17300 results for "fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins They are definitely a top seller..rG5l"

in 25.97 milliseconds.

• Renal Cell Carcinoma Tumors From S-TRAC trial (NCT00375674) Exome Sequencing

  We report a comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis of tumor samples from 171 patients at high risk for recurrent renal cell carcinoma post nephrectomy from the S-TRAC trial (NCT00375674). We identify gene expression signatures, including STRAC11 (derived from the sunitinib-treated population). The overlap in key elements captured in these gene expression signatures, which include genes representative of the tumor stroma microenvironment, regulatory T cell, and myeloid cells, suggests they are likely to be both prognostic and predictive of the anti-angiogenic effect in the adjuvant setting. These signatures also point to the identification of potential therapeutic targets for development in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma, such as MERTK and TDO2. Finally, our findings suggest that while anti-angiogenic adjuvant therapy might be important, it may not be sufficient to prevent recurrence and other factors such as immune response and that tumor environment may be of greater importance.

  Study EGAS00001006529

• High-coverage whole-genome sequencing reveals structural variations in triple-negative breast cancer

  Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells do not express estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Currently, apart from poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, there are few effective therapeutic options for this cancer type. Here, we present a comprehensive characterization of genetic alterations in TNBC via high-coverage whole-genome sequencing along with transcriptomic and whole-exome sequencing. Silencing of BRCA1 gene impaired the homologous recombination (HR) pathway in a subset of TNBC, which exhibited similar phenotypes with tumors with BRCA1 mutations; they harbored many structural variations (SVs) with relative enrichment for tandem duplication. Clonal analysis suggested that TP53 mutations and methylation of CpG dinucleotides in the BRCA1 promoter were the early events of carcinogenesis. SVs were associated with driver oncogenic events such as amplification of MYC, NOTCH2 or NOTCH3 and impacted tumor suppressor genes including RB1, PTEN and KMT2C. We also identified a variety of oncogenes that could transform 3T3 mouse fibroblast cells, suggesting that individual TNBC tumors may undergo a unique driver event that can be targetable. Thus, we revealed several features of TNBC that had important clinical implications.

  Study JGAS000095

• Characterization of a human iPSC-derived islet differentiation model

  To explore the contribution of islet development to T2D pathogenesis, we characterised the transcriptomes of 3 human iPSC lines (from independent donors) differentiated along the islet development lineage. Whole transcriptome RNA-seq was performed at 7 developmental stages: definitive endoderm, primitive gut tube, posterior foregut (PF), pancreatic endoderm, endocrine progenitors, endocrine-like cells, and beta-like cells (BLC). Differentially-expressed (ΔExp) genes were assigned to the stage in which they were most upregulated (versus baseline iPSC profile), and used to assess the enrichment of T2D GWAS genes, as well as to predict the upstream transcription factors at each developmental stage.We found 9409 ΔExp genes across all stages, including known markers of islet development (NEUROG3, INS). Genes ΔExp in the most-differentiated (BLC) stage were significantly enriched for genes within the 99% credible sets of T2D GWAS loci. Despite this enrichment in BLC only, over 70% of genes mapping within the credible sets were ΔExp before this stage, highlighting the relevance of key T2D GWAS genes in islet development: e.g. expression of TCF7L2 peaked during the PF stage (log2FC=1.2; q=8.5×10-10). REST and LMNA are also highlighted by the analyses as having a potential function in islet development, considering their pattern of expression and those of the genes they regulate. Transcriptomic signatures derived from this iPSC differentiation model highlight T2D-associated GWAS loci, monogenic diabetes genes and potential master regulators of gene networks with plausible function in islet development. All these provide clues for developmental mechanisms contributing to T2D diabetes pathology.

  Study EGAS00001002721

• Genotype calls (vcf files)

  Genotype calls for 83 Aboriginal Australian genomes split by chromosomes. In short, genotypes were called individually with samtools. They were subsequently filtered with thresholds related to sequencing depth, location of variants, sequencing error, and strand bias. Once combined, the genotypes were filtered when not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The genomes were phased with IMPUTE using the 1000 Genomes reference panel. NB: for the Y chromosomes​, only the 44 Aboriginal Australian males are included.

  Dataset EGAD00001004155

• 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

• Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program in Pediatric T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

  The outcome for patients with relapsed T-ALL is dismal with 3-year event free survival of AALL0434 was a Children's Oncology Group-initiated phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing Capizzi-style escalating methotrexate plus pegaspargase (CMTX) vs. high dose methotrexate (HDMTX), with/without six 5-day courses of nelarabine. Survival on this study was superior to any prior trial for de novo T-ALL, changing the standard of care. Yet, a substantial minority (~15%) of patients had relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease. Through the TARGET initiative, RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), DNA copy number analysis, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) were performed on 264 T-ALL patients treated on AALL0434, demonstrating recurrent alterations could be grouped into 10 different potentially targetable functional pathways. This analysis was not powered to examine associations between genetic lesions with outcome, because too few patients with r/r disease were included. This project is dedicated to testing the hypothesis that comprehensive genomic profiling of the entire AALL0434 cohort will identify recurrent genetic alterations that can be segregated into biologically relevant deregulated pathways that can be combined with MRD to identify patients at risk for poor outcomes before they relapse and provide rationale for treatment with alternative therapies. In addition, a number of small recent studies demonstrated that many of the biologically relevant alterations in T-ALL occur in non-coding regions of the genome, but no large studies have performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) in T-ALL. This project also tests the hypothesis that WGS of a large cohort of patients with T-ALL will identify novel lesions in coding and non-coding regions that will be highly impactful in the understanding of T-ALL pathogenesis.These hypotheses are tested by performing comprehensive genomic profiling (WGS, WES, RNA-Seq, and copy number analysis) of the entire AALL0434 cohort with available samples with the following specific aims: (1) identify recurrent genetic alterations that predict poor outcome in T-ALL; (2) identify novel alterations, including non-coding alterations in T-ALL; and (3) identify germline genetic variants that predispose to T-ALL and to increased toxicity to chemotherapy.

  Study phs002276

• 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

• Distinct portrayal of lesions in synchronous multifocal lung adenocarcinoma revealed by genome sequencing

  Distinguishing multiple primary lung cancers in the synchronous multifocal intrapulmonary lesions has important significance on clinical staging and therapeutic decision. To investigate genomic aberration profiles, we applied whole genome and whole exome sequencing, and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization on 15 intrapulmonary tumors derived from six patients with synchronous multifocal lung cancers having similar histological diagnosis. Any pair of intrapulmonary tumors in a single patient, which shared the identical genetic background and environment, showed an extinctive heterogeneity between each other. Phylogenetic relationship analysis indicated an independently branched evolution among all the tumors, suggesting they were multiple primary lung cancers. EGFR or KRAS mutations were found in 7 or 3 out of the 15 tumors, from 3 or 2 patients, respectively. Somatic mutational heterogeneity of these two genes in a single patient was also observed. Our analysis indicates genomic aberration profiling is valuable for identification of multiple primary lung cancer, especially when high histopathological concordance was observed between lesions. We also suggest a thoroughly molecular diagnosis against therapeutic target genes should be taken for each accessible nodule before making a plan for adjuvant therapy.

  Study EGAS00001001572

• Kids First: Genomic Etiologies of CHARGE Syndrome, Related Conditions and Structural Anomalies

  Developmental disorders with structural birth defects account for the majority of morbidity and mortality in children's hospitals, and the genetic bases of many clinical phenotypes remain unknown. Genetic testing for individuals with structural malformations has uncovered the basis of many such birth defects; however, many more cases remain unsolved, posing challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Multiple anomaly conditions are particularly challenging to diagnose, since they often present with unique combinations of clinical features that vary widely between affected individuals, even in the same family. CHARGE Syndrome (Coloboma of the eye, Heart Defects, Atresia of the choanae, Retardation of growth and development, Genital abnormalities including pubertal delay and infertility, Ear abnormalities with deafness and vestibular disorders) is a multiple anomaly condition that affects a wide variety of organ systems. CHARGE Syndrome is caused in most cases by monoallelic pathogenic variants in CHD7, the gene encoding ATP-dependent helicase chromodomain DNA binding protein 7. Both de novo and inherited variants in CHD7 have been reported in CHARGE, and a growing number of families present with individuals who test positive for a pathogenic CHD7 variant yet exhibit only mild features. Similarly, individuals with CHARGE Syndrome often exhibit broad variability and reduced penetrance of clinical features, consistent with pleiotropic roles for CHD7 during development and/or additional genetic contributors or modifying alleles. Recent work has also implicated RERE, KMT2D, EP300, and PUF60 in having a role in CHARGE Syndrome.We hypothesize that (1) some cases of CHARGE are due to other genetic etiologies including oligogenicity, and (2) genetic modifiers contribute to the broad clinical variability and reduced penetrance of CHARGE features. To address these hypotheses, we have generated a cohort of 223 deeply clinically phenotyped individuals with CHARGE Syndrome and related disorders and structural anomalies who tested negative by chromosomal microarray, single gene sequencing, next generation panel sequencing, or exome sequencing. These individuals exhibit clinical CHARGE-like features including structural birth defects affecting craniofacial, ocular, neurosensory, brain, heart, mediastinal, renal, genitourinary, and skeletal organs. Our cohort includes these 223 individuals as well as affected and unaffected family members who consented to clinical and research genetic testing and donated blood samples for DNA and RNA isolation and sequencing. Building on this valuable cohort, we propose to use exome and genome sequencing to identify novel genetic etiologies of CHARGE and related developmental disorders for which alternative genetic tests have been inconclusive. Identification of novel pathogenic genetic variants and contributing modifier alleles within the coding and non-coding portion of the genome of these individuals will improve genetic diagnosis and provide important insights toward understanding the developmental mechanisms of structural birth defects.

  Study phs002592

• GOSH_Childhood_Leukemia_Behjati_WellcomeCore_RNA

  Paediatric single-cell archival project This project is taking sequential samples of children with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) between 2011 and the present day. Patients selected, are those that have done badly (e.g. had to escalate treatment, relapsed or died) despite having apparently ""good"" or ""intermediate"" risk cytogenetics, and often also had immunotherapy (e.g., the bi-specific T-cell engager blinatumomab) because of this. Using samples from key treatment-points, we hope to better characterise their disease and treatment response, to re-define understandings of risk for patients who did unexpectedly poorly. Additionally, we hope to define the disease/immunological factors that determine response to increasingly used immunotherapies within the field of paediatric B-ALL. Each of the samples will be viably frozen bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells. They will come in Eppendorf's, frozen and de-anonymised, from GOSH. We plan to primarily do single cell analysis (GEX, BCR +/-TCR), and then tumour-only WGS and bulk-RNA expression on left-over

  Study EGAS00001007616