Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

Study of Clinical Efficacy of Antimicrobial Therapy Strategy Using Pragmatic Design in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (CleanUP IPF-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives To investigate whether the addition of antimicrobial treatments improves outcomes compared to usual care alone among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic progressive lung disease. Lung dysbiosis, characterized by increased bacterial load and/or loss of diversity, has been reported in patients with IPF and may contribute to hospitalization and death. Clinical trials investigating other chronic disorders suggest that antimicrobial therapy favorably alters the lung microbial community. The CleanUP IPF study was initiated to determine if an antimicrobial treatment reduces respiratory hospitalization or death among patients with IPF. Participants A total of 513 participants were enrolled. 254 participants were randomized to receive antimicrobials, of those 128 were randomized to receive co-trimoxazole and 126 were randomized to receive doxycycline. 259 participants were randomized to receive usual care alone. Design CleanUP IPF was a randomized, unblinded, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to receive antimicrobials in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Antimicrobials included co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim 160 mg/sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice daily plus folic acid 5 mg daily) or doxycycline (100 mg once daily if body weight Data collected included diffusion capacity of lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), forced vital capacity (FVC), and occurrence of severe adverse events. Several questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life, including the impacts of shortness of breath, fatigue, and chronic cough on participants. The primary end point was time to first nonelective respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality. The study was terminated early due to futility. Conclusions Among adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the addition of co-trimoxazole or doxycycline to usual care, compared with usual care alone, did not significantly improve time to nonelective respiratory hospitalization or death. Martinez FJ, Yow E, Flaherty KR, et al. Effect of Antimicrobial Therapy on Respiratory Hospitalization or Death in Adults With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The CleanUP-IPF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;325(18):1841-1851. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4956

Study phs004314

All you need to know about the new Submitter Portal

In September we launched new services for all EGA users, including a new version of the former Submitter Portal. Our main objective with this Portal is to transform the metadata submission in a simplified and user-friendly method. Although it is possible to find documentation about the Submitter Portal on our website, we wanted to highlight the new features in this article. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the Submitter Portal and who doesn't? Users with an old submission account (ega-box) can already access the new Submitter Portal. If it is the first time that you want to access, it is time to request a submitter role linked to the EGA User. In the form, it is mandatory to explain which type of data you want to deposit, the size of your submission, add any comment you’d like us to read, and manage the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA) document. This document should be checked by the legal department of your institution and signed by a person with authority to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. Note that we provide a DPA template for new Users; it can be found and downloaded in the Submitter Request section. With the DPA signed and the Submitter Request sent, it is time to wait for our Helpdesk team to validate the request. Metadata submission now can be collaborative It is possible to add collaborator(s) to your submissions. Only registered EGA Users will appear on the search bar. When adding a collaborator, it is mandatory to define the permission granted: Read only: collaborators with this permission can check if the information of the submission is correct but cannot modify anything. Read & write: collaborators with this label can register new objects and modify the registered ones. We wanted to save time for submitters that usually rely on the same collaborators. For that, we have implemented the possibility of adding the same collaborators from previous submissions; all you need to do is to search the submission, and the exact set of EGA users will have access to your submission. You can check the collaborators and their permissions at any point of the submission by going to the collaborators section. Even adding more people to complete the submission is allowed by following the same steps: looking for the EGA User and defining the permission granted (please, note that during the submission it is not possible to add collaborators from previous submissions). Use external links to complement the study information When filling the information about the study we recommend users to enrich the submission with complementary fields such as PubMeds IDs, custom tags and external links. External links are used to connect a study to an external repository. We have implemented an external link to Euro-Bioimaging for a European Project (EuCanImage). Now, we are looking forward to keeping increasing the list of external repositories! Choose the expected release date for your metadata to be searchable on our website Once all the metadata objects are registered it is time to finalise the submission so that the Helpdesk team can approve it. In the new version of the Submitter Portal users can choose the expected release date for the metadata to be searchable on the EGA website. Please, note that the selected date will have a minimum of one week margin from the day of finalisation. This time is necessary for your files to be archived and for the submission to be validated by the Helpdesk Team. Are you looking for the Array submission within the Submitter Portal? Our Submitter Portal does not support array submissions. The submission of Array-based metadata must be done using the EGA programmatic submission. You will find our Array-based format template and all the necessary information on our website, and you can find all the steps in our submission quickguide! More information about the submission process at the EGA Our Team has developed an extended documentation related to metadata submission. A good first step is to take a closer look at the Submission FAQ. To have a general overview of all the metadata submission process we recommend taking a glimpse of our take-the-tour or watching the tutorial available on our YouTube Channel. Don't miss our section on EGA Schemas, to learn more about how the EGA is built. It can be useful to fully ensure that your submissions comply with the EGA's standards and contribute to a valuable and accessible genomic resource.

Blog new-submitter-portal

Successful Clinical Response in Pneumonia Therapy (SCRIPT)

The goal of this study is to iteratively identify, validate and refine biomarkers to predict clinical failure, and identify novel targets for therapy, beyond traditional antibiotics, for patients with severe pneumonia requiring intubation, including severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). We hypothesize that factors within the alveolar microenvironment in many patients with pneumonia prevent the active process of pneumonia resolution.The major emphasis will be on HAP. Mechanically ventilated CAP patients are a very high-risk group for subsequent VAP, and therefore CAP samples will be included to determine baseline bacteria, microbiome, and host defense patterns for those that do or do not develop HAP/VAP. Hospital-acquired pneumonia is the leading cause of death from nosocomial infections. Even in patients receiving pathogen-appropriate therapy, reported clinical failure rates are increasing, approaching 50% in recent clinical trials. Current approaches to improve outcomes in patients with pneumonia almost exclusively focus on the development of antibiotics to address the problem of resistance. However, the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens is insufficient to explain the high rates of clinical failure. Instead, we hypothesize that factors within the alveolar microenvironment in many patients with pneumonia prevent the active process of pneumonia resolution. These factors include pathogen-specific adaptations to the injured lung that modulate the innate and adaptive immune response, as well as changes to the alveolar microbiome, driven by selective pressure within our modern intensive care units. Understanding this complex adaptive system requires the integration of clinical information with unbiased measures of the host, pathogen, and microbiome changes within the alveolar microenvironment. These measures must be repeated over time to identify factors that distinguish successful from failed therapy for pneumonia sufficiently early during the clinical course to allow for effective interventions. To address this challenge, we have assembled a talented group of investigators in the Successful Clinical Response In Pneumonia Therapy (SCRIPT) Systems Biology Center. We will leverage our routine clinical practice of safe alveolar sampling in mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia with repeated non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (NBBAL) sampling over the course of pneumonia. From this fluid, we will combine flow cytometry with multi-omic technologies (cell population-specific transcriptomics, epigenomics, shotgun microbiome sequencing, and pathogen-specific sequencing). Our systems scientists will integrate these genomic data with robust clinical -omics with the goal of identifying biomarkers that can be prospectively tested in patients and causally evaluated in humanized mouse models.The addition of a pooled sample artificially increases the number of automatically computed subjects by one.

Study phs002300

Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen in people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation. Background: COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, with more than twelve million people currently diagnosed with the disease. In 2011, Medicare reimbursements for oxygen-related costs for people with COPD exceeded two billion dollars. The quality of life of a person with COPD decreases as the disease progresses, making treating and managing COPD in the moderate stages important. The benefits of oxygen supplementation were studied in the 1970s, but these benefits were specific to people with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia. The LOTT trial was designed to address the effectiveness of supplemental oxygen therapy in treating people with COPD who have moderately low blood oxygen levels at rest or who have normal blood oxygen levels at rest, but have low or very low blood oxygen levels during exercise. Participants: There were a total of 1759 people screened for eligibility for the LOTT trial. Of the 1759 screened, 738 people with COPD were selected for randomization with 368 randomly assigned to the supplemental-oxygen group and 370 to the no-supplemental-oxygen group. Of the 738 people with COPD who underwent randomization, 133 (18%) had resting desaturation only, 319 (43%) had exercise-induced desaturation only, and 286 (39%) had both types of desaturation. Furthermore, in the supplemental-oxygen group, 220 people were prescribed 24-hour oxygen and 148 were prescribed oxygen during exercise and sleep only. Design: The LOTT trial was originally designed to test whether the use of supplemental oxygen would result in a longer time to death for people with COPD and moderate resting desaturation. After seven months, the trial design was judged to be infeasible; therefore, the trial was redesigned to include people with exercise-induced desaturation with a primary composite outcome of death or first hospitalization for any cause, whichever occurs first. Other outcomes measured included: death, health care utilization, COPD exacerbation, quality of life measurements, anxiety, depression, and measures of functional status. Potential participants were screened using questionnaires, a breathing test, a brief physical exam, a blood draw, and measurements of resting and walking blood oxygen levels. Based on those results, eligible participants returned for a second screening visit for further evaluations. At the end of the second visit, eligible participants were assigned randomly to supplemental oxygen therapy or no oxygen therapy. Participants assigned to supplemental oxygen therapy received stationary and/or portable oxygen systems. Participants were required to return for a one hour visit to determine how much oxygen to use while walking and to learn how to use the equipment. Participants who had low blood oxygen levels during rest were instructed to use supplemental oxygen 24 hours per day. Participants with normal resting blood oxygen levels, but low or very low blood oxygen levels during exercise were instructed to use it during physical activity and sleep. Throughout the treatment period, participants were asked to keep records of the number of oxygen tanks emptied or pounds of oxygen delivered, meter readings, and changes in equipment. Study officials contacted participants weekly for the first month, monthly for the next five months, and then every two months until the Year 1 study visit. Participants assigned to receive no oxygen treatment were contacted one week after assignment for a check-up. All participants returned for study visits once a year for up to seven years. At each of these visits, participants completed some of the same tests and questionnaires from the screening visit. Participants underwent a blood draw during the one year study visit. Participants in both treatment groups received two phone calls each year to check on status and use of oxygen. In addition, participants in both groups were asked to complete a quality of life questionnaire by mail at four months and sixteen months. Medicare claims were collected for the duration of each participant's enrollment in the study. Conclusions: In participants with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation, the prescription of long-term supplemental oxygen did not result in a longer time to death or first hospitalization than no long-term supplemental oxygen, nor did it provide sustained benefit with regard to any of the other measured outcomes. Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial Research Group, Albert RK, Au DH, Blackford AL, Casaburi R, Cooper JA Jr, Criner GJ, Diaz P, Fuhlbrigge AL, Gay SE, Kanner RE, MacIntyre N, Martinez FJ, Panos RJ, Piantadosi S, Sciurba F, Shade D, Stibolt T, Stoller JK, Wise R, Yusen RD, Tonascia J, Sternberg AL, Bailey W. A Randomized Trial of Long-Term Oxygen for COPD with Moderate Desaturation. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 27;375(17):1617-1627.

Study phs003933

Substantial somatic genomic variation and selection for BCOR mutations in human induced pluripotent stem cells

Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (hiPSC) are an established patient-specific model system where opportunities are emerging for cell-based therapies. We compared and contrasted hiPSCs derived from different tissues, skin and blood, in the same individual. We show extensive single-nucleotide mutagenesis in all hiPSC lines, although fibroblast-derived hiPSCs (F-hiPSCs) are particularly heavily mutagenized by ultraviolet (UV)-related damage. We utilized genome sequencing data on 454 F-hiPSCs and 44 blood-derived hiPSCs (B-hiPSCs) to gain further insights. Across 324 whole genome sequenced (WGS) F-hiPSCs derived by the Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Initiative (HipSci), UV-related damage is present in ~72% of cell lines, sometimes causing substantial mutagenesis (range 0.25-15 per Mb). Furthermore, we find remarkable genomic heterogeneity between independent F-hiPSC clones derived from the same reprogramming process in the same donor, due to oligoclonal populations within fibroblasts. Combining WGS and exome-sequencing data of 452 HipSci F-hiPSCs, we identify 272 predicted pathogenic mutations in cancer-related genes, of which 21 genes were hit recurrently three or more times, involving 77 (17%) lines. Notably, 151 of 272 mutations were present in starting fibroblast populations suggesting that more than half of putative driver events in F-hiPSCs were acquired in vivo. In contrast, B-hiPSCs reprogrammed from erythroblasts show lower levels of genome-wide mutations (range 0.28-1.4 per Mb), no UV damage, but a strikingly high prevalence of acquired BCOR mutations in ~57% of lines, indicative of strong selection pressure. All hiPSCs had otherwise stable, diploid genomes on karyotypic pre-screening, highlighting how copy-number-based approaches do not have the required resolution to detect widespread nucleotide mutagenesis. This work strongly suggests that models for cell-based therapies require detailed nucleotide-resolution characterization prior to clinical application.

Dataset EGAD00001007029

Circulating kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) and association with response to adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma

Adjuvant immunotherapy is currently the standard of care for patients with resected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at increased risk of recurrence, but there are no biomarkers available to guide treatment decisions. Kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) has previously been described as a potential circulating biomarker in renal cell carcinoma. We evaluated biomarkers and outcomes among patients who participated in a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo in resected RCC (IMmotion010). This trial did not meet its primary DFS endpoint in the intention-to-treat population. An affinity-based proximity extension proteomics assay was used to compare levels of circulating proteins among baseline (post-nephrectomy) serum samples and also with samples taken at time of recurrence. We demonstrate that serum KIM-1 was the most significantly enriched protein at recurrence versus baseline. Patients with serum KIM-1high at baseline had worse disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.35-2.09), but also had improved DFS when treated with adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99). An increase in KIM-1 during follow-up was associated with worse DFS compared to patients with no increase in KIM-1. Comparison of transcriptomic expression profiles in paired primary and recurrent tumor samples revealed that metastatic recurrence is associated with upregulation of transcriptional programs associated with tumor proliferation and myeloid immune suppression. Downregulation of an MHC class I signature was seen among patients with recurrence after treatment with atezolizumab but not placebo, suggesting this is a mechanism of resistance to PD-L1 immunotherapy. These analyses suggest that elevated post-nephrectomy serum KIM-1 enriches for benefit from adjuvant immunotherapy in RCC, and that biomarker driven adjuvant therapy should be evaluated as a potential new paradigm in RCC trials.

Study EGAS50000001285

Privacy Notice for Helpdesk service

Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk service This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by dr. Thomas Keane, by: email at: tk2@ebi.ac.uk or post at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: telephone at +49 6221 387-8590, email at dpo@embl.org , or post at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, or post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eu post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from users of the service: Name Email address Job title Date and time when the support request was sent We will use your personal data for the following purposes: To provide uninterrupted user access to the service To better understand the needs of the users and guide future improvements of the service To create anonymous usage statistics 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? There are no personal data transfers to third countries or international organizations. 6. How long do we keep your personal data? Any personal data directly obtained from you will be retained as long as the service is live. Such duration serves the purpose of enabling scientific research and ensures legal compliance and facilitates internal and external audits if they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration. Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period. Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

Documentation data-protection/privacy-notice/ega-helpdesk

Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS)

This pharmacogenomic study focused on the response of patients with MDD to an 8-week course of treatment with citalopram or escitalopram. Briefly, clinical assessments and research assessments were performed at each study visit as summarized in Table 1. Many patients continued on antidepressant medication after the 8 week study. Table 1: Study timeline and patient contacts. Week Consent/Med Hx Write Rx SI Qx SCID HRS-D17 QIDSC16 CGI-I 0 SC RC RC SC SC SC 4 RC RC SC SC RC 8 RC RC SC SC RC HRS-D17=Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, QIDS-C16=Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, CGI-I=Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, SCID=Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SC=Study Coordinator, RC=Research Clinician. Enrollment and baseline assessment. Upon initial intake, the Study Coordinator (SC) obtained informed consent as well as clinical and demographic information, including history of bone marrow or liver transplant or blood transfusion within the previous 6 weeks, and prior history of treatment during the current major depressive episode. The SC completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the HRS-D17 (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and the QIDS-C16 (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and reviewed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After review with the Research Clinician (RC) and when appropriate, after a negative pregnancy test, the SC invited the subject to participate in the study if entry criteria were met. If the subject agreed, he/she received treatment according to the study protocol. Treatment schedule. Participants selected for inclusion in the study were seen at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The appropriate treatment antidepressant (citalopram or escitalopram) was determined following discussion between the patient and RC concerning medical, financial, and insurance considerations. The study medication citalopram was given in tablet or liquid form, depending on the patient's need. A fixed-flexible dose schedule was employed with the possibility of a dose escalation. In particular, the initial dose of citalopram was 20 mg and escitalopram was 10 mg. This dose was increased to 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks if the subject had a score of >/= 6 on the QIDS-C16 and the RC concluded that the subject could tolerate the increase. If necessary, dose was reduced at the discretion of the RC. The importance of medication compliance was discussed with the subject, and subjects were asked to bring in the medication at each visit for the purpose of counting remaining pills to assess compliance. Participants may have had an abbreviated course of therapy if they were clearly intolerant of the drug or failed to respond to a 40 mg dose of citalopram or a 20 mg dose of escitalopram. They then received standard treatment from a primary physician or psychiatrist with different medications and/or therapeutic modalities (e.g. psychotherapy). Special attention was given to subjects with suicidal ideation. Those subjects were offered additional appointments as needed to ensure their safety. Participants were also contacted by telephone at week 1 and week 2 by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) or other study personnel to ensure medication compliance and patient safety. The CNS was supervised by the study psychiatrist and principal investigator and deferred to the physician's judgment as needed. The SC was trained to notify the RC at the time of the clinical visits or the phone interviews if the subject endorsed any suicidal ideation or plans. For those subjects who were unable to attend the follow-up visits as scheduled, the patient was contacted by phone to complete the HRS-D17/QIDS-C16. The participant was also asked to return to the clinic to complete a final blood draw for the study. Adjunctive and concurrent medications. Adjunctive treatments were those used to manage transient associated symptoms (e.g., insomnia) or transient or longer-term medication side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction). Adjunctive treatments that were not used to treat depression were allowed during the study. However, drugs in the exclusion criteria for this study were not used as adjunctive therapies. Subjects were allowed to participate in the study while receiving concurrent medications for general medical conditions as long as there was no contraindication to use while taking citalopram or escitalopram. Drug efficacy phenotype evaluation. The change in QIDS-C16 score and change in HRS-D17 score were used as the major research outcome measures to assess drug response. At each clinical research visit, the RC also completed the Clinician Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. For the primary genome-wide association analyses, dichotomous outcome variables, remission and response, were defined based on the QIDS-C16 last visit score. Remission was defined as a QIDS-C16 score of 5 or less, while response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the QIDS-C16 score from baseline. Specimen collection. Specimen collections were obtained by the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at St. Mary's Hospital (SMH). Subjects had blood drawn on an outpatient basis at GCRC-SMH on three separate occasions - baseline (0), week 4 and week 8 visits. Prior to sample collection, date and time of last dose of study medication was gathered at the 4 and 8 week visits. For those patients who were unable to complete the regularly scheduled visits, a dismissal blood draw was requested. GCRC then shipped samples to Mayo Clinic's Biospecimens Accessioning and Processing Lab. Genotyping and biomarker assays. DNA from 529 patients was genotyped by the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine (Yokohama, Japan) using Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The study also included the determination of plasma drug levels at weeks 4 and 8, and metabolite levels at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 for a subset of subjects. The primary genome-wide association study based on these data, which includes a summary of the protocol, subject description, selection of subjects for genetic analyses, and definitions of clinical outcomes, was published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal (Ji et al., 2012).

Study phs000670

The Dutch Microbiome Project Batch 1

The Dutch Microbiome Project (DMP) data includes shotgun metagenomic sequencing of faecal samples 8,208 Dutch individuals. Paired-end sequencing was performed using Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform. Data is archived in two batches to facilitate easier data access and upload to EGA. Batch 1 of DMP includes 4396 samples.

Dataset EGAD00001007027

Covid19 WGS variants analysis

483 samples were collected for WGS and aligned with GRCh38 human genome. The variants were called using GATK (Sentieon v. 201808.03) in GVCF and VCF format.

Dataset EGAD00001010138

15120 results for "cancer studies using rna-seq"

in 27.21 milliseconds.