17303 results for "fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is EA Sports official for FC 26 coins They are definitely a top seller..rG5l"

in 16.88 milliseconds.

• NIHR BioResource Common Disease Patients 2016

  NIHR BioResource Common Disease Patients 2016. The dataset includes 13489 samples from blood donors, they were not screened for any particular disease, and therefore they are representative of the general population. Genomic data includes 845487 snps collected using the UK BioBank V1 Affymetrix array. Phenotypic data includes gender, age, ethnicity and disease. According to our internal quality check there are 81 duplicates in this dataset.

  Dataset EGAD00010002059

• Grady Trauma Project (GTP)

  Not everyone exposed to traumatic experience develops Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Genetic background is one of the predisposing risk factors causing differential outcomes of trauma exposure. A primary goal of the Grady Trauma Project (GTP) is to pinpoint and understand genetic polymorphisms that contribute to development of PTSD. Both PTSD diagnosis binary labels and PTSD severity scores are studied as target phenotypes. Also, both candidate gene studies and genome-wide association studies are performed. Besides genetic variants, other measurements that are studied as risk factors for PTSD include lifetime history of trauma and peri-traumatic response. Study participants are primarily African American, trauma-exposed populations of low socioeconomic status recruited from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta.

  Study phs002046

• Genomic Alterations in Gingivo-buccal Cancer: ICGC-India Project_YR02

  As a part of the ICGC, India has undertaken genomic studies on gingivobuccal cancer of the oral cavity, which is the most prevalent form of cancer among men in India. There are various known environmental (life-style) correlates of this cancer, the most important of which are tobacco chewing and HPV infection. Paired DNA samples – isolated from the tumour tissue and from the blood of fifty six patients – have been analyzed to catalog germline and somatic mutations. Association between each observed genomic alteration and exposure to environmental risk factors is being explored.Detailed clinical characterization of the patients, collection of data on demographic and environmental exposures, and isolation of DNA samples from blood and tumour tissues collected from each patient are being done at the Advanced Centre for Research, Treatment and Education on Cancer, Mumbai. Exome capture and deep resequencing are being performed at the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani. We have analyzed the exomes of paired blood and tumour DNA samples using exome capture by Illumina TrueSeq Exome Enrichment kit followed by sequencing on Illumina HiSeq-2000. Each exome is being sequenced at a mean depth of 70x for Tumour and 40x for Blood. In addition, we have used Illumina Omni 2.5 SNP-chips to generate genotype data.

  Study EGAS00001001028

• Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) Project: QRS Duration

  An important potential enabling resource for Personalized Medicine is the combination of a DNA repository with Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems sufficiently robust to provide excellence in clinical care and to serve as resources for analysis of disease susceptibility and therapeutic outcomes across patient populations. The Vanderbilt EMR is a state of the art clinical and research tool (that includes >1.7 million records), and is associated with a DNA repository which has been in development for over 3 years; these are the key components of VGER, the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records project, a part of NHGRI's eMERGE network. The VGER model acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care, and can link these to de-identified data extracted and readily updated from the EMR. The phenotype we analyze here is the QRS duration on the electrocardiogram, since slow conduction (indicated by longer QRS duration) is a marker of arrhythmia susceptibility.

  Study phs000188

• Myeloid-specific KDM6B inhibition sensitizes Glioblastoma to PD1 blockade

  This data set include FASTQ files for five experiments: Human scRNA-Seq data (6 samples), Human Visium spatial transcriptomic data (3 samples), Mouse scRNA-seq data (4 samples), Mouse scATAC-seq data (2 samples), Mouse ChIP-seq data (8 samples). For the mouse scATAC-seq data (2 samples), there are originally three FASTQ files, R1, R2 and R3 files. The R1 and R2 FASTQ files were merged into one larger file ("R1R2") per sample for submission as paired-end sequencing setting to follow the EGA guidelines. They can be split into individual R1 and R2 files in order to be processed by Cell Ranger software. The files with IC1 suffix are CHIP-seq Input control for anti-KDM6B antibody pull down experiments and the files with IC2 suffix are CHIP-seq Input control for anti-H3K27ME3 antibody pull down experiments in murine model.

  Dataset EGAD00001010073

• Dual targeting of polyamine synthesis and uptake in diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas

  Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is an incurable malignant childhood brain tumour, with no active systemic therapies and a 5-year survival of less than 1%. Polyamines are small organic polycations that are essential for DNA replication, translation and cell proliferation. Ornithine decarboxylase 1 (ODC1), the rate limiting enzyme in polyamine synthesis, is irreversibly inhibited by difluoromethylornithine (DFMO). Herein we show that polyamine synthesis is upregulated in DIPG, leading to sensitivity to DFMO. DIPG cells compensate for ODC1 inhibition by upregulation of the polyamine transporter SLC3A2. Treatment with the polyamine transporter inhibitor AMXT 1501 reduced uptake of polyamines in DIPG cells, and co-administration of AMXT 1501 and DFMO led to potent in vitro activity, and significant extension of survival in three aggressive DIPG orthotopic animal models. Collectively, these results demonstrate the potential of dual targeting of polyamine synthesis and uptake as a therapeutic strategy for incurable DIPG.

  Study EGAS00001004905

• 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. 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

• Identification of Modifiers of 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome in Whole Genome Sequence - CIDR

  This project aims to identify genetic modifiers of congenital heart disease (CHD), which occurs among 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS; also known as DiGeorge syndrome/velo-cardio-facial syndrome) patients. In contrast to the prevalence of ~0.8% in the general population, about 60%-70% of 22q11.2DS patients have CHD, of which most are conotruncal heart defects, making 22q11.2DS a very ideal model to study the genetic underpins of CHD. The chromosome 22q11.2 region is susceptible to meiotic chromosome rearrangements leading to hemizygous deletions, because there are large blocks of low copy repeats, termed LCR22s, that are dispersed in the region. Non-allelic homologous recombination during meiosis can lead to specific-sized deletions. Approximately 90% have a typical hemizygous 3 million base pair (Mb) deletion between LCR22-A and -D, while some have nested deletions between LCR22-A and B or LCR22-A and C. Our goal is to perform a case-control association study, in which cases have CHD, while controls have normal heart structures, all with 22q11.2DS. All individuals are unrelated and have been collected from collaborators in the US, Canada and Europe. All subjects received a clinical diagnosis of 22q11.2DS and signed informed consent to allow a blood sample to be collected for research. The DNA samples were de-identified in 2 steps to protect their privacy. We then determined deletion type using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). This information is provided for the great majority of subjects. We also obtained cardiac phenotype information from echocardiogram reports as well as reported race and ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic information), which is required for the analysis. We will obtain 30X whole-genome sequence data from NIH CIDR. We will first annotate the sequence variants identified to uncover rare ( For genotype data, we will provide the raw fastq data from whole-genome sequencing as well as the called variants file in a VCF file. For phenotype data, we will provide the sample relationship files (ped files), CHD affection status, deletion type, and race.

  Study phs002514

• Best Practices for DACs

  Best Practices Data access committees (DACs) are institutional safeguards responsible for ensuring a balance between data protection and accessibility. However, there are no procedural standards that apply across DACs, which can lead to inconsistencies in their reviews and compromise their quality and effectiveness. Standardising DAC processes can foster trust and mutual recognition, paving the way for greater coordination, collaboration, and delegation between DACs and other oversight bodies to improve the efficiency of data access without sacrificing protection. To provide guidance, the following are suggestions for actions a DAC might take upon receiving a data access request: Aim to respond to all initial requests in less than 2 weeks. Failure to do so may result in follow-up emails from the EGA, journals, and ultimately dataset withdrawal. First, check that the data/EGAD number is consistent with your data submission. In other words, ensure that the requester has contacted the correct DAC. Verify that the user will be using the data within the terms of consent by asking them to sign up to the terms within the DAA. Ensure that data users who are granted access to the data comply with the terms of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and to use the data only in approved ways. Look for an institutional email address for the requester. Search for evidence that the requester is "appropriately qualified/bona fide" for using the data, for example on PubMed, Research Gate, LinkedIn, etc. Confirm that the affiliated organisation is real and that the requester still works there. Inquire with the requester about who should have accounts created at the EGA under the terms of the agreement. If a negative decision is made, promptly communicate it to the requester and support it with the terms of the Data Access Policy that the requester has not met or cannot meet. Keep the information in the DAC up to date. If you leave your institution and are unable to manage data access requests on their behalf, you should add your replacement as a new contact in the DAC. Assist with data access requests for any further questions related to your data. The EGA can only check information that has been deposited in the repository. If the user has a specific question that the EGA cannot answer, we will redirect the user to the DAC. All the EGA studies and datasets referenced in a publication under your DAC must be publicly searchable on the EGA website before the paper is released. If possible, describe the permitted purposes for subsequent research projects, including associated limits and conditions, for all resources hosted in a repository using a common ontology, such as the GA4GH Data Use Ontology (DUO). It is considered best practice to try and release data only to those with an institutional email address. This gives reassurance to the EGA, research participants, and the general public that an appropriate individual is accessing and using the data. 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.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/best-practices

• Whole Exome and Target Sequencing Data in 75 Samples from 5 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients.

  Whole Exome and Target Sequencing Data in 75 Samples from 5 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. The sequencing was performed by Illumina HiSeq 4000. Background and aims: Intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) challenges identifying mutations with target therapy potential whereas circulating cell-free DNAs (cfDNAs) could reflect nearly the entire mutation spectrum in given tumors. We investigated how to minimize the limit of ITH for profiling hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods: Thirty-two multi-regional HCC samples from five patients were subjected to whole exome sequencing (WES) and targeted deep sequencing (TDS). ITH extent was measured by the average percentage of non-ubiquitous mutations (present in parts of tumor regions). Matched cfDNAs were also analyzed by WES and TDS. Profiling efficiencies of single tumor specimen and cfDNA were compared and the one better depicted mutational landscape was selected to screen therapeutic targets.Results: We found variable extents of ITH in HCCs and observed branched and parallel evolution patterns. ITH level decreased at higher sequencing depth of TDS than that measured by WES (28.1% vs 34.9%, P < 0.01) but it remained unchanged upon additional samples analyzed. TDS of single tumor specimen detected an average of 70% the total mutations in HCC. Although more mutations were detected in cfDNA under TDS than WES, an average of 47.2% total HCC mutations uncovered by cfDNA suggested tissue outperform cfDNA and the latter may serve as alternative in profiling HCC genome. Consequently, TDS of single tumor tissue in 66 patients and cfDNAs in four unresectable HCCs identified 38.6% (26/66 and 1/4) patients bearing therapeutic targets.Conclusions: TDS of single tumor specimen could largely circumvent ITH to uncover mutations indicative of target therapy in HCC.

  Dataset EGAD00001003278