH) to enhance responsible sharing of human genetic data through the development of interoperable global standards for human data access. The EGA is one of the founding GA4GH Driver Projects and has contributed to the development and implementation of several GA4GH standards and APIs. Below is a list of the GA4GH standards and APIs that are currently available or planned for implementation at EGA. TechnicalStandards Purpose SpecificationVersion SupportedVersion Implementation Large Scale Genomics htsget A protocol for secure, efficient, and reliable access to sequencing read and variation data. V1.3.0 V1.0.0 Specification Documentation Endpoint Read File Formats (SAM/BAM/CRAM) Specifications for storing next-generation sequencing read data. V3.0.0 V3.0.0 Implementation Example of Usage Variation File Formats (VCF/BCF) The specifications for Variant Call Format Files (VCF) and its binary counterpart BCF. V4.0.0 V2.0.0 V4.0.0 V2.0.0 Implementation Example of Usage Crypt4GH v1.0 Enables direct byte-level compatible random access to encrypted genetic data stored in community standards (e.g. CRAM, VCF) V1.0 V1.0 Specification Documentation Endpoint refget API Enables access to reference sequences using an identifier derived from the sequence itself. V1.2.6 NA Specification RNAget API v1 Provides a means of retrieving data from several types of RNA experiments including (i) feature-level expression data from RNA-seq type measurements and (ii) coordinate-based signal/intensity data similar to a bigwig representation via a client/server model. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Discovery Beacon v2 Supports discovery of genomic variants, phenotypes, and individuals V1.0.1 V0.3 Web UI API Source Code Service Info API v1 The Service Info API is an endpoint for describing GA4GH service metadata, designed for extension and inclusion in other APIs. Service info is used to describe a single service, while Service Registry is used to describe multiple services. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Service Registry API v1 provides information about other GA4GH services, primarily for the purpose of organizing services into networks or groups and service discovery across organizational boundaries. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Data Use Researcher Identities Data Use Ontology (DUO) Allow users to semantically tag genomic datasets with usage restrictions, allowing them to become automatically discoverable based on a health, clinical, or biomedical researcher’s authorisation level or intended use. 2021-02-23 2021-02-23 Specification Documentation Endpoint Authentication & Authorization Infrastructure (AAI) The GA4GH AAI specification leverages OpenID Connect (OIDC) Servers for use in authenticating the identity of researchers desiring to access clinical and genomic resources from data holders adhering to GA4GH standards, and to enable data holders to obtain security-related attributes of those researchers. V1.2.0 V1.2.0 API URI: ega.ebi.ac.uk:8443 Documentation Repository Researcher IDs (passport, visa) Specify the collection of researchers that may access a dataset at any given time, and the credentials they must supply. V1.0.1 V1.0.1 Specification Documentation Endpoint Cloud Tool Registry Service API TRS is a standard API for exchanging tools and workflows to analyze, read, and manipulate genomic data. V2.0.1 NA Documentation Repostiory Data Repository Service API DRS API is a standard for building data repositories and adapting access tools to work with those repositories, works with other approved APIs from the GA4GH Cloud Work Stream to allow researchers to discover algorithms across different cloud environments and send them to datasets they wish to analyse. V1.0.3 NA Documentation Repostiory Workflow Execution Service API This API lets users run a single workflow (defined using CWL or WDL) on multiple different platforms, clouds, and environments, and be confident that it will work the same way. The API provides methods to request that a workflow be run, pass parameters to that workflow, get information about running workflows, and cancel a running workflow. V1.0.1 NA Documentation Repostiory Genomic Knowledge Standards Variation Representation v1 Provides a flexible framework of computational models, schemas, and algorithms to precisely and consistently exchange genetic variation data across communities. V1.3.0 EGA team is contributing to including it in in Beacon v2 Specification and Elixir Reference Implementation Documentation Repostiory Clin/ Pheno Data Capture Phenopackets Provides information models with different levels of complexity to enable high level clinical phenotype information as well as deep clinical phenotype information to be exchanged. V2.0.0 Included in Ongoing Submissions EGA team is contributing to including it in in Beacon v2 Specification and Elixir Reference Implementation Documentation Repostiory Driver Project The EGA, jointly coordinated by the EBI and the CRG, was announced, in 2017, to be one of the 15 Driver Projects for GA4GH. Driver Projects are international genomic data initiatives, focussed on real projects and challenges that will guide the development efforts in order to accelerate and enable completely responsible and standarised data sharing by 2022. All chosen Driver Projects make a cross-sectional effort by playing an important role across the different workstreams. Thomas Keane, Jordi Rambla, Mallory Freeberg, and Aina Jené have been named Driver Project Champions for the EGA. All Driver Project Champions will be leading this ambitious initiative for the following years.

Documentation about/projects-and-funders/ga4gh

Programmatic submission based on XML

Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

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

Molecular characterization of invasive lobular carcinoma

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common histological subtype of breast cancer accounting for 10-15% of cases. ILC differs from invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)with respect to epidemiology, histology, and clinical presentation. Moreover, ILC is lesssensitive to chemotherapy, more frequently bilateral, and more prone to form gastrointestinal, peritoneal, and ovarian metastases than IDCs. In contrast to IDC, the prognostic value ofhistological grade (HG) in ILC is controversial. One of the three major components of histological grading (tubule formation) is missing in ILC which hinders the process of gradingin this histological subtype and results in the classification of approximately two thirds of ILC as HG 2.Over the last decade, a number of gene expression signatures have shed light onto breast cancer classification, allowing breast cancer care to become more personalized. Withrespect to the management of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer, several gene expression signatures provide prognostic and/or predictive information beyond what is possible with current classical clinico-pathological parameters alone. Nevertheless, most studies using gene expression signature have not considered different histologic subtypesseparately. Recently, a comprehensive research program has elucidated some of the biological underpinnings of invasive lobular carcinoma. Genetic material extracted from 200 ILC tumor samples were studied using gene expression profiling and identified ILCmolecular subtypes. These proliferation-driven gene signatures of ILC appear to have prognostic significance. In particular, the Genomic Grade (GG) gene signature improved upon HG in ILC and added prognostic value to classic clinico-pathologic factors. In addition this study demonstrated that most ILC are molecularly characterized as luminal-A (~75%)followed by luminal-B (~20%) and HER2-positve tumors (~5%). Moreover, we investigated the prognostic value of known gene signatures/ gene modules in the same cohort of ILC. As a second step within the scope of this project, we aim to investigate the interactionsbetween somatic ILC tumor mutations to observed transcriptome findings. To this end, we aim to perform somatic mutation analysis for the ILC tumors for which Affymetrix gene expression profiling is available. To this end, we will use a gene screen assay, which specifically interrogates the mutational status of a few hundreds of cancer genes. We believe that this pioneering effort will be fundamental for a tailored treatment of ILC withimprovement in patients' outcome.

Dataset EGAD00001000288

Gut microbiome dynamics unravelled with metagenomics sequencing

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

Blog gut-microbiome-dynamics-unravelled

1567 results for "Sweden+NDA+enforceability+one+party+signed"

in 12.58 milliseconds.