The feature-counting outputs from Cellrange-arc-count pipeline contain information at the single cell level, jointly for both scRNA-Seq and scATAT-Seq on 103 DLBCL samples and 3 normal controls (Please note that sc-40 only has scRNA-Seq data without scATAC-Seq). These files can be used as the input files for further downstream analysis software (e.g. Seurat Package). Moreover, a matrix of single-cell barcodes and associated cell biological types (used in the study) is also provided for users’ reference. This dataset is large and split into two parts to facilitate downloads. This dataset is large and split into two parts to facilitate downloads. The Linux command line of "tar -xvf xxxx_PART1.gz" should be used to extract the individual files. For additional information regarding the genomic data associated with the study, please also see the paper companion website at https://llmpp.ccr.cancer.gov/local/DLBCL_singlecell/
Pig-to-human xenotransplantation is rapidly approaching the clinical arena; however, it is unclear which immunomodulatory regimens will effectively control human immune responses to pig xenografts. We transplanted a gene-edited pig kidney into a brain-dead human recipient on pharmacologic immunosuppression and studied the human immune response to the xenograft using spatial transcriptomics and single-cell RNA sequencing. Human immune cells were uncommon in the porcine kidney cortex early after xenotransplantation and consisted of primarily myeloid cells. Both the porcine resident macrophages and human infiltrating macrophages expressed genes consistent with an alternatively activated, anti-inflammatory phenotype. No significant infiltration of human B or T cells into the porcine kidney xenograft was detected. Altogether, these findings provide proof of concept that conventional pharmacologic immunosuppression is sufficient to restrict infiltration of human immune cells into the xenograft early after compatible pig-to-human kidney xenotransplantation.
This study is aimed at elucidating the anti-tumor mechanism and therapeutic potential of the PRX3 inhibitor thiostrepton in mesothelioma by investigating its effects on mitochondrial redox homeostasis, oxidative stress–induced apoptosis, and tumor suppression in preclinical and clinical settings. Mesothelioma explants are treated with thiostrepton and subjected to RNA sequencing under baseline, untreated control, and thiostrepton-treated conditions to characterize treatment-induced transcriptional alterations and identify molecular pathways associated with therapeutic response and resistance.
T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL) is a common pediatric malignancy accounting for approximately 20% of the non-Hodgkin lymphomas during childhood. Survival rates of T-LBL are ~80%, but outcome after relapse is dismal, with salvage rates reaching only ~15. Considering the extremely poor prognosis after relapse and absence of clinically relevant high-risk genetics, there is an urgent need for the identification of molecular risk factors and new prognostic biomarkers in T-LBL, as well as identification of new therapeutic strategies. In this study we present a novel entity of high-risk pediatric T-LBL patients characterized by previously unknown NOTCH1 gene fusions and highly elevated blood TARC levels
This is the DAC for the MPN data set from Milena Kalmer.
Background: The lung microbiome of healthy individuals frequently harbors oral organisms. Despite evidence that micro-aspiration is commonly associated with smoking-related lung diseases, the effects of lung microbiome enrichment with upper airway taxa on inflammation has not been studied. We hypothesize that the presence of oral microorganisms in the lung microbiome is associated with enhanced pulmonary inflammation. Methods: We sampled bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) from the lower airways of 29 asymptomatic subjects (9 never-smokers, 14 former-smokers and 6 current-smokers). We quantified, amplified, and sequenced 16S rRNA genes from BAL samples by qPCR and 454 sequencing. Pulmonary inflammation was assessed by exhaled nitric oxide (eNO), BAL lymphocytes and neutrophils. Results: BAL had lower total 16S than supraglottic samples and higher than saline background. Bacterial communities in the lower airway clustered in two distinct groups that we designated as pneumotypes. The rRNA gene concentration and microbial community of the first pneumotype was similar to that of the saline background. The second pneumotype had higher rRNA gene concentration and higher relative abundance of supraglottic-characteristic taxa (SCT), such as Veillonella and Prevotella, and we called it pneumotypeSCT. Smoking had no effect on pneumotype allocation, alpha or beta diversity. PneumotypeSCT was associated with higher BAL lymphocyte-count (p = 0.007), BAL neutrophil-count (p = 0.034) and eNO (p = 0.022). Conclusion: A pneumotype with high relative abundance of supraglottic-characteristic taxa is associated with enhanced subclinical lung inflammation.
Neonates primarily rely on innate immunity, yet their inflammatory responses to microbes, particularly those of monocytes, are usually restricted compared to adults. This is controversially interpreted as immaturity increasing the risk of sepsis or essential programming allowing immune adaptation after birth. Which changes the cellular immunometabolism undergoes after birth and its role in these concepts are poorly defined. Here, we applied transcriptomic, metabolic, and immunological approaches and found that monocytes exhibit an inverse ontogenetic balance of immunometabolism. Our data show that glycolysis in monocytes increases within the first year of life and fuels their inflammatory responsiveness. In contrast, oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) is high in neonatal monocytes supporting myeloid differentiation but declines only gradually during the first five years of life. Treatment of neonatal monocytes with lipopolysaccharide induces an adult-like immunometabolic phenotype. Ketogenic diet restricts glycolysis in adult monocytes, but cannot reactivate OXPHOS and revive a neonatal-like immunometabolic phenotype, suggesting that neonatal metabolism is hardwired and cannot be restored by simple dietary changes. Transcriptional network and population-wide human variation analyses identified E2F1, MYB, STAT1 and FLI1 as important regulators of age-dependent cell functions and related energy demands in human monocytes. Collectively, our findings show that restricted glycolysis and increased OXPHOS are a physiological programming in neonatal monocytes. Premature switching to an adult-like metabolism could untimely enhance inflammatory responses and disrupt important myeloid differentiation, whereas microbial challenges accumulating during childhood seem to induce an essential gradual metabolic switch.
What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant. For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source. Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions. You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks. Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.
A main problem in the treatment of advanced cancers, including gastric cancers and glioblastoma, is the incertitude at which we predict how individual patients will respond to DNA-damaging agents, especially on the long run. Knowing the mechanism behind a patient's response, or the lack thereof, will help us depart from the oversimplified “more-is-better” and “one-size-fits-all” principles according to which DNA-damaging agents are administered. This will improve clinical outcome by allowing us to pinpoint those who would respond better and longer to lower doses than to higher doses of DNA-damaging agents. Under the assumption that the success of DNA-damaging therapy increases with the proliferation rate of a relatively homogeneous tumor population, there was little reason to assume anything other than monotonic dose-response relations. With the recent paradigm shift that most cancers are in fact DNA mosaic products of ongoing evolution, comes the urgency to reconsider these fundamental principles behind DNA-damaging therapy administration. As the developers of one of the first DNA deconvolution methods and with access to technologies to profile the transcriptomes of up to 10,000 cells simultaneously, we are equipped to embark on first personalized dose-finding strategies for DNA-damaging therapies. We will test the potential of the very long-term legacy that DNA-damage entails on a cell “genomic instability” as new biomarker of DNA-damage response. Our preliminary studies showed that, for most cancer types, DNA-damaging agents change a clone's genomic instability and that clones succumb to a limit in the amount of genomic instability they can tolerate. In particular, our results showed that patients with intermediate genomic instability have a very poor outcome and that this relation is only evident among treatment-naive patients, but not among patients treated with DNA-damaging agents. Further they show that we can measure genomic instability per clone and that clones with extreme genomic instability typically don't grow large. Our hypothesis that genomic instability, rather than proliferation rate, determines how sensitive a tumor is to DNA-damaging agents on the long-term, is founded on two unexpected findings. Patients with extremely high genomic instability per tumor clone have an exceptionally good outcome. Aim 1 will integrate exome- and single cell RNA-Seq (scRNA-Seq) data to characterize clones and to measure how much genomic instability they can tolerate. Low genomic instability is associated with reduced benefit from DNA-damaging agents. Aim 2 will use comet assays and treatment history to quantify DNA damage per clone, relating it to the clones' ability to tolerate DNA damage and to changes in the genomic instability of therapy-surviving clones.
