90 results for "abb+verify+eyecare+partners"

in 39.84 milliseconds.

• Exome Sequencing of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

  The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen 600% over the last 30 years. When coupled to the five-year survival rate of only 15% for this disease, identification of new therapeutic targets for EAC is of great importance. Here, we analyze the mutational spectra identified from the whole genome sequencing of 16 EACs and complete exome sequencing of 149 EAC tumors and matched germline samples. We identify a novel mutation signature marked by high prevalence of A to C transversions at AA*(N) trinucleotides. Notably, the development of EAC is preceded by pathologic intestinal metaplasia of the lower esophagus, Barrett's esophagus, itself a response to injury from gastric-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). Thus, we hypothesize to represent these AA*(N) mutations to a novel signature of GERD-induced mutagenesis. Analysis of the exome data identified 26 genes subject to statistically significant recurrent mutation. Of these 26 genes, only TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4, and PIK3CA had been previously implicated in EAC. Novel mutations include those targeting chromatin modifying factors and novel candidate contributors to EAC: SPG20, TLR4, ELMO1 and DOCK2. Of these, ELMO1 and DOCK2 are notably direct dimerization partners that act to activate Rac1 to enhance cellular invasiveness, thus generating new hypotheses about the potential for the Rac1 pathway to be a novel target for therapy of EAC. "Reprinted from 'Unraveling the mutational complexity of esophageal adenocarcinoma', with permission from Nature Genetics."

  Study phs000598

• A no-stop mutation in MAGEB4 is a possible cause of rare X-linked azoospermia and oligozoospermia in a consanguineous Turkish family

  Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify mutations that cause non-syndromic male infertility using whole exome sequencing of family cases.Methods: We recruited a consanguineous Turkish family comprising nine siblings with male triplets; two of the triplets were infertile as well as one younger infertile brother. Whole exome sequencing (WES) performed on two azoospermic brothers, identified a mutation in the MAGEB4 gene which was confirmed via Sanger sequencing and then screened for on control groups and unrelated infertile subjects. The effect of the mutation on mRNA and protein levels were tested after in vitro cell transfection. Structural features of MAGEB4 were predicted throughout the conserved MAGE domain.Results: The novel single base substitution (c.1041A>T) in the X-linked MAGEB4 gene was identified as a no-stop mutation. The mutation is predicted to add 24 amino acids to the C-terminus of MAGEB4. Our functional studies were unable to detect any effect either on mRNA stability, intracellular localization of the protein or the ability to homo / heterodimerize with other MAGE proteins. We thus hypothesize that these additional amino acids may affect the proper protein interactions with MAGEB4 partners. Conclusion: The whole exome analysis of a consanguineous Turkish family revealed MAGEB4 as a possible new X-linked cause of inherited male infertility. This study provides the first clue to the physiological function of a MAGE protein.

  Study EGAS00001002272

• Defining the metastasome in colorectal cancer: Implications for hypotheses on metastasis evolution and personalized therapy (HIPO-032)

  Personalized cancer therapy aims at individual genetic changes characterizing primary cancers. Still, however, metastasis is the major clinically unmet problem, also due to an incomplete understanding of its molecular evolution.This study is the first to define the metastasis-specific whole genome landscape of human colorectal primary vs. matched metastatic lesions.Protein coding, ncRNA genes and 3’UTRs harbored about a third each of single nucleotide variations (SNVs)/indels, 19% of them being metastasis-specific. We found novel mutational hills among ncRNAs and 3’UTRs, copy number changes able to explain changes in microRNA expression in metastases, and novel metastasis-specific mutations in the 3’UTRs on important cancer signalling genes. Some metastatic lesions showed targetable mutations not detected in the primaries. Analysis of mutual exclusivity patterns supported a model that has progressive alterations in important colorectal cancer genes and revealed new partners. Metastatic lesions were enriched in SNVs, specific structural variations, and alterations in genes affecting cell adhesion and extracellular matrix interaction.Furthermore, a hepatic stellate activation cascade was enriched in metastases, suggesting genetic programs for site-specific colonization. Allele frequency distribution and mutational signature analysis suggests a common ancestor clone to both the primary tumor and the metastasis, with additional mutagenesis ongoing in both sites independently. Taken together, our results significantly add to hypothesis generation on metastasis evolution, and suggest novel metastasis-specific genomic changes which would be missed by current personalized therapy concepts. (HIPO-032)

  Study EGAS00001002717

• How are we funded?

  How are we funded? The EGA is provided infrastructure, administrative support, advisory input, and other relevant and necessary aspects by: CRG The EGA at the CRG is funded and supported by “La Caixa Foundation”, The Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalan Government), the Spanish Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital (Spanish Government) and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The Generalitat de Catalunya contributes with funding to the CRG and to the Barcelona Supercomputing Centre (BSC). The Barcelona Supercomputing Center is decisively contributing to EGA by providing the required compute, storage and networking resources, as well as key personnel for shared operations of EGA infrastructure. EMBL-EBI As part of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), the EGA at EMBL’s European Bioinformatics Institute receives funding from the governments of EMBL’s member states. The UK government, via UK Research and Innovation, also continues to support EMBL-EBI technical infrastructure, with EMBL supporting operational costs. A major source of funding for the EGA both at CRG and EMBL-EBI are competitive projects.The EGA resource continues to be funded through strategic engagement in collaborative partnerships and projects. Please see our projects page for more information. Other funders include the European Commission, the US National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, UK Research Councils, and our Industry Programme partners. Last updated on October, 2024.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/funders

• Mutational signatures of environmental carcinogens in human tissue organoids

  Whole genome sequencing of human tumours has revealed distinct patterns (signatures) of mutations that provide clues to the causative origins of cancer. Some signatures have been attributed to endogenous processes, some to exogenous agents, while a substantial proportion are of unknown origin. Generation of mutational signatures induced in experimental systems can verify the signature assignments and shed light on their origins and mechanisms. We have investigated mutational signatures of environmental carcinogens in human tissue organoid cultures. These 3-dimensional systems retain some of the architecture and functions of the organs from which they are derived, affording the opportunity to observe the effects of carcinogens in both target and non-target organs. There was a lesser requirement for an exogenous metabolizing system, as the cultures were, in most cases, capable of activating test agents. Duplex sequencing eliminated PCR amplification errors from mutational profiles and removed the need to clone carcinogen-treated cultures. Gastric, colon, liver, pancreas and kidney organoids were exposed to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), aristolochic acid (AAI) and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP). All four agents induced single-base substitution (SBS) signatures, BaP and AAI induced double-base substitution (DBS) signatures and indel (ID) signatures, and PhIP also induced an ID signature. These signatures were the same in all five organoid types, although there were quantitative differences. A further 13 environmental carcinogens were investigated in human gastric organoids, and signatures were obtained for seven of them: ethylnitrosourea (ENU), methylazoxymethanol acetate (MAM), N-methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MMNG), potassium bromate, glycidamide, styrene oxide and propylene oxide, providing additional insights into processes underlying the causes of human cancer.

  Dataset EGAD00001015616

• Mutational signatures of environmental carcinogens in human tissue organoids – WGS Bulk Normals

  Whole genome sequencing of human tumours has revealed distinct patterns (signatures) of mutations that provide clues to the causative origins of cancer. Some signatures have been attributed to endogenous processes, some to exogenous agents, while a substantial proportion are of unknown origin. Generation of mutational signatures induced in experimental systems can verify the signature assignments and shed light on their origins and mechanisms. We have investigated mutational signatures of environmental carcinogens in human tissue organoid cultures. These 3-dimensional systems retain some of the architecture and functions of the organs from which they are derived, affording the opportunity to observe the effects of carcinogens in both target and non-target organs. There was a lesser requirement for an exogenous metabolizing system, as the cultures were, in most cases, capable of activating test agents. Duplex sequencing eliminated PCR amplification errors from mutational profiles and removed the need to clone carcinogen-treated cultures. Gastric, colon, liver, pancreas and kidney organoids were exposed to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), aristolochic acid (AAI) and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP). All four agents induced single-base substitution (SBS) signatures, BaP and AAI induced double-base substitution (DBS) signatures and indel (ID) signatures, and PhIP also induced an ID signature. These signatures were the same in all five organoid types, although there were quantitative differences. A further 13 environmental carcinogens were investigated in human gastric organoids, and signatures were obtained for seven of them: ethylnitrosourea (ENU), methylazoxymethanol acetate (MAM), N-methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MMNG), potassium bromate, glycidamide, styrene oxide and propylene oxide, providing additional insights into processes underlying the causes of human cancer.

  Dataset EGAD00001015630

• Integrative genomic analysis reveals cancer-associated mutations at diagnosis of CML in patients with high risk disease

  Genomic events associated with poor outcome in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are poorly understood. We performed whole exome sequencing, copy number variation and/or RNA-Seq for 65 patients to discover mutations at diagnosis and blast crisis (BC). Forty-six chronic phase patients with the extremes of outcome were studied at diagnosis. Cancer gene variants were detected in 15/27 patients (56%) with subsequent BC or poor outcome and in 3/19 optimal responders (16%), P=.007. Frequently mutated genes at diagnosis were ASXL1, IKZF1 and RUNX1. The methyltransferase SETD1B was a novel recurrently mutated gene. A novel class of variant associated with the Philadelphia translocation was detected at diagnosis in 11/46 patients (24%) comprising fusions and/or rearrangement of genes on the translocated chromosomes, with evidence of fragmentation, inversion and imperfect sequence reassembly. These were more frequent at diagnosis in patients with poor outcome: 9/27 (33%) versus 2/19 optimal responders (11%), P=.07. Thirty-nine patients were tested at BC and all had cancer gene variants, including ABL1 kinase domain mutations in 58%. However, ABL1 mutations co-occurred with other mutated cancer genes in 89% of cases, and these predated ABL1 mutations in 62% of evaluable patients. Gene fusions not associated with the Philadelphia translocation occurred in 42% of patients at BC and commonly involved fusion partners that were known cancer genes (78%). Genomic analysis revealed numerous relevant variants at diagnosis in patients with poor outcome and all patients at BC. Future refined biomarker testing of specific variants will likely provide prognostic information to facilitate a risk-adapted therapeutic approach.

  Study EGAS00001003071

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with >261,000 consents that allow return of results to >84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world's largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n>450,000), specifically from >100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n>12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute's Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (<1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level >155 or >120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients' health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• A Phase I/II Trial of Sirolimus (Rapamune®) and Cyclosporine in Patients with Refractory Aplastic Anemia

  The most successful treatment for aplastic anemia is bone marrow transplantation. However, few patients are eligible for this procedure. For others, treatment usually consists of immunosuppressive agents, such as antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and cyclosporine. Unfortunately, even with immunosuppressive therapy, relapse is common. New combinations of medications may offer alternative and more effective treatment options. Sirolimus and cyclosporine are two drugs routinely used to suppress the immune system and prevent rejection in patients who have received organ transplants. While cyclosporine has been proven effective for treating aplastic anemia, sirolimus has not been tested for this disease. This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of sirolimus in combination with cyclosporine for treating individuals with aplastic anemia that have not responded to other treatments. This study will last at least 6 months. Participants will first be screened to verify diagnosis of aplastic anemia. The screening will include a physical examination, blood test, bone marrow biopsy from the pelvic bone, and review of medications and medical history. Individuals who are eligible will then start the first treatment period. Participants will receive two medications: cyclosporine will be taken twice a day and sirolimus will be taken once a day. Depending on side effects, the dose of either drug may be temporarily stopped or lowered. On Day 1, blood will be drawn and females will undergo a pregnancy test. Subsequent study visits will occur weekly for the first month, every 2 weeks for 2 months, and then once a month for the remainder of the study. Each visit will include a physical examination, vital sign assessment, and review of side effects and medications. Blood tests will be performed weekly for the first 3 weeks, and then every 2 weeks. After 6 months of treatment, if a participant has shown improvements in disease status without major side effects, the treatment will continue. Over time the doses may be lowered. If a participant has not improved while on the study medication, treatment will stop at 6 months. Whenever treatment is discontinued, the participant will again undergo a physical examination, blood tests, and bone marrow biopsy.

  Study phs000695

• Transcriptional profiling of tauopathies in human IPS-derived neurons (2019-08-21)

  This project is a pilot study, in collaboration with Maria Grazia Spillantini and Mariangela Iovino (Cambridge Centre for Brain Repair), to investigate the utility of IPS-derived neurons for the study of neurodegenerative disorders. Our aim is to characterise the transcriptional consequences of tauopathies using neurons derived from differentiated IPSCs as a model system. We will use IPS cells derived from six individuals, four with known mutations in the tau protein, 2 without. RNA will be extracted at Day 0 and Day 65 of differentiation by which time the neuronal tauopathy is apparent. RNA will be extracted and the transcriptome of each line characterised using RNAseq. We will then search for genes that are differentially expressed between the transcriptomes of individuals with tau mutations versus those in controls. My lab will analyse the RNAseq data, comparing both affected and controls and both time-points, to establish candidate genes. Darren Logan’s lab, along with our collaborators, will experimentally verify and further investigate these genes in additional lines and animal models. From this analysis we will generate a list of candidate genes that are differentially expressed between cases and controls. This study will not only help us understand the molecular basis of tauopathies, but also identify gene candidates for biomarkers of neurodegenerative disease. It will serve as a proof of principle for future planned studies into generating and transcriptomically analysing an allelic series of Tau mutations in IPSCs with a controlled genetic background. This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/ . This dataset contains all the data available for this study on 2019-08-21.

  Dataset EGAD00001005277

• mRNA capture sequencing and RT-qPCR for the detection of pathognomonic, novel and secondary fusion transcripts in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue: a sarcoma showcase

  RNA sequencing is widely used to study gene abundance patterns, but less frequently to assess structural alterations such as fusion transcripts. In this study, we assess the performance of messenger RNA (mRNA) capture sequencing to identify fusion transcripts in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue of different types of sarcoma, followed by orthogonal confirmation using RT-qPCR. To validate our workflow, we used the TruSight RNA Pan-Cancer Panel to analyze a first cohort of 6 positive control tumors for which the diagnostic workup demonstrated the presence of a specific chromosomal rearrangement. Fusion transcript calling by FusionCatcher confirmed all known aberrations and enabled the identification of both fusion gene partners and breakpoints. Next, whole transcriptome TruSeq RNA Exome sequencing was applied to a second cohort of 17 patients, diagnosed with fusion gene-negative alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS) or undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (URCS), for whom fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) did not identify the classical pathognomonic rearrangements. Remarkably, for 6 out of 17 patients, mRNA capture sequencing readily detected a pathognomonic fusion transcript, i.e. PAX3-FOXO1 in 2 ARMS patients, and EWSR1-FLI1, EWSR1-ERG or EWSR1-NFATC2 in 4 URCS patients. These data show that RNA capture sequencing may enhance the detection rate of pathognomonic fusion genes in sarcoma. For the 11 patients with no known pathognomonic fusion transcript, 11 newly identified fusion transcripts were confirmed by RT-qPCR, including COPS3-TOM1L2, NCOA1-DTNB, WWTR1-LINC01986, PLAA-MOB3B, AP1B1-CHEK2 and BRD4-LEUTX fusion transcripts in ARMS patients. Additionally, recurrently detected secondary fusion transcripts in two patients diagnosed with EWSR1-NFATC2-positive sarcoma were confirmed (COPS4-TBC1D9, PICALM-SYTL2, SMG6-VPS53 and UBE2F-ALS2). Our results provide new insights into the underlying genetic causes of these malignancies.

  Study EGAS00001005202

• eMERGE Network Phase III: HRC SNV and 1000 Genomes SV Imputed Array Data of 105,000 Participants

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in June 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE Phase III (June 2015 - June 2020) consists of 10 study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. Included in this study are: Human Reference Consortium (HRC) single nucleotide variants and 1000 Genomes structural variants imputed array data of 105,108 eMERGE participants from nine Phase III study sites and three Phase II study site collaborators. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Case/control status for the following phenotypes: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection. Study sites and participants include: Boston Children's Hospital: The Gene Partnership (TGP) is a prospective longitudinal registry at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) to study the genetic and environmental contributions to childhood health and disease, collect genetic information on a large number of children who have been phenotyped, and implement the Informed Cohort and the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB). The term "The Gene Partnership" reflects a partnership between researchers and participants. Children seen at BCH are offered enrollment, as are their parents and siblings. DNA is collected on all enrollees. BCH has a comprehensive EMR system, and virtually all inpatient and outpatient data are captured electronically. Clinical data in the BCH EMR is loaded in the i2b2 data warehouse which is available to investigators. Cases, phenotypes, and covariates are ascertained using the i2b2 database. Participants at BCH in TGP have consented to receive any research result and/or incidental finding that arises from studies using TGP that is approved by the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB) and is in accordance with the participants'preferences;results are returned through the Personally Controlled Health Record (PCHR). BCH and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) have partnered as the Pediatric Alliance for Genomic and Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Research (PAGER) site for the eMERGE Phase II network for pediatric institutions, and the cohort for eMERGE at BCH is TGP. Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children's Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic health records (EHRs). EHRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston's Children's Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a pediatric institution dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. CCHMC brings an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE III who are committed to gain a better understanding of the genesis of disease and to elucidate the mechanisms of diseases that afflict children, specifically pediatric disease phenotypes that will leverage the available eMERGE adult genomic data and electronic medical records (EMRs) to discover meaningful use results. Generation of EMR phenotype algorithms, informed by natural language processing, using heuristic and machine learning methods is ongoing. CCHMC has developed tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examined the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and developed clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. The success of these eMERGE III studies is enhanced by the ongoing institutional investment made in the CCHMC Biobank, the comprehensive EMR (EPIC), the i2b2 de-identified medical record data warehouse, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. Columbia University: Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian (CUMC/NYP) Hospital system is one of the nation's largest and most comprehensive hospital systems with over 2 million inpatient and outpatient yearly visits that serves a racially and ethnically diverse urban patient population. The Columbia University GENomic Integration with EHR (GENIE) research study contributed and shared phenotype and genotype data for individuals who were recruited as part of a diverse array of initiatives within the hospital, including Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS), Pediatric Cardiac Genomic Consortium (PCGC), Caribbean Hispanics with Familial and Sporadic Late Onset Alzheimer's disease (AD), Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP), and Genetics of Chronic Kidney Disease study. Some of these individuals had kidney or neurological problems, some were healthy adult volunteers with self-reported health status information from the medically underserved Northern Manhattan community, and others were pediatric patients with cardiac conditions. For the kidney disease cohort, patients with the diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and healthy controls were recruited to the Columbia University CKD biobank. For the NOMAS cohort, eligible participants were stroke-free, were 40 years old, and resided for at least 3 months in a Northern Manhattan household with a telephone. The PCGC study recruited parent-offspring trios with pediatric probands diagnosed with congenital heart defects (CHD). For the Caribbean Hispanics with Alzheimer's disease project, individuals from families affected by AD and with sporadic AD were recruited, along with unrelated controls. Samples for the ADSP study have been selected from well-characterized cohorts of individuals with AD diagnosis. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Partners Health Care (Harvard): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 60,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 100 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington with the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~8,073.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes n=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (n=1,002), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo Vascular Disease Biorepository is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval;this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was <1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Case control study of venous thromboembolism (PI John Heit) Controls from a case control study of pancreatic cancer (PI Gloria Petersen) Mayo Clinic Biobank. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants'DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: BioVU, Vanderbilt's DNA databank, was designed as an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt's EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations. BioVU is currently the largest single site DNA collection world-wide, at >235,000 samples as of spring 2017.

  Study phs001584

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Breast Cancer in the African Diaspora - the ROOT study

  The paucity of data on the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer for racial/ethnic groups other than those of European ancestry hinders the development of innovative interventions to reduce health disparities. Women in the African Diaspora experience a disproportionate burden of pre-menopausal breast cancer in comparison to all other races for reasons that remain unknown and understudied. This higher proportion of early-onset breast cancer might suggest a stronger genetic component in these populations. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revealed several genetic loci that confer risk of breast cancer. Because all GWAS started the discovery stage in women of European ancestry and replicated mainly in women of European ancestry, we propose a novel approach for a GWAS in indigenous African women to identify alleles associated with breast cancer risk which will then be replicated in other populations. This innovative design builds on our current understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity in breast cancer and the distribution of breast cancer molecular subtypes which differ between women of African ancestry and women of European ancestry. The major objective of the proposed studies is to get to the "root" causes of breast cancer by identifying breast cancer risk alleles in a pooled sample of women of African ancestry and to replicate our findings in other populations. To achieve this objective, we conducted a case control study of breast cancer in women of African ancestry, including Africans living in Nigeria, African Americans and African Barbadians. We will genotype ~3800 individuals using the Illumina HumanOmni2.5-Quad platform. We will conduct both standard and novel genetic analyses of the data to map genes associated with breast cancer susceptibility, verify genotyping and carry out fine-mapping studies in genes or regions showing association with breast cancer risk, and replicate in other African American and non-African American populations. By pooling unique resources from studies throughout the African Diaspora, this study has the potential to identify risk alleles in several genes that contribute to increased breast cancer risk and may have implications for early detection, prognosis and treatment of breast cancer in ALL women. This should ultimately lead to improved outcomes for those who suffer a disproportionate burden of early-onset breast cancer.

  Study phs000383

• A Case-Controlled Study for Genotype-Phenotype Associations in Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

  This is a multi-centre, case-controlled study to develop a dataset containing 1000 MS cases and 1000 matched controls and to associate DNA sequence (allelic) variations with MS phenotypes. Study subjects were enrolled through a prospective effort initiated in 2003. Three MS clinical centres were involved in subject recruitment and biological specimen collection using identical inclusion/exclusion criteria, two in Europe (Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam; and University Hospital Basel) and one in the US (University of California San Francisco). This study recruited subjects of northern-European ancestry with a diagnosis of MS (McDonald et al., 2001), with dissemination in time and space. Patients with Clinically Isolated Syndromes (CIS) were also included if they fulfilled 3 of the 4 Barkhof criteria for dissemination in space as per application of the McDonald criteria (McDonald et al., 2001). While recruitment predominantly included subjects with a relapsing onset of MS, individuals with all clinical subtypes of the disease participated, including clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS), primary progressive MS (PPMS), and progressive relapsing MS (PRMS). The control group consisted of unrelated individuals, primarily spouses/partners, friends, and other volunteers. Control subjects were of northern-European ancestry and matched as a group, proportionally with cases according to age (±5 years) and gender. A familial history or current diagnosis of MS as well as a relation to another case or control subject were considered exclusionary for this group. Protocols were approved by the Committees on Human Research at all Institutions and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation in the study. Primary Study Objective:To identify DNA sequence variations (genotype) and flanking sequences that are associated with clinical factors (phenotype) which differ between study subjects with and without MS. Secondary Study Objectives: To develop a clinical dataset including quantitative measures of 1000 well-characterized cases with MS, and 1000 ethnically matched controls. To identify other genotype-phenotype associations in MS study subjects such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of disease burden and/or severity. To identify or confirm candidate surrogate markers of neurodegeneration using a variety of techniques including biochemical assays, blood transcriptome analysis, plasma proteomics and MRI*. GenotypingGenotyping of the complete dataset was performed at the Illumina facilities using the Sentrix® HumanHap550 BeadChip. *MRI results are not available on dbGaP.

  Study phs000171

• Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ATCC (LGG) as an immune adjuvant for influenza vaccination in the elderly

  Double blind Randomized Controlled trial to evaluate the safety of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ATCC 53103 (LGG) vs placebo in elderly receiving Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (TIV) (study 1) or Double blind Randomized Controlled trial to evaluate the safety of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ATCC 53103 (LGG) vs. placebo in elderly subjects receiving Live Attenuated Influenza vaccine (LAIV) (study 2). Healthy elderly volunteers, ages 65-80 were enrolled as outpatients in two clinical studies in which they received the TIV vaccine (study 1, n=28) or the LAIV vaccine (study 2, n=30). In each of the 2 studies, subjects were randomized to receive either LGG capsules containing 1 x 1010 CFU, twice daily for 28 days, or matching placebo capsules twice daily for the same period of time. The study subjects completed a daily diary, telephone calls, and study visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Clinical Research Centers at baseline, days 21, 28 and 56 and month 5 for the TIV study and baseline, days 21, 28, and 56 for the LAIV study. During each visit, the subject diary, interim history, potential adverse effects and concomitant medications were reviewed and vital signs and a physical examination were performed. Routine blood tests were obtained to monitor for safety during visits and nasopharyngeal and stool samples were collected for microbiome analysis. Volunteers in both studies who were interested in participating in the effect of LGG probiotic on the Human whole Blood Transcriptome substudy also had blood drawn for DNA and RNA extraction, after signing the substudy consent form. The main objectives of the TIV and LAIV studies were to assess the safety and tolerability of 2 x 1010 CFU LGG administered orally to elderly subjects for 28 days after administration of TIV (study 1) or LAIV (study 2). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the richness and microbial diversity in nasopharyngeal and stool specimens using pyrosequencing, and to compare cytokine production in response to bacterial stimulation by following the kinetics of mRNA expression of pro and anti-inflammatory genes and different signaling pathways, in relation to changes in stool Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. The studies were reviewed and approved by the Partners Human Research Committee (TIV study IRB # 2010p001694 and LAIV study IRB # 2011p002849) and were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01368029 and NCT01545349, respectively).

  Study phs000981

• CSER: Clinical Implementation of Carrier Testing Using Next Generation Sequencing (NextGen)

  We will investigate the clinical implementation of genome sequencing (GS) for carrier screening to aid reproductive decision-making in adults. The study is organized into three inter-related Projects. The study population will include women and their partners who receive pre-conception testing. In Project 1, we will conduct a Randomized Clinical Trial to test clinical implementation of WGS compared with usual care. We will integrate WGS results with the electronic medical record (EMR), and measure outcomes from patient and physician perspectives. In Project 2, we will perform whole genome sequencing, including validation and interpretation of the identified variants to identify "actionable variants", meaning variants deemed worthy of reporting. This will include a robust approach using a Return of Results Committee (RORC) for determination of reportable results. In Project 3, we will evaluate the ethical and psychosocial implications of expanded carrier screening using WGS for the return of carrier status and secondary findings, and measure the impact on downstream healthcare utilization and cost. Two groups of women are identified through the electronic medical record. The first group has a clinical carrier screening test, usually Cystic Fibrosis (CF), ordered and completed as part of a preconception planning visit. The second group has a carrier screening test, usually CF, performed during pregnancy, they have delivered their baby and are planning a future pregnancy. Eligible women are randomized to either usual care or genome sequencing (GS). Women randomized into the usual care arm have already received their clinical genetic test. These women will not receive genome sequencing. Women in the GS arm will receive their carrier status results for about 700 gene/condition pairs approximately three months after randomization. If there are results to return, women come in for a genetic counseling session. If there are no results, a letter is sent in the mail. Incidental findings (IF) are returned about one month later. As with the carrier status results, all IF are returned in person, and if there are no results a letter is sent in the mail. If a participant is found to be a carrier of an autosomal recessive condition, her male partner is then eligible and invited to participate in the study and receive GS.

  Study phs000927

• Transcriptomic Profile of Whole Blood Cells from Elderly Subjects fed Probiotic Bacteria Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ATCC 53103 (LGG) in a Phase I Open Label Study

  Open label study to evaluate the safety of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG ATCC 53103 (LGG) in elderly subjects. Fifteen healthy elderly volunteers, ages 65-80 were enrolled in a study in which they received LGG capsules containing 1 x 1010 CFU, twice daily for 28 days and were followed through day 56. The study subjects completed a daily diary, a telephone call on study days 3, 7 and 14 and study visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Clinical Research Center at baseline, day 28 and day 56. During each visit, the subject diary, interim history, potential adverse effects and concomitant medications were reviewed and vital signs and a physical examination were performed. Routine blood tests were obtained to monitor for safety during visits and nasopharyngeal and stool samples were collected for microbiome analysis. Volunteers interested in participating in the effect of LGG probiotic on the Human whole Blood Transcriptome substudy also had blood drawn for DNA and RNA extraction, after signing the substudy consent form. The main objective of the study was to assess the safety and tolerability of 2 x 1010 CFU LGG administered orally to elderly subjects for 28 days. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the richness and microbial diversity in nasopharyngeal and stool specimens using pyrosequencing, and to compare cytokine production in response to bacterial stimulation by following the kinetics of mRNA expression of pro and anti-inflammatory genes and different signaling pathways, in relation to changes in stool Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. The study was reviewed and approved by the Partners Human Research Committee (IRB # 2010P001695) and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01274598). The main results regarding the clinical signs and safety of intervention is published in PLoS One. 2014 Dec 1;9(12):e113456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113456. eCollection 2014. PMID: 25438151. RNA sequencing for transcriptome analysis was only done in 11 of the 15 subjects as RNA integrity and quantity had to be optimal for the three times where blood was collected in order for a subject to be included in the study. The information regarding the microbiome data associated with this study is presented in a separate paper, which can be found at dbGaP study accession, phs000896, and PMID: 25873374.

  Study phs000928

• National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III)

  The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the U.S. general population, which was sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and conducted in 2012-2013. The NESARC-III's target population was the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population, 18 years and older, including residents of selected group quarters (e.g., group homes, workers' dormitories). Multistage probability sampling was used to randomly select respondents. Primary sampling units (PSUs) were individual counties or groups of contiguous counties, secondary sampling units (SSU) comprised groups of Census-defined blocks, and tertiary sampling units were households within SSUs. Finally, eligible adults within sampled households were randomly selected. Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians were oversampled and resulted in a total of 36,309 respondents. All respondents provided informed consent for survey participation. Data were adjusted for oversampling and screener - and person-level nonresponse, then weighted through post-stratification to represent the US civilian population based on the 2012 American Community Survey. These weighting adjustments were found to compensate adequately for nonresponse. Interviewer field methods involved initial structured home study, in-person training, ongoing supervision, and random respondent callbacks to verify data. The NESARC-III collected information on alcohol and drug consumption, alcohol use disorder, other substance use disorders (e.g., nicotine, cannabis and opioid), and associated physical and psychiatric adverse consequences. In addition to a full array of sociodemographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, age, risk and environmental factors including adverse childhood experiences (e.g., sexual, physical abuse and neglect) and family history for alcohol, drug use disorders and other psychiatric disorders (e.g., mood, anxiety, personality disorders and PTSD) were included (phenotypic variables=4,320). As part of the NESARC-III, 22,848 informative samples were genotyped on Affymetrix Axiom Exome Array consisting of 319,283 SNPs and 103,404 custom-selected SNPs Array (refer to the SNP annotation file). The latter array was selected based on the addiction associated genes, the results of 5 GWAS of alcohol and other psychiatric disorders, and animal models with addiction phenotypes. After filtering out poor quality SNPs using the standard Affymetrix pipeline there are 295,218 SNPs in the NESARC-III genetic data. The 22,848 subjects in this study were all deeply and consistently phenotyped via structured diagnostic interview. Controls group can be selected for specific disorders from a pool of all samples. Here are numbers of cases for major DSM-5 mental disorders in NESARC-III genetic data: Alcohol use disorder (7,075); Nicotine use disorder (6,641); Drug use disorder (2,570); Major depressive disorder (5,214); Persistent depression(1,429); Bipolar I (543); Anxiety disorders (4,226); PTSD (1,674); Personality disorders (4,014); Eating Disorders (457).

  Study phs001590

• 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

• The EGA Helpdesk team: 2025 in review and what we are building next

  Behind every dataset submitted, every access request processed, and every technical question answered, there is a team working quietly to keep things moving: the Helpdesk (HD). With the onset of 2026, this feels like the right moment to look back on what 2025 has been like for the HD team: the challenges we faced, how we adapted, and where we're heading next. Why the Helpdesk matters to EGA The EGA Helpdesk is more than a support channel. It plays a key role in maintaining trust in the EGA ecosystem. By supporting data submitters, researchers, Data Access Committees (DACs), and institutional partners, the HD helps ensure that data can flow securely, efficiently, and reliably. When issues arise, the Helpdesk is often the first place where their impact is felt and addressed. In that sense, the HD sits at the intersection of technology, policy, and people. One Helpdesk, two locations, one shared mission The EGA Helpdesk is a joint, distributed team working closely across two locations: CRG (Barcelona, Spain) and EMBL-EBI (Cambridge, UK). Although we are based in different institutions, we operate as a single Helpdesk, with shared workflows, priorities, and responsibility towards users. At CRG, the HD team is formed by: Andrea Max Àlex and me At EMBL-EBI, we work closely with: Silvia Coline Aravind What defines us as a team is simple: we work user-first, even under pressure. In a highly technical environment, clarity, empathy, and consistency matter just as much as tools and processes. A close collaboration across sites is essential to making that happen. What does the EGA Helpdesk do? The HD supports users across the full lifecycle of data in EGA. This includes: Data submissions, uploads, and encryption workflows. Data access requests and permissions. Questions around policies, consent, and data usage. Technical and system-related issues. Coordination between users, internal teams, and external partners. 2025: growth, change, and recalibration 2025 was a year of growth, but not always a predictable one. Early in the year, several technical and system-related challenges required us to adjust our original plans. Priorities shifted, timelines changed, and some improvements had to be rethought. For the HD team, this is often the hardest part of the job: we see delays through the eyes of users and understand the real impact they can have on ongoing research. One of the key lessons from 2025 was that stability is not only a technical challenge, but also an organisational one. Teamwork proved to be essential: anticipating peak periods, sharing context early, and coordinating closely across teams made a tangible difference. When things became complex, working together across roles and locations was what allowed us to keep moving forward. In 2025, the Helpdesk received 5.313 tickets and resolved 5.511 requests, reflecting both increased adoption of EGA and the team’s ability to absorb higher demand. At the same time, demand continued to grow. Compared to 2024, ticket creation increased by over 6%, while resolution capacity grew by more than 11%. The team not only kept up with incoming requests but also resolved part of the accumulated backlog, finishing the year having solved more tickets than were created. The real challenge of 2025 was not overall performance, but how the workload was concentrated during peak months. Seasonality and demand spikes placed pressure on the system, even while overall efficiency remained strong. On a team level, 2025 was also a year of transition. I joined the HD leadership role in January 2025, stepping into a period of change and rapid learning. Later in the year, in October, we said goodbye to Raül, and in January 2026, we welcomed Àlex, strengthening the team for the next phase. What users needed most in 2025 While requests vary widely, some themes stood out throughout the year: Support with data submissions and uploads Data access requests and permissions Technical and system-related issues As EGA matures, day-to-day operations have become more complex. Many long-running tickets are not delayed due to a lack of follow-up, but because they depend on external approvals, cross-institutional coordination, or multi-step processes. Understanding these patterns helps us focus not just on resolving tickets, but on improving how work flows through the system. Looking ahead to 2026 With a reinforced team and clearer insights from 2025, our focus for 2026 shifts from throughput to flow. Key priorities include: Strengthening our web content and documentation Reducing structural backlog Improving cross-team and cross-system coordination Anticipating peak demand earlier and planning capacity accordingly Challenges will continue to arise in 2026, as they always do. However, 2025 reinforced something important: a stable, empathetic, and well-aligned Helpdesk team is essential to supporting EGA's mission at scale. Supporting users well means supporting research, and that remains at the core of what we do.

  Blog ega-helpdesk-team-2025-in-review-and-upcoming-improvements

• Capturing the Genetic Diversity of the Himba Population

  The Himba people are a semi-nomadic, Bantu-speaking pastoralist group from the northwestern Kunene region of Namibia. Because of their limited population size, restricted geographic distribution, and endogamy, founder populations represent an ideal system for genetic analyses due to reduction of the confounding environmental and cultural variables. The original study used genotype data and demographic interview data to understand family dynamics and ancestry in a population of Himba pastoralists. HLA allele calls and genome-wide methylation array data were later generated for a subset of the initial dataset for 2 additional studies. These 3 molecular datasets, available through dbGaP, are relevant to broader studies of ancestry, allele frequencies and the relationship of Himba to other ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa. The Himba population provides a unique opportunity to study questions regarding extra-pair paternity and mate selection because Himba culture allows both men and women, married and not, to take multiple partners. Previous estimates of extra-pair paternity rates in human populations have been very low, but these estimates lack global and cultural diversity in population representation. Thus, investigating the rate of extra-pair paternity in the Himba greatly aids in understanding the global variation in non-paternity rates among human populations. Saliva samples were collected from parents and children, and were genotyped on Illumina SNP array platforms (MEGAex and H3Africa). In total, 678 individuals' genotype array data are deposited. Paternity results were de-identified and protected by a double blind protocol (no researcher has full knowledge of individual paternity results). Due to the sensitive nature of this study, paternity assertions are not available for access. For a subset of 360 individuals, HLA class 1 (A, B, C) and class 2 (DPA1, DPB1, DQA1, DQB1, DRB1) genes were targeted for DNA sequencing using a probe-based capture method. HLA alleles at the four field resolution were determined from the sequence capture using the consensus calls obtained from two algorithms: NGSengine® 2.10.0 (GenDX, Utrecht, the Netherlands) and HLA Explore™ (Omixon Biocomputing Ltd. Budapest, Hungary). These data were used to investigate evidence for mate selection based on HLA dissimilarity in the Himba. Himba cultural norms permit concurrent arranged marriages and chosen sexual partnerships allowing us to directly test for evidence of disassortative mate selection based on HLA genotype. Due to the sensitive nature of this study, partnership data are not available for access.For a subset of 51 Himba individuals methylation array data was generated from the saliva-derived DNA. These data were generated in order to investigate the accuracy of epigenetic age predictors in this population and to construct population-specific epigenetic age predictors in a subsequent publication. Chronological ages are available for these 51 individuals.

  Study phs001995

• Discover Cancer Image Europe, the first release of the EUCAIM platform to fuel cancer research and data sharing

  The EUCAIM consortium and the European Commission have announced the release of Cancer Image Europe, a platform to fuel collaborative innovation and data sharing across Europe. This constitutes a major milestone in EUCAIM's development and an exciting step towards achieving the project's vision and goals. The platform aims to accelerate the pace of AI development and other data-intensive cancer research activities, constituting the basis for a fully-fledged infrastructure for sharing, reusing, and exploiting cancer imaging data, especially using AI techniques. A platform paving the way for the future of cancer diagnosis and treatment Cancer Image Europe brings benefits to researchers, clinicians, and AI innovators across Europe as it addresses the fragmentation of existing cancer image repositories. The platform gathers a public catalogue of cancer imaging datasets from the repositories of the EU-funded AI for Health Imaging projects. A distributed Atlas of Cancer Imaging with over 60 million anonymised cancer image data from over 100,000 patients will be established as part of future updates. The first version of Cancer Image Europe also includes a public catalogue of cancer imaging datasets, a federated searching tool to understand the information available in the federated providers, and full integration with Life Science Login. Moreover, it reuses and adds value to key components of EU-funded research projects and infrastructure in the field of cancer. The Public Catalogue When we talk about data re-use, data discovery is key. The EUCAIM public catalogue is the result of a systematic and collaborative process to which the EGA-CRG has actively contributed. This browsing interface gathers the metadata of the available cancer imaging datasets. This descriptive information will help researchers in their data retrieval. Our contribution to the Public Catalogue comes from our experience gained in the deployment of our federated network, the Federated EGA (FEGA), and as partners in projects such as EuCanImage (AI4HI initiative), in which we worked on the definition of common data models, ontologies and data standards. The EUCAIM Project EUCAIM is a cornerstone of the European Commission-initiated European Cancer Imaging Initiative, a flagship of the Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, which aims to foster innovation and deployment of digital technologies in cancer treatment and care, to achieve more precise and faster clinical decision-making, diagnostics, treatments, and predictive medicine for cancer patients. For more information about the first release of the Cancer Image Europe platform and the EUCAIM project, please visit cancerimage.eu.

  Blog discover-cancer-image-europe

• INCLUDE Data Hub: NDA GUIDs for Down Syndrome Research

  The INCLUDE (INvestigation of Co-occurring conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndromE) Project is an NIH-wide collaboration that seeks to improve health and quality of life for people with Down syndrome. The INCLUDE Project Data Coordinating Center (DCC) and partners created the INCLUDE Data Hub, a centralized data resource that allows access to large-scale clinical and multi-omics datasets specific to Down syndrome and supports collaborative, cloud-based analysis to accelerate scientific discoveries related to Down syndrome and its co-occurring conditions. The INCLUDE Data Hub includes an innovative researcher data repository, a portal, and a cloud-based platform for data analysis. The portal provides access to de-identified demographics and clinical metadata, as well as multi-omics datasets, including whole genome sequences, transcriptomes, proteomes, and metabolomes. The INCLUDE Data Hub uses a 'registered access' model, whereby users can access the portal and associated data after agreeing to terms of use. From the Data Hub, users can also reach 'controlled access' data (e.g., whole genome sequences) only for those studies for which they have obtained approval by an NIH Data Access Committee through the corresponding dbGaP study. A thoughtful linkage strategy to identify duplicate participants across studies enables researchers to merge multiple datasets and data types to create richer datasets and reduce costly redundancies in large-scale data generation (e.g., -omics) while mitigating potential risks introduced by linkage.Based on recommendations from the NICHD Office of Data Science and Sharing, which completed a comprehensive assessment of existing Privacy Protecting Record Linkage (PPRL) and associated data governance solutions, the INCLUDE DCC and the associated NIH Steering Committee have implemented NIMH Data Archive Global Unique Identifiers (NDA GUIDs) in the INCLUDE Data Hub. The NDA GUID Tool is a government-owned and operated PPRL technology that enables researchers to link data from multiple sources to the same individual without revealing personally identifiable information (PII). With the NDA GUID Tool, the same participant information will return the same GUID whenever or wherever it is entered. The GUID itself is not personally identifiable information or protected health information. Sharing data with NDA GUIDs allows approved researchers to link together data on a single participant, even if the data were collected at different locations or through different studies or are distributed from different data repositories. This dbGaP study enables researchers to access an INCLUDE GUID Mapping File that includes all available NDA GUIDs and their associations to study-specific Participant IDs across studies in the INCLUDE Data Hub. This dbGaP study only distributes NDA GUIDs associated with the INCLUDE Data Hub datasets. To access the associated controlled-access datasets, add the corresponding dbGaP studies to your Data Access Request. A list of these studies is available on the INCLUDE Data Hub Portal: https://portal.includedcc.org/studies.

  Study phs003678

• Federated EGA

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

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

• The Federated EGA network

  In the last 10 years, most human omics data has been generated in the context of research consortia while recently there has been an emergence of large cohorts of human data generated by healthcare initiatives. Many countries in Europe now have nascent personalised medicine programmes. Thus, human genomics is shifting from being predominantly research-driven to being funded through healthcare systems. Genetic data generated in a healthcare context is subject to more stringent information governance than research data and nonetheless all data must adhere to national data protections laws. In this context, EGA identified the need for the development of a federated network to enable secure sharing of data whilst enabling genetic data to remain within the jurisdiction in which it was generated. The Federated EGA is designed to support national data management requirements for genomic and clinical data collected from citizens as part of healthcare or biomedical research projects. It includes a secure authorised access mechanism to support research use of these data across Europe and worldwide. We have engaged with over 14 ELIXIR countries to develop the federation model. The EGA federated configuration is composed of Central EGA, Federated EGA nodes and Community EGA nodes: Central EGA offers international submissions and helpdesk support, currently EGA co-managed by EMBL-EBI and CRG, Federated EGA nodes offer EGA services to researchers within their national jurisdiction, Community EGA nodes are individual institutions or initiatives with human genetic data intended to be shared with the research community. Key services available in the Federated EGA structure are: Central EGA Federated EGA node Community EGA nodes Data submission Offers international submissions service Offers submission service in a particular jurisdiction Does not offer an external submissions service Helpdesk support Provides external international helpdesk Provides helpdesk support for submitters in its jurisdiction and for approved users of data managed at its facilities Provides helpdesk support only for approved users of data managed at its facilities Data distribution Manages worldwide distribution for data hosted at Central EGA Manages worldwide distribution for data hosted at Federated EGA node Distribution for data hosted at Community EGA node EMBL-EBI and CRG have prepared a series of documents describing the overall governance and coordination framework. These describe the Federated EGA structure, the rights and responsibilities of the different parties and governing committees, and node operation guidelines. The federation governance proposal is under review by the first countries invited to join as Federated nodes, with further interested countries likely to join in the coming years. The Central EGA team has been working closely with many ELIXIR partners, including ELIXIR Finland, Luxembourg, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

  Blog the-federated-ega-network

• NHLBI TOPMed: My Life Our Future (MLOF) Research Repository of Patients with Hemophilia A (Factor VIII Deficiency) or Hemophilia B (Factor IX Deficiency)

  Hemophilia A and B are X-linked bleeding disorders resulting from a deficiency in coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively. Hemophilia affects approximately 1/5000 male births worldwide, and results in premature death and disability due to bleeding if coagulation factor replacement therapy is not used effectively. Hemophilia is clinically categorized by coagulation factor activity levels and ranges in severity from mild (6% to 30%) to moderate (1-5%) to severe (<1%). Many female "carriers" of hemophilia also have decreased factor activity and morbidity from bleeding. Hemophilia A and B are almost always caused by identifiable mutations in the F8 and F9 genes, respectively, and these mutations are found throughout the structural genes. Although the hemophilias are monogenic disorders, there are wide variations in disease severity and therapeutic outcomes which are not readily explained by the disease causing mutations alone. The My Life Our Future (MLOF) project (www.mylifeourfuture.org) is a national resource developed by a partnership of BloodworksNW (BWNW, formerly the Puget Sound Blood Center), the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and Bioverativ, to provide free F8 and F9 gene variant analysis to patients with hemophilia A or B, and to establish a research repository of DNA sequence, DNA, RNA, buffy coat, serum and plasma. The sequence analysis and serum samples are linked to a phenotypic database hosted by ATHN, with samples submitted and clinical data entered at ~100 hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs) nationwide. (See ATHN Research Report Brief in the resource center at www.athn.org). MLOF has become the largest hemophilia genetic project worldwide. The roles of the MLOF partners are: BWNW, to serve as the central laboratory for the project and house the research repository; ATHN, to support and provide the administrative link with HTCs, to facilitate the collection of accurate phenotypic data, to conduct research review and approval for use of the repository and with BWNW to provide samples and data for research projects; NHF, to provide consumer education and facilitate consumer input into the project; and Bioverativ, to provide financial support and scientific input. The project is governed by a Steering Committee consisting of one representative from each organization. Subject samples chosen from the MLOF parent study for TOPMed and WGS were drawn from those who gave (or parents gave) informed consent for the Research Repository and included patients of all severities and type, but with an emphasis on those with severe hemophilia and others at increased risk of neutralizing antibody (inhibitor) formation and who had samples in the Research Repository (plasma, serum, RNA) for potential additional -omic studies. Also included were samples from subjects where a likely causative variant for hemophilia was not found in the F8 or F9 coding region, intron-exon boundaries or immediate upstream and downstream regions. Since hemophilia is an X-linked disorder, the majority of subjects are male. Racial distribution is similar to the overall population distribution.

  Study phs001515

• INCLUDE: The Epidemiology of Transient Leukemia in Newborns with Down Syndrome

  The INCLUDE (INvestigation of Co-occurring conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndromE) Project is an NIH-wide collaboration that seeks to improve health and quality-of-life for people with Down syndrome. The INCLUDE Project Data Coordinating Center and partners created the INCLUDE Data Hub, a centralized data resource that allows access to large-scale clinical and multi-omics datasets specific to Down syndrome and supports collaborative, cloud-based analysis to accelerate scientific discoveries related to Down syndrome and its co-occurring conditions.Down syndrome (DS) is associated with a remarkably high risk of childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML), with an approximately 500-fold increased risk of the rare subtype acute megakaryoblastic leukemia. Though largely treatable, a proportion of myeloid leukemia in DS (ML-DS) patients relapse with dismal survival. ML-DS is preceded by a preleukemia, transient abnormal myelopoiesis (TAM), which presents clinically at birth and is driven by somatic truncating mutations in the erythro-megakaryocytic transcription factor gene GATA1. Up to 15% of DS newborns have TAM, and this can be fatal in up to 20% of cases. A further 10-15% of newborns with DS harbor subclonal GATA1 mutations with clinically silent disease (i.e., Silent TAM). Of the DS newborns with either TAM or Silent TAM (i.e., transient leukemia), up to 15% will acquire additional somatic mutations and progress to ML-DS. We predict that germline variation modifies the risk of developing somatic truncating GATA1 mutations, the first step towards ML-DS, however this has yet to be examined. To address this, the main aim of this X01 study is to perform the first genetic association study of GATA1 mutations in DS, through whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of 470 DS newborns in the Oxford Down Syndrome Cohort Study (ODSCS). Targeted sequencing of GATA1 has already been performed in the 470 DS newborns in the ODSCS, with 130 (28%) confirmed to harbor a somatic truncating GATA1 mutation. We will perform a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of GATA1 mutations to assess genetic variation genome-wide, in particular focusing on variants in candidate genes on the trisomic chromosome 21, RUNX1, ERG, ETS2, and DYRK1A, which have previously been associated with upregulation of GATA1. We will also carry out a chromosome X-wide association study (XWAS) to investigate genetic variation at the GATA1 gene, which resides on chromosome X. WGS data will also enable us to assess the potential role of copy number variation in the risk of transient leukemia in DS. Discovering genetic risk factors for GATA1 mutations in DS may reveal targets for new targeted therapies for TAM, and also inform the etiology of ML-DS as well as AML in the non-DS population. Finally, the ODSCS includes rich phenotypic data for the 470 DS newborns, including clinical diagnosis of TAM and other hematologic complications, complete blood counts, maternal pregnancy complications, and information on congenital heart disease and other birth defects. Thus, whole genome sequencing data in DS newborns from the ODSCS will provide a rich resource for the DS research community.

  Study phs002982

• First datasets available in the Federated EGA Network

  In February 2024, a great milestone was reached for the human omics data community: the first datasets are now available in the Federated European Genome-phenome Archive (FEGA). These datasets - hosted by national nodes in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - are discoverable in the EGA portal and accessible according to national laws. These datasets include: From FEGA Poland - The Genomic Map Of Poland From FEGA Norway - CRCbiome: Gut metagenome of Norwegian screening participants using FIT sampling Also from FEGA Norway - Single cell transcriptomics in expanded Tregs of APS-1 patients From FEGA Sweden - A Combined Omics and Tissue Biobank for Paediatric Cancers The establishment of these datasets represents a significant step towards achieving the broader objectives of the FEGA; to facilitate the sharing of high-quality human genomic and phenotypic data across borders. “The value for users is twofold: it becomes easier to make data available securely compared to storing data locally, and data becomes easier to find for other researchers. The possibility of reuse improves the chances of both verifying scientific discoveries and reaching groundbreaking conclusions, of benefit to the research community and later also patients,” said Anna Hagwall, project manager and head of human data at FEGA Sweden, NBIS. About Federated EGA FEGA was launched in 2022 as a network to store and lawfully share sensitive human omics data safely. It relies on the technology originally developed by the EGA and support from ongoing collaborations with ELIXIR - a European life sciences infrastructure. FEGA has contributed to and benefitted from the implementation of community standards for sensitive data management including those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH). “The FEGA concept and the development of the Nordic FEGA nodes have been made possible thanks to several projects coordinated by NeIC,” said Kjell Petersen, FEGA Norway technical lead. Managing human omics data is challenging due to its sheer size and privacy concerns, often resulting in restrictions on how and where sensitive data can be shared. The FEGA network follows a federated data access model whereby sensitive data is stored securely within a local or national jurisdiction, while discovery across the network for data of interest is enabled via a central portal. As of February 2024, the FEGA network comprises seven European national nodes with tens of additional national partners working towards establishing a FEGA node. As the FEGA network continues to onboard nodes from around the world, populated with more and more data, we move closer to a vision of a truly global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics data to accelerate disease research and improve human health. "The Federated EGA network is entering a key phase where the first research datasets are now available across the network. In coming years, we look forward to expanding these datasets to cover key areas such as cancer and rare diseases for the benefit of patients" said Thomas Keane, Group Leader at EMBL-EBI.

  Blog first-datasets-available-in-Federated-EGA

• EGA account management

  How to manage your EGA account Welcome to the documentation page for creating an EGA user. The European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is a platform for archiving, managing, and sharing human genomic and phenotypic data. To submit, access, and manage requests for the data hosted on the EGA platform, users are required to register for an account. This documentation page provides step-by-step instructions for creating an EGA user account, as well as information on the different types of EGA user accounts and their associated privileges. You can check the EGA data flow for a better understanding. Manage EGA account step-by-step guide Contact Information Public Keys Password Authenticator Federated Identity Sessions Request an EGA account step-by-step guide Fill in this form.You cannot use a generic email account (e.g., Gmail). Make sure you use your institutional email account.Your email is by default your username.The criteria for a strong password is: It should contain between 8 and 32 charactersIt should contain at least one uppercase letterIt should contain at least one numberIt should contain at least one special characterYou will need to wait for the Helpdesk team to check your identity. Please allow two business days for this step.After the Helpdesk validation step, you will receive an email with a link to validate your institutional email.Click the link to verify your email. It will redirect you to the EGA website.As soon as your account has been validated, you will be able to start adding more information to your EGA profile. For that, you first need to log in using your credentials from step 1. Manage EGA account step-by-step guide As a logged-in user, go to your profile by clicking on Welcome > My Profile. To modify it, click the Edit button.You will see the following options: Contact Information In this section, you can modify the personal information of your EGA account. Public Keys Adding a public key is necessary for downloading data via Live Outbox distribution. If you don’t know how to generate your key, you can follow the instructions available on How do I create a key? Password In the Password tab, you can change your password anytime to ensure the security of your account. However, if you receive an email notifying you that your password was modified and you did not initiate the change, it could be a sign that your account has been compromised. In this case, you should immediately contact our Helpdesk team to report the issue and receive assistance in restoring your account security. Authenticator You can set your two-factor authentication (2FA) system for your EGA account as an identity and access management security method that requires two forms of identification to access resources and data. To obtain your code, please follow the instructions below, also available in the Authenticator tab in your profile. Sessions The Sessions tab displays a list of all devices where you are currently logged in as an EGA user. This includes any open sessions you have on your computer, phone, or other devices. By reviewing the list of active sessions, you can monitor the devices that have access to your account and ensure that there are no unauthorised logins. If you notice any suspicious activity, you can close the sessions from this page to immediately terminate access to your account from the unauthorised device.

  Documentation how-to-manage-your-account

• Best Practices for DACs

  Best Practices Data access committees (DACs) are institutional safeguards responsible for ensuring a balance between data protection and accessibility. However, there are no procedural standards that apply across DACs, which can lead to inconsistencies in their reviews and compromise their quality and effectiveness. Standardising DAC processes can foster trust and mutual recognition, paving the way for greater coordination, collaboration, and delegation between DACs and other oversight bodies to improve the efficiency of data access without sacrificing protection. To provide guidance, the following are suggestions for actions a DAC might take upon receiving a data access request: Aim to respond to all initial requests in less than 2 weeks. Failure to do so may result in follow-up emails from the EGA, journals, and ultimately dataset withdrawal. First, check that the data/EGAD number is consistent with your data submission. In other words, ensure that the requester has contacted the correct DAC. Verify that the user will be using the data within the terms of consent by asking them to sign up to the terms within the DAA. Ensure that data users who are granted access to the data comply with the terms of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and to use the data only in approved ways. Look for an institutional email address for the requester. Search for evidence that the requester is "appropriately qualified/bona fide" for using the data, for example on PubMed, Research Gate, LinkedIn, etc. Confirm that the affiliated organisation is real and that the requester still works there. Inquire with the requester about who should have accounts created at the EGA under the terms of the agreement. If a negative decision is made, promptly communicate it to the requester and support it with the terms of the Data Access Policy that the requester has not met or cannot meet. Keep the information in the DAC up to date. If you leave your institution and are unable to manage data access requests on their behalf, you should add your replacement as a new contact in the DAC. Assist with data access requests for any further questions related to your data. The EGA can only check information that has been deposited in the repository. If the user has a specific question that the EGA cannot answer, we will redirect the user to the DAC. All the EGA studies and datasets referenced in a publication under your DAC must be publicly searchable on the EGA website before the paper is released. If possible, describe the permitted purposes for subsequent research projects, including associated limits and conditions, for all resources hosted in a repository using a common ontology, such as the GA4GH Data Use Ontology (DUO). It is considered best practice to try and release data only to those with an institutional email address. This gives reassurance to the EGA, research participants, and the general public that an appropriate individual is accessing and using the data. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/best-practices

• Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC)

  In 2016 we established the Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC) funded by the Ice Bucket Challenge Grant administered by the Motor Neurone Disease Research Institute of Australia. The goals of the SALSA-SGC are to collect biological samples from clinics across Australia with matched in depth clinical and self-report phenotypes and to generate multiple levels of genetic and genomic data. In this first data generation exercise of the SALSA-SGC the majority of the samples were collected prior to the formal establishment of SALSA-SGC from clinics across Australia.Briefly, the cohort includes the University of Sydney’s Australian Motor Neuron Disease DNA Bank (MND Bank) cohort recruited April 2000 to June 2011), with study protocol approved by the Sydney South West Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Cases were recruited from around Australia via state-based MND associations with diagnosis verified by a neurologist. The remainder of the cases were recruited from clinics across Australia between 2015 and 2017 under HREC approvals from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Macquarie University Multidisciplinary Motor Neurone Disease Clinic,  Calvary Health Care Bethlehem in Melbourne , Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, and from 2016 under HREC approvals at each site for the sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC). The ALS cases were diagnosed with definite or probable ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria. Some controls were recruited as either partners or friends of patients, healthy individuals free of neuromuscular diseases. We are providing GWAS and MWAS data in this dataset. Individual level GWAS data were generated using Illumina Infinium CoreExome-24 version 1.1 chips for N= 846 cases and N=665 controls. Individual MWAS data was generated using the Illumina Human methylation 450K array for N=782 cases and N=613 controls. There 1315 individuals where GWAS and MWAS data has been generated and is available. Further information on these data sets can be found: Paper 1: Restuadi, R, Garton, FC, Benyamin, B, Lin, T, et al. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Correlation with Cognitive Performance, educational attainment and schizophrenia: evidence from polygenic risk score analysis. (submitted) Paper 2: Nabais, MF, Lin, T, Benyamin, B et al. Significant out-of-sample classification from methylation profile scoring for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2020. NPJ genomic medicine. 5(10). Files provided in this submission include: GWAS: This folder contains QCed genotype for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. Contains PLINK files for genotyping data (not imputed yet). The individuals selected here have: good consistency on phenotype data ethics approval registered as part of sporadic ALS studies unrelated by GRM cut-off 0.05 No ancestry QC yet MWAS: This folder contains the IDAT and post-QC normalized DNAm (beta) for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. 2019_AUS_ALS_PCTG_DNAm.tar.gz - IDATS for 1315 individuals analyzed in the MWAS study normalized_beta_values - Binary files (created with the OSCA software) containing information on the individuals, probes and the DNAm (beta) values obtained after QC phenotype_file - contains all the covariates analysed in the MWAS including: case-control status, coded 0 = Control and 1 = ALS, predicted age, predicted cell-type proportions, predicted smoking scores, slide and chip position and sex Important Notes: The DNAm data were normalized together with samples that were not part of this ALS case/control study and thus, the normalization procedure may not be 100% reproducible using only the IDAT files uploaded here. Summary data has been made publicly available and can be accessed directly: Data collection and sample processing were performed at several clinics across Australia. Genotyping and DNA methylation arrays were performed by the Human Studies Unit, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland). Quality control of the genotypic, phenotypic and DNA methylation data was done by the Program of Complex Traits Genomics, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland).

  Study phs002068

• Everything you need to know about Federated EGA Affiliates: Q&A

  Addressing common questions about Federated EGA (FEGA) Affiliates and providing answers. FEGA Affiliates have recently been defined as the third tier within the newly approved “Federated EGA Structure and Organisation” document, alongside Central EGA (CEGA) and the FEGA Nodes. In this blog post, we aim to answer the questions that may arise on this topic. For more general information about FEGA Affiliates, you can refer to this blog post. Let's now start with the questions and answers! What is the difference between a FEGA Affiliate and a FEGA Node? FEGA Nodes A FEGA Node is a national-level service that accepts submissions and provides archiving and access services within a single country's jurisdiction. Nodes provide end-to-end services for submitters in that jurisdiction, including submission support, processing, permissions management, and distribution. FEGA Affiliates A FEGA Affiliate is not a national submission service. Instead, it archives data from its own legal entity and/or selected partner institutions (for example, consortium partners). Affiliates are designed for organisations and consortia that need to keep data stewardship and access decisions within their own governance model, while still enabling discovery through the broader FEGA ecosystem. What do Affiliates commit to? Here is a practical checklist of the core expectations for a FEGA Affiliate. FEGA Affiliate checklist Discovery and metadata Submit non-personal metadata to CEGA to obtain EGA accessions and enable discovery (with metadata validation handled by the CEGA Helpdesk). Operations and resilience Maintain a data storage system and a defined backup/recovery approach. Ensure operational capacity (personnel and infrastructure) to deliver Affiliate services. Maintain systems and practices that support local data security and align with EGA best-practices. Access and user support Provide data distribution or access (e.g in a trusted research environment) to authorised users to datasets hosted at the Affiliate. Provide permissions management for datasets archived by the Affiliate (the CEGA DAC (Data Access Committee) Portal is always at your disposal to use). Provide a minimal helpdesk with sufficient capacity to support relevant DACs and approved users. Membership term Commit to a minimum membership term of four years. Governance and participation (lightweight by design) Affiliates integrate into the FEGA network operationally, but without the committee obligations associated with Nodes. When is becoming an Affiliate the right fit? Consider the Affiliate tier if: You host (or plan to host) controlled-access datasets that must be managed under your organisation’s or consortium’s governance, you want studies to be discoverable through EGA, but need access control and/or distribution to remain local, and you are not aiming to operate a national submission service tier.. What if a FEGA Node already exists in my jurisdiction? We encourage any potential Affiliate to reach out to their national FEGA Node to explore collaboration at the national level. Why? Federated models within a country already exist in FEGA, where a national Node operates like a Central EGA for their country. FEGA Nodes can also represent the interests of any Affiliates within their jurisdiction at the FEGA Committees. FEGA Nodes have experience and can support you on your FEGA journey. Ready to join as a FEGA Affiliate? We’re excited to open this formally defined pathway for organisations and consortia to participate in the federation. If you think the FEGA Affiliate tier fits your needs, start by assessing: Your scope (organisation/consortium-held data rather than public external submissions), Your ability to provide the core services (permissions, distribution/access, helpdesk, monitoring), and Your readiness to submit non-personal metadata to CEGA for accessioning and discovery. To express interest, please contact us here, and we'll help you understand the onboarding steps and how Affiliates integrate into the FEGA network.

  Blog fega-affiliates-q&a

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024

• A Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients Experiencing Musculoskeletal Adverse Events on NCIC CTG Trial MA.27 Evaluating Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer. A Collaboration Between the NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network and the RIKEN Yokohama Institute Center for Genomic Medicine.

  Source of Patients The source of the patients for this genome-wide case control study was MA.27, which was conducted as a multi-cooperative group effort under the auspices of the NCI Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. The NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG) serves as the coordinating group, with participation by the NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). MA.27 involved postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected invasive breast cancer with surgical margins clear of invasive carcinoma and DCIS in the following TMN categories (AJCC Version 6): pT1, pT2, pT3; pNx, pN0, pN1, pN2, pN3 (only when the sole basis is presence of 10 or more involved axillary nodes); MO. The primary tumor must have been ER and/or progesterone receptor positive. Patients were stratified by lymph node status at diagnosis, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and trastuzumab use and were randomized to 5 years of adjuvant therapy with anastrozole or exemestane. The trial was activated on May 26, 2003, and reached its accrual objectives on July 31, 2008, after the randomization of 6827 North American patients, with the majority (79%) providing DNA and consent for genetic testing. Non-North American patients were also entered by the International Breast Cancer Study Group but they did not contribute DNA. From 2003 to December 21, 2004, patients also underwent a second randomization to celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo but, after the entry of 1,622 patients, this treatment was discontinued because of reports of increased cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib. Case Definition for Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Cases were defined to have had at least one of the following six MSAE): 1. pain - joint, 2. pain - muscle, 3. pain - bone, 4. arthritis, 5. joint - function, 6. musculoskeletal - other. Cases were required to have at least grade 3 toxicity, according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, or go off treatment for any grade of the six MSAEs; and were required to have had an MSAE within the first two years (i.e., a MSAE occurring after 2 years was not be considered a case). Subjects were excluded from the case group who met the case definition while on celecoxib or in the three months after stopping celecoxib but subjects were allowed to be cases if they developed their first MSAE more than three months after stopping celecoxib. Study Design The design was a nested matched case-control study with two controls selected for each case. Random matching from the potential control group (i.e., risk-set sampling such that controls had at least the same length of followup as the timing of the case event) was done by matching the case on the following factors: 1. treatment arm (exemestane vs. anastrozole, blinded), 2. prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), 3. age at start of treatment (+/- 5 years), 4. Celecoxib allocation (yes vs. no). Attempts were made to exactly match each case with two controls according to the above criteria. If, however, controls could not be exactly matched, "close" matching was used to define a distance between each case and all potential controls in an optimal matching algorithm. Race is a potential confounding factor, and 94% of the MA.27 population is Caucasian, 3% are Black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian, and 1% are of unknown race. Because there are so few non-Caucasian participants, was restricted to only Caucasians. Following identification of cases and controls, the list was sent to the CALGB Pathology Coordinating Office (PCO) at Ohio State University Medical Center for plating of the samples. Other patient factors that might influence the association of SNP genotypes with a MSAE, either as confounding factors or as effect modifiers, were included as investigational covariates. These include 1. body mass index (BMI), 2. bisphosphonate use, 3. fractures in past 10 years, 4. baseline ECOG performance status, 5. prior hormone replacement therapy, 6. prior adjuvant radiotherapy, and 7. prior taxane treatment. An Honest Broker Process was utilized to ensure patient confidentiality. Genotype Assays and Quality Control A GWAS was performed with the Illumina Human610-Quad at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine. The DNA for all of the samples were adjusted to a concentration of 50 to 100 ng/µL in a final volume of 50 µL. The 96-well plates were designed to have a unique distribution pattern with x duplicates per plate to evaluate genotype concordance. Samples with <98% call rate were removed from analyses. SNPs with ambiguous call will be excluded using the following criteria: 1. low signal intensity of each allele, 2. low cluster separation score, 3. SNP call rate <0.98, 4. SNPs with Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium p-value <0.001 were excluded. X-chromosome SNPs were used to validate female sex and quality control measures were examined across the different submitting centers. For all pairs of subjects, the percentage of matching genotypes were computed to screen for unexpected duplicate samples. All SNPs found to be associated with MSAE were subjected to visual inspection of the cluster plots to verify that the genotype clustering was adequate.

  Study phs000210

• How to upload GPG files

  Uploading files Users that holds an ega-box-XXX account can upload files using either INBOX or FTP. Users who have a Submitter role associated with their email will only be able to upload files using INBOX. Before uploading your files please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters in their naming convention such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &. This can cause issues with the archiving process, leading to problems for end users. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited storage. In order to manage the available resources, we enforce a limit of 10Tb per submission account at any one time. Please do not exceed this limit. INBOX FTP The FTP is only compatible with files encrypted using the EGACryptor tool Before uploading Once your submission files have been prepared using the EGAryptor, the resulting encrypted files and associated md5sum files can be uploaded to your submission account using Aspera or FTP. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited resources. In order to manage the available resources, EGA submission boxes should not exceed 8Tb in size, and cannot exceed 12Tb. If you are approaching this limit please contact contact EGA Helpdesk so that we can advise on how to register the associated metadata and trigger the archiving of files, so that you can continue with your submission. If we note that your submission account increases above 10Tb on a consistent base your password will be changed until metadata is associated. Aspera Download Aspera Using Aspera FTP FTP windows FTP Linux / Unix FTP client (Filezilla) FTP and TLS Troubleshooting Troubleshooting Aspera Download Aspera is a commercial file transfer protocol that may provide faster transfer speeds than ftp especially over longer distances. The Aspera ascp command line client. Please select Aspera Connect. The ascp command line client is distributed as part of the aspera connect highperformance transfer browser plugin and is free to use, without registration. The minimum required version of the IBM Aspera Cli is V4. Further instructions. Using the Aspera ascp command line program The location of the ascp program in the filesystem: Mac: on the desktop go cd /Applications/Aspera\ Connect.app/Contents/Resources/ there you'll see the command line utilities where you're going to use ascp. Windows: the downloaded files are a bit hidden. For instance, in Windows 7 the ascp.exe is located in the users home directory in: AppData\Local\Programs\Aspera\Aspera Connect\bin\ascp.exe Linux: should be in your user's home directory, cd /home/username/.aspera/connect/bin/ there you'll see the command line utilities where you're going to use ascp. Your command should look similar to this: ascp -P33001 -O33001 -QT -l300M -L- /path/file ega-box-N@fasp.ega.ebi.ac.uk:/path If you wish to upload several files without being requested the password, please use the below command : ASPERA_SCP_PASS=ega-box-password ascp -P33001 -O33001 -QT -l300M /path/file ega-box-N@fasp.ega.ebi.ac.uk:/path/ Explanation of parameters l300M option sets the upload speed limit to 30MB/s. You may wish to lower this value to increase the reliability of the transfer. L option is for printing logs out while transferring files to upload can be a file mask (e.g. '/homes/submitter/*.srf) or a list of files. ega-box-N is your submission account login. Add k2 switch for transfer restarts Check the command line transfer usage for more configuration details. Using FTP to upload your prepared files Use your preferred ftp client. For example, lftp is a popular choice for Linux and Mac users. Use binary mode for file transfers. Use ftp.ega.ebi.ac.uk as the target host. Login with your ega-box username and password. Upload files to your private ega-box upload area. Depending on your network setting you might wish to start FTP in passive or active mode. Using default FTP command line client in Windows Start the command line interpreter: press WinR, type cmd, hit enter Enter ftp ftp.ega.ebi.ac.uk Enter your submission username Enter your submission password Type binary to enter binary mode for transfer To see a list of available ftp commands type help. Type ls command to check the content of your submission account. Type prompt to switch off confirmation for each file uploaded. Use mput command to upload files: mput *.bam* Use bye command to exit the ftp client. Use exit command to exit the command line interpreter. Using default FTP command line client in Linux / Unix Open a terminal and type ftp ftp.ega.ebi.ac.uk Enter your submission username Enter your submission password Type binary to enter binary mode for transfer To see a list of available ftp commands type help. Type ls command to check the content of your submission account. Type prompt to switch off confirmation for each file uploaded. Use mput command to upload files: mput *.bam* Use bye command to exit the ftp client. Using FTP client FileZilla We recommend the use of FileZilla, a free FTP client . FileZilla is open source software distributed free of charge under the terms of the GNU General Public License. Use the following connection details (File - Site Manager) and add yoursubmission account username and password: Using FTP client FileZilla Select the files you wish to upload and then select upload: Using FTP client Filezilla Using LFTP with TLS We recommend the following to force the use of a secure connection. lftp > set ftp:ssl-force yes We also recommend setting the following for not encrypting the bulk data itself for performance reasons (theauthentication will still be encrypted): lftp > ftp:ssl-protect-data no In order to verify the certificate,the recommended way would be to use the CA certificates from your machine. To do that use this command in lftp adjusting the path to your ca-certificates location. lftp > ssl:ca-file "/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt" If that is not possible or certificates are old and you can't update them, you can download the certificates needed from Quo Vadis Digital Repository The two certificates to download in PEM format are: QuoVadis Root CA2 G3 QuoVadis EV SSL ICA G3 Then you can concatenate them in a file one after the other and save it as lftp-certificates.pem Once this is done you have to point the ssl:ca-file variable to the path lftp > set ssl:ca-file "/path/to/lftp-certificates.pem" Also note that you can save this configuration at ~/.lftp/rc Another option is to download the certificates and add them to the ca-certificates of your machine. For example: In RHEL7 and cenots and others box the process to add the certificates globally is: Download the two certificates (in PEM or DER format, doesn't matter) and save them to "/etc/pki/ca-trust/source/anchors/" Run "update-ca-trust extract" Another less secure option is to turn off certificate verification with the following command: lftp > set ssl:verify-certificate false Troubleshooting If you are having problems with Aspera connection timeouts, it can be down to either one of the following. Transfers cannot start the connection fails instantly. Ensure that TCP traffic on port 33001 is allowed (open) for outbound connections through your computer's firewall and network's firewall. The connection is made, transfers are started, but 0 bytes (0%) are uploaded for each file. Ensure that UDP traffic on port 33001 is allowed (open) for outbound connections through your computer's firewall and network's firewal

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/ftp

• How to encrypt files with EGACryptor

  File preparation Due to the processes used at the EGA for file archival the use of non-alphanumeric characters in a filename will cause issues in archival. By convention whitespaces in filenames are to be avoided and should be replaced with the underscore character (_). Before encrypting your files please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &  Crypt4gh EGACryptor Files encrypted with EGACryptor must be uploaded via FTP EGACryptor The EGACryptor v.2.0.0 is a JAVA-based application which enables submitters to produce EGA compliant encrypted files along with files for the encrypted and unencrypted md5sum for each file to be submitted. The application will generate an output folder that will by default mirror the directory structure containing the original files. This output folder can subsequently be uploaded to the EGA FTP staging area via an FTP or Aspera client. Download EgaCryptor Download EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Encrypting single file Encrypting multiple files Encrypting all files in folder Points to note Troubleshooting Troubleshooting Download EGACryptor The required jar files can be obtained by downloading EgaCrytptor jar file After the file has been downloaded, extraction of the zipped archive is required. The EGACryptor has been built to work with Java Runtime Environments from version 6 and above and with the OpenJDK Environment. Please refer to the relevant resources for installation guidance. Installing the latest version of the OpenJDK will include the JCE files. If your installation of Java JRE is less than 1.8.0_151 will require the manual installation of the JCE Policy Files. You can verify the version of the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) installed by using the command: $ java -version If you need to install the JCE please follow the instructions below: Installing the JCE policy files (due to licensing terms and conditions the required policy files must be downloaded direct from the ORACLE website) : Download the unlimited strength JCE policy files (JRE 6 / JRE 7/ JRE 8) Uncompress and extract the downloaded file. This will create a subdirectory called JCE. This directory contains the following files: README.txt, COPYRIGHT.html, local_policy.jar and US_export_policy.jar Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your java home directory. Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your directory. The standard place for JCE jurisdiction policy JAR files is: /lib/security [Unix] or \lib\security [Win32] Notes: refers to the directory where the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) was installed. Additional performance enhancements that have been included in the EGACryptor V2.0.0: The ability to parallelise the processing of datasets through the use of the resources on a system. Multicore systems will allow the user to specify n-1 cores for an n-core system. The use of this feature on clusters may speed up the processing of datasets that have large file numbers but consult your local cluster guide to ensure that there are not monopolising resources that are needed by other system users. The default for this process remains single threaded. 3 levels of system usage can be specified. Full usage within the limits detailed above. A limited mode that will ensure that 50% of the system resources are available for other tasks. Maximum mode is limited to 75% of system resources, this allows encryption to be prioritised but allows for the system to be usable for light alternate tasks. Finally there is a throttling mode that allows you to specify the exact number of computational threads to be used. the EGACryptor is able to ingest a structured directory and will output a directory with the same structure containing the encrypted files along with the md5checksums for the plain and encrypted files. The entire output directory can then be uploaded to the EGA for archival. as with the input path, it is now possible to specify the output path. the options have been updated inline with the upgraded functionality. The tool can only be used via the command line. The EGACryptor is designed to perform a single task, encrypting your data, for upload of these files please refer to our uploading guide Using the EgaCryptor Below are the three ways on how the EGACryptor tool can be used: Encrypting a single file : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i example1.bam Encrypting multiple files : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i "example1.bam,example2.bam" Encrypting all the files within a folder java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i path/to/target/directory By default the EGACryptor v2 will create a new output directory containing all encrypted files and the relevant checksums within the target directory. If a specific directory is desired this can be specified by using the -o flag. This can be achieved in a similar manner to the following example: java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i /path/to/target/directory -o /path/to/output/directory The tool will output three files per input file: file.gpg ( encrypted file ) file.md5( file md5 sum value file ) file.gpg.md5 ( encrypted file md5 sum value file ) All output files must then be uploaded to your submission account using Aspera or FTP. Further documentation on how to upload files: FTP and Aspera. Points to note Remember to provide the path to EgaCryptor.jar and run the command from within the directory the file/s are located. ECryptor writes files to the source directory of your local file system, as a result you must have write-access permissions for the source directory. Troubleshooting If in doubt about the function of the EGACryptor it is recommended to first consult the built-in documentation. This can be accessessed by using the -h flag as stated in the following table. Built-in Commands Table: list of the command line options built into EGA-Cryptor v2.0.0. Command line Option Action --------------------- ----------- -f Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads to utilise full capacity of cores/processors available on machine -h Use this option to view the bult-in help menu * -i File(s) to encrypt. Provide file/folder path or comma separated file path if multiple files in double quotes -l Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 50% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -m Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 75% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -o Path of the output file. This is optional. If not provided then output files will be generated in the same path as that of source file (default: output- files) -t Set this option if user wants to control application to create maximum threads as specified. Application will calculate no. of cores/processors available on machine & will create threads accordingly Encryption Errors UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively (Native Method) The error is thrown by UNIX ("UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)"). It appears that the user does not have write-access to the file system where the file to be uploaded is located. EGACryptor always writes MD5 checksums into files before uploading them to the server, and these files are created in the same location where the uploaded file itself resides.Solution: address your directory permission issue and re-run the command. Install JCE Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy files The JCE policy unlimited strength jurisdiction files should be installed according to your current java version If you are still facing difficulty with the EGACryptor v.2 after having consulted the documentation please contact the EGA Helpdesk.

  Documentation submission/data/file-preparation/egacryptor

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! The EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal

• Submission FAQ

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

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• 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

• Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Colorectal Cancer with Focus of Rare and Less Frequent Variants

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies conducted in North America and Europe. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, replicating and fine-mapping of GWAS discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 20 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. The Black Women&#39;s Health Study (BWHS): Is the largest follow-up study of the health of African-American women (Cozier et al., 2004; Rosenberg et al., 1995) [PMID: 15018884; PMID: 7722208]. The purpose is to identify and evaluate causes and preventives of cancers and other serious illnesses in African-American women. Among the diseases being studied are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, uterine fibroids, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cardiovascular disease. The study began in 1995, when 59,000 black women from all parts of the United States enrolled through postal questionnaires. The women provided demographic and health data on the 1995 baseline questionnaire, including information on weight, height, smoking, drinking, contraceptive use, use of other selected medications, illnesses, reproductive history, physical activity, diet, use of health care, and other factors. The participants are followed through biennial questionnaires to determine the occurrence of cancers and other illnesses and to update information on risk factors. Self-reports of cancer are confirmed through medical records and state cancer registry records. Mouthwash-swish samples, as a source of DNA, were obtained from &#126;26,000 BWHS participants in 2002-2007. DNA was isolated from the mouthwash-swish samples at the Boston University Molecular Core Genetics Laboratory using the QIAAMP DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). All incident colorectal cancer cases with a DNA sample were included in the present analysis. Two controls per case, selected from among BWHS participants free of colorectal cancer at end of follow-up, were matched to cases on year of birth (&#43;/- 2 years) and geographical region of residence (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total 209 colorectal cancer cases and 423 controls were sent for genotyping. Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II): The Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease, is a prospective cohort designed to identify biomarkers and other factors associated with risk of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions (Kakourou et al., 2015) [PMID: 26220152]. 32,894 participants were recruited from May through October 1989 from Washington County, Maryland and surrounding communities. Colorectal cancer cases (n &#61; 297) and matched controls (n &#61; 296) were identified between 1989 and 2000 among participants in the CLUE II cohort of Washington County, Maryland. Colorectal Cancer Study of Austria (CORSA): In the ongoing colorectal cancer study of Austria (CORSA), more than 13,000 Caucasian participants have been recruited within the province-wide screening project &#34;Burgenland Prevention Trial of Colorectal Disease with Immunological Testing&#34; (B-PREDICT) since 2003 (Hofer et al., 2011) [PMID: 21422235]. All inhabitants of the Austrian province Burgenland aged between 40 and 80 years are annually invited to participate in fecal immunochemical testing and haemoccult positive screening participants are invited for colonoscopy. CORSA includes genomic DNA and plasma of colorectal cancer cases, low-risk and high-risk adenomas, and colonoscopy-negative controls. Controls received a complete colonoscopy and were free of colorectal cancer or polyps. CORSA participants have been recruited in the four KRAGES hospitals in Burgenland, Austria, and additionally, at the Medical University of Vienna (Department of Surgery), the Viennese hospitals &#34;Rudolfstiftung&#34; and the &#34;Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Sud&#34;, and at the Medical University of Graz (Department of Internal Medicine). 1403 colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal adenoma cases, and 1404 matched controls were selected for the study. Distribution of factors sex and age (5 year strata) were evenly matched between cases and controls. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2014) [PMID: 12015775; PMID: 25472679]. At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. A total of 360 cases and 359 controls were selected for this study. Czech Republic Colorectal Cancer Study (Czech Republic CCS): Cases with positive colonoscopy results for malignancy, confirmed by histology as colon or rectal carcinomas, were recruited between September 2003 and May 2012 in several oncological departments in the Czech Republic (Prague, Pilsen, Benesov, Brno, Liberec, Ples, Pribram, Usti and Labem, and Zlin). Two control groups, sampled at the same time of cases recruitment, were included in the study. The first group consisted of hospital-based individuals with a negative colonoscopy result for malignancy or idiopathic bowel diseases. The reasons for the colonoscopy were: i) positive fecal occult blood test, ii) hemorrhoids, iii) abdominal pain of unknown origin, and iv) macroscopic bleeding. The second control group consisted of healthy blood donor volunteers from a blood donor center in Prague. All individuals were subjected to standard examinations to verify the health status for blood donation and were cancer-free at the time of the sampling. Details of CRC cases and controls have been reported previously (Vymetalkova et al., 2014; Naccarati et al., 2016; Vymetalkova et al., 2016) [PMID: 24755277; PMID: 26735576; PMID: 27803053]. All subjects were informed and provided written consent to participate in the study. They approved the use of their biological samples for genetic analyses, according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The design of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. All subjects included in the study were Caucasians and comprised 1792 cases and 1764 matched controls. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years, whereas sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex. Early Detection Research Network (EDRN): The aim of the EDRN initiative is to develop and sustain a biorepository for support of translational research (Amin et al., 2010) [PMID: 21031013]. High-quality biospecimens were accrued and annotated with pertinent clinical, epidemiologic, molecular and genomic information. A user-friendly annotation tool and query tool was developed for this purpose. The various components of this annotation tool include: CDEs are developed from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Checklists and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACR) standards. The CDEs provides semantic and syntactic interoperability of the data sets by describing them in the form of metadata or data descriptor. A total of 352 colorectal case samples and 399 controls were selected for this study. Controls were matched to CRC cases based on age and sex. The EPICOLON Consortium (EPICOLON): The EPICOLON Consortium comprises a prospective, multicentre and population-based epidemiology survey of the incidence and features of CRC in the Spanish population (Fernandez-Rozadilla et al., 2013) [PMID: 23350875]. Cases were selected as patients with de novo histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease-related CRC, and cases where patients or family refused to participate in the study were excluded. Hospital-based controls were recruited through the blood collection unit of each hospital, together with cases. All of the controls were confirmed to have no history of cancer or other neoplasm and no reported family history of CRC. Controls were randomly selected and matched with cases for hospital, sex and age (&#43;&#45; 5 years). A total of 370 cases and 370 controls were selected for genotyping. Hawaii Adenoma Study: For this adenoma study, two flexible-sigmoidoscopy screening clinics were first used to recruit participants on Oahu, Hawaii. Adenoma cases were identified either from the baseline examination at the Hawaii site of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial during 1996-2000 or at the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii&#39;s Gastroenterology Screening Clinic during 1995-2007. In addition, starting in 2002 and up to 2007, we also approached for recruitment all eligible patients who underwent a colonoscopy in the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Gastroenterology Department. Cases were patients with histologically confirmed first-time adenoma(s) of the colorectum and were of Japanese, Caucasian or Hawaiian race&#47;ethnicity. Controls were selected among patients with a normal colorectum and were individually matched to the cases on age at exam, sex, race/ethnicity, screening date (&#43;&#45;3 months) and clinic and type of examination (colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy). We recruited 1016 adenoma cases (67.8% of all eligible) and 1355 controls (69.2% of all eligible); 889 cases and 1169 controls agreed to give a blood and 29 cases and 34 controls, a mouthwash sample. A total of 989 cases and 1185 controls were genotyped for this study. Columbus-area HNPCC Study (HNPCC, OSUMC): Patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at six participating hospitals were eligible for this study, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis were not eligible for this study. These six hospitals perform the vast majority of all operations for CRC in the Columbus metropolitan area (population 1.7 million). The institutional review board at all participating hospitals approved the research protocol and consent form in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Briefly, during the period of January 1999 through August 2004, 1,566 eligible patients with CRC were accrued to the study (Hampel et al., 2008) [PMID 18809606]. A total of 1472 colorectal cancer samples had enough blood DNA remaining to be sent for genotyping. Control samples were provided by the Ohio State University Medical Center%#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank. The Columbus Area Controls Sample Bank is a collection of control samples for use in human genetics research that includes both donors&#39; anonymized biological specimens and linked phenotypic data. The data and samples are collected under the protocol &#34;Collection and Storage of Controls for Genetics Research Studies&#34;, which is approved by the Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board at OSUMC. Recruitment takes place in OSUMC primary care and internal medicine clinics. If individuals agree to participate, they provide written informed consent, complete a questionnaire that includes demographic, medical and family history information, and donate a blood sample. 4-7 ml of blood is drawn into each of 3 ACD Solution A tubes and is used for genomic DNA extraction and the establishment of an EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell culture, cell pellet in Trizol, and plasma. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1. Matching was done on age at reference time (age_ref), race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Sex and race were matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race with 1&#58;1 ratio. Since controls are fewer than cases, one control is matched on 2 cases at most. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses&#39; Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990) [PMID: 2090285]. Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma 1 cm or larger in diameter and&#47;or with tubulovillous, villous, or highgrade dysplasia&#47;carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month&#47; year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. In total, 159 advanced adenoma cases and 109 controls were selected for genotyping. Leeds Colorectal Cancer Study (LCCS): Following local ethical approval, colorectal cancer cases were recruited from 1997 until 2012 in Leeds, UK through surgical clinics. Initially, funding was provided by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (subsequently the Food Standards Agency) and Imperial Cancer Research Fund (subsequently Cancer Research UK). Recruitment also occurred similarly in Dundee, Perth and York between the periods of 1997 and 2001 using the same protocol and the data and samples were combined. Pathologically confirmed cases were consented at outpatient clinics, providing information on known and postulated risk factors for colorectal cancer (diet, lifestyle and family history) as well as providing a blood sample for DNA. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing diverticular disease and an inability to complete the questionnaire. The General Practitioners of cases (all UK residents have a nominated General Practitioner to whom to refer initial medical queries) and these GPs were asked to send letters to other persons on their patient list of the same gender and born within 5 years of the case. Subsequently to enhance the number of controls, we systematically invited patients from selected GP practices. Diet was assessed in cases and controls using an extensive dietary and lifestyle questionnaire modified by that produced by the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer (EPIC). The frequency that each specific food items were eaten was recorded and we also obtained average fruit and vegetable consumption as a cross-check. In total, 1591 cases and 739 controls provided a DNA sample. The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I/II): The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I- colon and NCCCS II-rectal) were population-based case-control studies conducted in 33 counties of North Carolina. Cases were identified using the rapid case ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon (cecum through sigmoid colon) between October 1996 and September 2000 were classified as potential cases in the NCCCS I. The NCCCS II included patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, or rectum (hereafter collectively referred to as rectal cancer) between May 2001 and September 2006. Additional eligibility requirements were: aged 40-80 years, residence in one of the 33 counties, ability to give informed consent and complete an interview, had a driver&#39;s license or identification card issued by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (if under the age of 65), and had no objections from the primary physician in regards to contacting the individual. Controls, identified and sampled during the respective study dates, were selected from two sources. Potential controls under the age of 65 were identified using the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles records. For those 65 years and older, records from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used. Controls were matched to cases using randomized recruitment strategies. Recruitment probabilities were done using strata of 5-year age, sex, and race groups. Dietary information was collected using a modified version of the semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed at the National Cancer Institute. In addition, participants were asked about vitamin and mineral supplementation, special diets, restaurant eating, sodium use, and fats used in cooking. In NCCCS I, 515 colorectal cases and 687 matched controls were sent for genotyping. In NCCCS II, 796 colorectal cases and 823 controls were sent from the NCCCS II for genotyping. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age, race, and sex. Age was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. Race and sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978) [PMID: 248266]. Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989 -1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed from which DNA was isolated from either buffy coat or buccal cells for genotyping. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of advanced adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through June 1, 2011. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma more than 1 cm in diameter and/or with tubulovillous, villous, or high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month/year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. A total of 272 cases and 236 matched controls were sent to CIDR for the advanced adenoma case-control set. Northern Swedish Health and Disease Study (NSHDS): Comprises over 110,000 participants, including approximately one third with repeated sampling occasions, from three population-based cohorts (Dahlin et al., 2010; Myte et al., 2016) [PMID: 20197478; PMID: 27367522]. The largest is the ongoing Vasterbotten Intervention Programme, in which all residents of Vasterbotten County are invited to a health examination upon turning 30 (some years), 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Extensive measured and self-reported health and lifestyle data, as well as blood samples for central biobanking in Umea, Sweden, are collected at the health exam. Leucocyte DNA samples for 1&#58;1-matched CRC case-control sets from the NSHDS, of which 878 samples are included in this study, have been selected for genotyping. This is in addition to 354 samples from the NSHDS previously analyzed as part of the multicenter EPIC cohort. Cancer-specific and overall survival data are available for all patients. For at least 425 patients, archival tumor tissue has been analyzed for the BRAF V600E mutation and by sequencing codon 12 and 13 for KRAS mutations, as well as for MSI screening status by immunohistochemistry and for an eight-gene CIMP panel using quantitative real-time PCR (MethyLight). Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI, OSUMC): OCCPI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01850654) is a population-based study of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in one of 51 hospitals throughout the state of Ohio from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The OCCPI was created to decrease CRC incidence in Ohio by identifying patients with hereditary predisposition (statewide universal tumor screening for newly diagnosed CRC patients), increase colonoscopy compliance for first-degree relatives of CRC patients, and encourage future research through the creation of a biorepository. The 51 Ohio hospitals participating in the OCCPI were selected to represent a cross-section of clinical centers in the state based on high reported volume of CRC patients, affiliation with a high volume hospital, or interest in participation. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained by the individual hospitals, Community Oncology Programs, or by ceding review to the OSU IRB. Written informed consent was obtained. A total of 2139 colorectal cases were genotyped. Patients were considered eligible for this study if they were age 18 or older at the time of enrollment, if they had a surgical resection (or biopsy if unresectable) in the state of Ohio demonstrating an adenocarcinoma of the colorectum from 1&#47;1&#47;13 - 12&#47;31&#47;16. Matched control samples were selected from the Ohio State University Medical Center&#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank in an identical way to the selection for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study (please refer to the description for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study). Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. In the observational (control) arm, buccal cells were collected via mail using the &#34;swish-and-spit&#34; protocol and participation rate was 65%. Details of this study have been previously described (Huang et al., 2016) [PMID&#58; 27673363] and are available online (http://dcp.cancer.gov/plco). For this study 1651 advanced adenoma cases and 1392 controls were selected for genotyping. Selenium and Vitamin E Prevention Trial (SELECT): The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial which explored using selenium and vitamin E alone and in combination to prevent prostate cancer in healthy men (Lippman et al., 2009) [PMID&#58; 19066370]. Secondary endpoints included the prevention of colorectal and lung cancers. SELECT was conducted at 427 sites and centers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico; 35,533 men 55 years and older (50 or older if African American) were randomized beginning August 22, 2001. Supplementation was discontinued on October 23, 2008 due to futility. 308 colorectal cancer cases and 308 matched controls were selected from the SELECT population and sent for genotyping. Screening Markers For Colorectal Disease Study and Colonoscopy and Health Study (SMS-REACH): Details on this study population were previously reported (Burnett-Hartman et al., 2014) [PMID&#58; 24875374]. Participants were enrollees in an integrated health-care delivery system in western Washington State (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington) aged 24-79 years who underwent an index colonoscopy for any indication between 1998 and 2007 and donated a buccal-cell or blood sample for genotyping analysis. Study recruitment took place in 2 phases, with phase 1 occurring in 1998-2003 and phase 2 occurring in 2004-2007. Persons who had undergone a colonoscopy less than 1 year prior to the index colonoscopy, persons with inadequate bowel preparation for the index colonoscopy, and persons with a prior or new diagnosis of colorectal cancer, a familial colorectal cancer syndrome (such as familial adenomatous polyposis), or another colorectal disease were ineligible. Patients diagnosed with adenomas or serrated polyps and persons who were polyp-free at the index colonoscopy (controls) were systematically recruited during both phases of recruitment. Approximately 75% agreed to participate and provided written informed consent. Based on medical records, persons who agreed to participate and those who refused study participation were similar with respect to age, sex, and colorectal polyp status. Study protocols were approved by the institutional review boards of the Group Health Cooperative and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle, Washington). A total of 575 cases and 508 matched were selected for the study. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1&#58;1 ratio. Matching was done on age_ref, race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on &#43;&#45;5 years. The Women&#39;s Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts&#58; a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg&#47;d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg&#47;d] or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg&#47;d) and vitamin D (400 IU&#47;d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS)examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed cases of invasive colorectal cancers, or deaths from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from September 30, 2015 database. Controls were participants free of colorectal cancer (invasive or in situ) as of September 30, 2015. Potential cases and controls were excluded if they (1) were non-White; (2) had history of colorectal cancers at baseline; (3) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (4) DbGAP ineligible; (5) had &#60;1.25ug of DNA; (6) selected for WHI study M26 Phase I or II; (7) selected for WHI study AS224 and also included in the imputation project. A total of 578 cases and 104,429 controls met the eligibility criteria. Each case was matched with 1 control (1&#58;1) that exactly met the following matching criteria: age (&#43;&#45;5 years), 40 randomization centers (exact), WHI date (&#43;&#45;3 years), CaD date (&#43;&#45;3 years), OS flag (exact), HRT assignments (exact), DM assignments (exact), and CaD assignments (exact). Control selection was done in a time-forward manner, selecting one control for each case from the risk set at the time of the case&#39;s event. The matching algorithm was allowed to select the closest match based on a criteria to minimize an overall distance measure (Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized matching of cases to controls. Technical Report #56, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN. April 1995). Each matching factor was given the same weight. When exact matches could not be found, the matching criteria were gradually relaxed among unmatched cases and controls until all cases had found matched controls. Using the matching criteria specified above, 559 of the 578 eligible cases found exact matches. The matching criteria was then relaxed to &#58; Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, DM flag, CaD flag. 17 of the remaining 19 unmatched cases found matched controls. By matching on Age&#43;&#45;5, randomization centers, WHI date &#43;&#45; 3 years, CaD date &#43;&#45; 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, the remaining 2 unmatched cases found their matches.

  Study phs001415