11301 results for "fc 26 best way to get coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com Gyors és hatékony szolgáltatás. Hamarosan visszatérek több FC 26 érmeért..4w1a"

in 147.65 milliseconds.

• STAMPEED: Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966)

  The Northern Finland Birth Cohorts program (NFBC) was initiated in the 1960s in the two northernmost provinces of Finland to study risk factors involved in pre-term birth and intrauterine growth retardation, and the consequences of these early adverse events on subsequent morbidity and mortality. The uniqueness of NBFCs is that the data of the cohorts were obtained from early fetal life (including maternal health during pregnancy) to adulthood. The NFBC1966 includes 12,058 live births to mothers in the two northern-most provinces of Finland. Two decades later, a second cohort of 9432 births was obtained (NFBC1986). In NFBC1966 pregnancies were followed prospectively from the first antenatal contact (10-16th week). After birth, the offspring were examined and then again underwent clinical evaluation at ages 1y, 7y, 14-16y and 31y. At each visit, a wide range of phenotypic, lifestyle and demographic data were gathered by questionnaires and clinical examinations. For the most part, NFBC1986 has undergone similar evaluations to NFBC1966. Linkage to national registries includes hospitalization, deaths, education, medication, pensions, and provides up-to-date demographic and clinical information for members of both cohorts. DNA samples were obtained from 5,923 subjects from NFBC1966 and 6688 subjects from NFBC1986. Data coverage, 96% of all births in 1966 and 99% in 1986, is highly representative for the whole population. The NFBC program comprises more than 20 different projects coordinated by the Center of Lifecourse Disease studies in Northern Finland (COLD) at Oulu University. The prospective data collected from the NFBCs form a unique resource, allowing the study of disease emergence, and of the importance of genetic, biological, social and behavioral risk factors. The genome-wide association (GWA) study sponsored through the STAMPEED program of NHLBI employed genomic DNA samples previously collected by the NFBC1966 study and stored in the DNA repository of the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. This NHLBI sponsored RO1 project aimed to identify genetic variants contributing to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). In addition to de-identified genome wide genotypic data, a selected list of phenotypic data related to CVD including weight, height, BMI, HDL, LDL, total cholesterol, triglyceride, glucose, insulin and fasting status, are also available in dbGaP. A summary of the GWAS for the NFBC1966 cardiovascular risk traits can be found in Sabatti et al., Nature Genetics 41: 35-46, 2009, PMID: 19060910. The version 2 release of this study contains sequence data from seventeen loci associated with levels of triglyceride, HDL-C, LDL-C, total cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, and fasting plasma insulin (Kathiresan et al. 2008, Willer et al. 2008, Sabatti et al. 2009, Dupuis et al. 2010, Teslovich et al. 2010). At each locus, protein-coding regions and 5' and 3' untranslated regions of genes nearest to single nucleotide polymorphisms showing genome-wide significant association with metabolic syndrome-related traits, were sequenced. Targeted Illumina sequencing of 78 genes (~270kb) using 150bp probes was performed on 4943 subjects of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966). Whole exome sequencing on the Illumina platform was carried out on 586 of those participants. The sequencing study is part of a larger project that is funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute's Allelic Spectrum in Common Disease Initiative, and comprises sequence data from more than 7000 individuals in two Finnish cohorts: NFBC1966 and the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study.

  Study phs000276

• NHLBI TOPMed: Best ADd-on Therapy Giving Effective Response (BADGER)

  BADGER is a 56-week randomized, double-blind, three-treatment, three-period cross-over trial that will evaluate the differential improvement in control that is achieved following three separate treatment interventions in children whose asthma is not acceptably controlled on a low dose of ICS (per NAEPP guidelines). All participants will enter an 8-week run-in period during which time they will receive a dose of 1x ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/day). During this 8-week time period, running 2-week averages to establish the lack of acceptable asthma control will be calculated. Thus, a child could qualify for randomization at any time during this 8-week run-in period. This approach should maximize both patient safety and successful enrollment. Children will continue to receive 1x ICS during the entire treatment phase. During each period of the treatment phase, they also will receive one add-on therapy in the form of LABA, LTRA or additional 1x ICS. The order of the add-on therapy assignment will be determined by randomization into one of six treatment sequences (order determined randomly). Each treatment period will be 16 weeks in length; the initial 4 weeks of each period will be considered to be the washout period for the previous treatment. The primary outcome measures will be frequency of asthma exacerbations, asthma control days, and FEV1.

  Study phs001728

• NHLBI TOPMed: The Cleveland Family Study (CFS)

  The Cleveland Family Study (CFS) is one cohort involved in the WGS project. The CFS was designed to provide fundamental epidemiological data on genetic and non-genetic risk factors for sleep disordered breathing (SDB). In brief, the CFS is a family-based study that enrolled a total of 2284 individuals from 361 families between 1990 and 2006. The sample was selected by identifying affected probands who had laboratory diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. All first degree relatives, spouses and available second degree relatives of affected probands were studied. In addition, during the first 5 study years, neighborhood control families were identified through a neighborhood proband, and his/her spouses and first degree relatives. Each exam, occurring at approximately 4 year intervals, included new enrollment as well as follow up exams for previously enrolled subjects. For the first three visits, data, including an overnight sleep study, were collected in the participants' homes while the last visit occurred in a general clinical research center (GCRC). Phenotypic characterization of the entire cohort included overnight sleep apnea studies, blood pressure, spirometry, anthropometry and questionnaires. The GCRC exam (n=735 selected individuals) included more comprehensive phenotype data on a focused subsample of the larger cohort, to permit linking SDB phenotypes with cardio-metabolic phenotypes, with an interest in identifying genetic loci that are associated with these related phenotypes. In this last round of data collection, a subset of 735 individuals was selected based on expected genetic informativity by choosing pedigrees where siblings had extremes of the apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Participants underwent detailed phenotyping including laboratory polysomnography (PSG), ECG, spirometry, nasal and oral acoustic reflectometry, vigilance testing, and blood and urine collection before and after sleep and after an oral glucose tolerance test. A wide range of biochemical measures of inflammation and metabolism were assayed by a Core Laboratory at the University of Vermont. 994 individuals were sequenced as part of TOPMed Phase 1, including 507 African-Americans and 487 European-Americans. Among the sequenced individuals, 156 were probands with diagnosed sleep apnea, an additional 706 were members of families with probands, and 132 were from neighborhood control families. 298 individuals were sequenced as part of TOPMed Phase 3.5, including 169 African-Americans and 129 European-Americans. Among the newly sequenced individuals, 33 were probands with diagnosed sleep apnea, an additional 214 were members of families with probands, and 51 were from neighborhood control families. Please note: Phenotype and pedigree data are available through "NHLBI Cleveland Family Study (CFS) Candidate Gene Association Resource (CARe)", phs000284.

  Study phs000954

• Download Metadata

  Metadata Distribution Welcome to the realm of Metadata Distribution within the EGA ecosystem! Our Metadata REST API empowers you to effortlessly retrieve metadata from the expansive landscape of EGA. By utilising this API, you gain access to publicly available insights across various EGA domains, including studies, samples, experiments, runs, analyses, policies, DACs, and datasets. Furthermore, this API facilitates cross-referencing of objects, enabling you to gather, for example, all the datasets associated with a specific DAC, seamlessly. In addition, we have added the ability to query private data using the metadata API. If you possess the necessary permissions, you can access behind-the-login private data for a specified list of datasets. Metadata Distribution Index Identifiers Dataset Mappings Website Download Metadata API - Private Identifiers At the core of EGA's organisational structure are unique accessions that serve as essential tags for our diverse objects. Here's a quick overview of the accessions and their corresponding object types: EGA Accession ID EGA Object description EGAS EGA Study Accession ID EGAC EGA DAC Accession ID EGAP EGA Policy Accession ID EGAN EGA Sample Accession ID EGAR EGA Run Accession ID EGAX EGA Experiment ID EGAZ EGA Analysis Accession ID EGAD EGA Dataset Accession ID EGAB EGA Submission ID EGAF EGA File Unique Accession ID For further information check our metadata schema documentation. Dataset Mappings For authorised datasets, comprehensive mappings reveal meaningful connections: Sample_file: This file presents information about the linkage between samples and files available in the dataset. Study_experiment_run_sample: This file presents information about the linkage between studies, experiments, runs, and samples within the dataset. Study_analysis_sample: This file presents information about the linkage between studies, analyses, and samples contained within the dataset. Run_sample: This file presents information about the linkage between runs and samples within the dataset. Analysis_sample: This file presents information about the linkage between analyses and samples within the dataset. An empty file indicates the absence of corresponding information. Website Download Our website serves as your gateway to downloading metadata. Simply navigate to the dataset page, and you'll find a blue Metadata button. Once authenticated, you can click this button for authorised datasets. If you lack permissions for a particular dataset, request access by clicking the 'Request Access' button. For authorised datasets, choose your preferred metadata format: CSV, TSV, or JSON. Metadata API - Private Leverage the power of programmatic metadata downloads! Start by authenticating yourself with your credentials to obtain an access token. With this token, programmatically query private information. Queries mirror the structure of the Public Metadata API. However, behind the login, you can delve into specific mapping information (as mentioned above in dataset mappings) alongside object-level exploration. Authentication An active session is required to work with the API. Each time you log in with your credentials a new session is started, which is identified by an access_token. Below an example on how to obtain one using curl: curl https://idp.ega-archive.org/realms/EGA/protocol/openid-connect/token \ -d 'client_id=metadata-api' \ -d 'username=...' \ --data-urlencode 'password=...' \ -d 'grant_type=password' All responses from the API are in JSON format. A successful response should include a new token to be used for the session: {"access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiIsInR5cCIgOiA...TNw", "expires_in":300, "refresh_expires_in":1800, "refresh_token":"eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCIgOiA...pTX10", "token_type":"Bearer", ... } Save the access_token value and include it in the API call headers. Example query usage Below you can find some example of queries available behing authentication and authorisation. Querying study-experiment-run-sample mappings: curl https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{datasetID}/mappings/study_experiment_run_sample \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer access_token' Querying run-sample mappings: curl https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{datasetID}/mappings/run_sample \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer access_token' Querying study-analysis-sample mappings: curl https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{datasetID}/mappings/study_analysis_sample \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer access_token' Querying analysis-sample mappings: curl https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{datasetID}/mappings/analysis_sample \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer access_token' Querying sample-file mappings: curl https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{datasetID}/mappings/sample_file \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer access_token' You can get a different output format by adding one of these options to the curl command: -H 'Accept: text/tsv' -H 'Accept: application/json' -H 'Accept: text/csv' For more detailed information, refer to the Metadata API Specification.

  Documentation access/download/metadata

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational infection or other gestational events, childhood infections and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of pre-diabetic islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). Beginning in 2002, a consortium of six centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of studies to identify environmental factors that trigger the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. The TEDDY study screened around 400,000 newborns and recruited 7,749 neonates from the general population with a pre-determined T1D risk of 3% and 919 neonates with first degree relatives who have T1D and who have a pre-determined T1D risk of 10%. Thus, TEDDY proposes to follow over 8,000 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) until the age of 15. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive subjects continue to be followed at 3 month intervals and autoantibody negative subjects are followed at six month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection is performed at each visit. The parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. DNA extracted from the 9-month TEDDY blood sample was used for SNP genotyping. Samples were available for 7,082 participants. SNPs were genotyped by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP microarray of around 196,000 SNPs selected from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (including T1D) (Hadley et al., 2015). "Data quality control (QC) steps included eliminating subjects with a low call rate (> 5% SNPs missing) and discrepancies between reported gender and prior genotyping at the HLA laboratory. Secondly, SNPs were removed from analysis due to low call rate, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value < 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements)" (Törn et al., 2015). QC resulted in a total of 7,023 subjects with data on 176,586 SNPs. Additional information on the TEDDY study are available in the following articles: The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study. TEDDY Study Group. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2008 and TEDDY - The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young - An Observational Clinical Trial. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2006 Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY): Genetic Criteria and International Diabetes Risk Screening of 421,000 infants. Pediatric Diabetes, 2011

  Study phs001037

• New set of services for all users unveiled at the EGA

  The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) releases today a brand-new website as well as a set of improved services for users, comprising a revamped Submitter Portal with an improved API and data brokering functionality for submitters, as well as a new DAC Portal for Data Access Committee members to easily manage data access requests. The EGA team has been working hard over the past months on these improvements that will provide a better experience for the users. Discover them below! Visit our new EGA website and check the new functionalities and updated guides Our new website is live, with a fresh look and updated features to discover all the novelties. The homepage now includes three pathways to guide our users, depending on whether they want to deposit, download or manage data within the Archive. One of the most outstanding developments is the introduction of a streamlined process for requesting access to data: EGA Users can now directly request access to their preferred datasets through the website using their EGA accounts. Additionally, users can customise their profile, oversee active sessions, and manage the public keys, essential for our latest array of services, alongside a range of other features. Another major change is our new Help Desk contact method: a built-in website form tailored for user inquiries. This system, called "Need Help?", can be easily located on the top right-hand side of the website. It will encompass both EGA and Federated EGA node users' requests. We will detail its use soon, so stay tuned. Register your metadata to the EGA easily with our new Submitter Portal The new Submitter Portal makes the submission process quicker and more intuitive. The process is currently divided into sections that the user will know beforehand by taking the tour that the EGA team has created to guide users through the Portal before starting the first submission. Do not complete your data submissions alone! Our Submitter Portal now includes a collaboration mode so that every submission can be completed by authorised collaborators with an EGA Profile. There are a lot more features that we will be detailing from now on in incoming posts. A new platform for Data Access Committee Members The new DAC Portal brings novelties for individuals engaged in governance, legal, technical, operational roles, or those acting as data stewards. DAC members will be able to easily manage DACs, policies, and data access requests with the new Portal. Take the tour now to check them out! Help us improve the services completing the EGA Survey As part of our ongoing journey to improve your experience, we have created an EGA User Survey. This questionnaire covers a wide range of aspects such as user experience, support and data accessibility, among others. Participate now and take the opportunity to suggest your own improvements. Help us enhance your experience in this new era for the EGA. Subscribe to the EGA Mailing List and stay tuned In the next weeks we will share more information about the possibilities of the new services. You can easily join the EGA Mailing List to receive all the updates.

  Blog new-set-of-services-at-EGA

• Single-Cell Mitochondrial Mutation Lineage Tracing of Non-Dysplastic and Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus

  This study addresses a critical knowledge gap in understanding Barrett's esophagus (BE), a common metaplastic condition and precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, by identifying lineage connections and cell states underlying its development and malignant transformation. We collected biopsies from 13 Barrett's esophagus patients undergoing routine surveillance endoscopy, sampling metaplastic tissue alongside normal squamous esophagus and gastric cardia tissues when clinically appropriate. Our novel approach integrated single-cell RNA sequencing of nearly 180,000 cells with mitochondrial DNA mutation analysis for lineage tracing, coupled with spatial transcriptomics and comprehensive whole-exome sequencing. For one patient with high-grade dysplasia, we performed detailed whole-exome sequencing analysis at 100x coverage on dissociated Barrett's esophagus cells alongside matched normal esophagus and gastric cardia tissues. This genomic profiling revealed critical genetic drivers of malignant transformation, including a truncating mutation in the mutation cluster region of APC (a negative WNT regulator), mutations in the tumor suppressor genes CDKN2A and TP53, and significant copy number alterations including loss of CDKN2A on chromosome 9. These genetic alterations corresponded with the transcriptional changes observed in our single-cell data, particularly WNT pathway dysregulation and the expansion of LGR5-expressing stem cells, providing molecular evidence for how single clones can initiate the dysplastic transformation. Data deposited in dbGaP consist specifically of the whole-exome sequencing raw files, processed variant calls, and copy number analyses from the single patient with high-grade dysplasia and matched normal esophagus and stomach control tissue. Whole exome sequencing was performed on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000. Sequencing data was preprocessed following the Genome Analysis Toolkit's (GATK) Best Practices. Sequencing data was analyzed with Mutect2 (GATK, v4.2.5.0) to identify short somatic mutations including single-nucleotide polymorphisms and insertions and deletions. The Barrett's esophagus sample was run with the two matched normals, as well as the publicly available germline resource somatic-hg38_af-only-gnomad.hg38.vcf.gz (GATK). Somatic variant calls were filtered using FilterMutectCalls (GATK) and loaded into the Integrative Genomics Viewer (v2.12.3) for identification of high-quality variants in known esophageal adenocarcinoma regulators. Copy number alterations in the Barrett's esophagus sample were estimated using CNVkit (v0.9.9). CNV, Mutect2, and SVC analyses will be made available through dbGAP. Copy number alterations in the Barrett's esophagus sample were estimated using CNVkit (v0.9.9) with the default run settings; a pooled reference was generated from the normal esophagus and stomach samples. Copy number results were plotted directly within CNVkit using the function scatter.

  Study phs003949

• Genome-Wide Association Studies of Prematurity and Its Complications

  Preterm labor resulting in the delivery of a premature child is a complex problem with an enormous impact on individuals, families and society. An estimated 500,000 children are born prematurely in the U.S. each year, and 5 million worldwide die annually of prematurity and its complications. Prematurity is also the single largest contributor to disability-adjusted life years, a measure of the lifetime impact of a disease. Despite the importance of the problem and its disproportionate occurrence in poor and minority populations, its underlying etiology (or etiologies) remains unknown; the single best predictor for preterm delivery is a previous preterm birth. The largest single cause of prematurity is spontaneous preterm labor, and suspected triggers for this include infection, stress, poor nutrition and genetic factors. Family and twin studies provide strong evidence that genetic factors underlie about 40% of the risk for prematurity. A major challenge in studying genetic factors in prematurity is maternal/uterine factors, fetal/placental factors, or both may influence risk. Thus, any approach to studying preterm birth should account for both infant and maternal risk, environmental covariates and interactions. The Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC) is a well-established, prospective cohort that enrolled women early in pregnancy, prior to any adverse pregnancy outcomes, to minimize bias in data collection and sampling. See details at: http://www.ssi.dk/English. The DNBC followed over 100,000 pregnancies beginning in the first trimester and has extensive biological material and epidemiologic data on health outcomes in both mother and child. The current study posted on dbGaP contains data from a genome-wide case/control study using approximately 1,000 preterm mother-child pairs from the DNBC most with spontaneous onset of labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), along with 1,000 control pairs where the child was born at ~40 weeks' gestation. After data cleaning some small changes in case/control status and other variables resulted in minor changes in numbers of cases or controls in certain categories. Environmental variables are being used as covariates in the analysis. To replicate positive findings, we are using additional mother-child pairs from the DNBC and from the general Danish population, as well as 2200 samples coming primarily from an African-American population known to have high rates of preterm labor and delivery. This group includes over 1000 mostly very low birthweight infants, over 500 infant term controls, 326 term mother/baby pairs and 180 preterm mother/baby pairs. The data from these additional cohorts will be available in separate dbGaP postings. The study is expected to yield a better understanding of the biology of parturition, identify common genetic factors that play a role in preterm birth and its complications and suggest environmental modifications that can prolong gestation, with the goal of improving both neonatal and adult outcomes. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to prematurity and its complications through large-scale genome-wide association studies of a well-characterized cohort of Danish mothers and babies. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000103

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• Impact of Respiratory Virus Infections and Bacterial Microbiome Shifts on Lymphocyte and Respiratory Function in Infants Born Prematurely or Full Term

  Public health importance: Babies born preterm, approximately 1 out of every 9 live births in the United States, have significant respiratory morbidity over the first two years of life, exacerbated by respiratory viral infections. Many (<50%) return to pediatricians, emergency rooms and pulmonologists with symptoms of respiratory dysfunction (SRD): intermittent or chronic wheezing, poor growth and an excess of upper and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). SRD correlate inversely with gestational age and weight at birth and is more common in those with chronic lung disease of prematurity, yet its incidence and severity varies widely among both the prematurely born and those born at term. There is evidence from clinical studies and animal models that risks of LRTI and recurrent wheezing is influenced by gut and respiratory flora and by T cell responses to infection. Information gained from this study will be used to identify characteristics, risk factors and potential mechanisms for early and persistent lung disease in children born at term and born preterm. This Clinical Research Study will investigate the relationships between sequential respiratory viral infections, patterns of intestinal and respiratory bacterial colonization, and adaptive cellular immune phenotypes which are associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory infections and long term respiratory morbidity in preterm and full term infants. We hypothesize that the timing and acquisition of specific viral infections and bacterial species are directly related to respiratory morbidity in the first year of life as defined by SRD and by measures of pulmonary function. We hypothesize that cellular and molecular immuno-maturity are altered due to factors presented by premature birth in such a way as to promote chronic inflammatory and cytotoxic damage to the lung, with subsequent enhanced, damaging responses to infectious agents and environmental irritants. Our preliminary studies demonstrate both feasibility and expertise in mutiparameter immunophenotyping of small volume peripheral blood samples obtained from premature infants including gene expression arrays of flow cytometry sorted cells. We will use new technologies for known viral identification, as well as high-throughput metagenome sequencing of RNA and DNA virus like particles (VLP) to be used for viral discovery in infant respiratory sample and use of high-throughput pyrosequencing (454T) of bacterial 16S rRNA to determine shifts in bacterial community structure, occurring in pre-term (PT) as compared to full term (FT) infants, over the first year of life. Finally, we present statistical approaches to stratify disease risk predictors using multivariate logistic regression modeling approaches. We propose to evaluate T cell phenotypic and functional profiles relative to viral and predominant bacterial exposures according to highly complementary, but independent, Specific Objectives. Objective 1: To determine if viral respiratory infections and patterns of respiratory and gut bacterial community structure (microbiome) in prematurely born babies predict the rate and degree of immunologic maturation, and pulmonary dysfunction, measured from birth to 36 weeks corrected gestational age (CGA). Objective 2: To determine the relationship between respiratory viral infections and disease severity up to one year CGA, and the lymphocyte (Lc) phenotypes documented at term gestation (birth for term infants and 36 wks/NICU discharge in preterm infants) and at one year CGA. Three secondary outcomes of this objective will be to a) relate the quantity, type and severity of viral infections with pulmonary function at one and three years of life, b) relate the viral community structure to severity of viral infections and c) to seek evidence of modulation of viral susceptibility by bacterial respiratory and gut community structure (microbiome). The relationship of colonization with known and non-identified bacterial species in both the respiratory tract and the gut will be evaluated. Flow cytometry data corresponding to this study can be found within Immport study SDY1302. Positive and negative controls for microbiome samples are uploaded under SRA bioproject PRJNA474485. Microbiome samples corresponding to PRISM2 are distinguished from PRISM1 via "_PRISM2" appended to the sample name. Within the positive and negative controls, PRISM1 controls are uploaded as bam files and PRISM2 controls are uploaded as paired fastq. Samples ending in -08 correspond to TLDA qPCR results for a given sample. There is a column for each pathogen tested and a column to indicate where that pathogen was bacteria or virus.

  Study phs001347

• Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium Registry (SCDIC Registry-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 understand the barriers to care and other factors related to reduced healthcare utilization after the transition from pediatric to adult SCD care which may contribute to increased morbidity and mortality.Background: Fifty years ago, it was rare for individuals with SCD to live beyond childhood. Advances in care delivery and treatment have more than doubled the life expectancy of individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) since 1972. Beginning in the 1970s, measures such as newborn screening, prophylactic administration of penicillin, and immunization against bacterial infections decreased complications and morbidity, increasing the length and quality of life of children with SCD. Blood transfusions are currently the only proven way to prevent some of the major complications of SCD, especially recurrent stroke. They are also used frequently to help manage some of the acute complications of SCD. More recently, the use of hydroxyurea (HU) as a therapeutic agent to increase fetal hemoglobin has been shown to further reduce the debilitating symptoms of and improve survival in SCD. L-glutamine and crizanlizumab are additional treatments to reduce pain crises and voxelotor is approved to lower the risk of anemia and improve blood flow. In the absence of a widely accessible cure, treatment for SCD is usually aimed at avoiding crises, relieving symptoms, and preventing complications. Many of the advances in treatment have not translated into an increase in longevity or quality of life for adolescents and adults because of disparities in access to routine primary health care.Individuals with SCD experience a markedly increased mortality beginning in the second decade of life. The third and later decades of life are frequently associated with severe chronic pain progressive organ damage and frequent hospitalizations. The provision of evidence-based and expert opinion-based care in SCD is complicated by the difficulties that many patients experience in obtaining access to the health care system and in receiving long-term care from knowledgeable providers. A registry of 2,400 people with SCD was established to provide a rich resource to study the natural history of SCD and to understand barriers to care during the transition from pediatric to adult care. Participants: 2,438 participants with a confirmed diagnosis of SCD were enrolled into the registry over an 18-month period. At the time of enrollment, all participants were 15-45 years of age, English speaking, and without a bone marrow transplant.Design: The SCDIC Registry is a longitudinal observational cohort study. At enrollment, data collection included a medical record abstraction of clinical history, the most recent lab results, and a participant survey which included several patient reported outcomes from PROMIS, ASCQ-Me and NeuroQoL. Similar surveys were administered at annual follow-up. Four to five years after enrollment, a second record abstraction was completed with all clinical events that occurred since enrollment and another set of recent labs. There were many research questions proposed to be answered with the study data thus there was no primary outcome.Conclusions: As noted previously, there were no primary outcomes determined at the start of the study. Research questions included examination of co-morbidities, healthcare utilization, and patient reported outcomes. Key findings from the Registry include:Executive dysfunction, learning difficulties, and poor comprehension significantly associated with poor activities of daily living skills. Executive dysfunction also associated with HU non-adherence. Continuing HU after conception increased odds of miscarriage or stillbirth compared to women who were not using HU. Continuing HU after conception increased odds of low birth weight in infants. Compared to adolescents, young adults had significantly more severe pain, organ dysfunction, mental health disorders, sleep problems, and barriers to medical care. Young adults were significantly less likely to see a sickle cell specialist in the past 2 years. Females had higher pain frequency and severity, more pain episodes, anxiety, depression, hospitalizations, and higher fetal hemoglobin levels. Males had more respiratory, musculoskeletal, genitourinary, and cardiovascular complications, more skin ulcers, and more use of HU. Among 128 subjects that died during the study period, iron overload, pulmonary hypertension, and depression, were significant predictors of the risk of death in multivariate analyses.

  Study phs004203

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding to Treat People with Acute Lung Injury or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDSNet EDEN-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. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-EDEN include bronchial lavage, plasma, DNA, and urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic and non-genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days (VFDs) and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding. Background: Mechanically ventilated patients cannot eat normally and if not fed for long periods become malnourished. Because malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, artificial nutrition is often provided, especially in those with acute lung injury (ALI) and with expected longer duration of mechanical ventilation. When feasible, enteral nutrition targeting full caloric needs has been advocated over parenteral nutrition. However, feeding intolerance and common care practices often serve as practical barriers to reaching recommended goals. Although confounded by indication and severity of illness, several observational studies have shown improved clinical outcomes, including fewer infections, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower mortality for patients receiving a higher percentage of calculated caloric needs. Nonetheless, the best timing, formulation, and amount of enteral nutrition remain unknown. Participants: A total of 1,000 participants were enrolled. Design: Participants were randomized, stratified by site and presence of shock at enrollment, to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation. The initial 272 patients were also simultaneously randomized to a separate trial (the OMEGA study) comparing a nutritional supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants with an isocaloric, isovolemic control in a 2 × 2 factorial design.The designated feeding strategy was initiated within 6 hours of randomization and continued until death, extubation, or day 6. The care of mechanically ventilated patients still receiving enteral feedings after day 6 was managed according to the full feeding strategy in both groups. In extubated patients who then required reintubation, enteral nutrition was restarted and managed according to the study protocol.In the full-feeding group, enteral nutrition was initiated at 25 mL/h and advanced to goal rates as quickly as possible. Gastric residual volumes were checked every 6 hours while enteral feeding was increased. Patients randomized to the initial trophic-feeding group had enteral nutrition initiated at 10 mL/h (10-20 kcal/h) for the first 272 patients who also received the omega-3 or control supplement (240 mL volume per day). After the data and safety monitoring board stopped the OMEGA portion of the factorial design, the initial trophic feeding rate was changed to 20 kcal/h to approximate the calories that had been delivered in the OMEGA study. Gastric Residual Volumes (GRVs) were checked every 12 hours during trophic feeding. In patients randomized to trophic feeding, enteral nutrition was advanced to full-energy feeding rates following the same protocol used for the full-feeding group if they were still receiving mechanical ventilation at 144 hours. Conclusions: There was no difference between groups with regard to the primary end point, VFDs to day 28. There also were no differences in 60-day mortality, organ failure−free days, ICU-free days, or the incidence of infection between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in VFDs or survival when analyzed by body mass index category or when subsets of patients with shock or more severe lung injury (acute respiratory distress syndrome) were examined.JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):795-803

  Study phs004168

• T2D-GENES Project 2: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies

  The Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Consortium is a collaborative international effort to identify genes influencing susceptibility to T2D in multiple ethnic groups using next generation sequencing. T2D-GENES Project 2 is a complex pedigree-based study designed to identify low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D, using whole genome sequence (WGS) information from 1,043 individuals in 20 Mexican American T2D-enriched pedigrees from San Antonio, Texas. The major objectives of this study are to identify low frequency or rare variants in and around known common variant signals for T2D, as well as to find novel low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D. The sampled individuals are obtained from two studies: the San Antonio Family Heart Study (SAFHS) and the San Antonio Family Diabetes/Gallbladder Study (SAFDGS), collectively referred to as the San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS). The strategy is to sequence approximately 600 individuals at an average of 50x coverage across the entire genome, then impute genome wide genotypes for about 440 additional family members. The 600 sequenced individuals are specifically chosen for their value in imputing sequence information into other family members. By studying large pedigrees, we expect to find multiple individuals carrying each genetic variant, even if this variant is very rare in the population at large. Thus, a pedigree-based approach provides an excellent opportunity for identifying rare novel variants influencing risk of T2D and quantitative variation in T2D-related phenotypes. The whole genome sequencing has been done commercially by Complete Genomics, Inc. (CGI). The final data set includes whole genome sequence data for 607 individuals. After quality control, 585 sequenced individuals provide data for family based imputation, using Merlin linkage analysis software, into approximately 440 additional family members for whom chip based genotypes are available to indicate which parental haplotype is transmitted. Extensive phenotype data is provided for 1048 individuals. These include 5 sequenced individuals who do not belong to any of the 20 large pedigrees. Phenotype information was collected between 1991 and 2011 in the two contributing longitudinal studies. SAFHS participants may have information from up to 5 visits, and SAFDGS participants may have up to 4 visits. The clinical variables reported are coordinated with T2D-GENES Project 1 (multi-ethnic exome sequencing) and include T2D status and age at diagnosis, glycemic traits (fasting and 2 hour glucose and insulin), blood pressure, blood lipids (total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, calculated LDL cholesterol and triglycerides), clinical chemistry (cystatin c, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody titer (GadAb), creatinine, adiponectin and leptin). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was not measured for these individuals and insulin C-peptide is not included in this data set. Additional phenotype data include the medication status at each visit, classified in four categories as any current use of diabetes, hypertension or lipid-lowering medications, and, for females, current use of female hormones. Anthropometric measurements include age, sex, height, weight, hip circumference, waist circumference and derived ratios. Each phenotype variable has an initial summary column containing the most recent non-missing measurement for each individual, followed by the five potential time points for each individual, the number of non-missing measurements, and the age and year for the most recent non-missing measurement. For historical reasons, the order in which variables are presented on the dbGaP web site differs from their order in the data download file. When reading the comment fields for each variable, please note that commas are omitted to support data exchange in .csv format.

  Study phs000462

• eMERGE Network's Multi-Center Pilot of Pharmacogenetic Sequencing in Clinical Practice

  eMERGE-PGx is a multi-site test of the concept that sequence information can be coupled to electronic medical records (EMRs) for use in healthcare. The promise of personalized medicine - health care guided by each individual's biological characteristics - is being fostered by increasingly powerful and economical methods to acquire clinically relevant biomarkers from large numbers of people. One therapeutic area that seems especially ripe for an early test of the personalized medicine concept is pharmacogenomics (PGx) - the idea that individual variation in drug response includes a genomic component. Drug response variation is an accepted feature of virtually all drug treatments, and contemporary molecular biologic tools continue to identify key genes mediating drug metabolism, transport, and targets. Importantly, common variation in these genes is an increasingly well-recognized contributor, sometimes with large effects, to variation in drug responses. As a result, recommendations for genotype-guided therapy are increasing. These evidence-based recommendations, if implemented in health care practice, could reduce adverse drug events and improve time to therapeutic response. Through eMERGE-PGx, we are developing strategies for the optimal implementation of genetic sequence data into the clinical environment with the ultimate goal of improving patient care. Site and participants include: Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children's Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. The PGx population selected for sequencing with the PGRNseq panel at CHOP is 1,650 children from CAG's biorepository with well-documented drug-related severe adverse events (SAEs) or EHR-based drug response profiles. SAEs were extracted from EPIC records and from CHOP's Adverse Event (AE) database, which documents every AE at CHOP. These AEs are classified by a medical review panel according to the causal relationship with the suspected drug into 'doubtful', 'possible', and 'probable'. Individuals with events classified as probable, severe and objective, were selected for sequencing. The drugs more frequently associated with adverse events are antibiotics, antineoplastics, immunosuppressants and psychotropic drugs. This cohort constitutes 50% of the target population. The remaining subjects were selected using EHR-based algorithms that we have developed and validated at CAG for identifying patients not responding to ADHD medication (primarily atomoxetine) and patients refractory to antiepileptic treatment from responders. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston's Children's Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): 811 CCHMC samples were obtained from children, adolescents or young adults exposed to medication or at risk for needing medication of study interest. 55% of participants were exposed to one or more opioids and their DNA source was a CCHMC study-specific biobank; while 27% of participants were at risk for needing an opioid for surgical pain management and were newly recruited. The remainder of the cohort was exposed to methylphenidate and their DNA samples were obtained from a CCHMC study-specific biobank. The focus of Boston Children's Hospital eMERGE PGx project is on individuals with epilepsy. Samples were taken from a current pharmacogenomics study already in place through which DMET analysis was run and used as confirmation for PGRN-Seq results. A total of 109 samples were sent for PGRN-Seq analysis at University of Washington. The remaining 141 epilepsy samples were from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and underwent testing with PGRN-Seq at CHOP. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All data are from Geisinger patients who consent to participate in the MyCode project. MyCode participants agree to provide biological samples for broad research use, including genomic analysis, and for linking of sample data to information in the participant's Geisinger health record. The consent also permits sharing of de-identified data for research purposes. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): Potential GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300). Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF,) or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if a participant had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) > 1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): For this study, 750 subjects were selected and enrolled into PGx based on Vanderbilt's algorithm designed to enrich for patients who are most likely to receive one of three common drugs (Clopidogrel, Warfarin or Simvastatin) in the next 2-3 years. These patients were sent a letter of invitation and description of the PGx project. Follow-up phone calls were made, and interested subjects came in for a one time meeting to discuss the project and go through the informed consent with the research coordinator. If they were interested they signed the consent and HIPAA forms and gave blood. Subjects were chosen and enrolled into PGx independently of previous biobank participation. Mayo Clinic: The Right Drug, Right Dose, Right Time - Using Genomic Data to Individualize Treatment (The RIGHT Protocol) enrolled 1013 patients to test the hypothesis that prescribers could deliver genome-guided drug therapy at the point-of-care by using pharmacogenomic data preemptively integrated in the electronic medical record. Complete details regarding the study population have been previously described (Bielinski et al., 2014). Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt Sinai): Our study site is the Primary Care Associates (PCA) practice group of the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates (FPA) of the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. This practice has 12 physician providers. All patient encounters are documented and managed with EpicCare ambulatory electronic medical record. Active PCA Patients eligible for enrollment fulfilled the following criteria: a) age 50 or older receiving clinical care at Mount Sinai FPA PCA practice with at least one practice encounter within 18 months prior to commencement of enrollment; b) no history or current use of clopidogrel, warfarin, or simvastatin. Eligible patients were invited to participate through de novo recruitment by letter sent by their provider. Interested patients were screened for eligibility and enrolled to participate in the eMERGE PGX study on site by a dedicated research coordinator. In addition to de novo enrollment from clinical practice, patients of FPA PCA who had previously enrolled in Mount Sinai's BioMe Biobank program AND fulfilled eligibility criteria as stated under a) and b) were identified by chart review and samples sequenced at CIDR using PGRNseq platform (N=300). PGRNseq data from 291 samples passed stringent quality control and are included in the current data set. Furthermore, 56 of these patients carrying known and validated 'actionable' variants affecting prescribing of clopidogrel, warfarin, and/or simvastatin were enrolled in the eMERGE PGX study following invitation through recontacting by the Principal Investigator of the BioMe Program. Northwestern University: Participants for this study were recruited from the General Internal Medicine (GIM) clinic at Northwestern Medical Group (NMG). Patients were selected for invitation to participate if they had been seen a minimum of two times over the last four years, having a high likelihood to receive a prescription for warfarin, Plavix, or a statin, and are seeing a physician who has agreed to allow their patients to be contacted for the study. We utilized an algorithm developed at Vanderbilt and tailored to our population which uses our EHR to estimate the probability that individuals will receive a prescription for warfarin, Plavix, or a statin in the next three years. Participants were sent a letter explaining the study prior to their GIM appointment and offered participation at the time of their visit. Participants were consented on-site and blood drawn after consent was obtained. The GIM clinic consists of 39 primary care physicians who provide approximately 80,000 patient encounters per year. As with any large primary care clinic, a significant proportion of patients in GIM clinic suffer from a variety of chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Over 50,000 individuals have been seen by GIM doctors in the past 5 years; 11,562 of these patients have evidence of a statin prescription in the EHR, 3,436 have evidence of a warfarin prescription, and 1,872 have evidence of a Plavix prescription. Vanderbilt University: The more than 1000 participants enrolled into Vanderbilt's eMERGE PGx study were newly recruited from the Cardiology and Internal Medicine Clinics and the Hillsboro Medical Group within Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Patients were selected based on a predictive algorithm estimating the patient's likelihood of receiving Clopidogrel, Warfarin, and/or Simvastatin. The algorithm identifies primarily older middle-aged patients, and the mean age of the study group is 74. The cohort is approximately 45% female with 75% of subjects self-identified as EA and 24% as AA. Subjects were consented in person by study personnel following a routine clinic visit and an introduction to the study staff by their doctor. VUMC is a comprehensive health care facility dedicated to patient care, research, and the education of health care professionals. Translational research into the causes and treatment of disease as well as studying fundamental biological properties is the primary focus of discovery at Vanderbilt. Clinical research is conducted in Vanderbilt University Hospital, the Nashville Veterans Administration Hospital, Meharry General Hospital and in their associated outpatient clinics. These hospitals and clinics, all associated with the Vanderbilt system, each have full time Vanderbilt faculty and medical housestaff and provide clinical care and participate in research programs. The Vanderbilt Clinic is comprised of more than 95 adult outpatient specialty practices and received over 1.5 million ambulatory visits in 2012-13. The Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute offers a comprehensive heart program offering diagnosis, medical treatment, minimally invasive therapies, surgical intervention and disease management, tailored to each individual's unique needs. All programs within the Vanderbilt Clinic have survival figures that surpass the national average.

  Study phs000906

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-Imaging)

  Available DataSystolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, SPRINT-Imaging, provides access to ECG signals data from the SPRINT clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with SPRINT-BioLINCC, phs003483.ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group. DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy. Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003566

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

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

  Blog fega-affiliates-q&a

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-BioLINCC)

  Available DataThe available data include all elements of the previously released SPRINT Primary Outcome Paper (SPRINT-POP) data, the full SPRINT clinical data including the MRI and MIND data, and select ancillary study data (Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring, APOL1, Acute Kidney Injury, ASK, Heart, FAST, PWV, Renal Resistance, Biomarkers, Plasma AD).ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group.DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy.Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003483

• DAC Portal documentation

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

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

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) TARGET: Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments

  The Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments (TARGET) Initiative seeks to accelerate research in novel marker and drug development, along with understanding the molecular basis of pediatric malignancy, through identification of genomic changes associated with the following childhood cancers: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) - A fast-growing type of blood cancer in which too many immature white blood cells are found in the blood and bone marrow. Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), including AML Induction Failure cases (AML-IF) - Another type of blood cancer marked by too many myeloblasts, an alternate type of immature white blood cell, are found in the blood and bone marrow. Upon diagnosis, AML patients without high-risk genetic markers undergo standard chemotherapy regimen, called the primary induction phase, to eliminate most cancer cells and induce a remission state. Clear Cell Sarcoma of the Kidney (CCSK) - A rare type of kidney cancer, in which the inside of the cells looks clear when viewed under a microscope. Clear cell sarcoma can spread from the kidney to other organs, most commonly the bone, but also including the lungs, brain, and soft tissues of the body. Neuroblastoma (NBL) - Cancer of cells of the sympathetic nervous system. Cancer Model Systems (MDLS), including PPTP - MDLS includes acute leukemia cell lines and xenografts with matched primary and/or relapsed tumor information, NBL cell lines and xenografts with matched controls, kidney tumor cell lines, normal brain tissues, and embryonic stem cell lines that were sequenced for some TARGET disease projects. Osteosarcoma (OS) - A cancer of the bone that primarily affects children and adolescents. Rhabdoid Tumor (RT) - A rare, fast-growing cancer that usually forms in the kidney or central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord) but can also form in soft tissues in other areas of the body. Rhabdoid tumors tend to spread quickly, are hard to treat, and have a poor prognosis. Wilms' Tumor (WT) - A cancer of cells in the kidney that can spread to the liver, lung and lymph nodes. More information can be found about each TARGET subproject by following the links on the top of this page. Together these cancers account for the majority of the more than 10,000 childhood cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. TARGET has employed a set of advanced and complementary genome analysis technologies, including large scale 2nd and 3rd generation genome sequencing, to strategically characterize alterations in both gene expression and in genomic structure (such as deletions and amplification) that are involved in childhood cancers. The goal of this coordinated effort has been to create a comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic profile of each cancer. Integrated analysis of the TARGET data has identified those genes that are either altered in their expression level or mapped to the chromosome regions of deletion/amplification/translocation, as these genes represent strong candidates for therapeutic targeting. To learn more about the TARGET project, which is now completed, visit the website at https://www.cancer.gov/ccg/research/genome-sequencing/target. TARGET data is accessible at the NCI's Genomic Data Commons (GDC) via the GDC's Data Portal and from each of the TARGET Publication Pages at the GDC (Please see the "Supplemental Links" section of any TARGET publication's "Publication Information and Associated Data Files page" at the GDC.). Available datasets include raw sequencing data, datasets generated by the original TARGET research teams (fully annotated clinical information and higher-level/analyzed molecular characterization data - gene expression, copy number variation, epigenetics, targeted sequencing), as well as higher level data generated by the GDC. Please see the TARGET Use and Publication Guidelines for updated details on the sharing of any TARGET substudy data, including how to cite TARGET.

  Study phs000218

• 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

• Center for Common Disease Genomics [CCDG] - Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) - Global Microbiome Conservancy Host Exomes

  The human body is a complex ecosystem, hosting tens of billions of bacteria, primarily in the gut. This community, known as the &#39;gut microbiome&#39;, is vital to human health, affecting functions ranging from metabolism, immunity, and development, to behavior. Conversely, reduced microbiome diversity and other imbalances of the gut community (dysbiosis) are associated with many diseases of the industrialized world, such as metabolic syndrome, asthma, and inflammatory bowel diseases among others. Microbiome-based interventions thus hold the potential to revolutionize our understanding of, and therapeutic approaches to, many aspects of human health and disease. Despite many advances, current understanding of the human microbiome is largely limited to majority ethnic groups in industrialized nations, and does not reflect the full diversity of human commensal microbiota. In addition to the scientific ramifications of minority underrepresentation, there are significant translational and ethical implications as well: First, failing to capture the full diversity of healthy human microbiota may limit our ability to understand and generate effective therapeutics for many microbiome-associated diseases. Second, underrepresented groups are less likely to benefit from microbiome-based medical advances tailored to well-studied populations, propagating healthcare inequities. The window of opportunity to characterize human microbiome diversity is closing rapidly. Human gut microbial diversity is diminishing around the globe, due to the spread of Westernized diets and lifestyles, which are associated with reduced microbiome biodiversity. The Global Microbiome Conservancy (GMbC) is a non-profit collaboration between scientists and communities around the world that aims to 1) preserve the full biodiversity of the human gut microbiome, 2) characterize its evolution across populations and host lifestyles and 3) investigate its interactions with the human host. We are collecting gut microbiome and human DNA samples from diverse populations around the world, from isolated groups to urbanized populations, to culture and study this essential biodiversity and to preserve it in a living "seed bank" as a long-term safeguard against future extinctions. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has funded a collaborative large-scale genome sequencing effort to comprehensively identify rare risk and protective variants contributing to multiple common disease phenotypes. Called the Centers for Common Disease Genomics (CCDG), this initiative will explore a range of diseases with the ultimate goal of: Undertaking variant discovery for enough different examples of disease architectures and study designs to better understand the general principles of the genomic architecture underlying common, complex inherited diseases. Understanding how best to design rare variant studies for common disease. Developing resources, informatics tools, and innovative approaches and technologies for multiple disease research communities and the wider biomedical research community. The initial focus of the CCDGs will be in cardiovascular disease (early-onset coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, hemorrhagic stroke), neuropsychiatric disease (epilepsy, autism), and autoimmune/inflammatory disease (type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease). The Broad Institute is one of four selected CCDG project centers. Both exome and genotyping information of GMbC participants will help understanding how recruited human populations are structured and genetically related. This human genetic structure will be analyzed in light of gut microbiome compositional and genomic differences to illuminate associations between specific microbiome traits and human groups and the evolutionary processes involved in the co-evolution of human hosts and their gut microbiome. It will also provide variant information for critical genes shaping the composition of microbiomes, such as genes involved in innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. antimicrobial peptides) or in the regulation of the immune response (e.g. Nod2). Association studies between specific variants in these genes and microbiome features will be performed, which will then be validated with in vitro and in vivo experiments. Human data from GMbC cohorts will also increase the genetic diversity of human populations, providing additional variant information for many susceptible loci that were found to be associated with Crohn&#39;s disease and ulcerative colitis. The whole genome sequencing data generated is comprised of samples from diverse and indigenous populations. Raw sequencing data, metadata, vcf and phenotype data at the individual level for a subset of the cohort&#39;s samples are available at https://anvilproject.org/data. For questions about availability, contact help@lists.anvilproject.org. Microbiome data for the samples sequenced in this study can be found in phs002235 Global Microbiome Conservancy Sequence Data.

  Study phs002205

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) (PETAL CLOVERS-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. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL CLOVERS include plasma, and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Objectives: To compare the effects of a restrictive fluid strategy (with early use of vasopressors) to a liberal fluid strategy in participants with sepsis-induced hypotension.Background: Intravenous fluid resuscitation is a common therapy used in the initial treatment of participants with septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension. The goal of initial fluid therapy is to increase depleted or functionally reduced intravascular volume that occurs in sepsis due to a vasodilated vascular network. However, intravenous fluid resuscitation can create dilutional coagulopathy, fluid overload, and pathogenic edema in the lungs and other organs. Vasopressor agents are also commonly used to treat hypoperfusion by inducing constriction of arterioles and venules and increasing cardiac contractility. Vasopressor therapy also comes with risks that include vasoconstriction resulting in tissue ischemia, increased cardiac workload, and arrhythmias. Clinicians have used these strategies, typically in combination, to provide supportive care for participants with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, at the time of the CLOVERS study, there was limited data to guide specific use of these therapies, including fluid volumes, in the early care of participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. The CLOVERS study hypothesized that a restrictive fluid strategy used during the first 24-hours of resuscitation for sepsis-induced hypotension would lead to lower mortality before discharge home by day 90 than a liberal fluid strategy.Participants: A total of 1,563 participants, from 60 medical centers, of the planned 2,230 participants were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Enrollment in the trial was ended after the second interim analysis due to a lack of significant difference observed between the two 24-hour strategies.Design: This study was a multi-center, prospective, phase 3 randomized non-blinded interventional trial of fluid treatment strategies in the first 24 hours for participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a restrictive fluid strategy (with early vasopressor use) or a liberal fluid strategy. In each group, the assigned protocol was followed for a period of 24 hours. The restrictive fluid protocol prioritized vasopressors as the primary treatment for sepsis-induced hypotension, with 'rescue fluids' being permitted for prespecified indications that suggested severe intravascular volume depletion. The liberal fluid protocol consisted of a recommended initial 2000-ml intravenous infusion of isotonic crystalloid, followed by fluid boluses administered on the basis of clinical triggers (e.g., tachycardia) with 'rescue vasopressors' permitted for prespecified indications. A protocol amendment implemented in October, 2019, allowed for limiting the initial infusion to 1,000 ml if the participant's blood pressure and heart rate had stabilized and the clinical assessment was that the participant was unlikely to benefit from additional intravenous fluid administration. The clinical team could override the protocol-specified care instructions at any time if it was judged to be in the best interest of the participant.The primary outcome was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. Secondary outcomes included 28-day measures of the number of days free from ventilator use, days free from renal-replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, days out of the ICU, and days out of the hospital. Conclusions: Among participants with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality, or other measures of recovery such as length of hospital stay, before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy.

  Study phs004080

• What is a DAC?

  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.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• Upcycling and merging data to challenge the dogma and identify new therapeutic targets for Glioblastoma

  Glioblastoma is the most common brain tumour. Characterised by a poor prognosis and its recurrence after multimodal treatments, the search for preventable risk factors has been mainly inconclusive up to date. Recently, the data merge from datasetsdeposited at the EGA allowed Aaron Diaz’s team to discover that the glioblastoma cells shift toward a mesenchymal phenotype when the tumour is recurring. Challenges in glioblastoma research As for virtually all cancer types, many efforts have been made to unveil the molecular features responsible of the disease, and several cellular pathways have indeed been identified as being frequently mutated in glioblastoma. Nonetheless, targeted therapies based on identified genes have so far failed to improve outcome, thus survival mostly relies on a standard treatment unchanged since 2005. This is a frustrating situation for both the scientific and medical communities, and above all for the patients, still facing a dreadful path. Some researchers hypothesised that this may be due to the inability to efficiently target cancer stem cells, the originators of the other cell types, thus inducing cancer relapse. In 2019 Charles P. Couturier and colleagues sequenced RNA from single cells of freshly excised glioblastomas of 16 patients, and demonstrated that glioblastoma cells replicate normal brain cell development with a conserved neural cancer cell hierarchy centered around glial progenitor-like cells. In this way, they helped identify the possible target cells to improve efficacy and durability of treatment. Data upcycling at the EGA: the glioblastoma case study Single cell RNA sequencing is generated with a laborious and expensive protocol. The quality of the starting material is crucial (cells sample freshly extracted from the patients) and often several attempts are needed before producing reliable quality sequencing results. Collecting big numbers of patients is also challenging. The sequencing data produced by Kevin Petrecca’s group in Montreal, Canada and deposited at the EGA (EGAS00001004422) was recently upcycled by Lin Wang in San Francisco, California and pooled with their freshly produced ones, and then deposited at the EGA as Dataset EGAS00001004909 The data merge allowed Aaron Diaz’s team to discover that the glioblastoma cells shift toward a mesenchymal phenotype when the tumour is recurring. They profiled 86 primary-recurrent patient-matched paired glioblastoma samples with single-nucleus RNA, among other techniques. These very comprehensive results lead the team to challenge the findings from several other cancer fields where chemotherapy standard chemo-radiation therapy selection pressure at the level of genomic alterations; this is indeed not the case for glioblastoma, where the pressure results in phenotypic transition between cellular states. Several technical controls were made to ensure that the merge of the data was not introducing a bias in the results, and an Inter-table analysis demonstrated nearly equal contribution to overall variance from each of the studies included, indicating that the findings were not due to inter-laboratory technical effect. A novel principal-component analysis showed that the largest contribution to variation in primary glioblastoma neoplastic cells was an axis between MES (mesenchymal) and proneural expression programs. In summary, treating glioblastoma often makes a MES, as commented by Lucy Stead about this remarkable work. Check Aaron Diaz’s team Nature Cancer paper, with strong technical tools, state of the art analysis and data from different sources converging to the same outcomes that made possible a significant step toward a better handling of a frightful cancer. References Couturier, C.P., Ayyadhury, S., Le, P.U. et al. Single-cell RNA-seq reveals that glioblastoma recapitulates a normal neurodevelopmental hierarchy. Nat Commun 11, 3406 (2020). Stead, L.F. Treating glioblastoma often makes a MES. Nat Cancer 3, 1446–1448 (2022). Wang, L., Jung, J., Babikir, H. et al. A single-cell atlas of glioblastoma evolution under therapy reveals cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic therapeutic targets. Nat Cancer 3, 1534–1552 (2022). Related links: Kevin Petrecca’s group dataset deposited at the EGA: EGAS00001004422 Lin Wang dataset deposited at the EGA: EGAS00001004909

  Blog upcycling-and-merging-data-to-challenge-glioblastoma

• 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

• Drug development for pediatric cancers: the importance of patient' s genomic data re-use

  Cancer in children is uncommon and the overall prognosis for most pediatric cancers is good. However, while the combined survival rates have improved over the last decades, certain childhood malignancies, such as high-grade gliomas or metastatic sarcomas, still remain incurable in most patients. New strategies for targeting those devastating diseases are imperative, and patient genomic data can become a key asset in the process [1]. The Pediatric Cancer Genome Project’s datasets At EGA, we store over 500 datasets with sequencing data from pediatric cancer patients. A remarkable case is the datasets belonging to the Pediatric Cancer Genome Project (PCGP) from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital–Washington University (Table 1 - EGAS list). PCGP is an ambitious effort to identify the mutations that drive childhood cancer and find new cures. Those datasets include 600 patients with complete tumor and normal genomes from 15 different tumor types. PCGP datasets have been an important resource for various studies that pooled genomic data from different public and in-house datasets to perform extensive genomic characterizations and publish comprehensive pan-cancer pediatric studies [2],[3]. Other interesting pediatric cancer datasets are from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, Sickkids or ICGC PedBrain project. How data reuse impacts drug development for pediatric cancers Recently, in October 2024, Nature Communications published a work led by the University of Michigan where authors used data from EGA (PCGP) check the table below as part of their strategy to pursue the identification of new tumor vulnerabilities susceptible to becoming novel therapeutic targets in diffuse midline glioma. Diffuse midline gliomas (DMG) are treatment-resistant and uniformly fatal pediatric brain tumors. The prognosis of this brainstem tumor is dismal with a median overall survival of 9–12 months from diagnosis. In this study, the authors first developed a lab model of the disease and reanalyzed data from the EGA to identify genes potentially linked to tumor severity. This approach revealed involvement of specific metabolic pathways, suggesting new possibilities for therapeutic intervention. In mice, the study shows that the use of statins can improve survival. For a brief overview of the underlying science, diffuse midline gliomas present intratumor heterogeneity with subpopulations of less-differentiated oligodendrocyte precursors and more differentiated astrocytes. Authors established in vitro models to recapitulate both phenotypes and identify metabolic programs in both subpopulations. To determine the clinical relevance, the authors re-used gene expression data from 76 DMG patients identifying a gene signature predicting decreased overall survival. After extensive metabolic characterization of subpopulations, authors defined strategies to target specific metabolic vulnerabilities. Pre-clinical experiments in mice using OXPHOS inhibitors and statins showed a reduction in tumor burden and increased overall survival [4]. In this scenario, the re-use of high-quality patient’s sequencing data appeared as an advantageous strategy to support the clinical relevance of in-vitro and pre-clinical findings. On the other hand, in rare conditions such as childhood cancer, the availability of public datasets and the possibility of pooling data from different sources can be the only way to obtain impactful results that lead to improvements for patients. References Davidoff, A. M. Pediatric Oncology. Seminars in pediatric surgery 19, 225–233 (2010). Gröbner, S. N. et al. The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature 555, 321–327 (2018). Venu Thatikonda et al. Comprehensive analysis of mutational signatures reveals distinct patterns and molecular processes across 27 pediatric cancers. Nature Cancer 4, 276–289 (2023). Mbah, N. E. et al. Therapeutic targeting of differentiation-state dependent metabolic vulnerabilities in diffuse midline glioma. Nature Communications 15, (2024). Datasets and Studies ID Title Access Policy Year EGAD00001000134 Driver mutations in histone H3.3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma McGill-DKFZ Pediatric Brain Tumour Consortium 2016 EGAS0000100192 Somatic Histone H3 Mutations in Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Gliomas and Non-Brainstem Paediatric Glioblastomas St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - Washington University Pediatric Cancer Genome Project 2017 EGAS00001000575 Whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing of DIPG tumors and matched normal tissue The hospital for sick children ("SickKids") 2016 EGAD00001000792 Exome sequencing reads of paediatric glioblastoma McGill-DKFZ Pediatric Brain Tumour Consortium 2016 EGAD00001002006 Whole genome sequencing of paediatric glioblastoma in the ICGC PedBrain project ICGC PedBrain project 2016

  Blog drug-development-for-pediatric-cancers

• Submitter Portal API

  Submitter Portal API The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. For those that want a more flexible and automated approach, we also provide a programmatic approach using the Submitter Portal AP in addition to the user interface of the Submitter Portal. With the help of our API, you can quickly include the submission of metadata into your own workflow for a more effective and individualised experience. Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified, you will have to request a submitter role and sign the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). When the DPA is signed, you must send it to EGA Helpdesk for further validation. Please, note that if you already have an EGA account, or you have an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step.  Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find the relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Programmatic submission All the calls to the API need to be Authenticated. We use the OpenID Connect protocol. API Usage Flow: Click here to check the API usage flow schema Obtain Access and Refresh Token: The first step to using the API is to obtain an access and refresh token. These tokens are required for authentication and authorisation of API requests. To obtain these tokens, you need to log in using your EGA credentials. Example: curl "https://idp.ega-archive.org/realms/EGA/protocol/openid-connect/token" \ -d "grant_type=password" \ -d "client_id=sp-api" \ -d "username=your-username" \ --data-urlencode "password=your-password" Use Access Token in API Calls: Once you have obtained the access token, you must use it in all the calls to the API. The access token is valid for a limited time period. When it expires, you will need to use the refresh token to obtain a new access token. Create Submission Object: After authentication, you can start creating a submission object. This object will be used to store all the metadata objects and files related to the submission. Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My submission title\", \"description\":\"My submission description\" }" Create EGA Metadata Objects: Within the submission object, you can create other metadata objects required for the submission. These objects may include information about the submitter, study, sample, experiment, and run. Example of study creation: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions/{submisison-id}/studies" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My study title\", \"description\":\"My study description\", \"study_type\":\"Metagenomics\" }" If you would like to reuse already registered objects in new submissions, bear in mind that they must have an accession which you must use to reference them. You cannot reuse objects that have not been finalised and accepted yet.For example, when creating a new run which is reusing a previously submitted experiment, instead of using experiment_provisional_id, you must use experiment_accession_id. Enums There are some fields that only accept specific values, i.e. study_type. The API provides several enumerations to list these values. You can list all the enumerations, or a specific one, for example, study_types. Obtain IDs of files You can list the files available in your inbox and filter by a prefix by adding the prefix param, i.e. &prefix=/my_folder/abc Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/files?status=inbox&prefix=/my_folder/abc" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" To improve performance and manageability, we have limited the number of files that the Submitter Portal API can return in a response. If a given call exceeds this limit, user will be asked to narrow down the search by using the query parameters already available in this endpoint. Finalise Submission: Once all the metadata objects are created and linked to the submission, you can finalise the submission. Finalising the submission sends it to the Helpdesk team for review. Please, note that all files linked to the submission must be ingested, and all objects created in a submission must be linked before you can finalise the submission. API Reference: For a full API reference, please check our specification documentation.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal-api

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Analysis

  The Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Program is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study to systematically assess the effects of pre-analytical factors on the molecular profile of biospecimens. A robust biospecimen collection infrastructure was established to prospectively collect biospecimens using rigorous standard operating procedures to control for most variables while introducing experimental conditions to study specific biospecimen handling issues, including the cold ischemic time (delay to formalin fixation), time in formalin, freezing methods, and storage temperatures and durations. RNA and DNA from biospecimens collected under these conditions was analyzed on multiple molecular platforms. The potential effects of these pre-analytical conditions on protein integrity and detection of metabolites were also examined. Data from this study will be used to develop evidence-based biospecimen standard operating procedures and best practices for fit-for-purpose collection, processing, and storage of biospecimens. The BPV Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the &#34;Substudies&#34; box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 BPV Cohort. The substudy links will be active once they are released by dbGaP. Preanalytical Impacts on Global Metabolite Profiling - plasma (MassSpec by Metabolon) This study was to evaluate the impact of the storage temperature (s) (-80&#176;C and LN2 vapor) and the length of storage on human plasma quality using LC-MS/MS (liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry) based global metabolite profiling. The study includes 240 plasma samples collected from 40 donors. Investigate the effect of the delay to fixation on the proteome and phosphoproteome -FFPE (MassSpec by Caprion). The study is to do proteome and phosphoproteome analysis on Delay to fixation was carried out using FFPE tumor samples from colon and ovarian cancer patients comparing 2, 3, and 12hr delay to fixation to the 1hr time point. The study includes 100 samples 20 donors. Investigate the effect of storage conditions of tumor specimens on the proteome and phosphoproteome profiling- Frozen tissue and plasma (MassSpec by Caprion). The study was to evaluate the effects of storage conditions on tumor specimens. Plasma samples from 40 cancer patients stored at two different temperatures (-80&#176;C and LN2) for a given period (0-2, 6-8, and 12-14 months) were evaluated. Frozen kidney tumor samples from 20 patients were compared for effects of different snap frozen (dry ice vs. LN2) and storage temperatures (-80&#176;C and LN2). The study includes 100 tissue and 240 plasma samples from 60 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Genomic Sequencing by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology (mRNA/miRNA and WES by Expression Analysis). The goal of the study is to determine the effects of cold ischemic delay-to-fixation (4 time points) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on the nature and quality of genomic profiles using the matched freshly frozen sample as the gold standard, which including WES, RNAseq. The study includes 395 samples from 37 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Copy Number Variation (CNV) Detection by aCGH technology (aCGH by Georgetown University). This study was to use aCGH to evaluate the effect of variation in cold ischemia time and time in formalin fixation on CNV in DNA extracted from kidney cancer specimens. The study includes 235 samples from 40 donors. Evaluation of frozen conditions on mRNA profiling by TaqMan assay (mRNA expression by Georgetown University). This study was to utilize gene expression profiling, using custom TaqMan arrays, to compare the molecular profiles of RNA from frozen tumor samples collected using two freezing methods (dry ice or LN2), two storage temperatures (-80&#176;C or LN2 vapor), as well as Optimal Cutting Temperature (OCT) compound and non-OCT embedded. The study includes 100 samples from 20 donors. mRNA signature for stratification by cold ischemia time (mRNA expression by IBBL). The study was to determine the effects of cold ischemic time (delay-to-fixation) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on mRNA detection by Taqman assay using tumor tissue specimens from kidney, colon and ovarian cancer patients. There are160 samples from 40 donors. The Biospecimen PV cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP individual studies. To view molecular data, and derived variables collected in these individual studies, please click on the following individual studies below or in the "Sub-studies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 Biospecimen PV cohort. phs001634 CIT mRNA phs001635 CNV aCGH phs001636 Fixation Delay phs001637 Global Metabolite Profiling phs001638 mRNA TaqMan phs001639 NGS phs001640 Tumor Storage

  Study phs001304

• National Cancer Institute Cancer Genome Characterization Initiative (CGCI)

  The Office of Cancer Genomics at the National Cancer Institute sponsored a series of studies as part of the Cancer Genome Characterization Initiative (CGCI) to assess novel emerging sequencing technologies in cancer. The CGCI program included comprehensive characterization of the genetic aberrations found in different pediatric and/or adult tumors. CGCI characterized a number of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from patients with and without HIV+ infection, follicular lymphoma (FL), as well as adult and pediatric Burkitt lymphomas), and additional HIV-associated tumors (including DLBCL, lung, and cervical cancers). All data from these projects is available at the NCI Genomic Data Commons. Individual project descriptions are available by disease on the substudy pages (links are included at the top of this page). Brief summaries are as follows: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) - CGCI investigators probed genomic alterations more deeply than had previously been possible by using state-of-the-art RNA sequencing (mRNA-seq) and whole genome shotgun sequencing (WGS) coupled with leading edge bioinformatics, data management and analysis approaches. The project sequenced tumor DNA and/or RNA from 117 NHL tumor samples and 10 cell lines. This included the genomes or exomes of 1 Follicular Lymphoma (FL) and 13 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cases, all with matched constitutional DNA sequenced to comparable depths, RNA-sequencing (mRNA-seq) of 92 DLBCL, 12 FL and 8 B-cell NHL cases with other histologies and 10 DLBCL-derived cell lines. The DLBCL cases and cell-lines are from the two major subtypes of DLBCL: germinal center B-cell (GCB) and activated B-cell (ABC). HIV+ Tumor Molecular Characterization Project (HTMCP) - This project was a joint effort of the Office of Cancer Genomics (OCG) and the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (OHAM). Its goals were to characterize HIV-associated cancers (obtained from HIV-infected patients) and compare them to the same types of cancers from patients without HIV infection. Investigators performed 30X genome sequencing of 100 cases of paired tumor and germline DNA, along with transcriptome sequencing in each of 3 types of HIV+ tumors (DLBCL, lung and cervical cancers). These platforms allow discovery of mutations both in coding and non-coding genomic regions, gene expression and genomic alterations (including translocations, insertions and deletions). Comparing tumors of cancer patients both with and without HIV-infection provides insight into the potential function of this virus in certain cancers. Burkitt Lymphoma Genome Sequencing Project (BLGSP) - This project was a collaborative effort between the National Cancer Institute and the Foundation for Burkitt Lymphoma Research to develop a databank of the many alterations found in Burkitt lymphoma (BL), an uncommon type of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma that occurs most often in children and young adults. The goal of the BLGSP was to explore potential genetic changes in patients with BL that could lead to better prevention, detection and treatment of the cancer. The project characterized the alterations of the tumors' genomes (with matched normal as control) and transcriptomes by sequencing the DNA and RNA of each case. Using the data generated, the ultimate goals of the project was to discover the molecular changes that are present in BL patients and then determine how those changes correlate with treatment regimen and outcome. CGCI data is accessible at the NCI's Genomic Data Commons (GDC) via the GDC's Data Portal and from each of the CGCI Publication Pages at the GDC (Please see the "Supplemental Links" section of any CGCI publication's "Publication Information and Associated Data Files page" at the GDC.). Available datasets include raw sequencing data, datasets generated by the original CGCI research teams (fully annotated clinical information and higher-level/analyzed molecular characterization data), as well as higher level data generated by the GDC. Please see the CGCI Use and Publication Guidelines for updated details on the sharing of any CGCI substudy data, including how to cite CGCI.To learn more about the CGCI studies, please visit the CGCI Program website.

  Study phs000235

• NHGRI GREGoR Consortium: Genomics Research to Elucidate the Genetics of Rare Disease

  The NHGRI GREGoR (Genomics Research to Elucidate the Genetics of Rare Disease) Consortium was established in June 2021 with the goal of developing novel tools and approaches to advance the discovery of the genetic basis of rare conditions. Numerous types of molecular data are generated in GREGoR and available on the AnVIL cloud platform via dbGaP application, including short- and long-read genome and exome sequencing, transcriptomics, metabolomics, methylomics, and proteomics. De-identified clinical and demographic data is obtained, with a focus on standardized ontologies.Visit the GREGoR Consortium data webpage for summary information about the GREGoR Dataset, including numbers of participants and data types, methods documentation, and Release Notes. The Consortium comprises five Research Centers (RCs - see below), a Data Coordinating Center (DCC), and various partner members and external collaborators.Baylor College of Medicine Research Center (BCM-GREGoR) The Baylor College of Medicine GREGoR program, which is part of the GREGoR consortium, enrolls individuals, families, and cohorts with suspected rare disease across a range of syndromic and non-syndromic phenotypes. Subjects are enrolled from national and international collaborating physician referrals. Subjects provide written informed consent for future re-contact. Data generated and shared include family structure, detailed phenotypes, exome or short-read genome data, and in some cases long-read genome or RNA-sequencing, and these are shared upon completion of standard quality control checks and annotation. Broad Institute (Broad) The Broad Center for Mendelian Genomics, part of the GREGoR consortium uses next-generation sequencing (exome, genome, transcriptome, and long read sequencing), computational approaches, and functional studies to discover the variants and genes that underlie Mendelian conditions with a particularly focus on neuromuscular, neurodevelopmental, and syndromic phenotypes. Samples come from collaborators and direct enrollment through the Rare Genomes Project and we are committed to rapid data sharing without an embargo period. University of California, Irvine (UCI-GREGoR) To accelerate the pace of Mendelian disease gene discovery and clinical implementation, we propose a Mendelian Genomics Research Center, part of the GREGoR Consortium, leveraging the broad pediatric and adult clinical and research expertise at Children's National Hospital and University of California, Irvine. Our goal is to develop best practices to increase the diagnostic yield of rare diseases, engage the community to reduce health disparities for complex diagnoses, while creating a dataset accessible to all. Our Center will unite world class experts combining basic and translational research with innovative approaches to phenotyping, variant identification and functional investigation of both coding and non-coding sequence changes with the goals of discovering novel Mendelian gene variations and identifying variants not detected on current sequencing pipelines, disambiguating uncertain variants into disease-causing versus benign categorizations, and sharing information by working collaboratively with the GREGoR community.GREGoR Stanford Site (GSS) The goal of the GREGoR Stanford Site (GSS) is to provide a platform for functional genomics research and validation to improve diagnosis in Mendelian disease. Participants included individuals with undiagnosed suspected Mendelian disease who had non-diagnostic exome sequencing and their immediate family members. Participants and their family members provided written, informed consent and biological samples from which DNA, RNA, plasma, fibroblasts, PBMCs and other cell types were generated and stored. Samples from research participants and their immediate family members may have undergone short and long-read genome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, metabolomics and/or lipidomics profiling, methyl-capture-sequencing and ATAC-sequencing. De-identified clinical data extracted from participant medical records are linked to the samples. University of Washington Center for Rare Disease Research (UW-CRDR) The goals of the University of Washington Center for Rare Disease Research are to: (1) maximize novel gene discovery for Mendelian conditions by recruitment, short- and long-read whole genome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing and analysis of families with rare conditions for which the gene is either unknown or the gene is known but no pathogenic variant can be identified via clinical testing; (2) develop new strategies for gene discovery for Mendelian conditions caused by variants that are difficult to detect using conventional testing strategies, variants of unknown function effect (e.g., regulatory, structural variants) or have unusual modes of inheritance; and (3) implement high-throughput screening and targeted follow-up functional studies to prioritize and validate candidate non-coding variants. De-identified data and phenotypic information are shared via MyGene2, ClinVar, and AnVIL.

  Study phs003047

• The Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) Tissue Biopsy Study

  The Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study is a long-term effort to identify genetic variants that predispose to type 2 diabetes (T2D) or that impact the variability of T2D-related quantitative traits (QTs). Most of the variants associated with T2D and related traits (glucose and insulin, anthropometrics, lipids) through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) occur in non-coding regions, suggesting a strong regulatory component to disease susceptibility. Regulatory element activity is often tissue-specific, which further complicates discovery of the causal/functional variation. Therefore, there is a critical need to identify the appropriate cell type, regulatory elements, target genes, and causal variants(s) in T2D-relevant tissues. We hypothesize that a subset of T2D and related variants alter gene expression regulation in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue - two major insulin target tissues and play key roles in insulin resistance. To that end, our study contains a comprehensive survey of genomics, epigenomics and transcriptomics in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue from individuals with glucose tolerance categories ranging from normal to T2D.For this FUSION Tissue Biopsy Study, we obtained RNA-Seq, microRNA (miRNA)-Seq, and DNA methylation (methyl)-Seq data on biopsy samples from 331 individuals from across the range of glucose tolerance: 124 normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 77 impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), 44 impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and 86 newly-diagnosed T2Ds. Participants completed two study visits, two weeks apart. First visits comprised most of the clinical phenotyping, including four-point OGTT (fasting, and 30, 60, and 120 minute post-load); BMI, WHR; lipids; blood pressure; and many other variables. Participants also completed FUSION health history, medication, and lifestyle questionnaires. On the second visit, we obtained ~250mg vastus lateralis skeletal muscle, ~750mg abdominal subcutaneous adipose, and a ~5x15mm section of abdominal skin. Visits were completed in March 2013. RNA isolation is ongoing in the Collins laboratory at the NIH, RNA and miRNA sequencing at the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center (NISC), and genotyping at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Individual-level data is available here for the 306 individuals who consented to data deposit. To focus on evaluation of gene expression and its regulation in skeletal muscle, we analyzed mRNA extracted from vastus lateralis skeletal muscle obtained from 271 of the 331 individual subjects from Finland, along with genome-wide genotypes. Individual-level data is available here for the 250 subjects who consented to the use of their data.Release phs001048.v2.p1 adds muscle data for an additional 42 subjects and data from adipose tissue for 276 subjects. Total RNA was isolated using Trizol extraction in the Collins laboratory at the NIH. The mRNA was poly-A selected, 24-plex libraries were generated using the Illumina TruSeq directional mRNA-seq library protocol and RNA sequencing was performed on HiSeq2000 sequencers using 101bp paired-end reads at NISC. miRNA libraries were prepared from total RNA from 296 muscle and 270 adipose samples, pooled and sequenced 50bp single-end reads on Illumina HiSeq2500. Data for 272 muscle and 251 adipose samples are available here for individuals with consent for data deposit. DNA was extracted from blood in the Collins laboratory, and genotyping on the Illumina Omni2.5M array was performed at CIDR. Genotypes were imputed using the HRC 2016 reference panel. In order to assess regions of open chromatin in skeletal muscle, we obtained muscle tissue from a commercial provider to perform ATAC-seq; these samples were sequenced at the University of Michigan DNA Sequencing Core.Release phs001048.v3.p1 adds single-nucleus (sn) RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data in 287 skeletal muscle samples out of the original 331 individuals. Individual-level data is available here for the 265 subjects who consented to the use of their data. The frozen tissue biopsy samples were processed in ten batches, each consisting of 40-41 samples. These batches were organized using a randomized block design to protect against experimental contrasts of interest including cohort, age, sex, BMI among others. Samples in each batch were pulverized, pooled together followed by nuclei isolation. The nuclei were processed on the 10X Genomics Chromium platform separately for snATAC-seq and snRNA-seq (v. 3.1 chemistry for snRNA-seq).Release phs001048.v4.p1 adds additional phenotypes and provides some corrections to several previous phenotypes.

  Study phs001048

• eMERGE Network Imputed GWAS for 41 Phenotypes

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of ten participating sites (Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston Children&#39;s Hospital, Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation and Pennsylvania State University, Geisinger Clinic, Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington, Mayo Clinic, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Northwestern University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 55,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of over forty phenotypes, including Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection, as well as using the phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) paradigm to replicate and discover relationships between targeted genotypes with multiple phenotypes. Sites and participants include: Children&#39;s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children&#39;s Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston&#39;s Children&#39;s Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and Boston Children&#39;s Hospital (BCH) are pediatric institutions dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. The CCHMC/BCH site has been built on a five-year history of collaboration, particularly in patient electronic record (ERM)-related informatics, the basis of much of eMERGE II. CCHMC and BCH together bring an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE II who are committed to diseases that afflict children, specifically phenotypes that focus upon diseases of children in ways that will leverage the available eMERGE adult GWAS and EMRs to discover meaningful use results. CCHMC/BCH plans to demonstrate real-time execution of phenotypic selection across their two distinct pediatric institutions as a model for ensuring phenotypic standardization and for national scalability. They will also look carefully at parents&#39; responses to results and use of their children&#39;s research results and better understand the factors that influence their decisions about learning incidental findings. In addition to patient and parent perceptions CCHMC/BCH will also explore clinician perceptions of pharmacogenetic research results after EMR integration. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300.) Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH&#39;s integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF), or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if participants had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) &#62;1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was &#60;1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants&#39; DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt&#39;s DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt&#39;s EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations.

  Study phs000888

• From research to data sharing: exploring EGA user's experiences

  The Cell Plasticity and Regeneration Group at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL focuses on the process of recruitment of macrophages that takes place in the small intestine during injury and healing. They recently published a paper titled “Mucosal Macrophages Govern Intestinal Regeneration in Response to Injury" in Gastroenterology Journal. As part of the research, some experiments were conducted using human intestinal organoid lines. These cells were processed for RNA sequencing, and the sequencing data were deposited at the EGA to be made available to the scientific community. When dealing with human genomic information, repositories must ensure the availability of the datasets while ensuring data protection. In this context, the European Genome-phenome Archive stands as a service for secure archiving and sharing of genetic, phenotypic and clinical data resulting from biomedical research. Following the recent publication of their paper, we took the opportunity to talk to Ilias Moraitis, first author, and Jordi Guiu, group leader, to find out about their experience with data sharing. Could you explain the focus of your research? In the lab, we study intestinal regeneration and how immune cells participate in this process. We use several techniques: engineered mouse models, image tracing, as well as mouse and human cells intestinal organoids. What challenges do you face regarding data management? We didn’t have a lot of problems. Always the informatic part, the data analysis, can give problems. But everything was smooth and working. We think it’s very important to deposit the data in repositories. For the mouse data it is very straightforward, but for us it was the first time depositing human data, which is sensitive because it comes from patients, and this is legally regulated. That’s why we thought about the EGA, and it was our first time. Why do you think it is important to submit data to repositories such as EGA? Because we think data is important for the science. Nowadays, we are sequencing a lot everywhere worldwide and having these resources shared with the scientific community it’s not only good for science, but it is also saving money and reducing costs. And there is so much data in there that can be used for other projects and for other questions. And it saves time! How was the process of submitting the data to the EGA? The communication worked very well but it was slower than we would like. But I think this is something we learn on the way. People usually wait until the last minute to do this before publication but if you know it in advance, you can start the process earlier. If you had to repeat the process, would you do anything differently? It’s like everything, isn’t it? For the first time you don’t know, you aren’t sure, but for the second time you know the steps, you know what to do and it’s faster. Of course, we would to do it earlier. Also, there were some things related to the control access that we didn’t know how to manage, but it was something more internal to us. Who is going to receive the communications and when, is our ethical committee going to evaluate this? All these technicalities that we didn’t know before starting this process, so we had to think about all these things. Next time it will be faster on our side. Do you have any suggestions for us to improve the submission process? Maybe we’ll need to ask our bioinformatician who did it! He was in charge of this part. Besides that, we think if the process were faster, it would be better for everyone. Also, in science a lot of times you have to do a lot of things at the very last minute, because of the nature of the experiments, or the need to accomplish for submitting a paper. Being faster in the process would be a plus. On your side, we went through the process and were able to find some information, but there were aspects we weren't aware of and weren't sure how to handle. I'm not sure if other institutes have different protocols for managing data requests or how they handle these internally. We believe the main issue lies in how the forms are filled out. Do you have any recommendations for other submitters? The main advice is to do this with enough time. Submit the data when you have the sequences, and don’t wait until the last minute. And then it can be under embargo, so you don’t need to make it public at that moment. As soon as you sequence, upload it and then it will be there for whenever you need to publish. How do you think we could encourage other researchers to submit their data? There are different layers here. One is that it is mandatory. You have to do this. The other is that we belong to a research community, to the same community and sharing this is making our research community stronger and more efficient. And then, also because this gives you visibility. The data is there, other people can analyse your data, and this also will bring citations to your papers. It has many advantages.

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing

• Detection of Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility Loci Using Genome-Wide Sequencing

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, whole genome sequencing, replicating and fine-mapping of genetic discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 6 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002 PMID:12015775; Campbell et al., 2014 PMID:25472679). At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. We restricted to samples that had blood DNA source. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1 on reference year and sex. Darmkrebs: Chancen der Verh&#252;tung durch Screening (DACHS): This German study was initiated as a large population-based case-control study in 2003 in the Rhine-Neckar-Odenwald region (southwest region of Germany) to assess the potential of endoscopic screening for reduction of colorectal cancer risk and to investigate etiologic determinants of disease, particularly lifestyle/environmental factors and genetic factors. Cases with a first diagnosis of invasive colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 10 codes C18-C20) who were at least 30 years of age (no upper age limit), German speaking, a resident in the study region, and mentally and physically able to participate in a one-hour interview, were recruited by their treating physicians either in the hospital a few days after surgery, or by mail after discharge from the hospital. Cases were confirmed based on histologic reports and hospital discharge letters following diagnosis of colorectal cancer. All hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients in the study region participated. Based on estimates from population-based cancer registries, more than 50% of all potentially eligible patients with incident colorectal cancer in the study region were included. Community-based controls were randomly selected from population registries, employing frequency matching with respect to age (5-year groups), sex, and county of residence. Controls with a history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Controls were contacted by mail and follow-up calls. The participation rate was 51%. During an in-person interview, data were collected on demographics, medical history, family history of CRC, and various life-style factors, as were blood and mouthwash samples. Routine formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from the patients enrolled were requested from the pathology institutes and used for tumor tissue analyses. This analysis includes participants with blood source DNA that were recruited up to 2010 in this ongoing study. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses' Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990 PMID:2090285). Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. Control participants were required to be free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978 PMID:248266). Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989-1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. White colorectal cancer cases with a family history of colorectal cancer (no history of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease, diverticulitis, Gardner's syndrome, Familial Polyposis) and successful genotyping from previous Peters GWAS were selected for this project. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Women's Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts: a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/d) or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS) examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed White cases of invasive colorectal cancer, or death from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from the March, 2011 database. Case priory lists are: 1) have positive family history of colorectal cancer; 2) randomly select cases until we get a total of n=800 cases. Control participants were required to be White, free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. Centrally denied cases of colorectal cancer were not allowed into the control pool. Case and control participants were subject to the following exclusion criteria: (1) had prior history of colorectal cancer at baseline; (2) had no available DNA (DNA searching as Nov 15, 2012); (3) cannot be deposited to dbGaP; (4) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (5) selected for WHI study M26 Phase II. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1. In order to get 2 cases with 1 control, cases were grouped by enrollment year (a total of 5 groups). For each year group, around 50% cases were selected to match controls. In total, 401 cases were selected to match controls. Matching was done on enrollment year, which was matched exactly. For additional information, see dbGaP: phs000200 and ClinicalTrials: NCT00000611.

  Study phs001554

• Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study

  The Women&#39;s Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts: a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/d] or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS) examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. Extension Studies: The original protocol allowed for follow-up until March 2005, after which participants were invited to enroll in the first WHI Extension Study for follow-up through 2010. Participants were invited again to participate in the second WHI Extension Study with continued follow up from 2010 to at least 2015. As of March 31, 2011 there were 93,122 women enrolled in the second extension. In Extension Study 2, the overall WHI study population was divided into two new subsamples, the Medical Records Cohort (MRC) and the Self-Report Cohort (SRC). The MRC consists of all former hormone trial participants and all African American and Hispanic participants from all study components. The SRC consists of the remaining participants. The extent of outcome information collected differs between the two cohorts, with more extensive outcomes information collection on the MRC. As part of Extension Study 2, selected older WHI participants were invited to participate in an In Person Visit (a.k.a., Long Life Study) at their homes during which additional blood samples were collected and various measurements were taken (such as blood pressure, height, weight, waist circumference, grip strength, etc.). In October 2015, Extension Study 2 was renewed with continued follow-up planned through October 2020, pending annual contract review and renewal. Additional Information: The WHI website, https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/About%20WHI.aspx has much more information about the study. For WHI data collection forms used over the years, please see https://www.whi.org/researchers/studydoc/SitePages/Forms.aspx. For additional dataset documentation, see https://www.whi.org/researchers/data/Pages/Available%20Data.aspx. For data preparation and use, please refer to &#39;WHI dbGaP Cohort Data Release Data Preparation Guide May 2018&#39; for additional details about the WHI data. The WHI Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs000200 WHI Cohort. phs000386 WHI SHARe phs000281 GO-ESP WHISP phs000315 WHI GARNET phs000503 WHISE phs000227 PAGE WHI phs000675 WHIMS+ phs000746 WHI Harmonized and Imputed GWAS phs001334 WHI Metabolomics of CHD phs001335 WHI BA23 phs001614 WHI LLS Phase III GWAS

  Study phs000200

• National Eye Institute (NEI) Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS)

  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) was initially designed as a long-term multi-center, prospective study of the clinical course of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and age-related cataract. In addition to collecting natural history data, AREDS included a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements for AMD and a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin supplements for cataract. AREDS participants were 55 to 80 years of age at enrollment and had to be free of any illness or condition that would make long-term follow-up or compliance with study medications unlikely or difficult. On the basis of fundus photographs graded by a central reading center, best-corrected visual acuity and ophthalmologic evaluations, 4,757 participants were enrolled in one of several AMD categories, including persons with no AMD. The clinical trials for AMD and cataract were conducted concurrently. AREDS participants were followed on the clinical trials for a median time of 6.5 years. Subsequent to the conclusion of the clinical trials, participants were followed for an additional 5 years and natural history data were collected. The AREDS research design is detailed in AREDS Report 1. AREDS Report 8 contains the mainline results from the AMD trial; AREDS Report 9 contains the results of the cataract trial. Blood samples were also collected from 3,700+ AREDS participants for genetic research. Genetic samples from 600 AREDS participants (200 controls, 200 Neovascular AMD cases, and 200 Geographic Atrophy cases) were selected using data available in March 2005 and then were evaluated with a genome-wide scan. These data, as well as selected phenotypic data, were made available in the dbGaP. DNA from AREDS participants, which is currently being stored in the AREDS Genetic Repository, is available for research purposes. However, not all of the 3,700+ AREDS participants who submitted a blood sample currently have DNA available. In addition to including the data from the genome-wide scan on the 600 original samples, this second version of the AREDS dbGaP database provides a comprehensive set of data tables with extensive clinical information collected for the 4,757 participants who participated in AREDS. The tables include information collected at enrollment/baseline, during study follow-up, fundus and lens pathology, nutritional estimates, quality of life measures and measures of morbidity and mortality. In November 2010, over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants (of the original 600 selected for the genome-wide scan) were made available in the AREDS dbGaP. In addition to the genome-wide scan data, the fundus and lens grading data for these participants are also available through the AREDS dbGaP. Details about the ocular photographs that are available may be found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs". In January 2012, a measure of daily sunlight exposure was added in a separate &#34;sunlight&#34; table. Furthermore, the &#34;followup&#34; table has been revised. The visual acuity for the right eye was inadvertently missing at odd-numbered visits (01, 03, 05, etc.). This data is now part of the table. In February 2014 over 134,500 high-quality fundus photographs (macular field F2) of 4613 AREDS participants were added to the existing AREDS dbGaP resource. The AREDS dbGaP image archive already contains over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants for whom dbGaP-accessible genotype data exist. Information about the available ocular photographs found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs" has been updated with an addendum. It is hoped that this resource will better help researchers understand two important diseases that affect an aging population. These data may be applied to examination and inference on genetic and genetic-environmental bases for age-related diseases of public health significance and may also help elucidate the clinical course of both conditions, generate hypotheses, and aid in the design of clinical trials of preventive interventions. Definitions of Final AMD Phenotype Categories Please see phd001138.1 for a detailed description of how AREDS participants&#39; final AMD phenotype was categorized. User&#39;s Guide for AREDS Phenotype Data A detailed User&#39;s Guide for the AREDS phenotype data is available. This User&#39;s Guide is meant to be a comprehensive document which explains the complexities of the AREDS data. It is recommended that all researchers using AREDS phenotype data make use of this User&#39;s Guide.

  Study phs000001

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Patients with Coccidioidomycosis

  BackgroundValley Fever is typically an infection of the lungs caused by the fungi Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. The incidence of Coccidioidomycosis (CM), or infection with Coccidioides, has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. This is particularly true in the Southwest of the United States, where people often breathe fungal spores that arise from the soil. Reasons for increased infection rates are thought to include population growth and construction in these endemic regions, an increase in the number of people whose immune systems are compromised due to infection or treatment with drugs required for organ transplants, climate change, as well as improved testing practices and greater physician awareness.&#160;Mild CM most commonly presents itself with flu-like symptoms and rashes, which can last weeks to months. Individuals with compromised immune systems, specifically-- substantial suppression of the immune cells known as T cells, can develop severe pulmonary and disseminated disease. Infection that remains localized to the lungs is referred to as pulmonary disease, but when the infection spreads out of the lungs into other parts of the body it represents a more serious condition referred to as a disseminated disease, or disseminated CM. In nature, Coccidioides spp. exists as mold and lives in dust and soil. When the contaminated soil or dust is disturbed by human activity, animals, or weather, the Coccidiodies spores are released into the air. Airborne spores are taken up by breathing and settle in the lungs. Once in the moist and warm environment of the lung, spores transform into spherules, which divide and become filled with smaller spores, called endospores. When the spherules get large enough, they rupture and release these endospores, which can spread and disseminate to surrounding tissue. The cycle then repeats itself as these endospores develop into new spherules3.&#160;Different ethnic groups have been described to vary in their susceptibility to developing disseminated CM after initial infection with Coccidioides. For example, evidence suggests that African-American and Filipino patients suffer the disseminated disease at a greater rate than other ethnicities. The suggestion that race plays a role in the clinical expression of the disease is still a source of debate amongst the scientific community and any genetic mechanisms responsible for these differences have yet to be fully elucidated. If our genetic makeup influences our ability to limit the spread of infection, finding which DNA differences cause these variances could provide clues to how the body successfully fights infection, and provide opportunities to boost the body&#8217;s ability to do this. Further, if we are able to identify the specific genetic risk factors that correlate with the development of disseminated infection, physicians could perform genetic screenings to identify high-risk patients and provide them with preemptive antifungal therapy prior to developing disseminated disease.The genome, made up of DNA, contains all of the information needed for humans to develop and grow. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) allow us to look for inherited differences that are more common between people who share a particular trait, for example, height or susceptibility to certain diseases, compared to those who do not share the trait. Although some traits and diseases are controlled by a single gene, the majority are influenced by contribution from several, or even many, different genes. To find evidence of genes that contribute to specific traits, GWAS typically compares genome information from large numbers of people who have a particular disease (referred to as &#8220;cases&#8221;) looking for DNA sequences that are common among these samples, and are different from DNA sequences seen in large numbers of people who lack the trait, but are as much like the cases as possible (referred to as &#8220;controls&#8221;). The DNA sequence data from each group, cases versus controls, are analyzed to see if there are specific genomic differences that tend to be associated with the disease.&#160;MethodsTwo separate GWAS approaches were taken to look for genetic differences that could be responsible for the observed differences between the different patient populations we are studying. The first method, known as genotyping, scans for differences at a set of positions across the genome, which includes both the genes that encode our proteins and the larger amount of DNA that does not. The second method, known as exome sequencing, allows us to compare the entire sequence of the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.&#160;&#160;For this study, DNA from patients with either pulmonary or disseminated CM were genotyped and exome sequenced to look for DNA differences that are associated with one condition or the other. All patients were at least 18 years old, had no evidence of immunosuppression, and had proven or probable pulmonary coccidioidomycosis according to established diagnostic criteria. Of these patients, a subset demonstrated disseminated disease, i.e., they showed evidence of coccidioidal infection outside of the thorax by biopsy/aspiration, had radiographic imaging, and show positive coccidioidal serology. Our criteria for including patients with the pulmonary disease were that they must not require ongoing antifungal treatment or show evidence of active CM (in skin test positive patients), show no evidence of extrapulmonary dissemination, and have no evidence of ongoing pulmonary infection (pulmonary nodules are accepted) beyond six months from diagnosis.Patient DNA was purified from blood or from sputum samples by the labs of our collaborators, Drs. George Thompson (UC Davis School of Medicine) and John Galgiani (University of Arizona Health Sciences). Genome-wide association (GWAS) analysis was carried out to look for candidate loci associated with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, taking into account the population structure of the samples. Single nucleotide or insertion/deletion variants were identified from whole-exome sequences (WES) using the Picard/BWA/GATK pipeline.&#160;ResultsTable 1. Pulmonary versus Disseminated Cases of Coccidiomycosis for GWAS, Sorted by EthnicityEthnicityPulmonary CasesDisseminated CasesAsian85Black/African American1664Caucasian/White4015Filipino03Hispanic/Latino3414Indian21Mexican American1039Pacific Islander01Samoan03Vietnamese10Unknown16917More than one race02Total373134Table 1 shows the number of samples analyzed from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease, and patient ethnicity, where known. In all, we worked with 507 samples, including 134 samples from patients with disseminated disease and 373 samples from patients with pulmonary disease. Of these, 505 samples were genotyped using the Multi-Ethnic Global Array from Illumina Inc. In addition, we were able to generate whole-exome sequence from 498 patient samples. No significant associations were detected that differed between samples from patients with pulmonary versus disseminated disease; that is, no particular DNA sequences were found to be significantly enriched in patients with disseminated disease compared to patients with pulmonary disease. The ability to detect genetic association between specific sequences and genetically determined traits is influenced by several factors, including how many patient samples are available to compare, how many different genes contribute to the trait and how strong their contributions are. When the number of genes is small and the contribution of each gene is great, smaller numbers of patient samples are needed to detect an association. When more genes are involved, or the contribution from each gene is more modest, larger numbers of patient samples must be examined. While we were not able to detect any associated within this study, it does not mean that subsequent studies would not find this connection. Our study suggests significantly more samples should be analyzed in further studies.Whole-exome sequences were generated from 498 samples and were aligned to reference sequences to identify positions where the sequences differed from the reference. These data are being analyzed to determine if any variants are associated with pulmonary, versus disseminated, disease.&#160;

  Study phs002170

• Providing safe access to sensitive human data across borders: Federated EGA becomes a reality

  Enabling discovery and access to sensitive data across national boundaries is vital for improving human health. It enables more powerful and efficient research by increasing the volume and diversity of data available for analysis. It allows us to better understand the causes of diseases – cancer, rare diseases, infectious diseases like COVID-19 – and develop new medicines and treatments. Sensitive human omics data are typically generated by research initiatives and shared using specialist repositories which provide services for data submission, discovery, and access. The EGA is one such repository. Established in 2008 at EMBL’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in the UK, since 2012 the EGA (“Central EGA”) has been jointly managed by EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Spain. Many countries have emerging personalised medicine programmes which generate data from national initiatives. These programmes are driving a transition in human genomics from being research-driven to receiving funding through healthcare. Data generated in a clinical context are subject to stricter governance than research data and must follow national data protection legislation. To solve these challenges, the Federated EGA provides a network of connected resources to enable transnational discovery of and access to human omics data for research, while also respecting jurisdictional data protection regulations. In this way, the Federated EGA infrastructure supports the goals of European initiatives such as the 1+ Million Genomes initiative (1+MG), the European Health Data Space, and a number of EU-funded 1+MG implementation projects including Beyond 1 Million Genomes. The Federated EGA is made up of “Nodes” – typically nationally funded and operated – which store and manage data locally while allowing global discovery within the Federated EGA network. Since 2016, multiple parallel efforts, supported by ELIXIR and other transnational and national initiatives, have created technical and legal frameworks for establishing the Federated EGA. In 2022, the first five Nodes – Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Sweden – officially joined the Federated EGA by signing Federated EGA Collaboration Agreements with Central EGA. The Finnish FEGA Node is operated by CSC - IT Center for Science and provides data management services according to national laws and the requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These services provide tools and support for the whole life-cycle of sensitive research data from collating to analysis, publication, and authorised re-use. The development of the services has been a joint effort with the other Nordic nodes within NeIC's Tryggve and Heilsa projects, and funded by Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and projects coordinated by ELIXIR Finland. Read more about Finnish FEGA signing. The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive (GHGA) strives to provide a national infrastructure as well as an ethical and legal framework that balances FAIR omics data usage and data protection needs for Germany. As a Germany-wide consortium funded by the German Research Foundation under the umbrella of the NFDI association, GHGA combines the expertise of 21 universities and research institutions to form a federated national infrastructure. Read more about GHGA signing. The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive (GHGA) strives to provide a national infrastructure as well as an ethical and legal framework that balances FAIR omics data usage and data protection needs for Germany. As a Germany-wide consortium funded by the German Research Foundation under the umbrella of the NFDI association, GHGA combines the expertise of 21 universities and research institutions to form a federated national infrastructure. Read more about GHGA signing. In Norway, a key component of the infrastructure is the services of The Sensitive Data Service (TSD) offered by USIT at University of Oslo. The Federated EGA Norway Node is developed by ELIXIR Norway and operated by the University of Oslo as the responsible legal entity. Core software modules are developed jointly with the other Nordic nodes in the NeIC Tryggve and Heilsa projects. Read more about FEGA Norway signing. The Spanish FEGA (es-FEGA) is a national service for storing sensitive biomedical data in Spain. Supported by the Spanish Institute of Bioinformatics (INB) in collaboration with Central EGA, sensitive research datasets are primarily hosted at the Barcelona Supercomputing Centre facilities. The Swedish Sensitive Data Archive is a secure data archive and sharing platform for sensitive datasets. It was developed by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS) in collaboration with other Nordic ELIXIR Nodes through the Tryggve and Heilsa projects funded by NeIC and coordinated with Central EGA through ELIXIR. Read more about the Swedish Node signing. The Swedish Sensitive Data Archive is a secure data archive and sharing platform for sensitive datasets. It was developed by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS) in collaboration with other Nordic ELIXIR Nodes through the Tryggve and Heilsa projects funded by NeIC and coordinated with Central EGA through ELIXIR. Read more about the Swedish Node signing. By providing a solution for secure and efficient management of human omics data, the Federated EGA aims to foster data reuse, enable reproducibility, accelerate biomedical research, and improve human health. Find out more Interested in setting up your own Federated EGA Node? Check out the FEGA Onboarding Knowledge Base for more information. The ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community is a great entry point for anyone interested in learning more about the Federated EGA. You can: Join the ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community mailing list (select “Human Data”) Attend the ELIXIR Federated Human Data Community calls

  Blog safe-access-to-sensitive-human-data-federated-ega

• How to use EGA Webin?

  EGA Webin EGA Webin serves as a platform for registering metadata for array based submissions, large scale sequence submission as well as for legacy EGA submission accounts (ega-box-XXXX). For large scale submitters of sequence data you have also the option to submit metadata via XMLS programmatic submission, while new submitters are advised to utilise the Submitter Portal for their submissions. You can request a legacy EGA submission account (ega-box-XXXX) by populating this form. Please, allow two business days for our Helpdesk team to contact you after populating this form. WEBIN actions: Register metadata for a sequence submission Register study, samples, experiments, runs, DAC, policy and dataset/s after file upload. Register components for your array-based metadata submission Register study, samples, DAC or policy before uploading files. Edit existing submission metadata Change or update previously submitted metadata. Register metadata for a sequence submission Ensure that all sequence files have been encrypted before uploading them to your submission account using the EgaCryptor. Go to the EGA Webin and log in using your submission account name (ega-box-XXX) and password. Register components of your metadata submission Study Samples Data Access Committee (DAC) Data access policy Dataset For array-base submissions: Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy may all be registered BEFORE file upload and dataset registration through the array-base template. Register your Study Go to the “Studies (Projects)” box Click on “Register Study” and fill in the information related to your study. Click on “Submit”, this will save the information and generate an EGA study ID. To use the study accession number in a publication, the study has to be previously released on the EGA website, we suggest the following format: "Sequence 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 on https://ega-archive.org and “The European Genome-phenome Archive in 202 "(10.1093/nar/gkab1059)" Register your Samples Go to the “Samples” box Click on “Register Samples” Select “Download spreadsheet to register samples” and customise your template, there is a default EGA template (EGA default checklist) but more attributes can be added if required. For the EGA default checklist, there are mandatory,recommended and optional attributes. As well custom fields which can be added if required. Mandatory attributes Field Name Description tax_id Taxonomy ID of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Entries in the NCBI Taxonomy database have integer taxon IDs. See our tips for sample taxonomy here scientific_name Scientific name of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Scientific names typically follow the binomial nomenclature. For example, the scientific name for humans is Homo sapiens. sample_alias Unique name of the sample. If not selected system will auto generate an unique alias sample_title Title of the sample sample_description Description of the sample phenotype *** Where possible, please use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe your phenotypes. Recommended attributes Field Name Description subject_id Identifier for the subject where the sample has been derived from gender * Sex Optional attributes Field Name Description sex sex of the organism from which the sample was obtained disease_site Affected organ sample type Affected organ donor_id ** Identifier of the donor where the sample has been derived from *Gender should be described as 'male', 'female' or 'unknown'. If 'unknown' due to a known sex chromosome aneuploidy, please create a user defined attribute called 'Sex chromosome karyotype' and add the appropriate value, for example, 'XXY'. **Donor id (Subject id) should be a de-identified subject handle. If unknown, please add 'unknown' to the field. ***Phenotypes should, where possible, be an Experimental Factor Ontology accession. If a term cannot be found to describe your phenotype please use free text. All sample phenotypes considered important for further analysis of the data should be provided (for example, tumour type), additional phenotype attributes can be created by defining your own attributes; use the notion 'phenotype2', 'phenotype3', etc. After you have customised the fields for the sample submission, download the template and fill in the information. Example of the sample template: Finally upload the sample template to get the EGA accession IDs for the samples. Register your Data Access Committee (DAC) Further information on the role of your DAC Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dacs” Input the information about the DAC and register at least one main DAC contact. Register your Data Access Policy Your Data Access Policy provides the terms and conditions of data use, this is also referred to as the Data Access Agreement (DAA). Completion of a DAA by the applicant/s should form part of the application process to the Data Access Committee (DAC). Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Policies” Select the DAC to which this policy will be linked to and fill in the policy information. Submitting your Runs and Analyses This section is only for sequence data submission, for array-based submission it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata Runs Registration Go to the “Raw Reads (Experiments and Runs)” box Click on “Submit Reads” Select “Download spreadsheet template for Read submission” Select the template corresponding to your submission type For the templates you have the option to customise the optional fields. To check their description click on “Show Description “ Download the template and fill in the required information. Example of the runs template: We recommend that Fastq, BAM, and CRAM read files are submitted using Webin-CLI When using this interface instead of Webin-CLI, raw sequences must be uploaded in one of the supported data formats before they can be submitted. The files can be uploaded using FTP or Aspera. The study and the sequenced samples must be pre-registered before the raw reads are submitted. Please note that each individual study and sample should be registered only once. You will be asked to provide information about the sequencing libraries and instruments. Submitting your Dataset This section is only for sequence data submissions, for array based submissions it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata The dataset describes the data files, defined by the run (EGARXXXXXXXXXXX) and analysis (EGAZXXXXXXXXXXX) accessions that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Data Access Committee and Data Access Policy. As a result, you must have registered your Reads and experiments, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy before submitting your Dataset. 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. Please contact EGA Helpdesk for further assistance. Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dataset” Select the Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy Register your dataset After submitting your dataset you should contact the EGA Helpdesk to provide a release date for your dataset. Datasets are automatically held (i.e. not released) unless they are affiliated to a study that has already been released. Edit/update existing submission metadata Go to the “Report” section of the object you would like to edit. Locate the object and click on the arrow under action. An option menu will be displayed. Objects can be edited through their XML or with the WEBIN menu. After an object has been edited, changes would be available on the website until the submission is released again. Please contact the EGA Helpdesk if you require further assistance.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/EGA_webin

• Unrelated Donor Reduced Intensity Bone Marrow Transplant for Children with Severe Sickle Cell Disease (BMT CTN-0601-BioLINCC)

  ObjectivesThe primary objective is to determine event-free survival (EFS) at 1 year after unrelated donor (URD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) using bone marrow (BM) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).BackgroundSickle cell disease (SCD), also known as sickle cell anemia, is an inherited blood disease that can cause organ damage, stroke, and intense pain episodes. Children with sickle cell disease experience organ damage, impaired quality of life, and premature mortality. A blood stem cell transplant is a treatment option for someone with a severe form of the disease. Prior to undergoing a transplant, people typically receive a conditioning regimen of high doses of chemotherapy and other medications to prepare the body to accept the transplant. This type of conditioning regimen is known as a myeloablative conditioning regimen, but it can result in toxicities and sterility. A conditioning regimen that uses lower doses of chemotherapy and medications may be safer for transplant recipients. This type of regimen is known as reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen. RIC has a more favorable toxicity profile but is associated with higher rates of graft rejection (GR), especially with graft sources such as umbilical cord blood This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of blood stem cell transplants, using bone marrow from unrelated donors, in children with severe SCD who receive a RIC regimen prior to the transplant.SubjectsPatients 3.0-19.75 years old with symptomatic SCD AND one or more of the following complications: (1)-(i) a clinically significant neurologic event (stroke) or any neurologic defect lasting > 24 hours and accompanied by an infarct on cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); OR, (ii) patients who have a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity that exceeds 200 cm/sec by the non-imaging technique (or TCD measurement of >185 cm/sec by the imaging technique) measured at a minimum of 2 separate occasions one month or more apart; OR, (2) Minimum of two episodes of acute chest syndrome within the preceding 2-year period defined as new pulmonary alveolar consolidation involving at least one complete lung segment (associated with acute symptoms including fever, chest pain, tachypnea, wheezing, rales, or cough that is not attributed to asthma or bronchiolitis) despite adequate supportive care measures; OR, (3) History of 3 or more severe pain events (defined as new onset of pain that lasts for at least 2 hours for which there is no other explanation) per year in the 2 years prior to enrollment despite adequate supportive care measures (if patients are receiving hydroxyurea and compliant with therapy, being symptomatic is an indication for transplantation; however, if patients decline hydroxyurea or non-compliant with this therapy, they would still remain eligible for study if pain criteria as described above are met). Lansky/Karnofsky performance score must be &#8805; 40. Hemoglobin S must be &#8804; 45%. Patients must have an unrelated adult bone marrow donor who is HLA-matched at 8 of 8 HLA-A, -B, -C and -DRB1 at high resolution using DNA-based typing. Patients with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis of the liver, with uncontrolled bacterial, viral, or fungal infection in the past month, or seropositivity for HIV are excluded. Patients with HLA-matched family donors, or who have received prior HCT, and females who are pregnant or breast feeding are excluded. Thirty patients were enrolled on this study and of these, 29 patients met the criteria and proceeded to the study transplant.DesignParticipants attended a study visit prior to the transplant to undergo a blood collection, neurocognitive testing to measure learning and brain function, magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Questionnaires to assess quality of life were also completed. All patients received erythrocyte transfusions before transplant. Twenty-two days (-22) before the transplant, participants began receiving a reduced intensity conditioning regimen of chemotherapy and medications. On days -21, -20, and -19 participants weighing 10 kg or more received 10 mg, 15 mg, and then 20 mg of Alemtuzumab intravenously (IV) followed by 30 mg/m2/day IV on days -8 through -4 of Fludarabine. Eight days (-8) before the transplant, participants were admitted to the hospital to continue the conditioning regimen which included 140 mg/m2 IV of Melphalan on day -3. Participants received the bone marrow transplant on day 0. Prophylaxis for GVHD consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) administered from day -3 through day 100 after graft infusion, with subsequent taper through day 180; methotrexate 7.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 6; and methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg per day from days 7 through 28, with subsequent taper by 20% per week. One week after the transplant continuing until the WBC is normal, participants received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). After leaving the hospital, participants attended study visits weekly during weeks 1 to 8, at day 60, weekly during weeks 9 to 14, at Day 100, at month 6, and at years 1 and 2. At all study visits, a blood collection, medical history review, and physical exam occurred. In addition, at day 100, month 6, and years 1 and 2, questionnaires to assess quality of life were completed. At select visits the following procedures were conducted: lung function testing, heart function testing, MRA and MRI scans, and neurocognitive testing.The primary outcome was 1-year EFS. Death, disease recurrence or graft rejection by 1 year were considered events for this endpoint.ConclusionsThe trial met its prespecified 1-year EFS, and significantly improved HRQL was reported posttransplant. However, although the Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) provided successful engraftment in most patients, the regimen cannot be considered safe for widespread adoption without modification due to the regimen-related toxicity (RRT) and high rate of chronic GVHD, which was the predominant cause of mortality.

  Study phs003470

• Privacy Notice for EGA Web user

  Privacy Notice for EGA Public Website 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. 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 Mallory Freeberg, by: email at: mfreeberg@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? For providing you access to the website and for offering support whilst using the website, we need your consent under Article 5 (2) of the IP 68 (equivalent to Article 6 (1)(a) of the GDPR). 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 you: IP addressesDate and time of a visit to the service website Operating systemAmount of data transmittedBrowserEmail address (only when support is requested by the user) The data controller will use your personal data for the following purposes: To provide the user access to the serviceTo better understand the needs of the users and guide future improvements of the serviceTo monitor website activities according to and in compliance with the Terms of UseTo better understand the needs of the website visitors and guide future improvements of the serviceTo conduct and monitor website security activitiesTo 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 organisations. 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.Object at any time to the processing of your personal data unless we can demonstrate that we have legitimate reasons to process your personal data.Request free of charge and without excessive delay rectification or erasure of your personal data if we have not been processing it respecting the data protection policies of the respective controllers. 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. 9. CookiesWe use cookies and similar technologies that are strictly necessary for the correct functioning and security of the EGA website (for example, to enable core site features and to help protect the service). These cookies do not store information that directly identifies you.You can set your browser to block or delete cookies. Please note that if you disable strictly necessary cookies, parts of the website may not function properly.Published on February 6, 2019

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

• Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study - Imaging

  Objectives: The clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of three interventions. Specifically, it evaluated (1) the major health benefits and risks of estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone, (2) the effects of a low-fat eating pattern on risk of colorectal cancer, and (3) the efficacy of calcium with vitamin D supplementation for preventing hip and other fractures. The objective of the memory study was to determine whether estrogen plus progestin therapy protects global cognitive function, and evaluate the therapy's effect on the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The observational study is examining the relationship between lifestyle, socioeconomic, health, and other risk factors with cardiovascular, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and osteoporotic fracture outcomes. Secondary objectives include providing more reliable estimates of the extent to which known risk factors predict disease, more precise estimates of new occurrences of disease, and to provide a future resource for the identification of new or novel risk factors especially factors found in blood. Background: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing the major causes of death, disability, and frailty in postmenopausal women, specifically heart disease, cancer, and osteoporotic fractures. The WHI is primarily composed of an observational study (OS), as well a clinical trial (CT) with three components: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HT), Dietary Modification, (DM) and Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation (CaD).Prior to the WHI, observational studies suggested that postmenopausal hormone therapy was associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Potential cardioprotection was based on generally supportive data on lipid levels in intermediate outcome clinical trials, trials in nonhuman primates, and a large body of observational studies suggesting a 40% to 50% reduction in risk among users of either estrogen alone or, less frequently, combined estrogen and progestin. Observational studies primarily examining unopposed estrogen preparations have suggested a 30% to 50% reduction in coronary events, and an 8% to 30% increase in breast cancer with extended use. Other research findings indicated that hormone therapy was also associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and increased bone density. The WHI HT trials were designed to test the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on risk for coronary heart disease and assess overall risks and benefits in predominantly healthy women. The Women's Health Initiative Memory Program (WHIMS) consists of a suite of studies which include cohorts of women who participated in the WHI HT trials. Postmenopausal women have a greater risk than men of developing Alzheimer's disease, but studies of the effects of estrogen therapy on Alzheimer's disease have been inconsistent. Additionally, observational studies have suggested that postmenopausal hormone treatment may improve cognitive function, but data from randomized clinical trials have been sparse and inconclusive. International comparisons and migration studies have suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer. Additionally, fairly consistent evidence existed for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer risk from within-country observational studies, although the protective effect of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake. The WHI DM trial was the first randomized trial to directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Osteoporosis is a major cause of injury, loss of independence, and death, and contributes to hip fractures. Observational evidence and data from previous randomized clinical trials suggest that calcium and/or vitamin D supplements may slow bone loss and reduce the risk of falls in postmenopausal and elderly women. However, evidence from trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of calcium and vitamin D supplementation with respect to hip and other fractures was limited at the time the WHI was initiated. In two prior randomized trials, calcium plus vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures among older women. When the WHI CaD trial was designed, guidelines recommended daily intakes of 800 to 1200 mg of calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis, which was not met by many American women. Therefore, the WHI CaD trial was designed to test the primary hypothesis that postmenopausal women randomly assigned to calcium plus vitamin D supplementation would have a lower risk of hip fracture and, secondarily, of all fractures than women assigned to placebo. Subjects: Postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 were eligible to participate. A woman was considered postmenopausal if she had experienced no vaginal bleeding for 6 months (12 months for women under 55 years of age), had had a hysterectomy, or had ever used postmenopausal hormones. Recruitment was carried out in 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998. The clinical trial components had additional specific inclusion or exclusion criteria.A total of 68,132 women were randomized into at least one component of the clinical trial. 27,347 women were enrolled in the hormone therapy component with 16,608 in the estrogen plus progestin trial and 10,739 in the unopposed estrogen trial, 48,835 women were enrolled in the diet modification component, and 36,282 women were enrolled in the calcium/vitamin D component. 7,479 women 65 years of age and older at baseline and that participated in the HT trial component were enrolled in the ancillary memory study. Women who were either ineligible or unwilling to participate in the clinical trial component were enrolled in the observational study. For example, many potential participants to the clinical trial component of the study were already undertaking a low fat diet or were using hormone replacement therapy. The effect of the selection process was that women enrolled in the observational study tended to have healthier lifestyles compared to those enrolled in the clinical trial. In total, 93,676 subjects were enrolled in WHI OS, with over 16% being members of a racial/ethnic minority group. The first WHI Extension Study enrolled 115,407 consenting participants from all components of the original WHI study for an additional five years of follow-up, from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, 93,567 women consented to continued follow-up. Design: The clinical trial component of the WHI included three randomized comparisons: hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Women could have been randomized into one, two or all three trials.The hormone therapy trial enrolled women to one of two double-blinded trials: estrogen (0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens daily) plus progestin (2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily) or estrogen alone. Women with a prior hysterectomy were eligible for the trial of unopposed estrogen. Women with an intact uterus at screening were initially also eligible for unopposed estrogen, but were reassigned to the trial of combined postmenopausal hormones beginning in 1995. Both trials randomized participants 1:1 to either hormone therapy or placebo. A 3-month washout period was required before baseline evaluation of women using postmenopausal hormones at initial screening. Study participants were contacted by telephone 6 weeks after randomization to assess symptoms and reinforce adherence. Follow-up contacts by telephone or clinic visit occurred every 6 months, with clinic visits required annually. The estrogen plus progestin trial was halted in July 2002 after a mean 5.2 years of follow-up because health risks, including increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, exceeded benefits. The estrogen alone trial was stopped early in March 2004, because an increased risk of stroke was found with no benefit for coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome. The dietary modification trial evaluated the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable, and grain diet on preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a comparison group in the ratio of 2:3 for cost-efficiency. The intervention was an intensive behavioral modification program, using 18 group sessions in the first year and quarterly sessions thereafter, led by specially trained and certified nutritionists. The program was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing total fat to 20% of energy intake, increasing vegetables and fruits to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals. Comparison group participants received a copy of the US Department of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other health-related materials but were not asked to make dietary changes. Dietary intake was monitored using the WHI food frequency questionnaire at 1 year and in a rotating one-third subsample every year thereafter. Women completed a medical update questionnaire every 6 months, and medical records were sought for all women reporting colorectal cancer. The primary outcome was invasive colorectal cancer incidence. Participants in the calcium/vitamin D trial were randomized 1:1 to either supplements or placebo. Active tablets contained 500 mg of elemental calcium (as calcium carbonate) and 200 IU of vitamin D3, to be taken twice daily with meals. The presence and severity of symptoms, safety concerns, and outcomes were ascertained at annual clinic visits and telephone or clinic visits at intervening six-month intervals. Risk factors for fracture were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and clinical examination. The primary outcome was incidence of hip fracture. Participants in the observational study attended a baseline examination and were re-examined three years later. Participants completed annual updates of exposures and clinical outcomes by mail. Final data were collected by mail during the close-out period in April 2004 to March 2005. The major clinical outcomes of interest were coronary heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporotic fractures, diabetes, and total mortality. Most outcomes were initially ascertained by self-report on an annual questionnaire and documented by hospital and related records. Charts with potential cardiovascular, cancer, and fracture outcomes were sent to the local physician adjudicator for evaluation and classification. Staff at the Clinical Coordinating Center coded and adjudicated all cancers of major interest in the study using standardized SEER guidelines. In 2005, WHI participants were invited to join the Extension Study for an additional five years of follow-up in order to collect long-term outcomes. Participants completed annual data collection forms primarily by mail, similar to the OS follow-up. Women reporting study outcomes were contacted by WHI field center staff to obtain additional details and medical records, which were evaluated by physician adjudicators. In 2010, the woman remaining were invited to join the next Extension Study. In the second extension, women were divided into two groups, one of which would have outcomes documented with medical records (the Medical Records Cohort, MRC), and the other would just be followed by self-report (the Self-Report Cohort, SRC). The MRC consists of women who were in the hormone therapy trials, and all African-American and Hispanic women. In 2012-2013, a subset of the MRC was identified for a potential in-home visit to collect blood and several objective measures of physical functioning. Conclusions: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin after an average 5.2 year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women (Rossouw et al., 2002, PMID:12117397). Among postmenopausal women aged 65 years or older, estrogen plus progestin did not improve cognitive function when compared with placebo (Rapp et al., 2003, PMID: 12771113), increased the risk for probable dementia, and did not prevent mild cognitive impairment (Shumaker, et al., 2003, PMID: 12771112). The use of conjugated equine estrogen increased the risk of stroke, decreased the risk of hip fracture, and did not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy after an average of 6.8 years of follow-up (Anderson et al., 2004, PMID: 15082697). Over approximately 8 years of follow-up, a low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (Beresford, et al., PMID: 16467233). Calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density; however, no significant difference was observed in hip fractures (Jackson, et al., 2006, PMID: 16481635). A recent review summarizes the conclusions from the WHI clinical trials with a focus on clinical practice (Manson, et al., 2024, PMID: 38691368).Description of ECG Imaging Data: Electric cardiograms (ECGs) were given to all clinical trial participants at baseline and in years 3, 6, and 9 of the original WHI study.EKG data consist of 12 lead 10 seconds ECGS sampled at 500Hz via GE ECG machines and process via GE MUSE system. The ECG waveform were directly exported from GE MUSE using MUSE export function in XML format, which include EKG waveform data as well as other ECG characteristics. Waveform data is in base64 encoded format, when it is decoded, it is a binary data that can be used to draw waveform graph. Many programming languages and data tools have built in functions to decode base64 strings. All the other necessary information is included in the LeadData section, total byte size, total sample size etc. (usually 1 sample is 2 bytes). See example below: encoded-data (base64 encoded string) JwAoAC0AKAAiACIAJAAkACQAIwAiACIAHgAcABwAGwAZABgAGAAYABcAEwAQABAAEAAL^/AAsADAAM... decoded-binary-data (1 sample is 2 bytes) 270028002D002800220022002400240024002300220022001E001C001C001B00 1900180018001800170013001000100010000B000B000C000C000D000D000D00 0A000A000A0009000600040004000700070005000500020... These binary values are integers (Y axis data of the graph), hence it is a straightforward process to draw the waveform graph. Acquisition dates have been redacted from this ECG data to comply with WHI policy. All acquisition dates within files and in file names have been set to January 1, 1900 (19000101) to comply with this policy.

  Study phs003824

• How to upload GPG files

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

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/ftp

• California Pacific Medical Center Research Breast Health Cohort

  Description of Cohort: The California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Breast Health Cohort is a cohort study based at CPMC and is linked to the San Francisco Mammography Registry, one of the sites of the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). CPMC is a community hospital in San Francisco, which has one of the highest volumes for mammography in San Francisco. Between September 2004 and June 2007, &gt;90,000 mammograms were performed at CPMC. The CPMC breast health cohort collects demographic and risk factor data on women receiving mammography through participation in the San Francisco Mammography Registry, as part of the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). The SFMR database collects information from all sources, including a questionnaire on demographic and risk factor information, the clinical results of the breast examination, the measures of breast density by Dr. John Shepherd and the women who agreed to donate a blood sample. By merging these various sources of information we have very efficiently developed a large sample of women who have donated blood and have had a measure of mamographic density. Blood Collection: Dr. Steve Cummings is leading an effort to collect and archive blood samples from women who are receiving mammography screening. All women who are sent for a screening mammogram at CPMC are considered eligible. Since the cohort began collecting blood samples in July 2004 until June 2007, samples have been collected from over 11,000 women. Measurement of Breast Density: Dr. John Shepherd is currently measuring breast density in a large fraction of the cohort using an automated approach with single X-ray absorptiometry. Dr. Shepherd has established a link with the CPMC mammography center that allows him to collect routine digital mammography information. Using the data from the mammogram, Dr. Shepherd and his group have developed the single X-ray absorptiometry (SXA) technique for measuring density which is described in more detail below. The table demonstrates the distribution of demographic variables and some breast cancer risk factors of women who donated blood and had a breast density measurement in the CPMC breast health cohort. Nearly 80% of the participants are Caucasian and most of the women are post-menopausal with a median age of ~52. Since it will be difficult to accrue a large enough sample from each ethnic group, our study will focus only on Caucasian women. Table: Demographic variables, reproductive history and family history of breast cancer among 2962 women participating in the CPMC cohort study who contributed blood samples between 1994-1997. Variable Median/Percentage Age (Median/IQR) 52 (46-59) Ethnicity Caucasian/White 0.76 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.141 Hispanic 0.029 Mixed Race/Ethnicity 0.039 African American/Black 0.022 American Indian 0.001 Other 0.009 First degree relative with breast cancer 0.17 Age at first birth Nulliparous 0.39 Age&lt;20 0.043 Age&gt;40 0.032 Age&lt;30, &#8805;20 0.251 Age&gt;30, &#8804;40 0.282 Measurement of Breast Density in Cohort: Measurement of breast density is accomplished using an automated technique for all mammograms obtained by Dr. Shepherd using Single X-Ray absorptiometry (SXA). SXA measurement of breast density is done on approximately 30% of all screening mammograms. Below we describe the method for measurement of breast density by SXA by Dr. Shepherd&#39;s group and its validation and association with breast cancer. As we demonstrate below, breast density, as measured by SXA, is an automated, highly reproducible measure of the density of breast tissue and is associated with breast cancer risk. SXA for Quantifying Breast Density: Single x-ray absorptiometry (SXA) was initially developed for measuring bone density. SXA can determine the fraction of each of two densities simultaneously using the fact the sample is a constant thickness, the thickness in known, and the total attenuation is known. In applying this technique to breast density, we assume a two compartment model: fat and non-fatty (fibroglandular tissue). We use a reference material composed of various concentrations of two materials: one which is the same density as fat and another which is the same density as fibroglandular tissue. The reference material (phantom) is placed in the X-ray field with each mammogram. We have been able to implement this in a way that is unintrusive to the patient and technologist at CPMC. Assuming this two-compartment model and a constant known breast thickness, we can then calculate the percent density at any region of the breast based on the assumption that % pixel grey-scale is proportion to the mass fractions of breast fat and lean tissue. If reference materials (a phantom) of fat and fibroglandular tissue are imaged with the patient&#39;s breast and the reference materials have the same thickness as the patient&#39;s breast, then the breast&#39;s grey-scale values can be converted to fat/fibroglandular mass fractions by interpolating between those two references. The total percent density is found by averaging the volume fraction over all breast pixels. The phantom being used for breast density assessment at CPMC began to be used in September 2004. The phantom does not have to be manipulated by the technologist and stays attached on the mammography device during standard craniocaudal (CC) views. Thus it creates minimal to no interference with the clinical mammogram. Reproducibility of breast density measures: Traditional measures of mammographic density require some human interpretation. A human reader outlines the area perceived to be dense and a computer then calculates the percent area outlined as a percent of the entire image. Thus, while traditional mammographic density is associated with breast cancer risk, it has some limitations. In a study by Drs. Shepherd, Kerlikowske, et al., the correlation coefficient (Pearson&#39;s R) between different readers was 0.8-0.9. In contrast to the traditional mammographic density measurement, the SXA measurement is fully automated and, therefore, the reproducibility of the measurement is higher. Dr. Shepherd and colleagues have performed a replication study of SXA as a measurement of breast density. They have estimated the correlation coefficient of the SXA measurement of breast density to be &gt;0.98. Thus, as expected for an automated measure, SXA is a highly reproducible measure of mammographic breast density. Drs. Shepherd and Kerlikowske have recently analyzed the association between breast cancer risk and breast density as measured by SXA (Shepherd et al., Cancer Epi Biomarkers and Prev, 2011, PMID: 21610220). They found that women in the highest quintile of % volumetric density had an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% CI: 2.3 - 7.2) for breast cancer risk compared to women in the lowest quintile of volumetric density. Thus volumetric density appears to be a highly reproducible, automated measure of breast cancer.

  Study phs000395

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  Study Overview The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study is a longitudinal study that investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational events, childhood infections, dietary exposures, and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). A consortium of six clinical centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of the study to identify environmental triggers for the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. Beginning in 2004, the TEDDY study screened over 400,000 newborns for high-risk HLA-DR, DQ genotypes from both the general population and families already affected by T1D. The TEDDY study enrolled around 8,676 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) in the 15-year prospective follow-up. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody (IA) measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive participants continue to be followed at three month intervals and autoantibody negative participants are followed at six-month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection are performed at each visit. Parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. Additional information on the TEDDY study is available in the following articles: Rewers et al., 2008, PMID: 19120261 and Hagopian et al., 2006, PMID: 17130573. Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in Hagopian et al., 2011, PMID: 21564455. TEDDY data currently available in dbGaP include: gene expression, SNPs, exome, microbiome (gut, nasal, and plasma), RNA sequencing, and whole genome sequencing. For more information on TEDDY Study version history please refer to TEDDY Study dbGaP README File. ImmunoChip SNP DNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for SNP genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP array, which contains around 196,000 SNPs from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (Hadley et al., 2015, PMID: 26010309). Data cleaning and validation included the removal of subjects with a low call rate (&lt; 5% SNPs missing) and differences in reported sex and prior genotyping at the TEDDY HLA laboratory. Additionally, SNPs with a low call rate or Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value &lt; 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements, were removed from the final dataset (T&#246;rn et al., 2015, PMID: 25422107).TEDDY-T1DExome ArrayDNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the University of Virginia using the Illumina TEDDY-T1DExome array. The TEDDY-T1DExome array is a custom chip that contains 550,601 markers from the Infinium CoreExome-24 v1.1 BeadChip and an additional 90,214 tagSNPs specifically selected by the TEDDY investigators based on their associations with nutrients, vitamins, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune diseases, body-mass index, or other exposures and phenotypes measured by TEDDY study.The Illumina GenTrain2 algorithm was used for genotype calling. Sample quality control metrics included sample call rate, heterozygosity rate and concordance of gender between the information reported and genotyped. Gene Expression The TEDDY study collected peripheral blood for the extraction of total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA (200 ng) was further used for cRNA amplification and labeling with biotin using Target Amp cDNA synthesis kit (Epicenter catalog no. TAB1R6924). Labeled cRNA was hybridized to the Illumina HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChips based on the manufacturer's instructions. The HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChip provides coverage for more than 47,000 transcripts and known splice variants across the human transcriptome. Microbiome The TEDDY microbiome study aimed to characterize the longitudinal development of the microbiome, including bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms in the gut, plasma, and nasal cavity of prediabetic and diabetic subjects compared to autoantibody negative non-diabetic subjects. Stool samples used were collected monthly from 3 to 48 months, after which stool samples were collected every 3 months. Nasal swab samples were collected every 3 months starting at 9 months of age until 48 months, after which nasal swabs were collected every 6 months. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months starting at 3 months of age until 48 months, after which plasma samples were collected every 6 months. If the subject was autoantibody positive at 48 months then they remained on the 3 month collection interval for nasal swab and plasma samples. Samples underwent 16s rRNA gene sequencing, DNA and viral RNA metagenomics shotgun sequencing, and sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. Additional information on the TEDDY microbiome data is available in the following articles: Vatanen et al., 2018, PMID: 30356183, Stewart et al., 2018, PMID: 30356187, and Vehik et al., 2020, PMID: 31792456. RNA Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to characterize the transcriptome in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched control subjects. Peripheral blood was collected to extract total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA was then sent to the Broad Institute for the generation of the TEDDY RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data. The RNA samples were prepped using Superscript III reverse transcriptase and Illumina's TruSeq Stranded mRNA Sample Prep Kit. The TruSeq libraries were run on the Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. Whole Genome Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to conduct deep whole genome sequencing and examine the genomic variations in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched autoantibody negative and non-diabetic children. DNA from whole blood was obtained from TEDDY children for whole genome sequencing. The WGS data were generated on the Illumina HiSeq X Ten system.

  Study phs001442

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

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in June 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE Phase III (June 2015 - June 2020) consists of 10 study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. Included in this study are: Human Reference Consortium (HRC) single nucleotide variants and 1000 Genomes structural variants imputed array data of 105,108 eMERGE participants from nine Phase III study sites and three Phase II study site collaborators. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Case/control status for the following phenotypes: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection. Study sites and participants include: Boston Children&#39;s Hospital: The Gene Partnership (TGP) is a prospective longitudinal registry at Boston Children&#39;s Hospital (BCH) to study the genetic and environmental contributions to childhood health and disease, collect genetic information on a large number of children who have been phenotyped, and implement the Informed Cohort and the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB). The term "The Gene Partnership" reflects a partnership between researchers and participants. Children seen at BCH are offered enrollment, as are their parents and siblings. DNA is collected on all enrollees. BCH has a comprehensive EMR system, and virtually all inpatient and outpatient data are captured electronically. Clinical data in the BCH EMR is loaded in the i2b2 data warehouse which is available to investigators. Cases, phenotypes, and covariates are ascertained using the i2b2 database. Participants at BCH in TGP have consented to receive any research result and/or incidental finding that arises from studies using TGP that is approved by the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB) and is in accordance with the participants&#39;preferences;results are returned through the Personally Controlled Health Record (PCHR). BCH and Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) have partnered as the Pediatric Alliance for Genomic and Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Research (PAGER) site for the eMERGE Phase II network for pediatric institutions, and the cohort for eMERGE at BCH is TGP. Children&#39;s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children&#39;s Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic health records (EHRs). EHRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston&#39;s Children&#39;s Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a pediatric institution dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. CCHMC brings an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE III who are committed to gain a better understanding of the genesis of disease and to elucidate the mechanisms of diseases that afflict children, specifically pediatric disease phenotypes that will leverage the available eMERGE adult genomic data and electronic medical records (EMRs) to discover meaningful use results. Generation of EMR phenotype algorithms, informed by natural language processing, using heuristic and machine learning methods is ongoing. CCHMC has developed tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examined the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and developed clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. The success of these eMERGE III studies is enhanced by the ongoing institutional investment made in the CCHMC Biobank, the comprehensive EMR (EPIC), the i2b2 de-identified medical record data warehouse, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. Columbia University: Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian (CUMC/NYP) Hospital system is one of the nation&#39;s largest and most comprehensive hospital systems with over 2 million inpatient and outpatient yearly visits that serves a racially and ethnically diverse urban patient population. The Columbia University GENomic Integration with EHR (GENIE) research study contributed and shared phenotype and genotype data for individuals who were recruited as part of a diverse array of initiatives within the hospital, including Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS), Pediatric Cardiac Genomic Consortium (PCGC), Caribbean Hispanics with Familial and Sporadic Late Onset Alzheimer&#39;s disease (AD), Alzheimer&#39;s Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP), and Genetics of Chronic Kidney Disease study. Some of these individuals had kidney or neurological problems, some were healthy adult volunteers with self-reported health status information from the medically underserved Northern Manhattan community, and others were pediatric patients with cardiac conditions. For the kidney disease cohort, patients with the diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and healthy controls were recruited to the Columbia University CKD biobank. For the NOMAS cohort, eligible participants were stroke-free, were 40 years old, and resided for at least 3 months in a Northern Manhattan household with a telephone. The PCGC study recruited parent-offspring trios with pediatric probands diagnosed with congenital heart defects (CHD). For the Caribbean Hispanics with Alzheimer&#39;s disease project, individuals from families affected by AD and with sporadic AD were recruited, along with unrelated controls. Samples for the ADSP study have been selected from well-characterized cohorts of individuals with AD diagnosis. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Partners Health Care (Harvard): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people&#39;s health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women&#39;s Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women&#39;s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 60,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 100 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington with the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~8,073.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA&#39;s integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes n=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (n=1,002), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo Vascular Disease Biorepository is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval;this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was &#60;1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Case control study of venous thromboembolism (PI John Heit) Controls from a case control study of pancreatic cancer (PI Gloria Petersen) Mayo Clinic Biobank. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants&#39;DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: BioVU, Vanderbilt&#39;s DNA databank, was designed as an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt&#39;s EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations. BioVU is currently the largest single site DNA collection world-wide, at &#62;235,000 samples as of spring 2017.

  Study phs001584

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submissions. To start a new submission, click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase, you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only”, “Read & Write” or “Full Access”). Please note that to add a collaborator, they must also have a submitter role. When adding a collaborator, please enter the user’s full email address in the search field and select the user. For security reasons, the portal does not display partial matches, so the full email address must be entered.The collaborator option is available while the submission is open. In the event that the submission is closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you only need to make a small modification in any objects within the submission, for example, copy and paste a title or description of the submission. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on Add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv, and the sample will be created.Add a single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols, and machines. Experiments generate the connection between the samples and the study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments, and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample file linkage. Upload the run.csv, and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh.Add single run: select the file format, sample, and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded to your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF, and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA-specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). If you would like your dataset to be added to the cBioPortal instance, please review the cBioPortal documentation.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested, please delete them from your SFTP INBOX after finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more files to a closed submission, you will need to reopen the submission where the dataset is registered.Please note that you can only modify datasets that begin with the ID EGAD5XXXXXXX.  Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission ID (EGA0XXX). Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, simply register new metadata, such as runs or analyses, and the submission will automatically reopen and appear on the main page. You can also do a small edition, such as copying and pasting a title or description. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guide of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial, we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal

• 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 (Rivi&#232;re JB, Mirzaa GM, O&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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

• Genome-Wide Association Study of HCC in Non-Asian USA Population

  This GWAS of HCC relied on existing biological and data resources from 7 USA sites and one Canadian site which allows for the integration of genetic and environmental data. Total of 2199 case patients and 1103 non cancer controls were genotyped. Case patients are defined as patients with pathological or radiological diagnosis of HCC with and without chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Study was restricted to Caucasian population without prior infection with chronic HBV infection. All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood. Study population of the participated sites are: Site-1: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center A hospital based-case-control study was initiated at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2000 and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Study design was previously described in detailed (1-3). Written informed consent for an interview and for a biological sample was obtained from each participant. At time of diagnosis prior to treatment exposure. Case patients were recruited from the population of patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were evaluated and treated at the institution's gastrointestinal medical and surgical oncology outpatient clinics. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC, U.S. residency, and the ability to communicate in English. Patients with concurrent or past history of other types of cancers were excluded. Control subjects were healthy spouses of patients with cancers other than liver, gastrointestinal, lung, or head and neck (smoking-related cancers) undergoing treatment at our institution. Eligibility criteria for control subjects were the same as those for patients, except that control subjects could not have ever had cancer. A short, structured questionnaire was used to screen potential control subjects on the basis of eligibility criteria. Control subjects and patients were recruited simultaneously. Case patients and control subjects were interviewed by well-trained interviewers who followed a written protocol to guide ascertainment and reduce surveillance, interviewer, and recall bias. No proxy interviews were conducted. The interviewers used a structured and validated questionnaire to collect information about demographic characteristics and potential risk factors for HCC such as personal smoking history, alcohol use, medical history, occupational history, and family history of cancer. Blood samples from cases and controls were tested for HBV and HCV. HCV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen were detected by use of a third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL). Important clinical information were retrieved from patients' medical records. Total of 1188 case patients and 278 controls from MD Anderson study were genotyped. Site-2: Mayo Clinic Case patients and controls included in the study from Mayo clinic were recruited as part of Mayo International Hepatobiliary Neoplasia Register and Biorepository. Only USA patients and controls were participated. All cases and controls signed informed consent indicating their willingness to participate in genetic studies. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from participants and retrieved from medical records. Total of 522 HCC case patients and 182 controls were genotyped in this study. Site-3: Toronto University Molecular Epidemiology of Hepatobiliary Tumors (HBT study, CAPCR 09-0289) is a hospital-based study that includes 1710 patients diagnosed with liver, bile duct or gallbladder adenocarcinoma (Hepatocellular carcinoma - HCC; cholangiocarcinoma - CCA; and gall bladder adenocarcinoma -GBCa) recruited at University Health Network (UHN) between 2009 and 2018. HBT study is a prospective study of cancer patients that collects self-reported demographic and epidemiological data, medical records/clinical information and blood samples for research purposes. Eligible patients recruited between 2009 and March 15 2016 were selected to participate in the Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GWAS in HCC, CAPCR 15-9943-CE), a sub-study of the HBT study. Eligible prospective patients recruited after March 15 2016 signed the Addendum to the HBT consent form and became eligible to participate in the GWAS in HCC study. Total of 271 cases and 21 controls were genotyped from Toronto University Site-4: University of Pittsburgh The design of the study has been described previously (4-6). Briefly, this population-based study enrolled 120 HCC patients and 230 matched controls from black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white residents of Los Angeles County who were between 18 and 74 years of age at diagnosis from January 1995 through December 2001. HCC Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. We sought to recruit up to two control subjects per case from the neighborhoods where HCC patients resided at the time of diagnosis, who were matched to the index case by sex, age (within 5 years), and race (Hispanic white, non-Hispanic white, black). Blood samples (plasma and buffy coat), medical and lifestyle factors were collected from all consenting participants. Total of 65 cases and 60 controls were genotyped in this study Site-5: South Western Dallas Under IRB approval, HCC Cases and controls were prospectively collected since 2015 from the outpatient Liver clinics from Parkland Health and Hospital System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, two large health systems in Dallas TX. A Total of 31 cases and 29 controls were genotyped from site 5. Site-6: Columbia University HCC patients from Columbia are those recruited as part of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Database Shared Resource which seeks to recruit all cancer patients for potential future studies. The PI is Dr. Katherine Crew AAAL5871. This resource collects sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical data on patients as well as a blood sample. Those who indicated on their consent form that they would participate in genetic studies were included. Total of 79 case patients with HCC were genotyped from Columbia University. Site-7: University of Michigan The study population included from University of Michigan were included from a prospective study of with chronic HCV infection recruited in Ann Arbor Patients who had under- gone liver transplantation, known coinfection with HIV, life expectancy &lt;12 months due to extra-hepatic illnesses, or were receiving HCV treatment at enrolment, were excluded. Protocol, surveys, and data forms were developed where each enrolled patient completed the same questionnaire All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee at the University of Michigan. Detailed study description was previously published (7). Total of 44 cases and 347 controls were genotyped Site-8: Veteran Administration Medical Center in Houston This research including written informed consent form was jointly approved by Institutional Review Boards for the Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Study details have been previously published (8). Briefly, we prospectively recruited consecutive HCV-infected veterans prior to their previously scheduled HCV clinic visit at a large tertiary care VA medical center between May 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012. Patients completed a research assistant (RA) administered survey interrogating medical and risk factor history including lifetime alcohol use, had anthropometric measurements taken, and completed a fasting venipuncture for performance of the FibroSure-ActiTest as a measure of hepatic pathology. We restricted our current analysis to individuals who were: (1) White male veterans between 18 and 70 years; (2) had no history of HCC, liver transplant, decompensated liver disease including ascites, dementia, or psychosis; (3) were serologically-confirmed to have chronic HCV and to be negative for both HIV and active HBV infection; (4) were not currently receiving anti-HCV pharmacotherapy; and (5) had FibroSURE testing shown F3/F4 fibrosis consistent with cirrhosis.

  Study phs001744

• A Study to Assess the Cardiovascular, Cognitive, and Subjective Effects of Atomoxetine in Combination with Intravenous Methamphetamine

  The Study to Assess the Cardiovascular, Cognitive, and Subjective Effects of Atomoxetine in Combination with Intravenous Methamphetamine started in 2007 and ended in 2011. It was a small pilot study that included methamphetamine abusing individuals and healthy control participants aged 18-50 years. Participants who qualified over the telephone were scheduled to visit the London Laboratory at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior for the In-Person Screening Phase. The screening procedures, usually scheduled over two visits, determined if participants were eligible to complete the subsequent study visits. Both groups completed identical screening procedures, including a SCID diagnostic interview to rule out any major psychiatric disorders. Methamphetamine users also answered questionnaires specific to their drug use. Urine toxicology for marijuana, opiates, cocaine, methamphetamine, and benzodiazepines were monitored at the beginning and throughout the study. Additionally, participants had blood samples to test for Rapid Plasma Reagin (exposure to syphilis), purified protein derivative (PPD), HIV and Hepatitis-C (HCV). Positive test results were relayed by a study physician and resulted in termination from continuing in the study. The inpatient portion of the study lasted a total of 24 days. To confirm compliance with abstinence from illicit and prescription drug use for the duration of the study, urine and breath alcohol testing was performed for both inpatient (methamphetamine users) and outpatient (healthy control) groups. Each subject was randomized to receive either atomoxetine (80 mg daily) or placebo. During inpatient days of the study, a study physician oversaw research subjects daily and experimental procedures were conducted in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC). During drug administration sessions, heart rate and blood pressure were assessed at frequent intervals. Experimental sessions lasted around three hours and were conducted at approximately the same time of day for a given participant. Lunch was provided to participants at 11:30am with the prohibition of caffeine on study days involving methamphetamine administration. Participants were provided with smoke breaks as needed to assure that acute nicotine withdrawal did not negatively impact performance on cognitive testing. The following outlines the day to day procedures for a methamphetamine inpatient: Phase I Inpatient Study (15 days total) Days 1-3: On the day of admission, participants received blood tests and an EKG in order to determine that they had no occult medical conditions which would make their participation in the study medically contraindicated. A three day washout period was provided at the beginning of the study to establish an appropriate methamphetamine-free baseline for testing. Days 4-6: Participants completed cognitive test batteries to assess inhibitory control including self-report measures and cognitive testing, as well as up to three MRI scanning sessions. Day 7: On day 7, at 9AM and 1PM, participants received methamphetamine in a single-blinded condition. It was administered as two IV infusions of 15mg separated by a 60min break. The total dose of IV methamphetamine was 30mg. Participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in the absence of study medication. Day 8: On day 8 we evaluated the safety and residual effects of the methamphetamine administered on the previous day. Days 9-10: After demonstrating medical and psychiatric stability of the initial methamphetamine infusion, participants were then randomized to receive placebo or atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) under double-blind conditions, which would be given at 8AM on both study days. Days 11-12: On days 11 and 12, participants remained in the GCRC and took two doses of test compound atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) at 8AM and 8PM. On the morning of day 12, participants completed a series of cognitive testing. Day 13: On day 13, participants remained in the GCRC, and took two doses of the test compound atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) at 8AM and 8PM. At 9AM and noon, they received methamphetamine under double-blind conditions administered non-contingently as two infusions of 0 or 15mg by IV (intravenously), with each infusion separated by 60min. The total dose of IV methamphetamine that each participant received was 30mg. As before, participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in those participants receiving study medication. Day 14: On day 14 at 8AM, participants received their final dosing of the first test compound (atomoxetine 0 or 40mg). At 9AM and 1PM, participants selected between methamphetamine infusion or money using double-blind conditions in a multiple-choice self-administration paradigm. Participants were able to take up to two infusions of 0 or 15mg of methamphetamine, separated by 60min. The total dose of IV methamphetamine that each participant received on day 14 was 30mg. Participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in those participants receiving study medication. At 5pm on day 14 discharge laboratory studies were drawn. Day 15: On day 15, a final EKG was performed as well as a review of discharge laboratory studies, including review of the EKG and continued medical and psychiatric stability. Upon clearance from a physician, participants were discharged on day 15. Participants spent at least 2 weeks (14 days) out of the hospital prior to returning to the UCLA GCRC for inpatient Phase II. Phase II Inpatient Study (9 days total) Day 1-2: On the day of re-admission, participants received blood tests and an EKG. A two day washout period was provided at the beginning of the study to establish an appropriate methamphetamine free condition for safe administration of the second test compound condition. Days 3-4: On days 3 and 4, given medical stability, participants were then switched to the opposite test compound (atomoxetine 0 or 40mg) under double-blind conditions, in the same manner as in Days 9-10 in Phase I. Days 5-6: Same procedure as in Days 11-12 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 7: Same procedure as in Day13 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 8: Same procedure as in Day14 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 9: Same procedure as in Day14 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. For healthy control participants, the study consisted of 30 days or fewer of out-patient testing. Healthy control participants had an extensive screening, including a history and physical exam performed by a study physician, an EKG, and laboratory studies performed to assess for medical or psychiatric conditions. Control participants meeting criteria were invited back to UCLA to undergo cognitive testing, and some participants received fMRI scans. Participants were required to refrain from illicit and prescription drug use for the duration of the study, which was confirmed with urine toxicology and breath alcohol level testing on examination days. Caffeine was restricted on study days for least 2 hours prior to cognitive testing and MRI scans. Participants were permitted to drink their normal daily intake of caffeine, given the caveat above. On study days, cigarette smoking was permitted to match conditions used with methamphetamine users. The incorporation of smoke breaks during the test day assured that acute nicotine withdrawal did not negatively impact performance on cognitive tests or neuroimaging. The following outlines procedures for healthy control participants: For normal controls, participation involved one day of outpatient screening, and one day of baseline cognitive testing and possible MRI scans. After these procedures were completed, participants were randomized to the first test compound (atomoxetine 40mg or placebo), to be taken once daily in the morning for 2 days. It was then increased to twice daily for the next 3 days, followed by a final dose (40mg or placebo) on the sixth day of study medication. Participants were also asked to bring their pill packages to assess compliance with the study medication. Additionally, control participants completed a series of repeated-measures cognitive testing (on placebo or atomoxetine, respectively) and possibly two fMRI sessions (separated by a short break). After at least a four-day washout period, control participants were instructed to start the opposite test compound (atomoxetine 40mg or placebo), again to be taken once daily in the morning for two days, then twice daily for 3 days, reaching the final dose (40mg or placebo) of the second test compound in the morning. Participants were again asked to bring their pill packages to assess compliance and had blood drawn to assess atomoxetine levels. Control participants then completed another series of cognitive testing and fMRI testing sessions. They were subsequently discharged from the study. Normal control participants returned two weeks after completion of both study phases in order to complete assessments to their physical and psychological status following treatment.

  Study phs001195