12353 results for "best fc coin sites reddit Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..KX6d"

in 75.51 milliseconds.

• Molecular Genetic Studies of Developmental Brain Disorders

  Study 1 2R01-NS050375 (PI: DOBYNS, William B.) The genetic basis of mid-hindbrain malformations Our general goal for this project is to advance our understanding of human developmental disorders that involve the brainstem and cerebellum - brain structures derived from the embryonic midbrain and hindbrain - that affect a minimum of 2.4 per 1000 resident births based on data from the CDC. Importantly, this large class of disorders co-occurs with more common developmental disorders such as autism, mental retardation and some forms of infantile epilepsy, and shares some of the same causes. With this renewal, we propose to expand the scope of our work beyond single phenotypes and genes to focus on delineating the critical phenotype spectra to which the most common MHM belong, and defining the underlying biological networks that are disrupted. To pursue these goals, we will use our large and growing cohort of human subjects to map additional MHM loci using SNP microarrays that provide both high-resolution autozygosity and linkage data in informative families as well as detect critical copy number variants in sporadic subjects. The causative genes will be identified using traditional Sanger or new high-throughput sequencing methods as appropriate abased on size of the critical region. We will use these and other known MHM causative genes to construct and revise model biological networks of genes and proteins, and test these genes and networks in additional patients as a candidate gene or more accurately a candidate network approach. These approaches need to be supported by ongoing active subject recruitment, as studies of comparable disorders such as mental retardation and autism have benefited from even larger numbers of subjects that we have so far collected. We need to use new high-throughput sequencing methods to more efficiently test larger critical regions, and to test entire gene networks rather than individual genes in matched cohorts of subjects. At every step; phenotype analysis, CNV analysis, model network construction and high-throughput sequencing, we will need expanded bioinformatics capabilities. Finally, we need to test the biological function of new genes and networks to support our gene identification studies. We expect that these studies will contribute immediately to more accurate diagnosis and counseling, and over time will lead to development of specific treatments for a subset of these disorders. We further expect that studies of mid-hindbrain development will have broad significance for human developmental disorders generally, providing compelling evidence for a connection between cerebellar development and other classes of developmental disorders such as autism, mental retardation and epilepsy. Study 2 R01-NS058721 (PI: DOBYNS, William B.) De novo copy number variation and gene discovery in human brain malformations Project Summary/Abstract The number of recognized brain malformations and syndromes has grown rapidly during the past several decades, yet relatively few causative genes have been identified, especially for three common malformations that have been associated with numerous cytogenetically visible chromosome deletions and duplications, and that often occur together: agenesis of the corpus callosum (ACC), cerebellar vermis hypoplasia (CVH) including Dandy-Walker malformation (DWM), and polymicrogyria (PMG). We propose to perform high-resolution array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH), emerging technology able to detect small copy number variants (CNV), in 700 probands with one or more of these three malformations. Our central hypothesis states that more than 10% of patients with ACC, CVH or PMG will have de novo CNV below the resolution of routine cytogenetic analysis, but detectable by current array platforms. We therefore expect to identify 70-100 patients with small CNV. We will distinguish CNV found in normal individuals from potentially disease-associated changes, and will confirm CNV using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and microsatellite (STRP) analysis. We will give highest priority to CNV that are de novo and involve 2 or more BACs, and secondary priority to familial and smaller CNV excluding known polymorphisms. After that, we will evaluate and rank candidate genes in the critical regions using information from public databases and our own expression studies, and perform mutation analysis of the best candidate genes from well-defined critical regions by sequencing in a large panel of subjects with phenotypes that match the phenotypes of the patients whose CNV define the critical regions. Here, we will use more refined criteria to supplement our clinical classification, such as the developmental level and presence of epilepsy or other birth defects. Any abnormalities found will be analyzed using existing data regarding polymorphisms (i.e. dbSNP), cross-species comparisons, and functional assays appropriate for the specific sequence change. Study 2A In 1995, we described a novel multiple congenital anomaly syndrome associated with facial dysmorphism (congenital ptosis, high arched eyebrows, shallow orbits, trigonocephaly), colobomas of the eyes, neuronal migration malformation (frontal predominant lissencephaly) and variable hearing loss. We hypothesized from de novo mutations and used trio-based exome sequencing to identify de novo mutations in the ACTB and ACTG1 genes. Study 2B In 1997 and 2004, we and others defined two novel developmental syndromes associated with markedly enlarged brain size, or megalencephaly, and other highly recognizable features. The megalencephaly-capillary malformation syndrome (MCAP) consists of megalencephaly and associated growth dysregulation with variable asymmetry, developmental vascular anomalies, distal limb malformations, variable cortical malformation, and a mild connective tissue dysplasia. The megalencephaly-polymicrogyria-polydactyly-hydrocephalus syndrome (MPPH) resembles MCAP but lacks vascular malformations and syndactyly. We hypothesized that MCAP and MPPH result from mutations - including postzygotic events - in the same pathway, and studied them together. Using a combination of exome sequencing, Sanger sequencing, restriction-enzyme assays, and targeted ultra-deep sequencing in 50 families with MCAP or MPPH, we identified de novo germline or postzygotic mutations in three core components of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/AKT pathway. These include two mutations in AKT3, a recurrent mutation in PIK3R2, and multiple mostly postzygotic mutations in PIK3CA (Rivière JB, Mirzaa GM, O'Roak BJ, Beddaoui M, Alcantara D, Conway RL, St-Onge J, Schwartzentruber JA, Gripp KW, Nikkel SM, Worthylake T, Sullivan CT, Ward TR, Butler HE, Kramer NA, Albrecht B, Armour CM, Armstrong L, Caluseriu O, Cytrynbaum C, Drolet BA, Innes AM, Lauzon JL, Lin AE, Mancini GMS, Meschino WS, Reggin JD, Saggar AK, Lerman-Sagie T, Uyanik G, Weksberg R, Zirn B, Beaulieu CL, FORGE Canada Consortium, Majewski J, Bulman DE, O'Driscoll M, Shendure J, Graham Jr. JM, Boycott KM, Dobyns WB. De novo germline and postzygotic mutations in AKT3, PIK3R2 and PIK3CA cause a spectrum of related megalencephaly syndromes. Nat. Genet. In press). Study 3 2R01-NS046616 (PI: GOLDEN, Jeffrey A) The role of ARX in normal and abnormal brain development This subcontract from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to the University of Chicago (UC) is intended to support research studies of the ARX and functionally related genes in human subjects with any one of several specific developmental disorders. The Co-investigator at UC (W.B. Dobyns) will identify a series of patients with mental retardation and severe infantile epilepsy, some of whom will have specific brain malformations and others who will have normal brain structure by brain imaging studies, and collect research samples from these subjects with informed consent. The studies to be performed will include mutation analysis of ARX, mutation analysis of specific downstream target genes, X inactivation studies in humans and X inactivation studies in mutant mice. The results will be analyzed to determine the significance of any changes found in the gene.

  Study phs000455

• 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

• Oncoarray Consortium - Lung Cancer Studies

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics: All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four substudies. The substudies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study is a randomized primary prevention trial including 29,133 male smokers enrolled in Finland between 1985 and 1993. Participants ranged between ages of 50 to 69 at enrollment and were randomized in a factorial design to take either 50 milligrams of d-alpha tocopheryl acetate (Vitamin E), 20 mg of all-trans-beta-carotene, both or placebo. The study continued to monitor cancer incidence through 2012 and total mortality through December 2013. The CAncer de PUlmon en Asturias Study (CAPUA) is a hospital-based case-control study conducted in Asturias, Spain by the University of Oviedo. Lung cancer cases were recruited in three main hospitals of Asturias, following an identical protocol from 2002 to 2012. Eligible cases were incident cases of histologically confirmed lung cancer between 30 and 85 years of age and residents in the geographical area of each participating hospital. Controls were selected from patients admitted to those hospitals with diagnoses unrelated to the exposures of interest and individually matched by ethnicity, gender, age (± 5 years) and hospital. Epidemiologic data were collected personally through computer-assisted questionnaires by trained interviewers during the first hospital admission. Structured questionnaires collected information on sociodemographic characteristics, recent and prior tobacco use, environmental exposure (air pollution and passive smoking), diet, personal and family history of cancer, and occupational history from each participant. Peripheral blood samples (or mouthwash samples when they refused to donate blood) were collected from all participants. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Canadian Screening Study includes the nested case-control samples from 3 screening programs: IELCAP-Toronto: Ever smokers of more than 10 pack-years age 50 and above were eligible for the I-ELCAP screening program since 2003, and a total of 4782 individuals have been enrolled in the Greater Toronto Area. Participants were administered a LDCT scan along with a standard study questionnaire at baseline. Blood samples were systematically collected at baseline since 2006. Participants who had an abnormality in a CT scan were followed up every 1 to 2 years. The screening program was organized by the Princess Margaret Hospital. PanCan: Ever smokers between the ages of 50-75 with no previous history of invasive cancer are eligible to participate in the study. The study was carried out across Canada in Vancouver, Calgary, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax, and St. John's. A total of 2537 smokers have been screened from 2008 to 2011. All study participants completed a detailed questionnaire, spirometry, collection of blood specimens for biomarker measurement and LDCT at baseline. All participants are followed for a minimum of 3 years. On yearly follow up, an updated shorter questionnaire is administered, blood is collected and CT scans are performed. Blood samples are available from all 2537 individuals. BCCA Screening Program: From 1990 to 2007, 4274 smokers above 40 years old who had smoked 20 pack-years or more were enrolled at BCCA. Upon enrollment, subjects completed a questionnaire for their lifestyle and medical history. Baseline spirometry was conducted using a flow-sensitive spirometer in accordance with the American Thoracic Society recommendations. Since 2000, a LDCT was obtained in 2440 individuals. The participants were followed prospectively to determine whether they developed lung cancer. A total of 9759 individuals participated in the CT screening program in Canada from these 3 programs. The samples included in this project is based on a subset of nested lung cancer case-control pairs based on 1:2 ratio. The Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the cancer prevention efficacy and safety of a daily combination of 30 mg of beta-carotene and 25,000 IU of retinyl palmitate in 18,314 persons at high risk for lung cancer. CARET began in 1985, and the intervention was halted in January 1996, 21 months ahead of schedule, with the twin conclusions for definitive evidence of no benefit and substantial evidence of a harmful effect of the intervention on both lung cancer incidence and total mortality. CARET continued to follow and collect endpoints on their participants through 2005. Pathology reports and medical records were reviewed to confirm cancer endpoints, and death certificates obtained to capture cause of death. During the active intervention phase of CARET, serum, plasma, whole blood, and lung tissue specimens were collected on participants. These biospecimens make up the CARET Biorepository. For the OncoArray Project, CARET provided DNA extracted from whole blood of lung cancer cases and controls matched on age at baseline (± 4 years), sex, race, baseline smoking status, history of occupational asbestos exposure (asbestos vs heavy smoker), and year of enrollment (2-year intervals). The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study is a multi-center cohort study involving 521,000 study participants from 10 European countries. The current study involved EPIC participants from 7 countries (Greece, Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy), including 1223 incident lung cancer cases and 1249 smoking matched controls. The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative is a study conducted by the Markey Cancer Center Cancer Center and the University of Kentucky using a population-based, case-control framework to study the extraordinarily high rates of lung cancer in Southeastern, Appalachian Kentucky. Cancer cases were recruited from the Kentucky Cancer Registry at the time of diagnosis and controls were recruited from a random digit dialing process from the same region. Study accrual began in January 5, 2012 and completed on September 5, 2014 and 520 subjects were recruited in a 4:1 ratio of controls: cases from Appalachian Kentucky. Of the 520 subjects recruited, 231 are included in the OncoArray analysis, including all 93 cancer cases, and 123 controls. Newly diagnosed lung cancer cases and controls underwent blood, toenail (for trace element analysis), urine, buffy coat, water, soil, and radon collection, residence GPS mapping, as well as an extensive epidemiologic, occupational, and health history questionnaire (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01648166). The Harvard Lung Cancer Study (HLCS) is a case-control study based at Mass General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, Massachusetts from 1992 to 2004. Details of the study were described previously. Briefly, eligible cases included any person over the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of primary lung cancer that was further confirmed by an MGH lung pathologist. Controls were recruited from the friends or spouses of cancer patients or the friends or spouses of other surgery patients in the same hospital. Potential controls were excluded from participation if they had a diagnosis of any cancer (other than non-melanoma skin cancer). Interviewer-administered questionnaires, a modified version of the standardized American Thoracic Society respiratory questionnaire, collected information on demographics, medical history, family history of cancer, smoking history, and a detailed work history, including job titles and tasks. Genome-wide genotype data were first generated using Illumina Human 610-Quad BeadChips and then imputed by MACH against the 1000 Genome Project dataset (http://browser.1000genomes.org/index.html). The Institutional Review Board of MGH and the Human Subjects Committee of the Harvard School of Public Health approved the study. The Israel study (NICCC-LCA) is an ongoing case-control study of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases of any histology and population age/sex/ethnicity-matched "healthy" controls. All participants undergo face-to-face interviews, provide a venous blood sample (separated into DNA, Sera, lymphocytes) after signing an IRB-approved form. Histology reports, FFPE blocks and clinical follow-up are available for most cancer cases. The MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Study. Lung cancer cases and frequency-matched controls were ascertained from a large ongoing case-control study at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) since 1991. Detailed study description was provided previously (Spitz et al 2007). In brief, cases were newly-diagnosed and histologically confirmed lung cancer patients recruited from UTMDACC. Controls were healthy individuals without a history of cancer (except for nonmelanoma skin cancer) and recruited from the Kelsey-Seybold Clinics, the largest private multispecialty physician group in the Houston metropolitan area. Controls were frequency-matched to cases on age (±5 years), sex, and race/ethnicity. After providing written informed consent, each study participants completed an in-person interview by staff interviewers to collect information on demographics, smoking status, etc. Blood samples were also drawn from all the study participants. This study was approved by institutional review boards of UTMDACC and Kelsey-Seybold Clinics. The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) is a population-based prospective cohort study that recruited men and women aged at 44 to 74 years old of living in Malmö, Sweden between 1991 and 1996. The main goal of the MDCS is to study the impact of diet on cancer incidence and mortality. It consists of a baseline examination including dietary assessment, a self-administered questionnaire, anthropometric measurements and collection of blood samples. A total of 165 incident lung cancer cases and 174 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study includes 215,251 men and women aged 45-74 years at recruitment, primarily from five ethnic/racial groups - African Americans and Latinos mostly recruited from CA (mainly from Los Angeles County) and Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiians and whites (mostly recruited from HI). The cohort was assembled in 1993-1996 by mailing a self-administered questionnaire to persons identified primarily through driver's license files. The baseline questionnaire obtained information on demographics, anthropometry, smoking history, medical and reproductive histories, family history of cancer, diet and physical activity. Incident cancer cases are identified by regular linkage with the State of California Cancer Registry and the Hawaii Tumor Registry, both members of the SEER Program of the NCI. In 2001-2006, a prospective biorepository was assembled by collecting a pre-diagnostic blood specimen from 67,594 surviving MEC members. At the time of blood collection a short questionnaire was administered that included information on smoking during the previous 15 days. For this study, cases were all lung cancer cases incident to blood draw and diagnosed before December 2012. For each case, a control was selected among unaffected MEC participants who were alive at time of the case's diagnosis and matched on study site, sex, race/ethnicity, age (age at diagnosis for cases; age at blood collection for controls), and date of blood collection. The Mount-Sinai Hospital-Princess Margaret Study (MSH-PMH) was conducted in the greater Toronto area from 2008 to 2013. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of the University of Toronto. Controls were selected randomly from individuals registered in the family medicine clinics databases and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were centrally reviewed by the reference pathologist, a member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) committee, and a second pathologist in the University Health Network. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The New England Lung Cancer Study (NELCS) is a population-based case-control study of lung cancer among residents of Northern and Central New Hampshire counties and the bordering region of Vermont. Cases with histologically confirmed primary incident lung cancer were identified from 2005 to 2007 using the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) Tumor Registry. Control participants were identified using a commercial database and matched to lung cancer cases within 5-year age groups, sex and county. Genomic DNA was isolated from blood or buccal specimens provided by consenting participants. The study complied with requirements of the Dartmouth College's Committee for Protection of Human Subjects. The Nijmegen Lung Cancer Study. The Netherlands patients with lung cancer were identified through the population-based cancer registry of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Patients who were diagnosed in one of three hospitals (Radboud University Medical Center, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital in Nijmegen, and Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem) since 1989 and who were still alive at April 15th, 2008 were recruited for a study on gene-environment interactions in lung cancer. 458 patients gave informed consent and donated a blood sample. This case series was expanded with 94 patients to a total of 552 by linking three other studies to the population-based cancer registry in order to identify new occurrences of lung cancer among the participants of these other studies. All three other studies (i.e., POLYGENE, the Nijmegen Biomedical Study, and the Radboudumc Urology Outpatient Clinic Epidemiology Study) were initiated to study genetic risk factors for disease and participants to these studies gave general informed consent for DNA-related research and linkage with disease registries. Information on histology, stage of disease, and age at diagnoses was obtained through the cancer registry. Lifestyle information was collected through a structured questionnaire and whole blood for DNA isolation was collected by the regional thrombosis services. The cancer-free controls (46% males) were selected from participants of the "Nijmegen Biomedical Study" (NBS), an age- and sex-stratified random sample of the general population of the municipality of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. All participants provided extensive lifestyle information by structured questionnaires and blood samples for DNA isolation, serum and plasma. All controls are of self-reported European descent. The study protocols of the NBS were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Radboudumc and all study subjects signed a written informed consent form. The Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study (NSHDS) encompasses several prospective cohorts. The current study involves participants from the Västerbotten Intervention Project (VIP), a sub-cohort within NSHDS. VIP is an ongoing prospective cohort and intervention study intended for health promotion of the general population of the Västerbotten County in northern Sweden. VIP was initiated in 1985 and all residents in the Västerbotten County were invited to participate by attending a health check-up at 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Participants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire including various demographic factors such as education, smoking habits, physical activity and diet. In addition, height and weight were measured and participants were asked to donate a fasting blood sample for future research. A total of 243 incident lung cancer cases and 266 individually smoking-matched controls were available for this analysis. Norway National Institute of Occupational Health Study. Early-stage NSCLC cases and healthy controls at the time of enrollment were Caucasians of Norwegian origin and were recruited from the same geographical region (Western Norway). The patients were enrolled in the study, whenever practically feasible among patients admitted for lung cancer at the Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. The informed written consents covering analysis of molecular and genetic markers was signed by the patients prior to surgery. Only patients with histologically confirmed early-stage NSCLC were included in our study. The subjects included in this project are a subgroup recruited into the project "lung cancer genetics" at NIOH. The controls were recruited from the same geographical region of Western Norway and frequency-matched with cases on cumulative smoking dose (pack-years). Pack-years smoked [( 20 cigarettes per day) x years smoked] were calculated to indicate the cumulative smoking dose. The Cases and controls were interviewed using similar questionnaires and were categorized as never smokers, ex-smokers or current smokers. Never smokers are subjects indicating having smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their life time. Ex-smokers were defined as those having quitted at least 1 year before sampling, and current smokers were those indicating that they were smokers at the time of sampling. The project has been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Southern Norway in accordance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. The ethical approval covered access to the NSCLC databank. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) Study, a randomized trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of screening in reducing cancer mortality, recruited approximately 155,000 men and women age 55 to 74 years from 1992 to 20014. Screening for lung cancer among participants in the intervention arm included a chest x-ray at baseline followed by either three annual x-rays (for current or former smokers at enrollment) or two annual x-rays (for never smokers); participants in the control arm received routine health care. Screening-arm participants provided data on sociodemographic factors, smoking behavior, anthropometric characteristics, medical history, and family history of cancer, as well as blood samples annually for the first 6 years of the study (baseline T0 and T1 through T5). Lung cancers were ascertained through annual questionnaires mailed to the participants, and positive reports were followed up by abstracting medical records or death certificates. Follow-up in the trial as of July 2009 was 96.7%. Patients were excluded because of missing baseline questionnaire, previous history of any cancer, diagnosis of multiple cancers during follow-up, missing smoking information at baseline, missing consent for utilization of biologic specimens for etiologic studies, or unavailability/insufficient quantity of serum or DNA specimens. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT) is an ongoing study conducted in Sheffield from 2006 and due to complete recruitment in 2016. The study recruited pathologically confirmed lung cancer cases diagnosed at age 60 years or younger and family matched controls. Lung cancer cases diagnosed at ages older than 60 years were recruited if they reported a family history of lung cancer. The cases and matched controls were recruited through several major cancer treatment centers, however, the majority were recruited in North Trent. All participants completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire which included questions about occupational exposures, education, medical history and family history of cancer and lung disease. Participants also donated blood samples for DNA extraction. The ReSoLuCENT study has been funded by the Sheffield Hospitals Charity, Sheffield ECMC and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. First degree relatives were removed from the sample deposited to dbGaP. The Roy Castle Lung Study of Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) is a case-control and cohort study which has recruited over 11,500 individuals since 1996 from the Liverpool region in the UK. Detailed epidemiological and clinical data is collected with associated specimens (i.e. tumor tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire at recruitment, with repeat questionnaires at intervals; updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Health and Social Care Information Center (including Office of National Statistics mortality data, Cancer Registry and Health Episode Statistics). The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The lung tumors were reviewed by the reference pathologist. The Seoul Bundang Lung Cancer Study was conducted between 2005 and 2010 to discover genetic and environmental factors related with lung cancer development. Lung cancer cases were recruited at the Seoul National University Hospital in Bundang. Controls were selected randomly from individuals participated in health check-up program and were frequency matched with cases on age and sex. All subjects were interviewed, and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history and medical and family history was collected using a standard questionnaire. Tumors were reviewed by the pathologists in the hospital. If the reviews conflicted, a consensus was arrived at after discussion. Coding of histology was based on 2001 WHO/IASLC. Genomic DNA was extracted based on standard protocol. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) consisted of 18,244 men in Shanghai, China, who were 45-64 years old at the time of enrollment during 1986-1989. Approximately 80% of eligible men participated in the study. At the time of recruitment, each cohort subject was interviewed in-person by a trained nurse interviewer using a structured questionnaire that included background information, history of tobacco and alcohol use, current diet, and medical history. At the completion of the interview, the nurse collected a 10 ml blood and a single void urine specimen from the study participant. The buccal cell samples were collected from all surviving cohort members (~15,000) in the 2001-2002 follow-up interviews. The cohort has been followed for the occurrence of cancer and death through routine ascertainment of new cases from the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry and Shanghai Vital Statistics Units. To maximize the cancer findings and minimize the loss of follow-up, we contacted each surviving cohort member annually. Retired nurses visit the last known address of each living cohort member and record details of the interim health history of the cohort member. As of December 31, 2014, cumulatively 612 (3.4%) original subjects were lost to follow-up, and 574 (3.1%) refused to our continued follow-up interview. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Shanghai Cohort Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. Briefly, 516 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available serum samples as of 12/31/2006. For each case, we randomly selected one control subject from all cohort members who were free of cancer and alive at the time of cancer diagnosis of the index case. Controls were matched to the index case by age at enrollment (±2 years), date of biospecimen collection (±1 month) and neighborhood of residence at recruitment, and smoking status (current, former and never smokers) as established previously for other studies. For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (<10 vs ≥10 years). One serum vial per subject was retrieved from biorepository and all serum samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements. DNA samples of 250 lung cancer cases and 250 matched controls were available for the present study. The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) cohort consisted of 63,257 Chinese men and women in Singapore when they were 45-74 years old at the time of enrollment between April 1993 and December 1998. At recruitment, each study subject was interviewed in person by a trained interviewer using a structured questionnaire that emphasized current diet assessed via a validated, 165-item food frequency questionnaire. The questionnaire also requested information on demographics, lifetime use of tobacco, incense use, current physical activity, usual sleep duration, reproductive history (women only), occupational exposure, medical history, and family history of cancer. Blood or buccal cell, and spot urine samples were collected first from a random 3% sample of cohort participants in April 1994, and extended to all surviving cohort participants starting in January 2000. Overall approximately 60% of eligible cohort participants donated biospecimens. The cohort has been passively followed for death and cancer occurrence through regular record linkage with the population-based Singapore Cancer Registry and the Singapore Registry of Births and Deaths. Migration out of Singapore, especially among housing estate residents, was negligible. As of latest update, only 55 individuals from this cohort were known to be lost to follow-up due to migration and other reason. A nested case-control study of incident lung cancer cases within the Singapore Chinese Health Study was used to examine the association between serum levels of vitamin B6 and other compounds in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and risk of lung cancer. As of 12/31/2011, 422 lung cancer cases were identified among cohort participants with available prediagnostic plasma samples. For each case, one control subject was randomly selected from all eligible cohort members who were alive and free of cancer on the date of cancer diagnosis of the index case. The control subject was individually matched to the index case by gender, dialect group (Hokkien, Cantonese), age at enrollment (±3 years), date of baseline interview (±2 year), date of biospecimen collection (±6 months), and smoking status (current, former, and never smokers). For current smokers, cases and controls were further matched by number of cigarettes per day (<15, ≥15 cigarettes/day). For former smokers, cases and controls were further matched by years since quitting smoking (<10, ≥10 years). One plasma aliquot per subject was retrieved from the biorepository and all plasma samples were sent to the laboratory (B-vital) for measurements, and one aliquot of DNA per subject for the present study. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) L2 Study. Lung cancer cases and controls were recruited through a multicentric case-control study coordinated by the IARC in Russia, Poland, Serbia, Czech Republic, and Romania from 2005 to 2013. Cases were incident cancer patients collected from general hospitals. Controls were recruited from individuals visiting general hospitals and out-patient clinics for disorders unrelated to lung cancer and/or its associated risk factors, or from the general population. Information on lifestyle risk factors, medical and family history was collected from subjects by interview using a standard questionnaire. All study participants provided written informed consent. The current study included 1,133 lung cancer cases and 1,117 controls genotyped on the Oncoarray. The Washington State University Lung Cancer Study is a hospital case-control study of 511 subjects with newly-diagnosed (within 1 year of diagnosis) lung cancer and 820 race-, sex- and age-matched controls. Lung cancer cases were recruited from lung cancer clinics within the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center while controls were recruited from the Lifetime Cancer Screening Center, a H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center affiliate. None of the controls were diagnosed with any form of cancer at the time of screening. Detailed questionnaire data and oral buccal cells were collected for all subjects. The Total Lung Cancer (TLC) Study is a hospital-based study that included 458 lung cancer patients recruited for Moffitt Cancer Center's Total Cancer Care™ protocol between April 2006 and August 2010. Total Cancer Care™ is a multi-institutional observational study of cancer patients that prospectively collects self-reported demographic and clinical data, medical record information and blood samples for research purposes. All patients used in this cohort were recruited from the Thoracic Oncology Clinic at the Moffitt Cancer Center. The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study (BioVU) is a case-control study nested within the Vanderbilt University Medical Center biobank, BioVU. BioVU is a biorepository of DNA extracted from blood drawn from patients seeking routine clinical care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and linked to de-identified electronic health records for research purposes. Lung cancer cases and controls were identified from BioVU participants in February 2014. Lung cancer cases were identified from the Vanderbilt tumor registry. All specimens undergo pathologic review for determination of morphology. Coding of histology was based on SEER Program Coding Guidelines. Controls were randomly selected from BioVU participants, excluding cancer patients, and were matched to cases on age (± 5 years), sex, and race. Relevant covariates were identified from electronic health records using natural language processing. Genomic DNA was extracted based on a standard protocol.

  Study phs001273

• 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. How can I add my dataset to the cBioPortal instance? In order to link your data to the cBioPortal, you must register it as a normal dataset in the Submitter Portal. For more information, please refer to the cBioPortal documentation. 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

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics: Study of Dental Caries and Cleft Lip/Palate in Guatemala

  This study provides an opportunity to investigate the genetics of both dental caries and orofacial clefts (OFCs) in one set of families ascertained in Guatemala. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). Furthermore this study brings together multiple research priorities of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (www.ccdg.pitt.edu). A genome-wide panel of 610,000 SNPs was genotyped at the Broad Institute to be comparable to our other pertinent GENEVA studies that are also part of dbGaP (dbGaP accession number phs000095, "Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies" and dbGaP accession number phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). The goal of this study is to investigate genetic determinants to dental caries and to OFCs in a novel study population. To date, most genetic studies of dental caries have been conducted in Caucasians, and of OFCs in Caucasians and Asians. The Guatemalan population under study is rural and ethnically mixed with a high proportion of Native-South-Americans. Thirty-six Guatemalans from this dataset were also part of the recent GWAS studies of cleft lip and cleft palate (Beaty et al., 2010 and 2011, dbGaP Study Accession: phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). In addition to the families ascertained in Guatemala, some subjects were genotyped with this cohort to augment the data in the parent GENEVA study (Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies, dbGaP accession number phs000095), in particular individuals from the IOWA and PITT GENEVA study sites. Their data are available with the parent study. Dental caries (also known as tooth decay) remains the most common chronic disease of childhood, five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than environmental allergies, with more than 40% of children exhibiting caries when they enter kindergarten. In 2005, it was estimated that dental health care costs were approximately $84 billion, of which 60% or about $50 billion were related to treatment of dental caries. The etiology of dental caries has been studied for many years. Multiple factors contribute to a person's risk for caries, including: 1) environmental factors such as diet, oral hygiene, fluoride exposure and the level of colonization of cariogenic bacteria and 2) host factors such as salivary flow, salivary buffering capacity, position of teeth relative to each other, surface characteristics of tooth enamel and depth of occlusal fissures on posterior teeth. In spite of all that is known about this disease, there are still individuals who appear to be more susceptible to caries and those who are extremely resistant, regardless of the environmental risk factors to which they are exposed, implying that genetic factors also play an important role in caries etiology. This conclusion is supported by studies in both humans and animals, with the most compelling evidence coming from studies of twins reared apart in which investigators found significant resemblance within monozygotic (MZ) but not dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs for percentage of teeth and surfaces restored or carious and estimated the genetic contribution to caries as 40%. Other recent studies of twins reared together estimated the heritability for caries, adjusted for age and gender, as ranging from 45-64%. In our study populations of families, we also estimated caries heritability as approximately 54%-70% of variation in primary dentition caries scores and 35%-55% in the permanent dentition (Wang et al., 2010). Orofacial clefts (OFCs), particularly cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and isolated cleft palate (CP) are a major public health problem, affecting one in every 500-1000 births worldwide thus representing the most common facial birth defect and one of the most common of all congenital anomalies. CL/P is a major structural birth defect that is notable for significant lifelong morbidity and complex etiology. The extensive psychological, surgical, speech and dental involvement emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying causes of CL/P. Therefore, many research groups have attempted to elucidate the etiology of CL/P, with some recent success by our research group and others (see Beaty et al., 2010, 2011; Dixon et al., 2011). It is clear that CL/P can occur as part of Mendelian syndromes, that certain chromosomal abnormalities include CL/P in the phenotype, and that certain teratogens can increase the risk of having an offspring with CL/P. However, phenotypes of known etiology comprise only a small portion of all individuals with a CL/P or CP, and the major focus of research into OFCs is to develop an understanding of the etiology of nonsyndromic (NS) forms of clefting. A major focus of the University of Pittsburgh CCDG has been to study additional phenotypes within nonsyndromic OFC families in order to identify sub-clinical expressions of OFC risk genes or risk variants, e.g. SNPs (see Weinberg et al., 2006). A detailed oral exam is conducted as part of these extended phenotypic studies, including a dental caries exam. Note that although there are some reports in the literature of higher caries experience in individuals with clefts, the most recent meta-analysis of those literature reports concluded that individuals born with these defects do not have a higher frequency of caries (Hasslöf and Twetman, 2007). Notably, we investigated the association of CL/P and caries in three of our study populations (including part of the Guatemalan population in this GWAS study) and also found no increase in caries rates of CL/P cases versus controls (Jindal et al., 2011). This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to dental caries and oral clefts through large-scale genome-wide association studies of well-characterized Guatemalan families and individuals. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR, U01-DE018903). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000440

• Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss

  The Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss, which constitute the Epidemiology of the Weiss Cohort Projects, consist of a series of inter-connected projects, building upon a set of cohort projects of various groups, mainly drug users from medication-assisted treatment programs, that Dr. Stanley H. Weiss first developed in the 1980’s plus several newer initiatives, each with an array of collaborators. Beginning in the 1980’s, Dr. Stanley H. Weiss started several long-term studies of persons who inject drugs (PWID) across the United States, ultimately enrolling over 10,000 participants through the early 1990’s with an average age then in their 30’s. About a quarter were enrolled from sites in New Jersey (NJ). These studies included the first testing of PWID for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the human T-cell lymphotropic viruses (HTLV I and HTLV II). Cumulative past support (initiation thru ~ 1999) for these cohort studies included ~ $20 million from intramural resources from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), plus multiple grants and in-kind support from the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) totaling ~ $1 million. The Weiss Cohort Projects include the first large AIDS-era cohorts to include women at high risk for HIV. A high percentage of subjects in these studies are black or Latino. Thus, this is an ethnically diverse US cohort, with a high proportion of women included. These subjects are at high risk of parenteral and sexual infection from both drug use and sexual practices. Samples from other studies conducted by Dr. Weiss, in which detailed interviews were conducted, are included as controls (persons documented by us not to have a history of opioid drug use). As one of our groups of subjects have many persons of Haitian ancestry, we specifically included some Haitians who had never used opioids as controls. Our documentation includes such ancestry. These cohorts demonstrated high rates of HIV and HTLV-II infection in PWIDs, including one study initiated in 1981 with confirmation in the later cohorts. In the first two decades of these studies, among numerous publications was the first study showing a very high rate of hepatitis C infection among PWIDs. An example of how the studies’ long-time horizon proved essential was that it first became possible to test whether a person had ever been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), as well as how much HCV was in each person’s blood, many years after the specimens were collected. This allowed HCV amounts in blood to be compared for subjects who had died of liver disease early in the study versus those who survived. Then a sequence of published papers culminated in demonstrating, using a nested case-control design, that a high baseline HCV titer was predictive of early progression to death from end-stage liver failure. Outcomes related to HCV (end stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma) remain under study. In the original cohort studies, the mean age at enrollment was ~ 33 years old, so that those still alive in 2022 are mainly now ~ 60 - 75 years old. Many participants have already died. The tincture of time has led to subjects reaching ages when many more are dying from a wide array of outcomes, including from many chronic diseases (including cancer) as well as from infectious agents (especially HIV, HCV) or drug overdose. Renewed collaboration with local drug treatment programs has led to new field-based studies, including examination of some currently evolving problems among drug users. Dr. Weiss joined the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Genetics Consortium (NGC) in 2017, and through the NIDA project officer has had access to NGC contract resources (see below). NIH Certificate of Confidentiality, CC-DA-16-214 (attached) protects these studies. Past arrangements related to data on our subjects leads to restrictions on the use of data emanating from our study, such as potential commercialization and restrictions on whom may access and use these data. NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC) resources further support these endeavors and will be used as part of the NGC analyses studying the genetics of substance use. Study participants signed informed consent for the information collected from them to be used with no time limit and for biologic specimens collected from them to be used without restriction in future research. Serum samples were collected from participants, and from many also plasma, white blood cells and/or urine samples. About 100,000 vials were stored. All specimens have been continuously preserved at sufficiently cold temperatures to prevent deterioration, and many subjects separated white blood cells were processed and frozen in such a way as to maintain viability. Detailed data from the participants has been accumulated over time, and in general, linkage has been retained in each sub-study in accordance with the consent forms and protocols. For some participants, specimens were collected at multiple times (that is, sequential specimens). Multiple specimens from a single person exist in this database, and efforts at de-duplication remain ongoing. Dr. Weiss should be contacted if an investigator requires unique individuals since: • Multiple phases of enrollment occurred, and as our prospective follow-up continues; Dr. Weiss may identify new instances of multiple enrollment. • Some persons are related to each other. • In general, in this dataset for dbGaP, only a single specimen/record form a given person is included. Advances in laboratory testing techniques now permit innovative new uses for our linked research biospecimen repository. The ongoing focus of an interdisciplinary research program based on these cohorts relates subjects’ diseases, behaviors, medical history, and outcomes with biological and exposure markers. Participants’ use of various substances was ascertained on study enrollments, many serially over time. Quantitative frequency of use data, also sometimes sequential over time, were ascertained. Active ascertainment of outcomes is being conducted, including matching to mortality and cancer databases. Investigators interested in collaborations on specific outcomes (which is not part of this dbGaP dataset) or in the use of our stored specimens are encouraged to contact the principal investigator, Dr. Weiss. The processing of the genomic data was done in conjunction with NIDA, and in accordance with some longstanding data cleaning steps used by NIDA in the NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC), a group to which we shall be contributing these data for collaborative analyses. Since there is the potential for these steps to introduce certain types of potential biases, we summarize these here. Under contract from NIDA, cryopreserved sera or plasma (-80 C) or cells (in liquid nitrogen) were used, with most stored having been stored for 30 to 40 years in our biorepository. In the case of serum or plasma, in which only (largely) cell-free DNA fragments were available, DNA was extracted and restored prior to amplification. Industry standard DNA amplification techniques were done on all samples prior to genotyping in accord with established protocols of the NIDA Genetics Consortium. Our genotype data were run and processed on the Illumina Infinium OmniExpress_v_1.3 array. This array has 714,238 SNPs, and was designed many years ago. There were 628 SNPs on the array that do not correspond to any chromosome position, and these were removed. Genotype data were submitted by NIDA’s contracted genotyping laboratory in six batches over time to NIDA’s contracted dbGaP data management group, which conducted quality control (QC) analyses. QC analysis included an assessment of batch effects on for five of the six batches. (One of the batches, with only 12 samples, was too small for QC analysis of batch effects.) Standard NIDA Genetic Consortium cleaning was performed. Samples with a call rate <.85 were removed. Only one sample per person was retained. When more than one specimen was genotyped from one subject, only the sample with the higher call rate was retained (provided, of course, that that call rate was ≥ 0.85). We have retained some people we know are related, including some found to have been related through genotyping; the pedigree file describes those relationships. In summary, key cleaning steps include: 1. Using PLINK to check gender discrepancy. 2. Using PREST-PLUS and KING (Kinship-based Inference for GWAS) to check relatedness. 3. Using PEDCHECK and PLINK to check/zero-out Mendelian error. 4. Using PLINK to perform sample QC, SNP QC, along with KING to perform chromosome X and chromosome Y QC. 5. SNP-QC: Batch-effect: 5 Batches were compared (one batch, with few samples, was not). These five batches were compared to each other in all ten possible pairs, one batch vs. another batch, examining SNP allele frequency discrepancies by population (from GRAF), Fisher Exact Allelic test, with the criterion of p<5e-8 for removal. 6. SNP-QC: discordant SNPs in QC duplicates. Compared 25 QC duplicated samples with call rate > 0.95, removed SNPs with 3+ discordance. 7. There were 1,056 SNPs that were monomorphic; these have been retained so they can be included in analyses in which our dbGaP data are combined with those from other cohorts (in the latter of which those SNPs may not be monomorphic). The final cleaned dataset submitted has 8,898 samples and 606,793 SNPs.

  Study phs002140

• ELLIPSE Prostate Cancer Meta-Analysis and Genotyping

  The ELLIPSE Consortium is an international effort to discover risk loci for prostate cancer. It includes the meta-analysis of existing GWAS data as well as novel GWAS, exome, and iCOGS genotyping. The GWAS meta-analysis includes the following cases and controls from studies of European ancestry: UK GWAS stage 1 (Illumina Infinium HumanHap 550 Array: 1854 cases and 1894 controls), UK GWAS stage 2 (Illumina iSELECT: 3706 cases and 3884 controls), CAPS1 (Affymetrix GeneChip 500K: 474 cases and 482 controls), CAPS2 (Affymetrix GeneChip 5.0K: 1458 cases and 512 controls), BPC3 (Illumina Human610 Illumina: 2068 cases and 3011 controls), PEGASUS (HumanOmni2.5: 4600 cases and 2941 controls). The OMNI 2.5M genotyping was conducted for 977 prostate cancer cases from UKGPCS. The Exome SNP array genotyping was conducted for 4741 subjects from UKGPCS. The iCOGs genotyping was conducted for 10366 subjects which includes the Multiethnic Cohort (n=1648) and UKGPCS (n=8718). Below is a description of each study that contributed to the meta-analysis of men of European ancestry. Information about the studies that contributed to the multiethnic meta-analysis can be found on the associated study page and also in Conti et al (Nature Genetics, PMID:33398198).   UK GWAS Stage 1 (UK1) and Stage 2 (UK2): The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS) was first established in 1993 and is the largest prostate cancer study of its kind in the UK, involving nearly 189 hospitals. We are based at The Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey, and collaborate with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Our aim is to find genetic changes which are associated with prostate cancer risk. Our target is to recruit 26,000 gentlemen into the UKGPCS by 2017. Men are eligible to take part if they fit into at least one of the following groups: They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at 60 years of age or under (up to their 61st birthday). They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a first, second or third degree relative where at least one of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 years of age or under. They are affected and have 3 or more cases of prostate cancer on one side of their family. They are a prostate cancer patient at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We have to date recruited around 16,000 men on whom we have germline DNA and clinical data at diagnosis. The UK GWAS is based on genotyping of 541,129 SNPs in 1,854 individuals with clinically detected (non-PSA-screened) prostate cancer (cases) and 1,894 controls. 43,671 SNPs showing strong evidence of association in stage 1 were followed up by genotyping a further 3,268 cases and 3,366 controls from UK and Melbourne in stage2. CAPS1 and CAPS2: The CAPS (Cancer of the Prostate in Sweden) study represents a large Swedish population-based cancer study, comprising 3,161 cases and 2,149 controls, recruited between 2001 and 2003. Biopsy confirmed prostate cancer cases were identified and recruited from four out of six regional cancer registries in Sweden, diagnosed between July 2001 and October 2003. Clinical data including TNM stage, Gleason grade and PSA levels at time for diagnosis were retrieved through record linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Registry. Control subjects, who were recruited concurrently with case subjects, were randomly selected from the Swedish Population Registry and matched according to the expected age distribution of cases (groups of 5-year intervals) and geographic region. Whole blood was collected from all individuals for extraction of genomic DNA. A GWAS was conducted in two parts. In the first phase (CAPS1) 498 cases and 502 controls were genotyped, in the second phase 1,483 cases and 519 controls were genotyped. Genotyping was performed using the GeneChip Human Mapping 500K (CAPS1) and 5.0K (CAPS2) Array Set from Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA). The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, BPC3: BPC3 was a consortium of prospective cohort studies investigating genetic and gene-environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer. Each study selected cases and controls for this study as described below. The clinical criteria defining advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) were either obtained from medical records or cancer registries. The Gleason score source was either surgical specimens (radical prostatectomy or autopsy) or the diagnostic biopsy (needle biopsy or TURP). When multiple Gleason scores were available the surgical value was used. PLCO was removed from the analysis as the samples were included in the Pegasus GWAS described below. In total 2,473 advanced prostate cancer cases and 3,534 controls were included in the analysis following QC. ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: ATBC was a randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial to investigate whether α-tocopherol or ß-carotene supplementation reduced the incidence of lung or other cancers in male smokers. Between 1985 and 1988, 29,133 men ages 50 to 69 years were enrolled in the trial from Finland and randomized to supplementation (50 mg α-tocopherol, 20mg ß-carotene, or both) or placebo. Men with a prior history of cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ, were excluded from participating. Incident cancer cases are identified through linkage with the Finnish Cancer Registry, which has ~100% ascertainment of cancer cases nationwide. Cases included 249 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) from 1985 to 2003 with DNA available. Controls were 1,271 men selected previously for a GWAS of lung cancer in ATBC without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. CPSII, Cancer Prevention Study II: CPSII is a cohort study started in 1982 to investigate the relationship between dietary, lifestyle and other etiologic factors and cancer mortality. Approximately 1.2 million men and women enrolled in the study from 50 states in the U.S. In 1992, a subset of these participants (n= ~184,000) were enrolled in the CPSII Nutrition Cohort to examine the relationship between dietary and other exposures and cancer incidence. Blood samples were drawn from approximately 39,376 members of the Nutritional Cohort from 1998 to 2001, and buccal cells were collected from 69,467 members from 2001 to 2002. Cancer cases are identified by self-report through follow-up questionnaires followed by verification through medical records and/or linkage to state cancer registries as well as death certificates. A total of 660 advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) with a source of DNA were identified for this study. Controls were 660 men matched on ethnicity, date of birth, sample collection date and DNA type. EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: EPIC is a prospective study designed to investigate both genetic and non-genetic risk factors for different forms of cancer. Study participants were almost all white Europeans. Approximately 500,000 individuals (150,000 men) in EPIC were recruited between 1992 and 2000, from 23 centers in 10 European countries. Overall approximately 400,000 subjects also provided a blood sample at recruitment. The methods of recruitment and details of the study design are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, study participants completed an extensive questionnaire on both dietary and nondietary data at recruitment. The present study includes subjects from advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) matched to controls based on study center, length of follow-up, age at enrollment (± 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (± 1 hour). The advanced prostate cancer subjects were from 8 of the 10 participating countries: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). France and Norway were not included in the current study because these cohorts only included female subjects. All participants gave written consent for the research and approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board from all local institutions in the regions where participants had been recruited for the EPIC study. HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study: HPFS began in 1986 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study of 51,529 United States male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians 40 to 75 years of age. The baseline questionnaire provided information on age, marital status, height and weight, ancestry, medications, smoking history, disease history, physical activity, and diet. At baseline the cohort was 97% white, 2% Asian American, and 1% African American. The median follow-up through 2005 was 10.5 years (range 2-19 years). Self-reported prostate cancer diagnoses were confirmed by obtaining medical and/or pathology records. Prostate cancer deaths are either reported by family members in response to follow-up questionnaires, discovered by the postal system, or the National Death Index. Questionnaires are sent every two years to surviving men to update exposure and medical history. In 1993 and 1994, a blood specimen was collected from 18,018 men without a prior diagnosis of cancer. Prostate cancer cases are matched to controls on birth year (+/-1) and ethnicity. Controls are selected from those who are cancer-free at the time of the case’s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.   MEC, Multiethnic Cohort: The Multiethnic Cohort Study is a population-based prospective cohort study that was initiated between 1993 and 1996 and includes subjects from various ethnic groups - African Americans and Latinos primarily from Californian (great Los Angeles area) and Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, and European Americans primarily from Hawaii. State drivers’ license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter’s registration files were used, and, in California, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) files were used to identify additional African American men. All participants (n=215,251) returned a 26-page self-administered baseline questionnaire that obtained general demographic, medical and risk factor information. In the cohort, incident cancer cases are identified annually through cohort linkage to population-based cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in Hawaii and Los Angeles County as well as to the California State cancer registry. Information on stage and grade of disease are also obtained through the SEER registries. Blood sample collection in the MEC began in 1994 and targeted incident prostate cancer cases and a random sample of study participants to serve as controls for genetic analyses. PHS, Physicians Health Study:PHS was a randomized trial of aspirin and ß carotene for cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 U.S. male physicians ages 40-84 years at randomization; none had a cancer diagnosis at baseline. The original trial ended, but the men are followed. From 1982 to 1984, blood samples were collected from 14,916 physicians before randomization. Participants are sent yearly questionnaires to ascertain endpoints. Whenever a physician reports cancer, we request permission to obtain the medical records, and cancers are confirmed by pathology report. We obtain death certificates and pertinent medical records for all deaths. Follow-up for nonfatal outcomes in PHS is over 97% complete, and for mortality, over 99%. PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial:PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 754 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) from either arm of the trial. Of these cases, 317 were genotyped previously as part of Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS), a GWAS for prostate cancer. Controls included 1,491 men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer from the screening arm of the PLCO trial. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in genetic etiology studies of cancer and other traits. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the ten centers and the National Cancer Institute. PLCO was removed from the meta-analysis of the BPC3 studies as a consequence of PEGASUS below. PEGASUS, Prostate cancer Genome-wide Association Study of Uncommon Susceptibility loci: Pegasus is a genome-wide association nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 4,598 men of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer from either arm of the trial and controls included 2,941 men of European ancestry without a diagnosis of cancer from the screening arm, matched on age and year of randomization. All subjects provided informed consent, and the study approved by the institutional review board at the National Cancer Institute. Funding:This work was supported by the GAME-ON U19 initiative for prostate cancer (ELLIPSE): U19 CA148537. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233, U01-CA98710, U01-CA98216, and U01-CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). The ATBC study and PEGASUS was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004 and HHSN261201000006C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. CAPS: The Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant: K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant: 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the Söderberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linnér’s Minne, Karlsson’s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Ami Rönnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skillful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. Hans Wallinder at Aleris Medilab and Sven Gustafsson at Karolinska University Laboratory are thanked for their good cooperation in providing historical laboratory results. UKGPCS would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grants: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Cancer UK), The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758. 

  Study phs001120

• OncoArray: Prostate Cancer

  Original description of the study: From ELLIPSE (linked to the PRACTICAL consortium), we contributed ~78,000 SNPs to the OncoArray. A large fraction of the content was derived from the GWAS meta-analyses in European ancestry populations (overall and aggressive disease; ~27K SNPs). We also selected just over 10,000 SNPs from the meta-analyses in the non-European populations, with a majority of these SNPs coming from the analysis of overall prostate cancer in African ancestry populations as well as from the multiethnic meta-analysis. A substantial fraction of SNPs (~28,000) were also selected for fine-mapping of 53 loci not included in the common fine-mapping regions (tagging at r2>0.9 across ±500kb regions). We also selected a few thousand SNPs related with PSA levels and/or disease survival as well as SNPs from candidate lists provided by study collaborators, as well as from meta-analyses of exome SNP chip data from the Multiethnic Cohort and UK studies. The Contributing Studies: Aarhus: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Patients treated for prostate adenocarcinoma at Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby (Aarhus, Denmark). Source of controls: Age-matched males treated for myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary angioplasty, but with no prostate cancer diagnosis based on information retrieved from the Danish Cancer Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. AHS: Nested case-control study within prospective cohort. Source of cases: linkage to cancer registries in study states. Source of controls: matched controls from cohort ATBC: Prospective, nested case-control. Source of cases: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline. Source of controls: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline BioVu: Cases identified in a biobank linked to electronic health records. Source of cases: A total of 214 cases were identified in the VUMC de-identified electronic health records database (the Synthetic Derivative) and shipped to USC for genotyping in April 2014. The following criteria were used to identify cases: Age 18 or greater; male; African Americans (Black) only. Note that African ancestry is not self-identified, it is administratively or third-party assigned (which has been shown to be highly correlated with genetic ancestry for African Americans in BioVU; see references). Source of controls: Controls were identified in the de-identified electronic health record. Unfortunately, they were not age matched to the cases, and therefore cannot be used for this study. Canary PASS: Prospective, Multi-site, Observational Active Surveillance Study. Source of cases: clinic based from Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, University of California at San Francisco, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, University of Washington, VA Puget Sound. Source of controls: N/A CCI: Case series, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Cross Cancer Institute. Source of controls: N/A CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): Case-Control, Prospective, Observational, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients, treated in French departments of Urology, who had histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were recruited as participating in a systematic health screening program and found unaffected (normal digital rectal examination and total PSA < 4 ng/ml, or negative biopsy if PSA > 4 ng/ml). COH: hospital-based cases and controls from outside. Source of cases: Consented prostate cancer cases at City of Hope. Source of controls: Consented unaffected males that were part of other studies where they consented to have their DNA used for other research studies. COSM: Population-based cohort. Source of cases: General population. Source of controls: General population CPCS1: Case-control - Denmark. Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPCS2: Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPDR: Retrospective cohort. Source of cases: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Source of controls: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center ACS_CPS-II: Nested case-control derived from a prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Identified through self-report on follow-up questionnaires and verified through medical records or cancer registries, identified through cancer registries or the National Death Index (with prostate cancer as the primary cause of death). Source of controls: Cohort participants who were cancer-free at the time of diagnosis of the matched case, also matched on age (±6 mo) and date of biospecimen donation (±6 mo). EPIC: Case-control - Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK. Source of cases: Identified through record linkage with population-based cancer registries in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Germany and Greece, follow-up is active and achieved through checks of insurance records and cancer and pathology registries as well as via self-reported questionnaires; self-reported incident cancers are verified through medical records. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer EPICAP: Case-control, Population-based, ages less than 75 years at diagnosis, Hérault, France. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all public hospitals and private urology clinics of département of Hérault in France. Cases validation by the Hérault Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Population-based controls, frequency age matched (5-year groups). Quotas by socio-economic status (SES) in order to obtain a distribution by SES among controls identical to the SES distribution among general population men, conditionally to age. ERSPC: Population-based randomized trial. Source of cases: Men with PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam. Source of controls: Men without PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam ESTHER: Case-control, Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all hospitals in the state of Saarland, from 2001-2003. Source of controls: Random sample of participants from routine health check-up in Saarland, in 2000-2002 FHCRC: Population-based, case-control, ages 35-74 years at diagnosis, King County, WA, USA. Source of cases: Identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER cancer registry. Source of controls: Randomly selected, age-frequency matched residents from the same county as cases Gene-PARE: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients that received radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Source of controls: n/a Hamburg-Zagreb: Hospital-based, Prospective. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases seen at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Source of controls: Population-based (Croatia), healthy men, older than 50, with no medical record of cancer, and no family history of cancer (1st & 2nd degree relatives) HPFS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the HPFS cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the HPFS cohort IMPACT: Observational. Source of cases: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. Source of controls: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has not been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. IPO-Porto: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Early onset and/or familial prostate cancer. Source of controls: Blood donors Karuprostate: Case-control, Retrospective, Population-based. Source of cases: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 237 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending public and private urology clinics; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 148 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa. Source of controls: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 277 controls recruited from men participating in a free systematic health screening program open to the general population; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 134 controls recruited from subjects attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa KULEUVEN: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases recruited at the University Hospital Leuven. Source of controls: Healthy males with no history of prostate cancer recruited at the University Hospitals, Leuven. LAAPC: Subjects were participants in a population-based case-control study of aggressive prostate cancer conducted in Los Angeles County. Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program rapid case ascertainment system. Eligible cases included African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with a first primary prostate cancer between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. Eligible cases also had (a) prostatectomy with documented tumor extension outside the prostate, (b) metastatic prostate cancer in sites other than prostate, (c) needle biopsy of the prostate with Gleason grade ≥8, or (d) needle biopsy with Gleason grade 7 and tumor in more than two thirds of the biopsy cores. Eligible controls were men never diagnosed with prostate cancer, living in the same neighborhood as a case, and were frequency matched to cases on age (± 5 y) and race/ethnicity. Controls were identified by a neighborhood walk algorithm, which proceeds through an obligatory sequence of adjacent houses or residential units beginning at a specific residence that has a specific geographic relationship to the residence where the case lived at diagnosis. Malaysia: Case-control. Source of cases: Patients attended the outpatient urology or uro-onco clinic at University Malaya Medical Center. Source of controls: Population-based, age matched (5-year groups), ascertained through electoral register, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia MCC-Spain: Case-control. Source of cases: Identified through the urology departments of the participating hospitals. Source of controls: Population-based, frequency age and region matched, ascertained through the rosters of the primary health care centers MCCS: Nested case-control, Melbourne, Victoria. Source of cases: Identified by linkage to the Victorian Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer MD Anderson: Participants in this study were identified from epidemiological prostate cancer studies conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Houston Metropolitan area. Cases were accrued in the Houston Medical Center and were not restricted with respect to Gleason score, stage or PSA. Controls were identified via random-digit-dialing or among hospital visitors and they were frequency matched to cases on age and race. Lifestyle, demographic, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. MDACC_AS: A prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Men with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer meeting eligibility criteria for a prospective cohort study of active surveillance at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Source of controls: N/A MEC: The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) is comprised of over 215,000 men and women recruited from Hawaii and the Los Angeles area between 1993 and 1996. Between 1995 and 2006, over 65,000 blood samples were collected from participants for genetic analyses. To identify incident cancer cases, the MEC was cross-linked with the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries in California and Hawaii, and unaffected cohort participants with blood samples were selected as controls MIAMI (WFPCS): Prostate cancer cases and controls were recruited from the Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine using sequential patient populations as described previously (PMID:15342424). All study subjects received a detailed description of the study protocol and signed their informed consent, as approved by the medical center's Institutional Review Board. The general eligibility criteria were (i) able to comprehend informed consent and (ii) without previously diagnosed cancer. The exclusion criteria were (i) clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases; (ii) chronic inflammatory conditions; and (iii) infections within the past 6 weeks. Blood samples were collected from all subjects. MOFFITT: Hospital-based. Source of cases: clinic based from Moffitt Cancer Center. Source of controls: Moffitt Cancer Center affiliated Lifetime cancer screening center NMHS: Case-control, clinic based, Nashville TN. Source of cases: All urology clinics in Nashville, TN. Source of controls: Men without prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. PCaP: The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is a multidisciplinary population-based case-only study designed to address racial differences in prostate cancer through a comprehensive evaluation of social, individual and tumor level influences on prostate cancer aggressiveness. PCaP enrolled approximately equal numbers of African Americans and Caucasian Americans with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer from North Carolina (42 counties) and Louisiana (30 parishes) identified through state tumor registries. African American PCaP subjects with DNA, who agreed to future use of specimens for research, participated in OncoArray analysis. PCMUS: Case-control - Sofia, Bulgaria. Source of cases: Patients of Clinic of Urology, Alexandrovska University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria, PrCa histopathologically confirmed. Source of controls: 72 patients with verified BPH and PSA<3,5; 78 healthy controls from the MMC Biobank, no history of PrCa PHS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort PLCO: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Men with a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Source of controls: Controls were men enrolled in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial without a diagnosis of cancer at the time of case ascertainment. Poland: Case-control. Source of cases: men with unselected prostate cancer, diagnosed in north-western Poland at the University Hospital in Szczecin. Source of controls: cancer-free men from the same population, taken from the healthy adult patients of family doctors in the Szczecin region PROCAP: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were ascertained from the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study, a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients with localized prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PROGReSS: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases from the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Source of controls: Cancer-free men from the same population ProMPT: A study to collect samples and data from subjects with and without prostate cancer. Retrospective, Experimental. Source of cases: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals. Source of controls: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals ProtecT: Trial of treatment. Samples taken from subjects invited for PSA testing from the community at nine centers across United Kingdom. Source of cases: Subjects who have a proven diagnosis of prostate cancer following testing. Source of controls: Identified through invitation of subjects in the community. PROtEuS: Case-control, population-based. Source of cases: All new histologically-confirmed cases, aged less or equal to 75 years, diagnosed between 2005 and 2009, actively ascertained across Montreal French hospitals. Source of controls: Randomly selected from the Provincial electoral list of French-speaking men between 2005 and 2009, from the same area of residence as cases and frequency-matched on age. QLD: Case-control. Source of cases: A longitudinal cohort study (Prostate Cancer Supportive Care and Patient Outcomes Project: ProsCan) conducted in Queensland, through which men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from 26 private practices and 10 public hospitals were directly referred to ProsCan at the time of diagnosis by their treating clinician (age range 43-88 years). All cases had histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer, following presentation with an abnormal serum PSA and/or lower urinary tract symptoms. Source of controls: Controls comprised healthy male blood donors with no personal history of prostate cancer, recruited through (i) the Australian Red Cross Blood Services in Brisbane (age range 19-76 years) and (ii) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (age and post-code/ area matched to ProsCan, age range 54-90 years). RAPPER: Multi-centre, hospital based blood sample collection study in patients enrolled in clinical trials with prospective collection of radiotherapy toxicity data. Source of cases: Prostate cancer patients enrolled in radiotherapy trials: CHHiP, RT01, Dose Escalation, RADICALS, Pelvic IMRT, PIVOTAL. Source of controls: N/A SABOR: Prostate Cancer Screening Cohort. Source of cases: Men >45 yrs of age participating in annual PSA screening. Source of controls: Males participating in annual PSA prostate cancer risk evaluations (funded by NCI biomarkers discovery and validation grant), recruited through University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and affiliated sites or through study advertisements, enrolment open to the community SCCS: Case-control in cohort, Southeastern USA. Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: SCCS entry population. Source of controls: SCCS entry population SCPCS: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Health Care Financing Administration beneficiary file SEARCH: Case-control - East Anglia, UK. Source of cases: Men < 70 years of age registered with prostate cancer at the population-based cancer registry, Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre, East Anglia, UK. Source of controls: Men attending general practice in East Anglia with no known prostate cancer diagnosis, frequency matched to cases by age and geographic region SNP_Prostate_Ghent: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Men treated with IMRT as primary or postoperative treatment for prostate cancer at the Ghent University Hospital between 2000 and 2010. Source of controls: Employees of the University hospital and members of social activity clubs, without a history of any cancer. SPAG: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Guernsey. Source of controls: Guernsey STHM2: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PCPT: Case-control from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial SELECT: Case-cohort from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial TAMPERE: Case-control - Finland, Retrospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Identified through linkage to the Finnish Cancer Registry and patient records; and the Finnish arm of the ERSPC study. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer UGANDA: Uganda Prostate Cancer Study: Uganda is a case-control study of prostate cancer in Kampala Uganda that was initiated in 2011. Men with prostate cancer were enrolled from the Urology unit at Mulago Hospital and men without prostate cancer (i.e. controls) were enrolled from other clinics (i.e. surgery) at the hospital. UKGPCS: ICR, UK. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Royal Marsden hospital and nationwide NCRN hospitals. Source of controls: Ken Muir's control- 2000 ULM: Case-control - Germany. Source of cases: familial cases (n=162): identified through questionnaires for family history by collaborating urologists all over Germany; sporadic cases (n=308): prostatectomy series performed in the Clinic of Urology Ulm between 2012 and 2014. Source of controls: age-matched controls (n=188): age-matched men without prostate cancer and negative family history collected in hospitals of Ulm WUGS/WUPCS: Cases Series, USA. Source of cases: Identified through clinics at Washington University in St. Louis. Source of controls: Men diagnosed and managed with prostate cancer in University based clinic. Acknowledgement Statements: Aarhus: This study was supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council (now Innovation Fund Denmark) and the Danish Cancer Society. The Danish Cancer Biobank (DCB) is acknowledged for biological material. AHS: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119). ATBC: This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, HHSN261201000006C, and HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. BioVu: The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's BioVU which is supported by institutional funding and by the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975-01 (which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant 2 UL1 TR000445-06). Canary PASS: PASS was supported by Canary Foundation and the National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network (U01 CA086402) CCI: This work was awarded by Prostate Cancer Canada and is proudly funded by the Movember Foundation - Grant # D2013-36.The CCI group would like to thank David Murray, Razmik Mirzayans, and April Scott for their contribution to this work. CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): None reported COH: SLN is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship COSM: The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Foundation CPCS1 & CPCS2: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, DenmarkCPCS1 would like to thank the participants and staff of the Copenhagen General Population Study for their important contributions. CPDR: Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences HU0001-10-2-0002 (PI: David G. McLeod, MD) CPS-II: The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. CPS-II thanks the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, and cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health; Greek Ministry of Education (Greece); the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); the Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); the Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020), Red de Centros RCESP, C03/09 (Spain); the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Skåne and Västerbotten, Fundacion Federico SA (Sweden); the Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom). EPICAP: The EPICAP study was supported by grants from Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Ligue départementale du Val de Marne; Fondation de France; Agence Nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES). The EPICAP study group would like to thank all urologists, Antoinette Anger and Hasina Randrianasolo (study monitors), Anne-Laure Astolfi, Coline Bernard, Oriane Noyer, Marie-Hélène De Campo, Sandrine Margaroline, Louise N'Diaye, and Sabine Perrier-Bonnet (Clinical Research nurses). ERSPC: This study was supported by the DutchCancerSociety (KWF94-869,98-1657,2002-277,2006-3518, 2010-4800), The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311, 62300035), The Dutch Cancer Research Foundation (SWOP), and an unconditional grant from Beckman-Coulter-HybritechInc. ESTHER: The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. The ESTHER group would like to thank Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Heiko Müller, Karina Dieffenbach, Katja Butterbach for valuable contributions to the study. FHCRC: The FHCRC studies were supported by grants R01-CA056678, R01-CA082664, and R01-CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC would like to thank all the men who participated in these studies. Gene-PARE: The Gene-PARE study was supported by grants 1R01CA134444 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, PC074201 and W81XWH-15-1-0680 from the Prostate Cancer Research Program of the Department of Defense and RSGT-05-200-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society. Hamburg-Zagreb: None reported HPFS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by grants UM1CA167552, CA133891, CA141298, and P01CA055075. HPFS are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. IMPACT: The IMPACT study was funded by The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, CR-UK Project grant (C5047/A1232), Cancer Australia, AICR Netherlands A10-0227, Cancer Australia and Cancer Council Tasmania, NIHR, EU Framework 6, Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia, and Philanthropic donation to Northshore University Health System. We acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust. IMPACT acknowledges the IMPACT study steering committee, collaborating centres, and participants. IPO-Porto: The IPO-Porto study was funded by Fundaçäo para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; UID/DTP/00776/2013 and PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014) and by IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP-16-2012 and CI-IPOP-24-2015). MC and MPS are research fellows from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, Núcleo Regional do Norte. SM is a research fellow from FCT (SFRH/BD/71397/2010). IPO-Porto would like to express our gratitude to all patients and families who have participated in this study. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the the Frech National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la ProstateKarusprostate thanks Séverine Ferdinand. KULEUVEN: F.C. and S.J. are holders of grants from FWO Vlaanderen (G.0684.12N and G.0830.13N), the Belgian federal government (National Cancer Plan KPC_29_023), and a Concerted Research Action of the KU Leuven (GOA/15/017). TVDB is holder of a doctoral fellowship of the FWO. LAAPC: This study was funded by grant R01CA84979 (to S.A. Ingles) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Malaysia: The study was funded by the University Malaya High Impact Research Grant (HIR/MOHE/MED/35). Malaysia thanks all associates in the Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF) and the Malaysian Men's Health Initiative (MMHI). MCCS: MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553, and 504711, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MCC-Spain: The study was partially funded by the Accion Transversal del Cancer, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI09/00773-Cantabria, PI11/01889-FEDER, PI12/00265, PI12/01270, and PI12/00715), by the Fundación Marqués de Valdecilla (API 10/09), by the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) Scientific Foundation and by the Catalan Government DURSI grant 2009SGR1489. Samples: Biological samples were stored at the Parc de Salut MAR Biobank (MARBiobanc; Barcelona) which is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (RD09/0076/00036). Also sample collection was supported by the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya sponsored by Pla Director d'Oncologia de Catalunya (XBTC). MCC-Spain acknowledges the contribution from Esther Gracia-Lavedan in preparing the data. We thank all the subjects who participated in the study and all MCC-Spain collaborators. MD Anderson: Prostate Cancer Case-Control Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388. MDACC_AS: None reported MEC: Funding provided by NIH grant U19CA148537 and grant U01CA164973. MIAMI (WFPCS): ACS MOFFITT: The Moffitt group was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park). NMHS: Funding for the Nashville Men's Health Study (NMHS) was provided by the National Institutes of Health Grant numbers: RO1CA121060. PCaP only data: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. For HCaP-NC follow-up data: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. For studies using both PCaP and HCaP-NC follow-up data please use: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) and the Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study are carried out as collaborative studies supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052 and the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS, respectively. For any PCaP data, please include: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. For studies using PCaP DNA/genotyping data, please include: We would like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). For studies using PCaP tissue, please include: We would like to acknowledge the RPCI Department of Urology Tissue Microarray and Immunoanalysis Core for our tissue processing, storage and sample disbursement. For studies using HCaP-NC follow-up data, please use: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the HCaP-NC study for their important contributions. For studies that use both PCaP and HCaP-NC, please use: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP and HCaP-NC studies for their important contributions. PCMUS: The PCMUS study was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2-2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012) with additional support from the Science Fund of Medical University - Sofia (contract 51/2009; 8I/2009; 28/2010). PHS: The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490, and HL34595. PHS members are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. PLCO: This PLCO study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIHPLCO thanks Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the screening center investigators and staff of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We thank Mr. Thomas Riley, Mr. Craig Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, and Ms. Shannon Merkle at Information Management Services, Inc., for their management of the data and Ms. Barbara O'Brien and staff at Westat, Inc. for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We also thank the PLCO study participants for their contributions to making this study possible. Poland: None reported PROCAP: PROCAP was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (08-708, 09-0677). PROCAP thanks and acknowledges all of the participants in the PROCAP study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Ami Rönnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skilful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. We acknowledge The NPCR steering group: Pär Stattin (chair), Anders Widmark, Stefan Karlsson, Magnus Törnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andrén, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, Göran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Roy Ehrnström. PROGReSS: The PROGReSS study is founded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (INT15/00070; INT16/00154; FIS PI10/00164, FIS PI13/02030; FIS PI16/00046); the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PTA2014-10228-I), and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER 2007-2013). ProMPT: Founded by CRUK, NIHR, MRC, Cambride Biomedical Research Centre ProtecT: Founded by NIHR. ProtecT and ProMPT would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK. Cancer Research UK grants (C8197/A10123) and (C8197/A10865) supported the genotyping team. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research which funds the Cambridge Bio-medical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment (PROMPT) collaborative (grant code G0500966/75466) which has funded tissue and urine collections in Cambridge. We are grateful to staff at the Welcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Addenbrooke's Clinical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK for their help in conducting the ProtecT study. We also acknowledge the support of the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the DOH HTA (ProtecT grant), and the NCRI/MRC (ProMPT grant) for help with the bio-repository. The UK Department of Health funded the ProtecT study through the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99). The ProtecT trial and its linked ProMPT and CAP (Comparison Arm for ProtecT) studies are supported by Department of Health, England; Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466, and The NCRI, UK. The epidemiological data for ProtecT were generated though funding from the Southwest National Health Service Research and Development. DNA extraction in ProtecT was supported by USA Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280, Yorkshire Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the ProtecT study research group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health of England. The bio-repository from ProtecT is supported by the NCRI (ProMPT) Prostate Cancer Collaborative and the Cambridge BMRC grant from NIHR. We thank the National Institute for Health Research, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the Human Research Tissue Bank (Addenbrooke's Hospital), and Cancer Research UK. PROtEuS: PROtEuS was supported financially through grants from the Canadian Cancer Society (13149, 19500, 19864, 19865) and the Cancer Research Society, in partnership with the Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur, de la recherche, de la science et de la technologie du Québec, and the Fonds de la recherche du Québec - Santé.PROtEuS would like to thank its collaborators and research personnel, and the urologists involved in subjects recruitment. We also wish to acknowledge the special contribution made by Ann Hsing and Anand Chokkalingam to the conception of the genetic component of PROtEuS. QLD: The QLD research is supported by The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Project Grants (390130, 1009458) and NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and Cancer Australia PdCCRS funding to J Batra. The QLD team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the urologists, pathologists, data managers and patient participants who have generously and altruistically supported the QLD cohort. RAPPER: RAPPER is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1094/A11728; C1094/A18504) and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre funding (C1467/A7286). The RAPPER group thank Rebecca Elliott for project management. SABOR: The SABOR research is supported by NIH/NCI Early Detection Research Network, grant U01 CA0866402-12. Also supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant to the Cancer Therapy and Research Center from the National Cancer Institute (US) P30 CA054174. SCCS: SCCS is funded by NIH grant R01 CA092447, and SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SCPCS: SCPCS is funded by CDC grant S1135-19/19, and SCPCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). SEARCH: SEARCH is funded by a program grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. SNP_Prostate_Ghent: The study was supported by the National Cancer Plan, financed by the Federal Office of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium. SPAG: Wessex Medical ResearchHope for Guernsey, MUG, HSSD, MSG, Roger Allsopp STHM2: STHM2 was supported by grants from The Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linné Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, number 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; The Swedish Research Council (number K2010-70X-20430-04-3) and The Swedish Cancer Society (numbers 11-0287 and 11-0624); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linnérs minne; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), number 2012-0073STHM2 acknowledges the Karolinska University Laboratory, Aleris Medilab, Unilabs and the Regional Prostate Cancer Registry for performing analyses and help to retrieve data. Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Britt-Marie Hune for their enthusiastic work as research nurses. Astrid Björklund for skilful data management. We wish to thank the BBMRI.se biobank facility at Karolinska Institutet for biobank services. PCPT & SELECT are funded by Public Health Service grants U10CA37429 and 5UM1CA182883 from the National Cancer Institute. SWOG and SELECT thank the site investigators and staff and, most importantly, the participants who donated their time to this trial. TAMPERE: The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland (251074), The Finnish Cancer Organisations, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (X51003). The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). TAMPERE would like to thank Riina Liikanen, Liisa Maeaettaenen and Kirsi Talala for their work on samples and databases. UGANDA: None reported UKGPCS: UKGPCS would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. UKGPCS should also like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses, data managers, and consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. UKGPCS would like to thank all urologists and other persons involved in the planning, coordination, and data collection of the study. ULM: The Ulm group received funds from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). WUGS/WUPCS: WUGS would like to thank the following for funding support: The Anthony DeNovi Fund, the Donald C. McGraw Foundation, and the St. Louis Men's Group Against Cancer.

  Study phs001391

• 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

• Emirati T2T Assembly

  This study generates a telomere-to-telomere (T2T) trio-based genome assembly for a female Emirati individual, creating a high-quality reference representative of an understudied population. We produced multi-platform sequencing for a single family trio: PacBio HiFi (>60× per parent, >120× offspring), ONT ultra-long reads (>110× offspring), and Illumina short-read WGS (>100× for all three). The offspring genome was assembled in a trio framework to leverage parental information for accurate phasing and error resolution. Scaffolding and finishing utilized NTLink for initial scaffolding, RagTag for reference-guided refinement, and Quartett for gap filling, resulting in a contiguous, population-relevant assembly suitable for downstream variant discovery and pangenome integration.

  Study EGAS50000001235