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.
Cancer is driven by mutation. Worldwide, tobacco smoking is the major lifestyle exposure that causes cancer, exerting carcinogenicity through 60 chemicals that bind and mutate DNA. Using massively parallel sequencing technology, we sequenced a small cell lung cancer cell line, NCI-H209, to explore the mutational burden associated with tobacco smoking. 22,910 somatic substitutions were identified, including 132 in coding exons. Multiple mutation signatures testify to the cocktail of carcinogens in tobacco smoke and their proclivities for particular bases and surrounding sequence context. Effects of transcription-coupled repair and a second, more general expression-linked repair pathway were evident. We identified a tandem duplication that duplicates exons 3-8 of CHD7 in-frame, and another two lines carrying PVT1-CHD7 fusion genes, suggesting that CHD7 may be recurrently rearranged in this disease. These findings illustrate the potential for next-generation sequencing to provide unprecedented insights into mutational processes, cellular repair pathways and gene networks associated with cancer.
In the setting of localized colon cancer (CC), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) monitoring in plasma has shown potential for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) and predicting higher risk of recurrence. With the tumor-only sequencing approach, however, germline variants may be misidentified as somatic variations, precluding the possibility of tracking in up to 11% of patients due to a lack of known somatic mutations. In this study comprising 148 prospectively recruited localized CC patients, a custom 29-gene panel was utilized to sequence both tumor tissue and matched white blood cells (WBCs) to enhance the accuracy of sequencing results. Performing targeted sequencing of paired tumor tissue and WBCs samples detected additional somatic mutations and increased the number of patients eligible for MRD tracking in plasma, although MRD detection sensitivity was not increased. Furthermore, the germline testing approach revealed the presence of pathogenic germline variants, thereby helping identify patients at elevated risk of hereditary cancer syndromes.
Fastq files from scRNAseq data of cancer associated pericytes-like from 3 patients. CAP were isolated from a total of 3 primary BC (surgical residues prior to any treatment) by using BDFACS ARIA III sorter (BD Biosciences). BC were collected directly from the operating room after surgical specimen macroscopic examination and selection of areas of interest by a pathologist. Samples were cut into small pieces (around 1 mm3) and digested in CO2-independent medium (Gibco #18045-054) supplemented with 150 μg/mL liberase (Roche #05401020001) and Dnase I (Roche #11284932001) for 40 min at 37°C with shaking (180 rpm). After digestion, cells were processed and stained as described above (#Flow Cytometry analysis of BC samples). CAP fibroblasts were then gated on the Live/Dead negative fraction and defined as EPCAM- CD45- CD31- CD235a- FAPMed CD29High. CAP scRNA-seq: Upon isolation, CAP cells were directly collected into RNase-free tubes (Thermo Fisher Scientific, #AM12450) precoated with DMEM (GE Life Sciences, #SH30243.01) supplemented with 10% FBS (Biosera, #1003/500). Single-cell capture, lysis, and cDNA library construction were performed using Chromium system from 10X Genomics, with the following kits: Chromium Single Cell 3′ Library & Gel Bead Kit v2 kit (10X Genomics, #120237) and Chromium Single Cell A Chip Kits (10X Genomics, #1000009). Generation of gel beads in Emulsion (GEM), barcoding, post GEM-reverse transcription cleanup and cDNA amplification were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cells were loaded accordingly on the Chromium Single cell A chips, and 12 cycles were performed for cDNA amplification. cDNA quality and quantity were checked on Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer using Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent, #5067-4626) and library construction followed according to 10X Genomics protocol. Libraries were next run on the Illumina HiSeq (for patients P1) and NovaSeq (for patients P2–3) with a depth of sequencing of 50,000 reads per cell.
Somatic mutations in T cells can cause cancer but also have implications for immunological diseases and cell therapies. The mutation spectrum in non-malignant T cells is unclear. Here, we examined somatic mutations in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from 90 patients with hematological and immunological disorders and used T cell receptor (TCR) and single-cell sequencing to link mutations with T cell expansions and phenotypes. CD8+ cells had higher mutation burden than CD4+ cells. Notably, the biggest variant allele frequency (VAF) of non-synonymous variants was higher than synonymous variants in CD8+ T cells, indicating non-random occurrence. The non-synonymous VAF in CD8+ T cells strongly correlated with the TCR frequency, but not age. We identified mutations in pathways essential for T cell function and often affected in lymphoid neoplasia. Single-cell sequencing revealed cytotoxic Temra phenotypes of mutated T cells. Our findings suggest that somatic mutations contribute to CD8+ T cell expansions without malignant transformation.
Inhibiting DNA replication leads to copy number variant (CNV) formation throughout the genome, especially at chromosome fragile sites (CFSs). We previously showed that these hotspots for genome instability reside in late-replicating domains associated with large transcribed genes. In this study, we compared aphidicolin (APH)-induced CNV and CFS frequency between wild-type cells and isogenic cells in which FHIT gene transcription was ablated. We further examined the impact of altering RNase H1 expression on CNV or CFS induction frequency and analyzed R-loop formation genome-wide in a human fibroblast cell line. Data sets include Bru-seq nascent RNA transcription, whole genome sequencing for replication timing, SNP microarray analysis, and DRIP-seq. Results suggest that large gene transcription is a determining factor in replication stress-induced genomic instability and that CFSs mainly result from transcription-dependent passage of unreplicated DNA into mitosis with low R-loop levels observed at these loci.
The focus of this study is to identify a new level of genetic variation, i.e. rare genetic variants with a population frequency less than 5%, usually less than 1%, which are believed to provide a stronger risk per variant than those studied to date in the large genome wide association studies (GWAS). To do this we are generating whole exome sequencing data on the Illumina HiSeq. Each HiSeq produces at least 600 billion base pairs of DNA sequence in one run. Whole exome sequencing sequence data, about 50 million base pairs, or about 1.5% of the total DNA of each person's genome, is generated. We are using this data to look for new DNA variations that give risk for Parkinson disease, as well as "modifiers", that may lead to having more severe or milder disease or later or earlier ages of onset.
Oncogenic alterations in EGFR frequently co-occur with additional genetic alterations in EGFR-driven lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), but how specific combinations of mutations affect tumor phenotypes and responses to targeted therapy is yet unknown. We leveraged a genetically engineered mouse model of EGFR mutant/Trp53-deficient LUAD to study the consequences of inactivating 10 different tumor suppressor genes on the fitness and tyorosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sensitivity of these tumors. We found that loss of Keap1 is associated with a reduced response to therapy. In patients, we found that mutations in the KEAP1/NFE2L2/CUL3 pathway are associated with a significantly shorter time to treatment failure for EGFR TKI therapy compared to matched patients with wild-type KEAP1/NFE2L2/CUL3 tumors. We also analyzed whole exome sequencing data from tumor specimens before TKI treatment and at the time of treatment resistance for mutations in the KEAP1 pathway and these data are being submitted here.
The GeneScreen research study was based at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. It brought together researchers from different disciplines, including genetics, clinical medicine, bioethics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and public health, to study the best ways to offer targeted genetic screening to the general adult population. DNA samples were collected from people who joined GeneScreen to look at a targeted panel of 17 genes. It tested for genetic differences (called mutations) that can cause one of 11 rare, but preventable or treatable conditions, including certain types of cancer and heart disease. Each condition has specific medical advice people can follow with their doctors to prevent or treat a serious health problem. The GeneScreen study was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board and by the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Institutional Review Board. GeneScreen is funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
RNA-Seq is an effective method to study the transcriptome, but specialized methods are required to identify 5' ends of transcripts. Several published strategies exist for this specific purpose, but their relative merits have not been systematically analyzed. Here, we directly compare the performance of six such methods - testing five with cellular RNA as well as a novel spike-in RNA assay that helps address interpretation challenges that arise from uncertainties in annotation or RNA processing. Using a single human RNA sample, we constructed and sequenced 18 libraries with these methods and one standard, control RNA-Seq library. We find that the CAGE method performed best for mRNA and that most of its unannotated peaks are supported by evidence from other genomic methods. We then applied CAGE to eight brain-related samples and revealed sample-specific transcription start site (TSS) usage as well as a transcriptome-wide shift in TSS usage between fetal and adult brain.
