461 results for "fc 26 coins sale Besök Buyfc26coins.com Perfekt för att uppgradera mitt Ultimate Team..nc1F"

in 12.40 milliseconds.

• 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

• Clonal selection after gene therapy in sickle cell disease

  While gene therapy (GT) provides a potentially curative treatment option for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), the occurrence of myeloid malignancies in clinical trials has prompted concern. To interrogate potential mechanisms underlying increased cancer risk, we used hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) clonal tracking by whole genome sequencing (WGS) to map the somatic mutation and clonal landscape of 2,592 gene modified as well as unmodified single stem and progenitor cells from six SCD patients undergoing gene therapy (7-26 years old, average 12.7× depth). Pre-GT phylogenetic trees in SCD were highly polyclonal and mutation burdens per cell were elevated in some, but not all, patients. Post-GT, no clonal expansions were identified. However, an increased frequency of driver mutations associated with myeloid neoplasms or clonal hematopoiesis (DNMT3A- and EZH2-mutated clones in particular) were seen in both genetically modified and unmodified cells suggested positive selection of mutant clones during gene therapy. This work sheds light on the mutation landscape and HSC clonal dynamics in gene therapy for SCD and highlights enhanced fitness of some HSCs harboring pre-existing driver mutations following gene therapy. Future studies should define the long-term fate of mutant clones including any contribution to expansions associated with myeloid neoplasms.

  Dataset EGAD00001010913

• 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

• Genes and Blood Clotting Study (GABC)

  Objectives: Use genome-wide approaches to identify genetic variants that influence common thrombosis and hemostasis factors, as well as selected common human traits. Design/Methods: The GABC study was a prospective sibling cohort design. Siblings were recruited by targeted email to the undergraduate and graduate student email lists at the University of Michigan. Healthy persons between 14 and 35 years old who had healthy siblings within the same age restriction were able to participate. Study participants agreed to an online informed consent and subsequently completed a 52-question online survey describing their specific bleeding traits as well as many common human traits. Fifty milliliters of blood was collected into a citrate-dextrose solution (ACD) from each participant. An aliquot of whole blood was used for an automated complete blood count analysis and the remainder was processed into platelet poor plasma and buffy coat portions. Plasma and buffy coat aliquots were snap frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen for future studies. 1189 individuals representing 507 sibships were collected between 06/26/2006 and 01/30/2009. Phenotyping Survey Details: To characterize individual bruising and bleeding history, the online survey recorded answers to questions based on a modified von Willebrand Disease (VWD) screening questionnaire. To characterize a collection of participant's common human traits, the survey recorded answers to questions about height, weight, presence of skin tags, history of acne, eye color, hair color, hair line characteristics, skin sunburn sensitivity, skin tanning ability, natural skin color, freckling, cheek dimpling, earlobe shape, shoe size, foot arch characteristics, hand fifth digit morphology, history of dyslexia, history of migraine headaches, history of seasonal allergies, history of apthous ulcers, tendency to sneeze while walking into a bright sunny place, history of dental caries, need for corrective eye lenses, handedness and like or dislike of strongly flavored foods. Biochemical phenotyping: Assays for plasma Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) antigen were performed using ELISA and "Alphalisa" techniques. Automated complete blood count analysis was performed on a Bayer Advia 120 on all participants (including WBC differential, RBC indices, and platelet count.) For the dbGaP v2 update, new biochemical phenotypes have been submitted and include von Willebrand Factor, von Willebrand Factor propeptide, plasminogen, gamma prime fibrinogen, ADAMTS 13, antithrombin III, protein C, and protein S. All new phenotypes were obtained using "Alphalisa" techniques. Genotyping Details: SNP genotyping was performed using genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood at the Broad Institute, (MIT/Harvard). Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Omni-1 quad chip at the Broad Institute. For the dbGaP v2 update, genotyping data from the Illumina Human Exome was deposited. 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 blood clotting through large-scale genome-wide association studies of siblings. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization was performed by the primary investigators at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. This study serves as a resource for investigators who are interested in the genetic determinants of specific plasma proteins in a healthy population. The sibling cohort design allows for linkage analysis in addition to association studies. Analysis of thrombosis and hemostasis related traits should help elucidate specific biochemical and genetic networks that maintain hemostasis. We hope to identify specific genetic determinants of VWF levels in order to better understand the factors that influence the development of VWD.

  Study phs000304

• Whole Genome Scan for Pancreatic Cancer Risk in the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanScan)

  Within the framework of the NCI-sponsored Cohort Consortium, investigators from 12 prospective epidemiologic cohorts formed the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium in 2006. This study, also known as "PanScan", is funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and involves conducting a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of common genetic variants to identify markers of susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. In 2007, the study was expanded to include 8 case-control studies. The study team includes scientists from the cohorts comprising the Consortium, the NCI and the Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4). PanScan I and II were conducted in 12 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies, leading to the discovery of four novel regions in the genome associated with risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The third phase of PanScan (PanScan III) was conducted using recently identified incident pancreatic cancer cases drawn from fourteen cohorts from the cohort consortium, including nine prospective cohorts who participated in PanScan I, and five newly joined cohorts. The nine cohort studies that participated in PanScan I and had new genotyping of cases in PanScan III include ATBC, CPS-II, EPIC, HPFS, NHS, PHS, PLCO, SMWHS, and WHI; the five newly joined cohort studies include the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC), the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS), the Vitamins and Lifestyle Study (VITAL), and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). In addition to the cases from cohorts, we also included cases from the Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Study (DFCI-GCC); from the University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany, which is part of a larger European clinical case-control study (PANDoRA); and from clinic-based cases from eastern Spain (PANKRAS-II). The dbGaP datasets available include all subjects previously made available from PanScan I and II, plus 1,582 new incident pancreatic cancer cases of European descent from prospective cohorts, case-control studies or case series (genotyped as part of PanScan III). Also included are 61 pancreatic cancer cases and 67 control subjects from PanScan I as well as 173 pancreatic cancer cases from PanScan III of Asian ancestry from the Shanghai Men's and Women's Health Study (Supplemental Table 10, Wolpin et al. (Nat Genet, 2014)). The control population used in the analysis for the Wolpin et al. manuscript included cancer-free individuals from the prospective cohorts that contributed pancreatic cancer cases to PanScan III and controls from the Spanish Bladder Cancer SBC/EPICURO study that were previously genotyped using the OmniExpress, Omni 1M or Omni 2.5M SNP arrays. The data from these control subjects were posted to dbGaP under the GWAS in which they were initially genotyped and will not be made available in duplicate under this dbGaP study.The summary statistics for PanScan I-III were generated as detailed in Wolpin BM. et al., Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Genetics 2014; 46(9):994-1000 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3052), and Klein, A. et al., Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies five new susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Communications, 2018;9(1):556 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02942-5). The dataset includes results from an association study of 5,117 individuals diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and 8,845 control individuals, or a total of 13,962 subjects of European ancestry (as compared to the genotype and phenotype information under this project that includes 9,437 individuals (PanScan I and II PDAC case and control individuals and PanScan III PDAC cases only). This is due to the fact that PanScan III “borrowed” GWAS data from control individuals genotyped separately from the PanScan GWAS project and are therefore not included as raw genotypes in phs000206.v5.p3. Association analysis was performed separately for PanScan I-II and PanScan III, followed by a meta-analysis of the two datasets. Results were filtered based on a minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.01, an imputation INFO score < 0.3 and a heterogeneity P-value < 1x10-10 leaving a total of 9,758,390 variants. Columns in the summary statistics dataset are as follows: ID: variant rsIDChr: chromosome numberPosition: position in the chromosome, genome build GRCh37/hg19MarkerName: variant identifierAllele1: reference alleleAllele2: alternative alleleFreq1: allele frequency for allele2FreqSE: standard error of the allele frequencyMinFreq: the minimal allele frequency across studiesMaxFreq: the max allele frequency across studiesEffect: effect size for allele2StdErr: standard errorP-value: meta-analysis p-valueDirection: summary of effect direction for each studyHetISq: I^2 statistic which measures heterogeneity on scale of 0-100%HetChiSq: chi-squared statistic in simple test of heterogeneityHetDf: degrees of freedom for heterogeneity statisticHetPVal: P-value for heterogeneity statistic

  Study phs000206

• 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 submission. 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” or “Read & Write”). If you want to invite all the collaborators from a previous submission, you can add them by selecting said submission.In the event that the submission has been closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you will need to modify one of the objects in the submission, for example, copy and paste the title. 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 batch 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 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 samples and 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 batch 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 in 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). Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested please delete them from your SFTP INBOX before 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 file to a closed submission, you will need to re-open the submission where the dataset was registered. 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, you must edit any object within the submission. For example, you can copy and paste the title. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guidance 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

• GEnomics and Transcriptomics of Human INsulinoma (GETHIN)

  The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) The common forms of diabetes - Types 1 and 2 - ultimately result from a deficiency of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) study was performed in order to identify novel approaches to inducing human pancreatic beta cells to replicate and regenerate. As a corollary, developing drugs that are able to expand human beta cell mass in people with diabetes should reverse diabetes. Unfortunately, identifying druggable pathways that can enhance human beta cell replication has been a major challenge. In 2017, there is only one class of drugs - the harmine analogues - that can induce human beta cells to replicate, and in this case, higher replication rates are desirable. Thus, identifying additional drugs and druggable pathways is a priority in diabetes research. Insulinomas are rare, benign adenomas of the pancreatic beta cell that cause excess insulin production and hypoglycemia: exactly the opposite of Types 1 and 2 diabetes. Beta cell proliferation rates in insulinomas are abnormally high. Thus, the premise for The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma study is that benign human insulinomas hold the genomic and transcriptomic "recipe", and the repertoire of druggable pathways, that can be exploited to induce regeneration or replication of human beta cells in diabetes. Because, insulinomas are so rare, are almost always benign (non-malignant), and are easily resected by laparoscopic surgery, little attention has been paid to understanding the genomics or transcriptomics of insulinoma. There are at present only three published studies employing next-gen sequencing in insulinoma (PMID:24326773; PMID:25787250; and PMID:25763608). These studies contained 10, 7 and 8 insulinomas, respectively, and highlighted likely mutations in YY1 and MEN1. Our goal was to markedly expand the database and to add RNAseq to these earlier studies. The GETHIN study reports next-gen sequencing on 38 insulinomas, by far the largest series of human insulinomas subjected to next-gen sequencing (see the Selected publications section for reference). This includes paired (genomic plus tumor) whole exome sequencing on 26 human insulinomas (22 sequenced at Mount Sinai, 4 downloaded from Cao et al, PMID:24326773), and 25 sets of RNAseq from insulinomas, some of which also had paired whole exome sequencing, and some of which did not. The insulinoma RNAseq was compared to RNAseq from 22 sets of FACS-sorted normal human beta cells. Since insulinomas are so rare, the 38 insulinomas were collected by several investigators at several institutions over several decades, but most (22 whole exome sets, and all RNAseq) were sequenced at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. The current dataset contains whole exome sequencing and RNAseq on the 11 insulinomas harvested at Mount Sinai. The four from Cao et al can be retrieved from Cao et al PMID:24326773. Fastq files from the remaining 23 insulinomas will be added as the local IRBs and Institutional Certifications are acquired. Complete patient data are provided in our Nature Communications report. Going forward, our intention is to expand this series, with the goal of sequencing 100 human insulinomas. These will be added to dbGaP as they accrue. Paired-end whole exome sequencing (mean usable sequencing depth 79X and 105X for blood and insulinoma, respectively) was performed using an Illumina HiSeq 2500. Insulinoma and sorted normal beta cell RNAseq was performed on Ribozero and polyA paired end libraries using the Illumina HiSeq 2500. Complete sequencing and bioinformatic details are provided in our Nature Communications report. The principal findings from the study are that although each insulinoma has a different set of presumptive driver mutations, the majority converge on genes that are members of the Polycomb Complex, Trithorax Complex and other epigenetic modifying enzymes. In addition, 20% of insulinomas have copy number loss or loss of heterozygosity of all or most of chromosome 11, and the majority display abnormalities in CpG methylation and imprinting control on the imprinted Chr 11 p15.5-15.4 region that contains INS, IGF2, CDKN1C, KCNQ1, and other genes involved in beta cell specification and proliferation.

  Study phs001422

• TRanscriptomic ANalySis of left ventriCulaR gene Expression (TRANSCRibE)

  Myocardial ischemia occurs when there is a mismatch between coronary oxygen delivery and metabolic requirements of the myocardium, which may be clinically manifested during angina, coronary angioplasty or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Myocardial ischemia may lead to a spectrum of myocardial stunning, hibernating myocardium, and ultimately cell death if the ischemic insult is severe. In the human heart, irreversible damage begins after approximately 20 to 40 minutes of oxygen deprivation. Observed molecular and cellular changes of myocardial ischemia are characteristic of an inflammatory response, but the exact mechanisms that underlie this pathological process are unclear and may not be full emulated by animal models of ischemia or infarction. Thus, we felt it valuable to investigate a human ischemia model. During cardiac surgery, CPB with aortic cross-clamping (AoXC) and cardioplegic arrest is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and suitable operative conditions. However, despite the use of cardioprotective strategies, AoXc during CPB is accompanied by a variable, yet obligate ischemic period lasting 1 to 3 hours, resulting in hypoxia, metabolic substrate depletion, reperfusion injury, apoptosis, and necrosis. Cardiac specific biomarkers of ischemia and infarction, including troponin, are elevated even after routine coronary artery bypass graft surgery and correlate with the duration of ischemia from AoXc.This process of CPB provides us with the ability to examine the transcriptional profile before and after an expected, consistent, and reproducible human ischemic event, albeit induced by cold cardioplegic arrest and not coronary occlusion. In addition, the absence of reperfusion in this time period allows us to examine the transcriptomic response to intermittent ischemia, without having to account for the perturbations of reperfusion injury. Although various animal models have been used to examine the effects of ischemia on cardiac function, no human data exist which examine the early transcriptomic response to a left ventricular (LV) ischemic insult. We therefore characterized the effect of cold cardioplegia induced acute ischemia on the transcriptional profile of the LV by performing whole transcriptome next-generation RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery by sampling human LV tissue prior to, and after, the obligate ischemia during AoXC. We hypothesized that the cold cardioplegia induced ischemic injury will dramatically alter transcription in the human myocardium, and that we would identify genes and pathways, which will identify interventional targets for pharmacological therapy. Methods:We have collected left ventricle tissue samples and blood sample from patients undergoing heart surgery. We obtained punch biopsies (~3-5μg total RNA content) from the site of a routinely placed surgical vent in the anterolateral apical left ventricular wall of patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. After an average of 79 minutes of aortic cross-clamping with intermittent cold blood cardioplegia for myocardial protection every 20 minutes, a second biopsy was obtained in the same manner. Tissue samples were immediately placed in RNAlater® (Ambion, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), and after 48 hours at +4°C were stored at -80°C until RNA extraction. Total RNA was isolated with Trizol and RNA quality was assessed using the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). Libraries were prepared by poly(A) mRNA isolation and reverse transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), then sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq2000 or HiSeq2500 (Illumina, San Diego, CA). As samples were analyzed at different times, different read lengths were employed, initially using single-end reads (n=20) and then transitioning to paired end reads (n=216), ranging from 36 - 100 base pairs. Raw sequencing files were processed using Sickle, Skewer, and STAR software, and aligned to GrCh37 or UCSC Hg19. DNA was isolated from whole blood using standard methods. SNP genotyping was performed using the Illumina Omni2.5Exome-8 BeadChip array with additional exome content (Illumina, San Diego, CA) chip, version 1.1. We first phased and imputed 93 subjects using a phasing tool called SHAPEIT and an imputation tool called MINIMAC, with 1000 Genomes phase 1 version 3 for the reference panel. We then phased and imputed 26 more subjects using SHAPEIT, an imputation tool called IMPUTE2, and 1000 Genomes phase 3 version 5.

  Study phs001679

• Genetic Basis of Early Onset Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

  The study protocol was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (HSC-MS-11-0185). Study recruitment began on July 1, 2017, and concluded on March 30, 2022. After written informed consent, we enrolled probands with early onset BAV disease (EBAV), which we defined as individuals with BAV who were under the age of 30 at the time of first clinical event. Clinical events were defined as aortic replacement, aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, moderate or severe aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, large aneurysm (Z > 4.5), or intervention for BAV-related conditions. Those with hypoplastic left heart, known genetic mutations, genetic syndromes, or complex congenital heart disease were excluded. Samples were collected and genotyped as previously reported. For comparison, we analyzed a cohort of older individuals of European ancestry with sporadic BAV disease selected from the International BAV Consortium (BAVGWAS). Phenotypes were derived from record review with confirmation of image data whenever possible [25-26]. The computational pipeline for CNV analysis of Illumina single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data included three independent CNV detection algorithms.GenomeStudio was used to exclude samples with indeterminate sex or more than 5% missing genotypes, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with GenTrain = 0. Principal component analysis was used to remove outliers that did not cluster with European ancestry. Prior to CNV analysis, each dataset was trimmed by selecting a common set of 650,000 SNPs that were genotyped on each of the microarrays used in this study.Three independent algorithms (PennCNV, cnvPartition, and QuantiSNP) were used to generate CNV calls and sample-level quality statistics from SNP intensity data. PennCNV and QuantiSNP were run on Unix clusters and cnvPartition data were exported from GenomeStudio. The analysis was run using default configurations. PennCNV was used to generate QC data and remove CNV calls that intersect with polymorphic genomic regions. Samples that met any of the following criteria were excluded, standard deviation of the LogR ratio (obtained from PennCNV) > 0.35 or number of CNVs > 2 standard deviations above the mean for each data set. CNV calls less than 20 Kilobases in length and/or spanned by fewer than 6 probes were excluded. The overlap function for rare CNVs in PLINK was used to construct CNV regions (CNVRs) after adjacent regions were merged using PennCNV. LogR ratio (LRR) and B allele frequency (BAF) data at CNVRs and calls of interest were visualized in GenomeStudio for validation. For segregation analysis, GenomeStudio was used to determine the presence of CNVs in relatives.A total of 22,014 unselected control Illumina Genotypes obtained from the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes were analyzed using identical methods (S1 Table). The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) includes data on a cohort of 10,300 individuals who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) includes data on 37,000 individuals aged 50 above from 23,000 households across the United States. Principal component analysis was used to select European ancestry genotypes from these datasets for analysis. Datasets were paired for case-control analysis based on the concordance of log-transformed sample-level quality control statistics (number of CNV calls and standard deviation of logR ratios). Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests were used to compare CNV frequencies in cases and controls.Rare CNV functions in PLINK (v1.7) were used to perform permutation-based burden tests or gene set-based enrichment tests. Case control burden tests were restricted to CNVs that were longer than 110 Kb and less than 0.1% in frequency. CNV overlap functions in PLINK were used to identify rare CNVs that intersect between datasets or involve specific BAV or CHD genes . The list of candidate genes included 190 CHD genes that have strong cumulative evidence to cause BAV or related congenital malformations from human or animal model data. Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37 was used for CNV annotation [34].

  Study phs003705

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API 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 consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2