6257 results for "fc 26 ultimate team coins buy Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..E4Pd"

in 41.50 milliseconds.

• Cell and Circuit-Specific Exploration of HIV Neurogenomics in Context of Opiate and Cocaine Misuse

  Utilizing frozen postmortem brain tissue from the Manhattan HIV Brain Bank, we performed cell-type-specific, genome-wide sequencing of three different types: 1) single-nucleus RNA-sequencing (snRNA-seq), 2) in situ Hi-C, and 3) HIV integration site sequencing (IS-seq). We assayed tissue from three different donor types: 1) HIV-uninfected control (HIV-), HIV-infected (HIV+), and HIV-infected with HIV encephalitis (HIVE), who served as a positive control for active CNS viral infection. The diagnosis of HIVE was made by a board-certified neuropathologist on routine histopathology, based on the presence of a microglial nodule encephalitis with characteristic multinucleated syncytial cells and staining for HIV p24 antigen. Other HIV-infected individuals (the HIV+ group) did not have this histologic evidence of active HIV brain replication, and were variable with regard to cART status and virologic control prior to death. Donor characteristics, including ante-mortem plasma HIV loads, CD4 counts, and cART status, were documented. Quality controls were used for each assay: For snRNA-seq we applied filters to remove low quality nuclei from analysis and performed experiments in which mouse tissue was mixed with human tissue to determine a reliable HIV read count threshold. For Hi-C, we used paired HIV- and HIVE samples and processed all samples in parallel, at the same time. Correlation analysis was used to ensure biological replicates were aligned. For IS-seq, each time the assay was run, a positive and negative control were included. This allowed us to ensure a lack of contamination in IS-seq libraries and that, when a particular sample failed to yield library, this was due to low levels of HIV rather than a failure of the assay. Altogether, we built an integrative dataset from 79 sequencing files, including snRNA-seq, and cell type specific Hi-C, IS-seq, and ChIP-seq datasets. Human autopsy brain samples were collected by the Manhattan HIV Brain Bank (MHBB, U24MH100931), using protocols under the supervision of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained either from decedents or their primary next of kin. Major Findings: Reorganization of open/repressive (A/B) compartment structures in HIVE microglia encompassing 6.4% of the genome was linked to transcriptional activation of interferon (IFN) signaling and cell migratory pathways and was partially recapitulated by IFN-gamma stimulation of cultured microglia. In contrast, decreased expression and repressive compartmentalization of genes regulating neuronal health and signaling was seen in both HIVE and HIV+ microglia. IS-seq recovered 1,221 integration sites in the brain that displayed distinct genomic patterns as compared to peripheral lymphocyte integration and were enriched for chromosomal domains newly mobilized into a permissive chromatin environment in HIVE microglia. Viral transcription occurred in a subset of highly activated microglia comprising 0.003% of all nuclei in HIVE brain. Our findings point to a disruption of microglia-neuronal interactions in the HIV infected brain and an interrelation of retroviral integration and expression with interferon-associated remodeling of the microglial 3D genome during progression to HIVE. Search terms: HIV, postmortem brain, microglia, substance abuse, viral integration, chromosomal conformation capture, Hi-C, chromatin, single nuclei RNA-seq, Irf8, NeuN, HIV encephalitis, neuron-microglia interaction, cytokine

  Study phs003080

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers

  A genomewide study of lung cancer in never smokers Abstract and specific aims In the United States, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates have been steadily declining over the past decade, following decline in the prevalence of tobacco smoking. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death, killing more patients than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Although tobacco smoke is the predominant risk factor for development of lung cancer, some patients develop the disease without a history of tobacco smoking. About 10 - 15% of all lung cancers occur in lilfetime never smokers. This figure will increase as the proportion of never smokers increases in the population. Even at present rates, lung cancer in never smokers, if considered a separate disease, is 6th to 8th top cause of cancer death. The growing number of never smokers in the USA and other countries emphasizes the importance of understanding the epidemiology and biology underlying lung cancer in this group. Genetic polymorphisms associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers are expected to overlap with those associated with the risk of lung cancer in ever smokers only partially. Epidemiological, molecular and clinical data suggest that molecular mechanisms of LC may differ in smokers and non-smokers, implying that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease compared to the lung cancer in smokers. One can expect that there should be stronger genetic component in the control lung cancer in never smokers because effects of the genetic factors in never smokers are unmasked by the lack of tobacco smoke exposure. The genetic epidemiology of lung cancer in never smokers has not been well explored, largely because of difficulties in accruing the needed sample size for association studies. We propose a multicenter (total 14 sites from the US and Europe) genomewide association study of lung cancer in never smokers with the following specific aims: Aim 1: To identify candidate SNPs influencing risk for lung cancer in never smokers using Discovery sample. In the Discovery phase we will genotype 1256 Caucasian cases and 1365 age- and gender-matched never smoker controls using the Illumina Human660W-Quad platform. In addition, we will include in the analysis 284 cases and 175 matched controls already genotyped on the 610Quad platform. In this phase we will only include the study sites that have collected blood specimens (MDACC, Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, The University of Liverpool Cancer research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, and Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, Canada). All the samples will be sent to the independent lab for genotyping, to reduce site-specific technical artifacts. The final sample will consist of 1540 cases and 1540 controls matched by study site. Aim 2: To perform the second phase (validation) analysis of significant SNPs identified in aim 1 using an independent set of cases and controls. SNPs associated with risk at the significance level of 0.01 or below in the discovery set will be included in the replication phase. The proposed threshold guarantees an adequate power to retain SNPs with the typical effect size of 1.3. We plan to carry 6000-7000 SNPs for validation. The independent replication set will include 800 cases and 800 controls, mostly from sites that collected tissue (Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, UT Southwestern) or buccal specimens (UCLA), but also blood samples (Imperial College London, University of Pennsylvana, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa). We will then perform a joint analysis to test the significance of the SNPs identified in the first stage using a stringent critical p-value of 10-7. There will be 2340 cases and 2340 controls in the joint set. Based on our experience with GWAS in smokers and assuming that genetic component in lung cancer risk in never smokers can be higher than genetic component in smokers, we expect to identify about 5-10 candidate regions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers. Aim 3: To identify and explore pathways associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers. Results of the number of studies on the molecular mechanisms and drug response suggest that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease and different pathways will be associated with lung cancer risk in non-smokers and smokers. To identify pathways and molecular functions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers we will apply Ingenuity and DAVID bioinformatics tools. We will use at least 300 top candidate genes identified in joint and discovery analysis. The reason why we select rather large number of candidate genes for functional annotation is two-fold: 1. Both algorithms are looking for enrichment of pathways and function by most significant genes and they produce statistically robust results only when number of genes is relatively high. 2. Despite the fact that this study will be largest possible for never smokers we still are underpowered to detect SNPs with relatively small effect size. But though those SNPs will not reach genome wide level of significance they will tend to be on the top of the list. In other words genes from the gray zone (significant on individual level and non-significant for genome wide level) are expected to be enriched by true discoveries. True discoveries are likely to be associated with limited number of pathways / functions while false positives are expected to be uniformly distributed across functions and pathways. Therefore significant clustering of the gene to a given function will suggest that that those genes are true discoveries. This is the first GWAS aiming at identifying the genetic control of susceptibility to lung cancer in Caucasian never smokers. We will combine the available resources from the multiple sites to achieve the sample size sufficient for this study. The study will identify genetic architecture of the predisposition to the lung cancer in never smokers.

  Study phs000634

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

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

  Study phs000462

• Joint-Specific TF Regulation in RA

  The mechanisms responsible for the distribution and severity of joint involvement in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not known. To explore whether site-specific fibroblast-like synoviocyte (FLS) biology might be associated with location-specific synovitis and explain the predilection for hand (wrist/metacarpal phalangeal joints) involvement in RA, we generated bulk, whole-genome transcriptomic and chromatin accessibility data from FLS. Samples were matched in age, sex, and were homogeneous in that all had significant joint damage with longstanding disease requiring surgical intervention. Analysis revealed joint-specific patterns of FLS phenotypes, with proliferative, migratory, proinflammatory, and matrix-degrading characteristics observed in resting FLS derived from the hand joints compared with hip or knee. TNF-stimulation amplified these differences, with greater enrichment of proinflammatory and proliferative genes in hand FLS compared with hip and knee FLS. Hand FLS also had the greatest expression of markers associated with an ‘activated' state relative to the ‘resting' state, with the greatest cytokine and MMP expression in TNF-stimulated hand FLS. Predicted differences in proliferation and migration were biologically validated with hand FLS exhibiting greater migration and cell growth than hip or knee FLS. Distinctive joint-specific FLS biology associated with a more aggressive inflammatory response might contribute to the distribution and severity of joint involvement in RA.

  Study phs003633

• CTSP: Clinical Trial Sequencing Project

  For the Clinical Trials Sequencing Project (CTSP), National Cancer Institute (NCI) will utilize whole genome sequencing and/or whole exome sequencing in conjunction with transcriptome sequencing to try to identify recurrent genetic alterations (mutations, deletions, amplifications, rearrangements) and/or gene expression signatures that would be important to the hypothesis(es) submitted by the investigators. The samples will be processed and submitted for genomic characterization using pipelines and procedures established within The Cancer Genome Analysis (TCGA) project. Data analysis will be performed as a collaboration between the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) Group and its investigators submitting the proposal. The investigators at the NCI-sponsored Genomic Data Analysis Center (GDAC) will characterize the samples. The NCTN Group will be responsible for providing the clinical data needed for the proposal to the open clinical system maintained by NCI CCG's Biospecimen Core Resource (BCR) at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. The project team (Network Group/investigators and GDAC) will analyze the data together. Additionally, clinical and genomic data related to the analyses will also need to be registered by NCI and will be made available to qualified researchers via a controlled-access database (e.g., dbGaP) upon publication of the primary analysis described in the study proposal. A substudy description and its molecular data information are provided under its own page: phs001184 CTSP Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) CALGB 50303

  Study phs001175

• Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) - PATHWAYS - Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE)

  Pregnant women are exposed daily to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors, including air pollutants, phthalates, and psychosocial stress. The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease model (DOHaD) states that exposure to these stressors in pregnancy affects fetal development in a manner that impacts offspring health across the life course. Yet epidemiologic data in these areas is limited, particularly with U.S. samples. It is also poorly understood whether these exposures prenatally affect childhood neurodevelopment and airway health in an independent or combined manner, and likely moderators of effects, such as the sex of the child, are infrequently addressed. We propose to unify three diverse extant pregnancy cohorts: TIDES (N=717, 2010-12), GAPPS (N=1133, 2012-16), and CANDLE (N=1385, 2007-11), for a combined sample size of 3235 mother-child dyads in the PATHWAYS study. PATHWAYS will investigate how chemical (air pollutants and phthalates) and non-chemical (psychosocial stress) exposures during pregnancy are related to placental gene expression (transcriptome) and childhood neurodevelopment and airway health (at ages 4-6, 8-9, and 10-11 years). Each cohort has rich resources of prenatal data and banked specimens (urine, blood, and placenta) that will be harmonized for the PATHWAYS study and will contribute to the ECHO consortium. We will develop a national model with high spatiotemporal resolution of key air pollutants and assess urinary markers of maternal exposure. A composite measure will capture multilevel maternal psychosocial stress across pregnancy, and urinary phthalate and blood stress hormone [Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)] levels in the second and third trimesters will provide individual assessment of those exposures in potential critical periods. We will characterize the placental transcriptome using RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) and will assess neurodevelopment and airway health prospectively into middle childhood. PATHWAYS will examine how these prenatal exposures are related to the placental transcriptome and child health outcomes in main effect and interactive models, with emphasis on sex-specific associations. For both neurodevelopment and airway health, we propose to measure both phenotypic precursors of health outcomes (i.e. fluid cognition, lung function growth), which yield dimensional tests of proposed associations, as well as clinically meaningful and policy relevant outcomes (i.e. asthma, mental health). Our study is powered to assess interactive effects of chemical and non-chemical stressors and will be the first study to characterize how prenatal environmental exposures relate to placental transcriptome pathways in relation to childhood health outcomes. This represents a significant scientific advance in testing DOHaD hypotheses. Major contributions to the ECHO Consortium include: 1) the development of a state of the art national model of air pollution, 2) a large, diverse pregnancy cohort with extensive biorepositories and extant prenatal and postnatal biomarkers, placental transcriptome, psychosocial and environmental data, and 3) an experienced, interdisciplinary team that will contribute meaningfully to the ECHO program of work.The sequencing data in this submission pertains only to the 794 subjects from the CANDLE study for whom placental tissue transcriptomics was performed.

  Study phs003619

• Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) - PATHWAYS - Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth (GAPPS)

  Pregnant women are exposed daily to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors, including air pollutants, phthalates, and psychosocial stress. The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease model (DOHaD) states that exposure to these stressors in pregnancy affects fetal development in a manner that impacts offspring health across the life course. Yet epidemiologic data in these areas is limited, particularly with U.S. samples. It is also poorly understood whether these exposures prenatally affect childhood neurodevelopment and airway health in an independent or combined manner, and likely moderators of effects, such as the sex of the child, are infrequently addressed. We propose to unify three diverse extant pregnancy cohorts: TIDES (N=717, 2010-12), GAPPS (N=1133, 2012-16), and CANDLE (N=1385, 2007-11), for a combined sample size of 3235 mother-child dyads in the PATHWAYS study. PATHWAYS will investigate how chemical (air pollutants and phthalates) and non-chemical (psychosocial stress) exposures during pregnancy are related to placental gene expression (transcriptome) and childhood neurodevelopment and airway health (at ages 4-6, 8-9, and 10-11 years). Each cohort has rich resources of prenatal data and banked specimens (urine, blood, and placenta) that will be harmonized for the PATHWAYS study and will contribute to the ECHO consortium. We will develop a national model with high spatiotemporal resolution of key air pollutants and assess urinary markers of maternal exposure. A composite measure will capture multilevel maternal psychosocial stress across pregnancy, and urinary phthalate and blood stress hormone [Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone (CRH)] levels in the second and third trimesters will provide individual assessment of those exposures in potential critical periods. We will characterize the placental transcriptome using RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) and will assess neurodevelopment and airway health prospectively into middle childhood. PATHWAYS will examine how these prenatal exposures are related to the placental transcriptome and child health outcomes in main effect and interactive models, with emphasis on sex-specific associations. For both neurodevelopment and airway health, we propose to measure both phenotypic precursors of health outcomes (i.e., fluid cognition, lung function growth), which yield dimensional tests of proposed associations, as well as clinically meaningful and policy relevant outcomes (i.e., asthma, mental health). Our study is powered to assess interactive effects of chemical and non-chemical stressors and will be the first study to characterize how prenatal environmental exposures relate to placental transcriptome pathways in relation to childhood health outcomes. This represents a significant scientific advance in testing DOHaD hypotheses. Major contributions to the ECHO Consortium include: 1) the development of a state of the art national model of air pollution, 2) a large, diverse pregnancy cohort with extensive biorepositories and extant prenatal and postnatal biomarkers, placental transcriptome, psychosocial and environmental data, and 3) an experienced, interdisciplinary team that will contribute meaningfully to the ECHO program of work.The sequencing data in this submission pertain only to the 408 subjects from the GAPPS study for whom placental tissue transcriptomics was performed.

  Study phs003620

• RNA sequencing on colonic biopsies from inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vehicle control, MEK inhibitor, or infliximab

  This dataset consists of RNA sequencing data (FASTQs) from intestinal mucosal biopsies from 9 IBD patients. All patients endoscopically active disease and were not receiving immunosuppressive or biologic therapies. All biopsies (6 per donor) were collected from a single inflamed site. Biopsies were cultured for 18 hours at an air-liquid interface in media containing either DMSO (vehicle control), PD-0325901 (0.5uM) or infliximab (10ug/ml; MSD) - two biopsies per condition. Sequencing was performed on a NovaSeq 6000 (100bp, PE reads). After 18 hours, biopsies were harvested and snap frozen. After lysis, RNA was extracted using an AllPrep DNA/RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). Sequencing libraries were prepared from 10ng RNA using the SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit v2 - Pico Input Mammalian (Takara) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and molarity of all libraries was assessed using a BioAnalyzer 2100 and the libraries were sequenced on a NovaSeq 6000 (100bp, PE reads).

  Dataset EGAD00001011333

• Comprehensive cancer predisposition gene testing in an adult multiple primary tumor series shows a broad range of deleterious variants and atypical tumor phenotypes

  Multiple primary tumors (MPT) affect a substantial proportion of cancer survivors and may result from various causes including inherited predisposition. Currently, germline genetic testing of MPT cases for cancer predisposition gene (CPG) variants is mostly targeted by tumor type. We ascertained pre-assessed MPT cases from genetics centers (defined as ≥2 primaries by age 60 years or ≥3 by 70) and performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) on 460 individuals from 440 families. Despite previous negative genetic assessment/molecular investigations, pathogenic variants in moderate and high-risk CPGs were detected in 67/440 (15.2%) of probands. WGS detected variants that would not be (or were not) detected by targeted resequencing strategies including structural variants at low frequency (6/440 (1.4%) of probands). In most individuals with a germline variant assessed as pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP), at least one of their tumor types was characteristic of variants in the relevant CPG. However, in 29 probands (42.2% of those with a P/LP variant) the tumor phenotype appeared discordant. The frequency of individuals with truncating or splice site CPG variants and at least one discordant tumor type was significantly higher than a control population (χ2=43.642 P=<0.0001). 2/67 (3%) of probands with P/LP variants had evidence of multiple inherited neoplasia allele syndrome (MINAS) with deleterious variants in two CPGs. Summing together variant detection rates from a similarly ascertained previous MPT case series, the present results suggest that first-line comprehensive CPG analysis in a clinical genetics referral-based MPT cohort would detect a deleterious variant in about a third of cases.

  Dataset EGAD00001004088

• The African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium Study

  The AMBER Consortium Study was formed to pool interview data, questionnaire data, and biological samples from epidemiological studies of breast cancer in African-American women to discover the potential causes of early-onset and aggressive breast cancer in African-American women. AMBER is funded through a Program Project grant from the National Cancer Institute. Genetic data submitted to dbGaP come from participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, Women's Circle of Health Study, and Black Women's Health Study. The P01 consists of four scientific projects; the aims include follow-up on previous GWAS findings for breast cancer susceptibility in AA women as well as investigation of SNPs in candidate genes in biologically plausible pathways. These SNPs were genotyped using DNA from 3130 African-American women with breast cancer and 3700 controls. Descriptions of the original studies that provided the data and samples for this collaborative study are given below. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): a North Carolina population-based case-control study of breast cancer, conducted in three phases. The current study phase, phase 3 (years 2008-2014), includes women residents in 44 counties. CBCS phases 1 and 2 were conducted in 24 counties. Breast cancer cases are identified using Rapid Case Ascertainment in cooperation with the NC Central Cancer Registry. Controls were identified for phases 1 and 2 only (1993-1996 and 1996-2001), using Division of Motor Vehicles lists for women under age 65 and Health Care Financing Administration lists for women 65 and older. Randomized recruitment was used to oversample AA women and women under age 50. In-depth interviews are conducted by study nurses in participants' homes to obtain information on potential risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples have been obtained from most participants. Overall response rates for Phases 1 and 2 were 74% for AA cases and 54% for AA controls. Phase 3, conducted in 44 counties from 2008-2014, includes cases only. The response rate for AA cases in Phase 3 was 70.5%. The Women's Circle of Health Study (WCHS): a multi-site case-control study in New York City (NYC) and New Jersey (NJ) aimed at evaluating risk factors for early and aggressive breast cancer in women of AA and EA ancestry. Recruitment in NYC took place between January 2002 and December 2008 and involved hospital-based ascertainment of cases, while controls were identified through random digit dialing (RDD). Recruitment at the NJ site started in March 2006 and is ongoing. Phase I of the study ended in April 2012 and covered seven counties in NJ. WCHS2 includes two additional counties. Cases in NJ were identified from 2006 to 2012 by the NJ State Cancer Registry using rapid case ascertainment. Controls were initially recruited though RDD (2006 to 2010) and later through community-based efforts (2009-2012). In-person interviews ascertained data on established and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples were obtained. Among eligible AA women, 75% in NY and 54% in NJ completed an interview and provided a biologic specimen. Black Women's Health Study (BWHS): an ongoing prospective cohort study of health and illness among U.S. black women, with a focus on cancer. The study began in 1995 when 59,000 AA women 21-69 years of age from across the United States completed a 14-page postal health questionnaire. The median age at entry was 38, and participants were residents of 17 states in mainland U.S.: Northeast, 28%; South, 30%; Midwest, 23%; West, 19%. The baseline questionnaire elicited information on a wide range of variables, including demographic factors, use of medical care, family history of breast cancer, reproductive and medical history, cigarette and alcohol use, weight, height, waist and hip circumference, medication use, diet, and exercise. Biennial follow-up questionnaires ascertain new cases of breast cancer and other illnesses and update covariate information. Medical record and cancer registry data are sought for all participants who report a diagnosis of breast cancer. As of 2014, approximately 80% of the baseline cohort have completed follow-up. DNA samples were obtained from about 50% of participants. BWHS data for the AMBER consortium were prepared as a nested case-control study, with controls frequency-matched to cases on year of birth, geographic region, and most recent questionnaire completed prior to the end of the at-risk period.

  Study phs000669

• Angelman, Rett, Prader-Willi Syndrome Consortium (ARP) Rett Syndrome Natural History Protocol

  This observational study will involve the comprehensive assessment of the clinical features of Rett syndrome with this Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network. A clinical database of 1350 individuals with Rett syndrome including MECP2 mutation status for the purpose of elaborating phenotype-genotype correlations will be established. Eligible participants will be enrolled in the natural history study for 11 years from the 4 clinic sites currently involved with Rett syndrome (BCM, GGC, and UAB, CHB) as well as from the several thousand registrants in the International Rett Syndrome Foundation registry who will be invited to the nearest consortium site involved in Rett syndrome. Potential participants are expected to have had determination of their MECP2 mutation status, but will not be excluded should no mutation be present. All individuals who meet criteria and are currently receiving care from study sites will be invited to participate (N>600). Additional participants will be invited through the assistance of the International Rett Syndrome Foundation (IRSF). All individuals with RS registered with IRSF will be invited to participate in this study via the IRSF website and the IRSF newsletter. Potential participants will be apprised of the participating study sites and invited to contact one of the sites based on feasibility of travel. Inasmuch as the enrollment goal of 1350 participants is 40% of the current IRSF registry, we believe this will be a representative sampling. Bias can certainly occur based on travel requirements, level of interest, and other factors. However, inclusion of such a large sample should minimize sampling bias. No travel expenses will be covered, so it is likely that participants will be those with geographic proximity to Houston, Greenwood, Birmingham, or Boston. From the sample pool described above, the aim is to conduct the observational longitudinal (natural history) study on up to 1350 participants with classic Rett syndrome and variant forms of Rett syndrome, that is, participants who fully meet the established clinical criteria for Rett syndrome and those who meet some but not all of these criteria. All participants expressing MECP2 mutations irrespective of phenotype will be eligible for enrollment. For each of the eight common genetic mutations as well as those with large scale deletions, the prevalence of the following RS characteristics will be estimated for each age category and overall: seizure presence and frequency, ambulation status, scoliosis, ECG abnormality, breathing irregularities while awake, feeding difficulties, growth as measured in percentiles from NCHS standards curves, the presence of osteopenia as evidenced by bone fracture, and the presence of gallbladder disease. Both incidence and prevalence estimates will be made using a combination of data obtained at the regularly scheduled clinical visits and that obtained from the medical history. Incidence estimates will be calculated using time-to-event analyses (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival curves) with appropriate calculations of standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. Cox proportional hazard regression models will be used to allow control for other factors, and t-tests will be calculated on the coefficients themselves. Appropriate transformations on explanatory variables will be used as deemed necessary in Cox models. Prevalence estimates will be calculated from estimates of proportions with exact confidence intervals. For a sample size of 275, the standard error of the estimate will not exceed 0.03 (3%) and for a sample size of 60, the standard error of the estimate will not exceed 0.06 (6%).

  Study phs000574

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Version 3 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3-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. Available Data The ROC Cardiac Epistry version 3 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015. This is separate from versions 1 and 2 because of the major changes in how and which data were collected. Version 3 represents the following major changes to the structure and data collection: separate ED Arrival and Hospital Admits forms, mandatory ED and Hospital elements and a revamped CPR Process form. For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest; to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes. Background Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes. Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants There were 120,306 participants. Design ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003726

• Structural variant analysis of homologous recombination-deficient genomes

  Homologous recombination (HR) deficiency causes DNA breaks and cytogenetic aberrations. Paradoxically, the types of DNA rearrangements specifically associated with HR-deficient cancers only minimally impact chromosomal structure. Addressing this, we combined a genome graph analysis of short-read whole genome sequencing (WGS) profiles across thousands of tumors with deep linked-read (LR) WGS of 46 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutant breast cancers to discover a distinct class of HR deficiency-enriched rearrangements called reciprocal pairs. LR WGS showed that reciprocal pairs with identical rearrangement orientations gave rise to one of two distinct chromosomal outcomes, distinguishable only with long molecule data. While one (cis) outcome corresponded to the copy and pasting of a small segment to a distant site, a second (trans) outcome was a quasi-balanced translocation or multi-megabase inversion with substantial (10kb) duplications at each junction. The full spectrum of reciprocal pair outcomes could be explained by an HR-independent replication restart repair mechanism. LR WGS additionally identified single-strand annealing (SSA) as a BRCA2-deficiency specific repair pathway in human cancers. Replication restart- and SSA-associated SVs improved BRCA1- vs. BRCA2- deficiency classification and identified metastatic cancer cases with favorable chemotherapy responses. Our data reveal classes of BRCA1- and BRCA2-deficiency specific rearrangements as drivers of cytogenetic aberrations in HR deficient cells.

  Study EGAS00001007186

• How to upload Crypt4GH files

  Uploading files Users who hold an ega-box-XXX account can upload files using either INBOX or FTP. Users who have a Submitter role associated with their email will only be able to upload files using INBOX. Before uploading your files, please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters in their naming convention, such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &. This can cause issues with the archiving process, leading to problems for end users. The EGA is a shared, public service with limited storage. To manage the available resources, we enforce a limit of 10TB per submission account at any one time. If you exceed this limit, a “permission denied” message will be displayed. This will prevent you from uploading more files, but connecting to your inbox.For submissions larger than 10TB, please perform uploads in 10TB batches: register all the metadata and then finalise the submission. Upload the next batch of files and repeat the same metadata registration and finalisation process until you have completed the file upload. Further information can be found in the SP documentation. INBOX FTP The INBOX is only compatible with files encrypted using the Crypt4gh tool Before uploading If you are not a registered EGA user, you will first need an EGA user account. Please note that it may take a few days for your account to be activated, as it needs to be vouched for by the EGA Helpdesk. Once your account is validated, you will be able to request a submitter role. [Optional] Meanwhile, you can create and add your public key to your EGA account profile. This option is not available for old submission accounts (e.g., ega-box-NNN). As soon as you have been granted a submitter role, you will be able to connect with your username and password to the EGA inbox using the SFTP protocol. If you have also registered a public key in your profile, you can also connect using this key. To upload files to your account, you can use the graphical user interface (GUI) or the command line. Graphical User Interface (GUI)We recommend using FileZilla, a free, open-source FTP client. However, you can use any other GUI that allows connecting over the SFTP protocol. For FileZilla as your GUI, follow these steps to upload files: Create a new connection in Site Manager (File > Site Manager) and select the following options (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer ProtocolHost: __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__Logon Type: Key fileUser: your EGA usernameKey file: Path/to/your/private_keyFigure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers.Click Connect, and you will log in remotely to your home directory. You can think of this folder as a storage "in the EGA cloud" in which you will add your files for the EGA. The uploading area has three folders:To-encrypt: Files uploaded in this folder will be encrypted automatically on the fly.Encrypted: Files uploaded in this folder must already be encrypted with Crypt4gh. Upload your files here if your connection is unstable or you have problems completing the upload into-encrypt.Etc: This folder contains two files that allow the server to show you your username and group instead of some internal numbers. Please do not upload files here; otherwise, you will obtain a permission denied error. Find the files you want to upload by browsing your local storage (left side of your screen in FileZilla). Select all the files you want to upload, then right-click on them and select Upload (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually uploading files to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can transfer data from their local storage to the "EGA cloud" by following the depicted steps Please note that regardless of which folder you upload your files in, both folders (to-encrypt, encrypted) will point to the same path (/) (Figure 3). Therefore, you will see your files in both folders. Figure 3: Both folders, to-encrypt and encrypted, point to the same path (/)" If your connection is unstable, please encrypt your files first using Crypt4gh. Then upload them to the ‘encrypted’ folder. The example above shows how to connect to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using the private key. However, if you prefer to log in using your credentials, you can do so. Please go to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)  for more information. SFTP command line To upload files securely to your private area of the EGA, you can use SFTP(Secure File Transfer Protocol) with your favorite FTP client. Here's what you need to know to get started: Connect to the target host __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__. This is the new hostname for the EGA SFTP service. Log in with your EGA username and key files (or password). Upload files to your private EGA inbox to ensure that only you can access the files. By following these steps, you can securely upload your files to the EGA for safe storage and sharing. Using the SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal and type sftp username@hostnameEnter your EGA passwordTo see a list of available SFTP commands, type helpsftp> put – Upload filesftp> get – Download filesftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’sftp> pwd – Display remote working directorysftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’sftp> lpwd – Display local working directorysftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directorysftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directoryType the "put" command to upload files. For example: put *.bamUse the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). After uploading- Once you have uploaded files to the inbox, please bear in mind that the checksum needs to be calculated, which can take up to two days. You will only be able to link your files to a run/analysis once the encrypted checksum has been calculated.- When linking your files to the 'Run' or 'Analysis', ensure that the file name matches the file path '/name' in the INBOX folder.- Please delete the files from your SFTP INBOX after all the runs/analyses have been registered and files are ingested (SP > Files > Files ingested). This will clear your inbox space an allow you to upload more files. This will also prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal inbox. Frequently Asked Questions Specific to the inbox What username should I use to log in to my inbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username.  If you have forgotten your registered username, please contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. How are checksums calculated in your inbox? If you encrypt the file beforehand and upload it to the "encrypted" folder, the unencrypted checksum will not be calculated until the file is ingested (i.e., until it is used in a run/analysis). If the file is uploaded to the "to-encrypt" folder, then both checksums are calculated.Please bear in mind that after files have been uploaded to the inbox, the checksum must be calculated, which can take from a few hours to two days.  Specific to using keys to authenticate Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_INBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/inbox

• 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

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe 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

• Genomic Profiling Reveals Spatial Intra-tumour Heterogeneity in Follicular Lymphoma

  Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an incurable indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) that behaves heterogeneously and is synonymous with the reciprocal translocation t(14;18)(q32;q21), leading to aberrant constitutive over-expression of BCL2 [ref]. High risk groups with poor overall survival include patients that transform to a high grade lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or progress early (within 2 years) of receiving treatment. Recently several studies have shed light on the diverse genomic landscape of FL, with frequently mutated genes including those involved in chromatin remodelling, (CREBBP, KMT2D, EZH2, EP300), immune modulation (TNFRSF14), JAK-STAT (STAT6, SOCS1), NF-ĸB (CARD11, MYD88, TNFAIP3) and mTORC1 signalling (RRAGC) [ref]. To date, the majority of these studies have either focussed on inter-patient genetic heterogeneity or established the extent of clonal heterogeneity as a patient’s tumour evolves over time. Furthermore, these temporal studies have alluded to the existence of a tumour-repopulating population (referred to as the common progenitor cell (CPC)) that evades treatment and acts as a reservoir, seeding each subsequent relapse and transformation event. Although these previous studies have illuminated the longitudinal clonal dynamics that occur in FL, our understanding of the degree of spatial or intra-tumour heterogeneity (ITH) that exists within an individual patient thus far remains limited. Earlier studies have predominantly focused on differences in cytological grade and immunophenotype between spatially separated lymph nodes and bone marrow, the most common site of extra-nodal involvement in FL, with genomic profiling restricted to examining somatic hypermutation patterns in IgVH genes [ref]. In contrast next generation sequencing has been increasingly utilised in solid organ malignancies to derive comprehensive genomic profiles from spatially separated sites. The seminal study by Gerlinger et al revealed profound differences in the genetic make-up between individual primary and metastatic sites of renal cell carcinoma [ref]. Significant heterogeneity has since been demonstrated both between and within lesions in the same patient in lung, pancreas and breast cancer with presumed driver mutations distributed within the “branches” of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree, suggesting that a single biopsy is incapable of capturing the full genomic heterogeneity of an individual’s malignancy [ref]. This geographical heterogeneity not only adds to the diverse pool of tumour subclones that may contribute to drug resistance mechanisms but importantly, presents a major obstacle for precision-based approaches focussed on targeting specific lesions within a single biopsy. In FL, the exponential increase in clinical trials using novel agents such as EZH2, PI3K and BTK inhibitors reflects this shift in cancer care and along with the development of molecular prognostic scores such as the m7-FLIPI highlights the clinical need to accurately define genomic alterations with clinical relevance. As the majority of FL patients manifest disseminated tumour involvement, we sought to uncover the extent and clinical importance of spatial heterogeneity in FL by comprehensively genetically profiling 22 synchronously removed spatially separated biopsies from 9 patients. Using a combination of whole exome and targeted deep sequencing, our results inferred the complex subclonal architecture within these tumours and the mutational differences between anatomical sites, demonstrating cases with significant intrinsic genetic diversity.

  Study EGAS00001002492

• Kids First: Genomics of Orofacial Cleft Birth Defects in Latin American Families

  The Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program) (Kids First) is a trans-NIH effort initiated in response to the 2014 Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act and supported by the NIH Common Fund. This program focuses on gene discovery in pediatric cancers and structural birth defects and the development of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Data Resource (Kids First Data Resource). Both childhood cancers and structural birth defects are critical and costly conditions associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Elucidating the underlying genetic etiology of these diseases has the potential to profoundly improve preventative measures, diagnostics, and therapeutic interventions. All of the WGS and phenotypic data from this study are accessible through dbGaP and https://kidsfirstdrc.org, where other Kids First datasets can also be accessed. The Kids First study of nonsyndromic orofacial cleft (OFC) birth defects in Latin American families is a whole genome sequencing study of 283 Latin-American parent-case trios drawn from ongoing collaborations led by Dr. Mary L. Marazita of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, and including a collaboration with Dr. Lina Moreno Uribe and Dr. Andrew Lidral of the University of Iowa. All families were ascertained through the Clinica Noel where patients with OFCs receive care from the Antioquia University School of Dentistry in Medellin, Colombia (key on-site colleagues included Dr. Luz Consuelo Valencia-Ramirez and Dr. Mauricio Arcos-Burgos). Genetic studies have shown that this population is comprised of an admixture of immigrant male Caucasians (mainly Spaniards and Basques) and native Amerindian females. Every subject has had a genetic evaluation, including a pedigree analysis for a family history of clefting and other birth defects, a pregnancy history for environmental exposures, and a complete physical exam to rule out suspected or known syndromes or environmental phenocopies. Sequencing was done by the Broad Institute sequencing center funded by the Kids First program (grant number U24-HD090743). The case in each of the Kids First OFC trios has cleft lip (CL, Figure A below), cleft palate (CP, Figure B), or both (CL+CP, Figure C): OFCs are genetically complex structural birth defects caused by genetic factors, environmental exposures, and their interactions. OFCs are the most common craniofacial anomalies in humans, affecting approximately 1 in 700 newborns, and are one of the most common structural birth defects worldwide. On average a child with an OFC initially faces feeding difficulties, undergoes 6 surgeries, spends 30 days in hospital, receives 5 years of orthodontic treatment, and participates in ongoing speech therapy, leading to an estimated total lifetime treatment cost of about $200,000. Further, individuals born with an OFC have higher infant mortality, higher mortality rates at all other stages of life, increased incidence of mental health problems, and higher risk for other disorders (notably including breast, brain, and colon cancers). Prior genome-wide linkage and association studies have now identified at least 18 genomic regions likely to contribute to the risk for nonsyndromic OFCs. Despite this substantial progress, the functional/pathogenic variants at OFC-associated regions are mostly still unknown. Because previous OFC genomic studies (genome-wide linkage, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and targeted sequencing) are based on relatively sparse genotyping data, they cannot distinguish between causal variants and variants in linkage disequilibrium with unobserved causal variants. Moreover, it is unknown whether the association or linkage signals are due to single common variants, haplotypes of multiple common variants, clusters of multiple rare variants, or some combination. Finally, we cannot yet attribute specific genetic risk to individual cases and case families. Therefore, the goal of the current study is identify specific OFC risk variants in Latin American families by performing whole genome sequencing of parent-case trios.

  Study phs001420

• 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

• Nicotine Addiction Genetics and Correlates

  Ascertainment: Families were ascertained through panels of adult Australian twins, and a sample of spouses of Australian twins. Families with at least one offspring who was identified as a current or former smoker in an earlier survey. Screening telephone interviews were conducted with index cases to provide confirmation of a history of heavy cigarette smoking, to obtain confirmation of a history of heavy cigarette smoking, and to obtain additional information on the history of cigarette use and the survival status of other family members, and their full siblings and parents. Index cases were the affected spouse of a twin, or the affected twin from pairs discordant for a history of heavy smoking, or a randomly chosen twin from pairs where both have a history of regular smoking (i.e., has smoked at least 100 cigarettes lifetime), and at least one live biological parent to identify sibships with at least one affected sib pair (ASP) concordant for heavy smoking, and at least one living parent. If permission was granted by the index case, eligible family members were contacted and invited to provide a blood sample and to complete a telephone diagnostic interview. In families with just one available biological parent, and additional unaffected sibling who had never smoked on a regular basis (i.e., has smoked fewer than 100 cigarette lifetime, but has experimented with cigarettes once or twice) was included (when available) to help compensate for the loss of information due to missing parental phenotypes. (Target N=400 Australian families with approximately 600 ASPs; and 600 TDT trios comprised of a nicotine dependent index case and both biological parents). Diagnostic Assessment: The telephone diagnostic interview assessed DSM-IV and modified DSM-IIIR diagnoses (i.e., without time clustering) for nicotine dependence, alcohol and other drug dependence and abuse, major depression, and childhood conduct disorder. Most diagnostic assessments were based on the SSAGA/SSAGA-II, developed for the multi-site gene-mapping alcoholism study (the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcohol. An exception was the tobacco section, which was developed directly from the CIDI and DIS (as the original SSAGA did not include a diagnostic section on nicotine dependence). In version 2 of this study, a text file containing 7704 SNPs with large allele frequency discrepancy as compared to 1000 Genomes is included. Users have the option to exlude these 7704 SNPs.

  Study phs001299

• Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP)

  NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR ALZHEIMER&#39;S DISEASE SEQUENCING PROJECT (ADSP) GENETIC AND PHENOTYPIC DATA: ADSP whole exome and whole genome sequence data that are shared through dbGaP were mapped to the Genome Reference Consortium human genome GRCh37 (build 37). These data are from the Discovery Phase of the project (described below) and will continue to be available at this site. Please see the ADSP Design page for the complete study description. All data that are mapped to GRCh38 (hg38) are being shared through the NIA Genetics of Alzheimer&#39;s Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) Data Sharing Service (DSS). For instructions on how access the ADSP Build 38 data that are shared through NIAGADS DSS, visit the Application Instructions page. STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR dbGaP BUILD 37 ADSP DATA: The overarching goals of the Alzheimer&#39;s Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) are to: (1) identify new genomic variants contributing to increased risk of developing Alzheimer&#39;s Disease (AD), (2) identify new genomic variants contributing to protection against developing AD, and (3) provide insight as to why individuals with known risk factor variants escape from developing AD. These factors will be studied in multi-ethnic populations in order to identify new pathways for disease prevention. Such a study of human genomic variation and its relationship to health and disease requires examination of a large number of study participants and needs to capture information about common and rare variants (both single nucleotide and copy number) in well phenotyped individuals. Using existing samples from NIH funded and other studies, three NHGRI funded Large Scale Sequencing and Analysis Centers (LSAC) - Broad, Baylor, and Washington University - produced the DNA sequence data. Variant call data are being made available to the scientific community through NIH-approved data repositories. Statistical analysis of the sequence data is anticipated to identify new genetic risk and protective factors. The ADSP will conduct and facilitate analysis of sequence data to extend previous discoveries that may ultimately result in new directions for AD therapeutics. Analysis of ADSP data will be done in two phases. The Discovery Phase analysis (2014-2018) is funded under PAR-12-183. The entire Discovery dataset contains whole-genome sequencing data on 584 subjects from 113 families, and pedigree data for &#62; 4000 subjects; whole exome sequencing data on 5096 cases 4965 controls; and whole exome sequence data on an additional 853 (682 Cases [510 Non-Hispanic, 172 Hispanic]), and 171 Hispanic Control subjects from families that are multiply affected with AD. The Replication Phase (2016-2021) analysis will be funded under RFA-AG-16-001 and RFA-AG-16-002 and is expected to include a combination of genotyping and sequencing approaches on at least 30,000 subjects. Targeted sequencing will be done by the LSACs. GRCh37 Data Releases The first ADSP data release occurred on November 25, 2013. It included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format on 410 individuals. The second ADSP data release occurred on March 31, 2014, and included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format for an additional 168 individuals. The third ADSP data release occurred on November 03, 2014 and included whole-exome sequencing data in BAM file format for 10,939 individuals. The fourth ADSP data release occurred on February 13, 2015 and included revised ethnic data for subjects with whole-exome sequencing data. The fifth ADSP data release occurred on July 13, 2015 and included whole-genome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to pedigree structures and sample IDs. The sixth ADSP data release occurred on December 8, 2015, and included whole-exome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to subject IDs. This seventh ADSP data release on April 12, 2016 includes: (1) WES and WGS SNV VCF files (2) WES and WGS Indel PLINK files ADSP Data Available through dbGaP: ADSP - Whole Genome Sequencing ADSP - Whole Exome Sequencing Comments DNA-Seq (BAM) n=578 n=10913 Sequence data available (plus n=38 replications w/out genotype data) Concordant SNV Genotypes (PLINK format) N/A n=10913 QC&#39;ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas (Baylor&#39;s) and GATK (Broad&#39;s) calling pipelines (a subset of the consensus genotype set) Consensus Genotypes (PLINK and VCF format) n=578 n=10913 QC&#39;ed genotypes that are concordant between Atlas and GATK pipelines as well as those that that were called uniquely by Atlas or GATK Concordant Indel Genotypes (PLINK format) n=578 n=10913 QC&#39;ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas and GATK calling pipelines Phenotype Data n=4735 n=10913 Data of n=53 phenotype variables available (plus administrative data), including APOE genotype. WGS phenotypes include data of connecting family members. Please use the release notes provided by dbGaP to obtain detailed information about study release updates. The ADSP data portal provides a customized interface for users to quickly identify and retrieve files by covariates, phenotypes, and data properties such as sequencing facility or coverage. For more information about the ADSP study and the data portal, please visit https://www.niagads.org/adsp/.

  Study phs000572

• National Cancer Institute Cancer Genome Characterization Initiative (CGCI)

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

  Study phs000235

• NHLBI GO-ESP: Heart Cohorts Exome Sequencing Project (Siblings with Ischemic Stroke Study, SWISS)

  The NHLBI "Grand Opportunity" Exome Sequencing Project (GO-ESP), a signature project of the NHLBI Recovery Act investment, was designed to identify genetic variants in coding regions (exons) of the human genome (the "exome") that are associated with heart, lung and blood diseases. These and related diseases that are of high impact to public health and individuals from diverse racial and ethnic groups will be studied. These data may help researchers understand the causes of disease, contributing to better ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, as well as determine whether to tailor prevention and treatments to specific populations. This could lead to more effective treatments and reduce the likelihood of side effects. GO-ESP is comprised of five collaborative components: 3 cohort consortia - HeartGO, LungGO, and WHISP - and 2 sequencing centers - BroadGO and SeattleGO. The Siblings with Ischemic Stroke Study (SWISS) is an affected sibpair (ASP) study of patients and their brothers/sisters who have had similar strokes. The study was conducted to determine the genes that contribute to an individual&#39;s risk of developing an ischemic stroke (a stroke due to sudden interruption of blood flow to a part of the brain). Over 600 people have participated in SWISS, with the coordination of the recruitment and flow of the samples occurring at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, under the direction of James F. Meschia, MD. The University of Virginia (Stephen S. Rich, PhD) served as the analytic site for the genetic data. Participants were excluded from SWISS if they had stroke following an invasive cerebrovascular or cardiovascular procedure, if their stroke occurred shortly following an aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage, if the stroke occurred in the setting of a mechanical aortic or mitral valve, if the patient had definite CNS vasculitis or if the patient had a Mendelian mitochondrial stroke disorder, including CADASIL, MELAS, Fabry disease, sickle cell anemia or homocysteinemia. For the NHLBI ESP, the youngest 51 ASPs (102 individuals) from SWISS were selected to undergo exome sequencing. These ASPs were selected from among all SWISS participants, excluding those pedigrees with individuals who had TOAST subtypes of stroke of other etiology or of stroke with undetermined etiology. In addition, the affected siblings were required to have the same TOAST subtype (both small vessel (lacunar) or both large vessel (atherosclerotic)). Of those selected, 98 samples passed initial quality control metrics, and 94 completed exome sequencing and were deposited in dbGaP. An additional set of 590 samples from the SWISS collection has been genotyped on the ExomeChip that contained a subset of rare/infrequent variants identified by exome sequencing. These samples include 495 affected individuals (from multiple affected family members) as well as 95 unaffected family members. These genetic and phenotypic data also will reside in dbGaP.

  Study phs000327

• The EGA at the International Congress of Human Genetics

  Today is the start of the International Congress of Human Genetics (ICHG). This event, hosted by the African Society of Human Genetics (AfSHG) and the Southern African Society for Human Genetics (SASHG), will reunite international experts to highlight how genomic technologies are being managed to address challenges generated by the current status of Human Health and Genomics. The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) will be at the Congress participating in workshops, meetings and talks where topics such as data access and discovery as well as the Federated EGA will be present. Data access and discovery In the context of the “Federated data analysis workshop“ that will be held the 26ᵗʰ, managed in the context of the CINECA project, a hands-on-session on Beacon v2 Discovery will be led by Mauricio Moldes. Another session on authorisation and data access will be presented by Mallory Freeberg and Coline Thomas, with and introduction by Thomas Keane. During the workshop, an end-to-end federated data analysis use case will be presented. Data access and discovery In the context of the “ Federated data analysis workshop“ that will be held the 26ᵗʰ, managed in the context of the CINECA project, a hands-on-session on Beacon v2 Discovery will be led by Mauricio Moldes. Another session on authorisation and data access will be presented by Mallory Freeberg and Coline Thomas, with and introduction by Thomas Keane. During the workshop, an end-to-end federated data analysis use case will be presented. During the last four years, CINECA has been identifying gaps in data sharing between Africa, Canada and Europe in order to build a federated solution for data access. Thomas Keane will present the project within the sessions happening the 24ᵗʰ. The Federated EGA at the ICHG A Federated EGA poster will be shown during the Poster Session 1 that will take place the 23ʳᵈ. The objective is to bring awareness of the European Genome-phenome Archive as a resource for permanent archive and secure data sharing. In this context, the network generated by the Federated EGA is key for cases where research data cannot be shared outside local jurisdictions. The Federated EGA was officially launched on 2022 with research institutes from five countries becoming the first nodes of this network. Nowadays, with more than 20 nodes preparing to join, it aims to become the largest human omics data sharing initiative towards understanding human health and disease. The H3Africa Initiative and the African research represented in the EGA 1.1% of the EGA studies include samples from African populations. Countries such as South Africa, Kenya, Uganda or Egypt, among others, are present in the 72.577 samples from African individuals archived at the EGA. 23 EGA datasets are managed by the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa). This Initiative will celebrate its Consortium Meeting the 27ᵗʰ and 28ᵗʰ, back-to-back with the ICHG. H3ABioNet, the Pan African Bioinformatics Network for the H3Africa consortium, will also take this context to celebrate its 10-Year Symposium during the Congress. Members of the EGA team will attend both of them, as the H3ABioNet works in conjunction with H3Africa projects, to submit data to the European Genome-Phenome Archive.

  Blog the-ega-at-the-international-congress-of-human-genetics

• RNA-sequencing from duodenal bipsies of Celiac disease patients

  Samples, in a form of PAXgene fixed and paraffin-embedded biopsies, were collected from the multi-site, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, aimed at dose-finding and assessing the efficacy and tolerability of a 6-week treatment with ZED1227 capsules vs. placebo in subjects with well-controlled celiac disease undergoing gluten challenge. Total RNA was extracted from the PaxFPE biopsy specimens (n = 116) using additional cuttings from the samples on which histomorphometry was previously assessed. For the extraction, an RNeasy Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Library preparation and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were performed by the Qiagen NGS Service. A total of 10 ng of purified RNA was converted into cDNA NGS libraries. Library preparation was quality controlled using capillary electrophoresis. Based on the quality of the inserts and the concentration measurements, the libraries were pooled in equimolar ratios and then sequenced on a NextSeq (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA) sequencing instrument according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with 100 bp read length for read 1 and 27bp for read 2. The raw data were de-multiplexed, and FASTQ files for each sample were generated using bcl2fastq2 software (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA).

  Dataset EGAD50000000491

• National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) The MedSeq Project: Integration of Whole Genome Sequencing into Clinical Medicine (HG006500)

  Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) services are currently available to and being utilized by physicians and their patients in both research and clinical settings, and recently to anyone in the general public via direct-to-consumer companies. But the widespread availability and use of WGS and WES in the practice of clinical medicine is imminent. In the very near future, sequencing of individual genomes will be inexpensive and ubiquitous, and patients will be looking to the medical establishment for interpretations, insight and advice to improve their health. Developing standards and procedures for the use of WGS information in clinical medicine is an urgent need, but there are numerous obstacles related to integrity and storage of WGS data, interpretation and responsible clinical integration. The MedSeq Project is an exploratory trial of WGS in clinical medicine. At the conclusion of this study, we will have helped create innovative protocols and novel outcome measures that can be applied safely in future large-scale multi-site randomized clinical trials with larger numbers of physicians from broad specialties and with more economically and ethnically diverse patients. Together with our colleagues from across the nation through the U01 consortium formed as a result of this funding from the NIH, we will have invented a process of implementation and evaluation whereby the fruits of the Human Genome Project can be applied for the first time to the daily practice of medicine for the betterment of human health. The objectives of the MedSeq Project are to: Recruit, consent and enroll 2 study groups: 10 primary care physicians and 100 of their healthy middle-aged patients 10 cardiologists and 100 of their patients with cardiomyopathy. Randomize each study group to receive standard of care versus standard of care plus WGS. Monitor the entire protocol for subject safety. Only half the enrolled patients were selected for sequencing. Fifty subjects were selected from the primary care cohort and fifty were selected from the cardiomyopathy cohort. Whole genome sequencing was performed at 30x coverage in Illumina&#39;s CLIA-certified laboratory on these 100 individuals. Generate and optimize an algorithm for interpreting WGS data covering the spectrum of human genetic variation, in terms of both previously reported and novel variants likely to influence the health of patients. Create patient reports and provide an interface for communicating clinically relevant genomic information to practicing physicians. Describe physicians&#39; and patients&#39; attitudes toward, and preferences for, the disclosure of WGS results at the start of the study. Evaluate physicians&#39; experiences with receiving and interpreting patients&#39; genetic test results and how they communicate these results to their patients. Explore how patients respond to and use WGS results by administering validated scales of psychological impact, personal utility, and behavioral responses, as well as economic and health outcomes. Although we do not have a large enough sample size for statistical comparisons of outcomes, we will conduct exploratory comparisons: Exploratory Hypotheses: Patients who receive WGS results will show equivalent levels of distress compared to patients who receive family history only. Patients with higher genetic literacy and better understanding will report greater satisfaction and less decisional regret. Patients who receive WGS will (a) be more likely to change health behaviors and (b) utilize more health care resources than those who do not receive WGS.

  Study phs000958

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Versions 1 and 2 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: The ROC Cardiac Epistry versions 1 and 2 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from December 1, 2005 to April 1, 2011. ROC Cardiac Epistry 3 includes cardiac arrest cases captured between 2011 and 2015, and introduced significant changes in how and which data were collected.For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data, please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest;to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes.Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 109,326 cardiac arrest events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003803

• Transdisciplinary Research Into Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) - Exome Plus Targeted Sequencing

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani&#39;s lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, &#62; 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• Pomalidomide for the Treatment of Bleeding in HHT (PATH-HHT)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Objectives: To determine efficacy (reduction in severity of epistaxis), tolerability, and improvement in quality of life of pomalidomide compared to placebo after 24 weeks of treatment.Background: This study addresses the efficacy of pomalidomide in the treatment of epistaxis in patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) who have anemia and/or require blood transfusion or iron infusion for treatment of bleeding-induced anemia and iron deficiency. HHT (also known as Osler-Weber-Rendu disease) is an inherited bleeding disorder. Over 95% of patients develop recurrent epistaxis, which may be severe and result in chronic anemia, need for iron infusions and blood transfusions, substantial psychiatric comorbidity (including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder) and reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HHT is clinically diagnosed using the Curacao criteria, which consists of 1) spontaneous and recurrent epistaxis, 2) telangiectasias at characteristic sites, 3) visceral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) or telangiectasias, and 4) a first degree relative with HHT (inheritance is usually autosomal dominant). Patients with three criteria are considered to have definite HHT, and those with 2 criteria probable HHT. HHT affects approximately 1 in 3,800 individuals. Significant manifestations of HHT often do not appear until the third or fourth decades, sometimes later.Participants: 144 patients from 11 clinical centers were enrolled.Design: This is a multi-center, double blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in patients with HHT and chronic epistaxis leading to iron-deficiency anemia or requiring intravenous iron infusions or blood transfusion.Screening evaluation included the Epistaxis Severity Score (ESS) with three-month recall, which reflected the patient's history of epistaxis and bleeding over the prior three months, as well as detailed review of iron infusion and red cell transfusion over the preceding six months. Eligible patients were provided a diary to record the duration of each epistaxis event that occurred during the 4 weeks prior to the baseline visit, and then returned for the baseline randomization visit, at which time patients underwent genetic testing, if this had not been previously performed, and completed an ESS with 4-week recall and quality of life assessments. Patients were randomized 2:1, stratified by study site, to either pomalidomide 4 mg/day or matching placebo during each of six 28 day cycles (24 weeks). Patients were seen every four weeks during treatment, and at a 4-week post-treatment follow-up visit to measure the ESS (with 4-week recall), laboratory assessments including iron stores and need for iron infusion, CBC, and metabolic profile. Patients were assessed for adverse events (AE) throughout the study. Treatment dosage could be reduced, or temporarily or permanently discontinued following AE-specific guidelines related to fatigue, cytopenias or other toxicities.Quality of life assessments were completed at baseline, and the 12- and 24-week visits, and the 4-week post-treatment follow-up visit using validated NIH instruments of 1) Neuro-QOL satisfaction with social roles and activities, 2) PROMIS emotional distress &#8211; depression, and 3) PROMIS fatigue, and the HHT-specific quality of life instrument developed specifically for this study. The effect of pomalidomide on duration of epistaxis was assessed via diary between weeks 8-12, 20-24 and the 4-week post-treatment period.Conclusions: Among patients with HHT, pomalidomide treatment resulted in a significant, clinically relevant reduction in epistaxis severity. No unexpected safety signals were identified (Al-Samkari et al., 2024; PMID: 39292928)

  Study phs003948

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding to Treat People with Acute Lung Injury or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDSNet EDEN-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-EDEN include bronchial lavage, plasma, DNA, and urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic and non-genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days (VFDs) and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding. Background: Mechanically ventilated patients cannot eat normally and if not fed for long periods become malnourished. Because malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, artificial nutrition is often provided, especially in those with acute lung injury (ALI) and with expected longer duration of mechanical ventilation. When feasible, enteral nutrition targeting full caloric needs has been advocated over parenteral nutrition. However, feeding intolerance and common care practices often serve as practical barriers to reaching recommended goals. Although confounded by indication and severity of illness, several observational studies have shown improved clinical outcomes, including fewer infections, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower mortality for patients receiving a higher percentage of calculated caloric needs. Nonetheless, the best timing, formulation, and amount of enteral nutrition remain unknown. Participants: A total of 1,000 participants were enrolled. Design: Participants were randomized, stratified by site and presence of shock at enrollment, to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation. The initial 272 patients were also simultaneously randomized to a separate trial (the OMEGA study) comparing a nutritional supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants with an isocaloric, isovolemic control in a 2 &#215; 2 factorial design.The designated feeding strategy was initiated within 6 hours of randomization and continued until death, extubation, or day 6. The care of mechanically ventilated patients still receiving enteral feedings after day 6 was managed according to the full feeding strategy in both groups. In extubated patients who then required reintubation, enteral nutrition was restarted and managed according to the study protocol.In the full-feeding group, enteral nutrition was initiated at 25 mL/h and advanced to goal rates as quickly as possible. Gastric residual volumes were checked every 6 hours while enteral feeding was increased. Patients randomized to the initial trophic-feeding group had enteral nutrition initiated at 10 mL/h (10-20 kcal/h) for the first 272 patients who also received the omega-3 or control supplement (240 mL volume per day). After the data and safety monitoring board stopped the OMEGA portion of the factorial design, the initial trophic feeding rate was changed to 20 kcal/h to approximate the calories that had been delivered in the OMEGA study. Gastric Residual Volumes (GRVs) were checked every 12 hours during trophic feeding. In patients randomized to trophic feeding, enteral nutrition was advanced to full-energy feeding rates following the same protocol used for the full-feeding group if they were still receiving mechanical ventilation at 144 hours. Conclusions: There was no difference between groups with regard to the primary end point, VFDs to day 28. There also were no differences in 60-day mortality, organ failure&#8722;free days, ICU-free days, or the incidence of infection between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in VFDs or survival when analyzed by body mass index category or when subsets of patients with shock or more severe lung injury (acute respiratory distress syndrome) were examined.JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):795-803

  Study phs004168

• A panel of reference haplotypes for imputing complement component 4 (C4) gene structural variation

  Neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders have substantial epidemiological correlations (Benros et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2013, PMID: 23760347) and broad, genome-wide patterns of shared genetic risk (Pouget et al., Hum Mol Genet, PMID: 31211845; Tylee et al., Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2018, PMID: 30325587). Some cases of psychosis involve autoantibodies against the NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, or other synaptic proteins (reviewed in Dalmau et al, Lancet Neurol 2011, PMID: 21163445). The related autoimmune conditions lupus and Sjogren&#39;s Syndrome also involve the development of autoantibodies. The possibility that neuropsychiatric disorders can have molecular mechanisms in common with autoimmune disorders - for example, that psychosis involves an inflammatory or autoimmune component in some patients, or that immune molecules are re-used in the brain to underlie other important biological activities (Stevens et al., Cell 2007, PMID: 18083105) - could open novel therapeutic possibilities for neuropsychiatric disorders. At a genetic level, the strongest genetic associations of schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren&#39;s Syndrome to common genetic variation involve associations to genetic markers in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) locus. Bipolar disorder in some studies also associates with variation in or near the MHC locus, though less strongly than schizophrenia does. Intriguingly, the same specific SNPs appear to associate strongly with schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren&#39;s; these strongly associating SNPs span a genomic segment that includes the HLA class II genes (which have an important role in antibody production) and the complement component 4 (C4) genes. The specific genes and alleles responsible for these associations need to be completely defined, and the extent to which they represent shared or distinct genetic influences in neuropsychiatric and autoimmune illnesses needs to be clarified. The complement component 4 (C4A and C4B) genes are present in the MHC locus, between the class I and class II HLA genes. C4A and C4B commonly vary in genomic copy number and encode complement proteins with distinct affinities for molecular targets. The complex genetic variation at C4 - arising from many alleles with different numbers of C4A and C4B genes - has been challenging to analyze in large cohorts. We recently developed an approach to this problem based on imputation: people share long haplotypes with the same combinations of SNP and C4 alleles, such that C4A and C4B gene copy numbers can be imputed from SNP data (Sekar et al., Nature 2016, PMID: 26814963). In the current work, to analyze C4 in large cohorts, we developed a way to identify C4 alleles from whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, then analyzed WGS data from 1,234 individuals to create a large multi-ancestry panel of 2,530 reference haplotypes of MHC SNPs and C4 alleles that can then be imputed into still-larger cohorts for which SNP data are available. With this dbGaP submission, we make this reference panel available for other studies. Protocols and software for imputing C4 alleles into genome-wide SNP data, and for performing molecular analyses on the C4 genes (such as direct measurement of copy number from genomic DNA), can be found on the McCarroll Lab web site (http://mccarrolllab.org/resources). We are also working to create additional reference panels for imputation of C4 alleles that will be based on still-larger and more diverse population samples; links to these will also be available on the McCarroll Lab web site as we create and validate them.

  Study phs001992

• Single Cell and Spatial Transcriptomic Profiling of Haemophilus ducreyi Infection

  We investigated the immune response in end-point pustules formed by Haemophilus ducreyi in volunteers using an experimental infection model. Six volunteers were infected in the skin of the upper arm at three sites with 41-85 CFU of H. ducreyi loaded on an allergy testing device; a sham-inoculated (e.g., wound) site was also performed. Five volunteers (4 men and 1 woman; 2 Asians and 3 Whites; aged 27-46 years) formed pustules 6-8 days post infection; 1 volunteer spontaneously resolved all sites. If a volunteer formed pustules, biopsies were performed to collect their pustule and wound sites. Biopsy pairs for all 5 pustule formers were subjected to single cell (sc) RNA-seq. Sequencing libraries were prepared using the 10X Genomics Single-cell 3' RNA-seq kit. Spatial transcriptomics was performed on biopsy pairs from 4 of the 5 pustule formers. Ten micron sections were placed on 10X Genomics Visium slides for fresh-frozen tissue, and libraries were prepared with the 10X Genomics Visium spatial 3' gene expression kit. All samples were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000. Count tables were produced with CellRanger and SpaceRanger, respectively, and Seurat was used to analyze the data. We identified 13 major cell types by scRNA-seq; the proportion of some immune cell subsets was increased in pustules compared to wound sites. We also localized the major cell types within the tissue by using the scRNA-seq data to deconvolve the spatial transcriptomic data. The FASTQ files and count tables from CellRanger and SpaceRanger are provided.

  Study phs003754

• Frequent post-treatment monitoring of colorectal cancer using individualized ctDNA validated by multi-regional molecular profiling

  Purpose: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has been proposed as an approach for prediction of post-treatment patient outcomes. However, whether a single platform will provide optimal information in all patients or alternatively a patient-specific monitoring approach based on assessment of mutations in the primary tumor from that patient remains an urgent question. Experimental Design: We conducted multiregional sequencing of 42 specimens of 14 colorectal tumors (Stage III and more) from 12 patients, including two double cancer cases, to identify the full spectrum of mutational heterogeneity and identify aberrations that could be used to develop personalized ctDNA assays. Results: ?Founder? mutations that occur in all regions of the sample were identified in 12/14 (85.7%) tumors. Subsequent phylogenetic analysis of each tumor showed that 12/14 tumors (85.7%) carried at least one ?truncal? mutation. Most founder and truncal mutations exhibited higher variant allele frequency (VAF) than ?non-founder? and ?branch? mutations. In addition, both founder and truncal mutations were more likely to be detected as ctDNA than non-founder and branch mutations. Synchronized ctDNA dynamics of multiple mutations suggested those mutations from the same clonal origin. For 10/12 patients (83.3%) with nearly 1,000 days of post-operative observation, the validity of frequent personalized ctDNA monitoring was confirmed in terms of early relapse prediction, treatment efficacy, and non-relapse corroboration. Conclusions: Personalized ctDNA monitoring based on aberrations with a high VAF in the primary tumor site should be explored in larger prospective clinical trials to determine the full clinical validity.

  Study JGAS000243

• Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study

  Study population The WECARE Study is an international multicenter population-based case-control study of cases with asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and individually matched controls with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Recruitment and data collection for the WECARE Study were conducted in two phases, herein referred to as WECARE I (2001&#8211;2004) and WECARE II (2009&#8211;2012). The study design of the first phase (WECARE I) has been described in detail elsewhere [Bernstein JL, et al 2004, PMID: 15084244]; the second phase (WECARE II) employed a nearly identical approach [Langballe R, et al 2016, PMID: 27400983]. Participants in each phase were identified through eight population-based cancer registries, including six in the United States that contribute to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program: Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program; Cancer Surveillance System of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (Seattle region, WA); State Health Registry of Iowa; Cancer Surveillance Program of Orange County/San Diego-Imperial Organization for Cancer Control (Orange County/San Diego, CA); the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (San Francisco Bay Area region and Santa Clara region, CA); and the Sacramento and Sierra Center Registry (Sacramento region, CA). Participants were additionally identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry (Canada) and the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Registry, supplemented by data from the Danish Cancer Registry. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review or regulatory ethics boards at each study site. Data collection Study participants were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire aimed at evaluating known or suspected breast cancer risk factors, including personal demographics, medical history, menstrual and reproductive history, family history of cancer, use of hormones, smoking, and alcohol intake. Risk factor status was assessed during the period prior to first diagnosis, as well as between first diagnosis and reference date (i.e., the at-risk period for CBC). Detailed data on treatment and tumor characteristics were obtained directly from cancer registry records or by abstracting medical records, including pathology and surgical reports, radiation oncology clinic notes, and systemic adjuvant treatment data. Complete medical treatment history information was collected, and for all women who received radiotherapy, the radiation dose to the contralateral breast was reconstructed using radiotherapy records and radiation measurements. Biospecimens were collected from study participants for genotyping: blood collected from WECARE I women; and saliva collected from WECARE II women.

  Study phs003945

• 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

• eMERGE Network Study of the Genetic Determinants of Resistant Hypertension

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of five participating sites (Group Health Seattle, Marshfield Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 19,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of resistant hypertension. Treatment resistant hypertension is a common health problem in the clinical setting. A basic definition of resistant hypertension included subjects with uncontrolled blood pressure despite use of three antihypertensive medications or subjects requiring four or more medications to maintain control. Other conditions, such as secondary causes of hypertension, were exclusions. Site and participants include: Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt&#39;s DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt&#39;s EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations. Marshfield Clinic: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants&#39; DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): Aging and Dementia eMERGE study biorepository leverages rich population-based longitudinal data from both electronic medical records and in-depth research data to explore genome wide associations. Participants include Seattle-area members of GH (a large integrated health care system in Washington State) consented and enrolled in 1) the UW Alzheimer&#39;s Disease Patient Registry (ADPR) and 2) the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study. The ADPR (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is a population-based registry of incident dementia cases designed to identify all new Alzheimer&#39;s Disease cases within GH from 1987 to 1996. Medical history, physical, laboratory testing, and neuropsychological testing were performed on all consenting potential cases for determination of dementia status by a consensus conference. The study base of the ADPR population was stable with an attrition rate of less than 1%/year. The ACT study (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is an ongoing community-based cohort study of aging and dementia. The original cohort of 2,581 randomly selected dementia-free members age 65 and older was enrolled in 1994-1996 and expanded by 811 in 2000-2002. Continuous enrollment to maintain a cohort of 2,000 dementia free persons began in 2005. Participants receive biennial assessment including cognitive status determination. The ACT sub-sample is stable; for the original cohort, median enrollment in GH was 19 years prior to joining the ACT study, and 85% of the cohort has &#8805; 10 years of GH enrollment. DNA for the ADPR participants were obtained through a companion study, Genetic Differences in Cases and Controls (PI: Walter Kukull; NIH/NIA R01 AG007584). DNA obtained through both studies were extracted from blood using Gentra Systems Puregene methods. DNA concentration is determined by UV optical density. All samples are checked for quality by 260/280 ratio. For long-term storage, samples are aliquoted and stored at -70&#176;C. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG, was &lt;1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR.

  Study phs000297

• 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

• Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension and Sickle Cell Disease with Sildenafil Therapy (Walk-PHaSST)

  Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive condition characterized by narrowing or stiffening pulmonary arterioles resulting in increased pulmonary blood pressure and reduced delivery of oxygenated blood to the body. It is a common complication of sickle cell disease and initially presents with the symptom of shortness of breath (dyspnea) on exertion. As the condition worsens, other symptoms such as dizziness, lower extremity edema, and chest pain can develop. The drug, sildenafil, works by relaxing blood vessels in the lungs which reduces pulmonary blood pressure and allows more oxygenated blood to circulate. Increased levels of oxygenated blood allows individuals with PAH to tolerate more activity, but guidelines for using sildenafil in patients with PAH and sickle cell disease were unavailable at the time of the Walk-PHaSST trial.Participants were screened for the existence of pulmonary hypertension with a six minute walk test and a Doppler echocardiogram that assessed TRV, diastolic function, and valvular and systolic function. Subjects with TRV &#8805; 2.7 m/s received further clinical evaluation for possible causes of pulmonary hypertension. Other screening data included medical history, a physical exam, and standard laboratory testing. For individuals with moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension (TRV &#8805; 3.0), a cardiac catheterization was done at the baseline and week 16 data collection periods.Subjects eligible for the main intervention trial based on screening results were randomized in a 1:1 double blind fashion to receive sildenafil or placebo for 16 weeks. Subjects received 20 mg of oral sildenafil or matching placebo 3 times daily for 6 weeks, followed by 40 mg 3 times daily for 4 weeks, followed by 80 mg 3 times daily for 6 weeks, as tolerated. Participants could also receive other therapies as needed to manage sickle cell and related complications. The primary outcome measure of the trial was change in the six minute walk test, a standard indicator of a person's heart and lung function and exercise capacity, from baseline to week 16. After completing the study treatment (or placebo), participants could choose to be part of the open-label follow-up phase of the study and continue to be assessed for up to one year.The study was intended to screen about 1000 subjects and randomize 132 subjects, however it was terminated early due to the unforeseen increase in adverse events in participants treated with sildenafil as compared to placebo. When the study was stopped, 33 participants had completed the trial. Subjects continued to be monitored, but were instructed to taper sildenafil treatment over three to seven days.There was no evidence that treatment with sildenafil impacted the six minute walk distance from baseline to week 16. In addition, treatment with sildenafil appeared to increase rates of hospitalization due to sickle cell disease pain.Due to in part to the early termination of the trial, the majority of subject data was collected from the screening phase of the study (n=720), as opposed to the main intervention trial (n=74).Instructions for requesting individual-level data are available on BioData Catalyst at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/data/. Apply for data access in dbGaP. Upon approval, users may begin accessing requested data in BioData Catalyst. For questions about availability, you may contact the BioData Catalyst team at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/contact.

  Study phs002383

• 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

• Privacy Notice for Helpdesk service

  Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk service This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by dr. Thomas Keane, by: email at: tk2@ebi.ac.uk or post at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: telephone at +49 6221 387-8590, email at dpo@embl.org , or post at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, or post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eu post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from users of the service: Name Email address Job title Date and time when the support request was sent We will use your personal data for the following purposes: To provide uninterrupted user access to the service To better understand the needs of the users and guide future improvements of the service To create anonymous usage statistics 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? There are no personal data transfers to third countries or international organizations. 6. How long do we keep your personal data? Any personal data directly obtained from you will be retained as long as the service is live. Such duration serves the purpose of enabling scientific research and ensures legal compliance and facilitates internal and external audits if they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration. Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period. Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

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

• Implementation of the GDPR

  Data Protection 1 About the EGA The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) was formally launched in 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), to address an identified need for archiving and sharing the results of genome-wide association studies from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. In late 2012, with the signing of a memorandum of understanding (and subsequent formal agreement in 2016) between EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), the EGA formally became a joint project of the two institutes. The two institutes work together to support the EGA services, including supporting submissions, web site, strategic leadership, and data infrastructure developments. 2 EMBL-EBI & GDPR The EGA is co-managed by EMBL-EBI and CRG. EMBL-EBI is an international organisation established by treaty and has certain privileges and immunities (e.g. exemptions from the application of national law) and also may self-regulate its activities (e.g. establish its own institutional legal framework) within the framework of its founding act of 1973. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union (EU) regulation that legislates how organisations can share and process personal data of EU citizens. EMBL places great value in maintaining collaboration with researchers who are subject to GDPR. For that reason, it is of utmost importance for EMBL to handle data received from those collaborators in a secure and responsible manner. Mindful of its public mandate and the sensitivity of the data it handles, EMBL has always ensured a high level of data protection in its activities. Since the introduction of GDPR in May 2018, EMBL has established its internal policy on General Data Protection (IP68), exercising its right to self-regulate its operations,., IP 68 establishes a robust personal data protection framework that provides for data protection principles, enforceable data subject rights and oversight and redress mechanisms offering a level of protection comparable with GDPR. 3 CRG & GDPR The Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) is an international biomedical research institute of excellence, created in July 2000 and mainly participated by the Catalan Government. It is a non-profit foundation and its mission is to discover and advance knowledge for the benefit of society, public health and economic prosperity. The CRG is a CERCA center. CERCA is the collective organisation for all research centres of excellence in Catalonia. CERCA ensures these centres develop successfully by promoting synergies and strategic cooperation improving their visibility and the impact of their research and promoting the dialogue amongst both public and private stakeholders. As a legal entity based in Spain and operating within the EU, the CRG ensures the compliance with the GDPR and the legal regulations on personal data protection applicable at the national level, as well as any other legislation that may replace, modify or supplement the above-mentioned in terms of personal data protection. 4 EGA & GDPR EGA GDPR Schema 4.1 Genetic and phenotypic data Within GDPR, there are two main actors: data controllers and data processors. Data controllers are persons or entities which determine the purposes and means that the personal data may be processed, e.g. companies, researchers, or universities. For EGA, the data controller is ultimately the data producer and the submitter(s) who submit the data to EGA. The data controller also creates a Data Access Committee (DAC) who will decide on data access permissions at EGA. Data processors are the persons or entities which process the data on behalf of a data controller. With regard to GDPR, EGA is a data processor as it processes data as instructed by the data controller. GDPR applies to any organisation which accesses personal data from an individual within the EU. Under GDPR, personal data is defined as any data that is identifiable, including names and email addresses as well as health-related and genetic data. EGA does not accept personally identifiable data except genetic and phenotypic data, so all other data submitted to EGA, such as names and addresses, must be pseudonymised. GDPR requires that data controllers implement data protection principles, such as data minimisation, to minimise the risk of data leakage, and protect the rights of the data subjects. As a data processor, EGA has a set of security policies that are followed to minimise the risk of unauthorised data access or data loss. In its role as a data processor, EGA requires all submitters to sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) when the submission account is first created. This agreement is only required to be signed once per submitter, and will remain valid for future submissions to EGA. 4.2 Other personal data The EGA also collects personal data as part of our interactions with submitters, data access committees, and researchers accessing data distributed by EGA. The below privacy notices explain what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Privacy Notices for EGA Title Version Last Updated EGA Data Access Committee Account Privacy Notice for EGA Data Access Committee Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA User Account Privacy Notice for EGA User Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Helpdesk Service Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Website Service Privacy Notice for EGA Website Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 Documentation Title Version Description EGA Security Overview Security Document 1.1 The EGA Security Document provides an overview of EGA’s practices in ensuring the security of data stored at EGA. EGA Data Processing Agreement Data Processing Agreement 1.5 The Data Processing Agreement must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please note that this document is non-negotiable. Authorised Submitters Authorised Submitters Formulary 1.0 The Authorised Submitters Form must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please list all those that should have access to the submission account in order to submit to the EGA should be detailed here. Dispute Resolution Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, the DPA (including the enforceability or breach thereof, any question regarding its existence, validity or termination) or relating to the EGA Service shall be resolved using the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of EGA including those related to Data Protection. The EGA’s internal dispute resolution mechanism has the following procedure: EGA OPERATIONAL PHASE: Meetings between EGA staff and the Data Controller.LEGAL MANAGEMENT PHASE: Meetings between legal teams of EMBL, CRG and the Data Controller. DIRECTION MANAGEMENT PHASE: Negotiation between the legal representatives of EMBL, the CRG and the Data Controller. If the internal dispute resolution mechanism doesn’t resolve the controversy or claim the next phase is:ARBITRATION PHASE: Resolution by arbitration under the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules (“Rules”).

  Documentation about/privacy-notice

• Genomic Analyses of Germline and Somatic Variation in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

  The goal of this study was to identify and characterize germline and somatic genetic variation in women with high grade serous ovarian cancers treated at a single cancer center and their associations with relapse-free and overall survival. We conducted paired tumor/normal targeted next-generation sequencing of 577 genes in pathways of DNA repair, response to DNA damage, cell-cycle regulation, programmed cell death, MAPK, and P13K/AKT/MTOR signaling in 114 tumors from 71 women. In addition, we investigated single copy number alterations (SCNAs) and loss of heterozygosity in a subset of 61 tumors. We validated our results with data from ovarian tumors in TCGA. Our results were similar to other studies of high-grade serous carcinomas. As an example, we found that approximately one third of the tumors harbored loss of function variants in homologous recombination genes and that &gt;90% had TP53 somatic mutations. Through GISTIC analysis of the OncoScan data on tumor DNA from 61 cases, we identified several regions of high copy number alterations including including NOTCH3 and PIK3R2 that were significantly associated with an increase in cancer recurrence and a reduction in overall survival. We identified few changes in mutation profiles where we had multiple tissues, either from multiple surgeries or from the primary site to metastatic sites within the same surgery. However, we did not investigate copy number alterations in multiple tissues from the same individuals, and so it may be that copy number alterations are more important. Data available through dbGAP will be the BAM files and the phenotypic data on the tumor samples, the age, race, ethnicity of the participants and their outcomes, and the Oncoscan OSCHP files.

  Study phs003198

• A Personalized Neoantigen Vaccine Generates Anti-Tumor Immunity in High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma

  Personalized cancer vaccines (PCVs) can generate circulating immune responses against predicted neoantigens. However, whether such responses can target cancer driver mutations, lead to immune recognition of a patient's tumor, and result in clinical activity are largely unknown, particularly in patients with lower mutation burden tumors. We conducted a phase I trial testing a neoantigen-targeting PCV in patients with high-risk, fully resected clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC; stage III or IV), with or without ipilimumab administered adjacent to the vaccine. At a median follow-up of 40.2 months from surgery, none of the 9 initial participants experienced a recurrence of RCC. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. All patients generated T cell immune responses against PCV antigens, including RCC driver mutations in VHL, PBRM1, BAP1, KDM5C, and PIK3CA. Following vaccination, there was a durable expansion of peripheral T cell clones, and T cell reactivity against autologous tumor was detected in 7 of the 9 patients. Our results demonstrate that neoantigen-targeting PCVs in high-risk RCC are highly immunogenic, capable of targeting key driver mutations, and induce anti-tumor immunity. These observations, in conjunction with the absence of recurrence in all 9 vaccinated patients, highlights the promise of PCV as effective adjuvant therapy in RCC. We are submitting WES data from whole blood samples and tumor FFPE samples, and RNA-Seq data from tumor FFPE samples. We are also submitting RNA-Seq data from purified tumor samples. scRNA-seq data will be submitted for skin samples (vaccine site biopsies at Weeks 0, 4, and 13), tumor samples (including resected metastatic tumor samples for two patients), and normal kidney samples. Bulk TCR-seq data will be submitted for blood samples.

  Study phs003710

• Combining a Universal Telomerase Based Cancer Vaccine with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma - Five-year Follow up of a Phase I/IIa Trial

  Background Ipilimumab improves survival for patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Combining a therapeutic cancer vaccine with ipilimumab may increase efficacy by providing enhanced anti-tumor immune responses. UV1 consists of three synthetic long peptides from human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT). These peptides comprise epitopes recognized by T cells from cancer patients experiencing long-term survival following treatment with a first-generation hTERT vaccine, and generate long-lasting immune responses in cancer patients when used as monotherapy. The objective of this trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of combining UV1 with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma. Patients and methods In this phase I/IIa, single center trial [NCT02275416], patients with metastatic melanoma received repeated UV1 vaccinations, with GM-CSF as an adjuvant, in combination with ipilimumab. Patients were evaluated for safety, efficacy and immune response. Immune responses against vaccine peptides were monitored in peripheral blood by measuring antigen-specific proliferation and IFN-γ production. Results Twelve patients were recruited. Adverse events were mainly diarrhea, injection site reaction, pruritus, rash, nausea and fatigue. Ten patients showed a Th1 immune response to UV1 peptides, occurring early and after few vaccinations. Three patients obtained a partial response and one patient a complete response. Overall survival was 50% at 5 years. Conclusion Treatment was well tolerated. The rapid expansion of UV1-specific Th1 cells in the majority of patients indicates synergy between UV1 vaccine and CTLA-4 blockade. This may have translated into clinical benefit, encouraging the combination of UV1 vaccination with standard of care treatment regimes containing ipilimumab/CTLA-4 blocking antibodies.

  Study EGAS00001005253

• Cross-site Concordance Evaluation of Tumor DNA and RNA Sequencing Platforms of CIMAC-CIDC Network

  The Cancer Immune Monitoring and Analysis Centers (CIMACs) and the Cancer Immunologic Data Commons (CIDC)&nbsp; has engaged in efforts to harmonize Whole-exome (WES) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data from three different experimental platforms (MD Anderson, NCI MoCha lab, and Broad Institute) and are using a series of developed pipelines to process the early trial samples. To evaluate the consistency of tumor WES and RNA-seq profiling platforms across different centers, the CIMACs-CIDC conducted a systematic harmonization study. DNA and RNA were centrally extracted from fresh frozen (FF) and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) tumors and distributed to three centers for WES and RNA-seq profiling

  Study phs002295

• After the completion of CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare. What's next?

  CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare were part of the EUCAN Cluster, made up of six projects that received funding under the same Horizon 2020 call. All EUCAN projects (CINECA, EUCANCan, EUCAN-Connect, euCanSHare, Receptor Plus, and ReCoDID) were aimed at facilitating data reuse and knowledge discovery by enhancing data exchange and long-term collaboration in the health field. Here are some highlights about EGA’s contribution to these projects. CINECA: advances in Federated discovery and infrastructure for cohorts CINECA (Common Infrastructure for National Cohorts in Europe, Canada, and Africa) developed a federated cloud-based infrastructure for making genomic and biomolecular data accessible. The project has assembled a virtual cohort of 1.4 million individuals from sources such as the EGA, CanDIG and H3Africa. The EGA–CRG co-leaded a work package Work Package 1 on Federated Data Discovery and Querying. Beacon v2, championed by Jordi Rambla and Lauren Fromont, has been one of the central elements for the discovery of human genetic and phenotypic data. The EGA-CRG contributed to the development of a model for cohort discovery inside the Beacon v2 model. The team also delivered a Discovery Portal was implemented to explore cohorts and individuals of synthetic data. It is a UI that gathers a network of Beacons, a service for query expansion, and a visualisation tool. Have a look at the Discovery Portal UI, gathering a network of Beacons. You will find entities such as the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), BioData.pt and the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI), among others. euCanSHare: facilitation of data access management This joint EU-Canada project aimed to build a European and Canadian FAIR platform for cardiovascular data sharing and analysis. The EGA’s tasks contributed to the development of the data management plan and data flows, main web-portal and interoperability protocols. An important part of the EuCanShare platform is the data access manager, a tool for the data owners to control the access to their sensitive datasets. We built a user-friendly interface for data access committees (data owners) to easily manage their data requests and access credentials. The data access portal facilitates the creation and internal organization of the data access committees as well as the linkage of data usage conditions to specific datasets. The interface includes filters for browsing requests and page to visualize the request history helping with the handling of data access requests. EUCANCan: toward a federation of clinical institutions in oncology The EUropean-CAnadian CANcer Network worked towards building a federated network to advance personalized medicine in oncology, by promoting the standard analysis, management and sharing of harmonized genomic and phenotypic data. The EGA led tasks on defining data flows and preparing an adapted infrastructure for long-term data storage and sharing. One of the key contributions was the conception of the EGA communities, offering standard and interoperable solutions for data discovery, processing, and sharing to projects and institutions that would like to manage and share data in the context of the EGA ecosystem. What's Next? The participation in projects such as CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare provide us with experience for future projects. We are happy to enhance data sharing and reuse, vital for advancing clinical and genomic research. The Discovery Portal is a wonderful proof of concept for the Beacon network. Next, we will finalise both the network and the user interface, and make sure it can be applied to more clinically-centred settings like hospitals. Most data hosted at the EGA are about cancer research. Currently, we contribute to building tools and infrastructure to empower oncology research in several European projects such as EUCAIM, EUCANIMAGE and EOSC4Cancer. We also do not lose sight of initiatives in the field such as the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) with the project ARGO, whose data model was adopted in EUCanCan.

  Blog cineca-eucancan-and-eucanshare-were-concluded-in-june

• Atezolizumab Plus Personalized Neoantigen Vaccination in Patients with Urothelial Cancer: a Phase 1 Trial

  This is a phase 1 single center clinical trial evaluating a multi-peptide personalized neoantigen vaccine, PGV001, in combination with atezolizumab for patients with urothelial cancer. Patients were enrolled in either the adjuvant or metastatic setting. Those in the adjuvant setting included patients considered high risk of recurrence (pathological stage ypT2-T4 or ypN+ for those treated with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-T4 or pN+ for those not treated with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Those in the metastatic setting included patients progressing after prior chemotherapy or those with at least stable disease after chemotherapy treated as &#8220;switch maintenance&#8221; therapy. The primary endpoint was feasibility (including the number of neoantigens identified per patient, vaccine production time, the proportion of patients consenting to the vaccine development phase for whom a vaccine product was prepared, and the proportion of patients eligible for the treatment phase who completed the priming cycle 1 of PGV001 plus atezolizumab) and safety. Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate, progression-free survival or disease-free survival, overall survival, and immunomodulatory effects of treatment. Urothelial tumor tissue and normal tissue or peripheral blood specimens were utilized for DNA sequencing. HLA typing was performed utilizing genomic DNA isolated from whole blood, and RNA sequencing was performed utilizing tumor tissue specimens. Neoantigen prediction and final selection for incorporation into the vaccine was determined by the OpenVax computational pipeline. 12 patients were initially enrolled into the vaccine development phase and 10 patients initiated the treatment phase. PGV001 was administered with poly-ICLC and tetanus peptide on subsequent days for up to 10 doses, including an initial priming cycle 1. Atezolizumab was administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year in the adjuvant setting or 2 years in the metastatic setting. The vaccine was feasible and safe, the median vaccine production time was 20.3 weeks, and 100% of patients that initiated the treatment phase completed the priming cycle. The most common treatment-related adverse events were local grade 1 injection site reactions, fever, and fatigue. Three of the 4 patients in the adjuvant setting remained disease-free at median follow-up of 39.5 months. There was a 40% objective response rate among patients with measurable disease in the metastatic setting. The single patient treated as &#8220;switch maintenance&#8221; therapy remained with no evidence of disease at 39.4 month follow-up. All patients demonstrated on-treatment neoantigen-specific T cell reactivity, as measured by ELISPOT and flow cytometry assays. Overall, PGV001 plus atezolizumab was feasible, safe, and warrants further investigation. Whole exome sequencing from tumor tissue and normal tissue or whole blood specimens and RNA sequencing from tumor tissue specimens will be available through dbGaP.

  Study phs003922

• How to upload GPG files

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

  Documentation submission/data/uploading-files/ftp

• Privacy Notice for the Account User

  Privacy Notice for EGA User Account This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by dr. Thomas Keane, by: email at: tk2@ebi.ac.uk or post at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: telephone at +49 6221 387-8590, email at dpo@embl.org, or post at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, or post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eu post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from you: Name Email address Title/Position Organisation Organisational affiliation Username and password (to authenticate access to the system) IP Address (for anonymous usage statistics) We process your personal data: to provide you with the authenticated access to the EGA service (opening and managing submission and distribution account), to publicly publish some aggregate data to facilitate scientific research (e.g. number of accounts, geographic distribution), to better understand the needs of the users and to guide future improvements of the service, to create anonymous usage statistics. If you do not provide us with your personal data we will not be able to open the user account and offer you our services or we will only provide you a subset of functionalities available within the service. 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions (for all user account data), Requested dataset Data access committee – DAC will have access to the name, email, organization, affiliation, title/position of the distribution user account, using it for their own purpose of granting access to their datasets. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? Distribution user account data are in the process of granting access disclosed to dataset(s) DAC, which might be a recipient in countries outside of the European Economic Area. Insofar as the second joint controller may be subject to GDPR, data transfer to and from the first joint controller (EMBL-EBI) is necessary for important reasons of public interest embedded in the aims of the EMBL and justified in the Article 9(4) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 49(1)(d) of GDPR) read in conjunction with EMBL`s 1973 establishing agreement and Article 179(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 6. How long do we keep your personal data? All data are stored for as long as you have the account open. Thereafter the storage is prolonged for as long as our service is live, even if you stop using our services. This prolongation is necessary for further scientific research, to ensure legal compliance and security and to facilitate internal and external audits it they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration. Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period. Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

  Documentation data-protection/privacy-notice/ega-user-account

• How to request data

  Request Data Access If you're looking to access data from the EGA for your research, you are in the right documentation page! In this page you will find a step by step guide on how to request data archived at the EGA, as well as some frequently asked questions you might find useful. When requesting data, you'll need to provide information about your research project and intended use of the data. Keep in mind that your data access request may require additional approvals or agreements depending on the datasets and data providers involved. Step by step guide Register yourself as an EGA user. Validate your account. A validation link will be sent to your email to activate your EGA user account. Log into the EGA page. Search the dataset of interest from the dataset catalogue or search bar. Click on “Request access” Add a comment requesting these files and send your request Your request is successfully registered, and the DAC will receive a notification about your request In addition to submitting your request, you should also contact the DAC directly via e-mail. You can access the DAC's contact information from the relevant dataset page. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Which is the role of the EGA in the data access process? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) facilitates the secure distribution under controlled access of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data. Data Access Committee (DAC) is a body of one or more individuals who are responsible for data release to external requestors, based on participant consent and/or National Research Ethics terms. How do I request access to multiple datasets? To request access for multiple datasets managed by the same Data Access Committee (DAC), please start by visiting the DAC catalogue to locate the DAC of your choice. Once you've found the relevant DAC, proceed to its dedicated page where you'll find a "Request access" button. After logging in to the EGA website, you'll be presented with a comprehensive list of datasets under the chosen DAC. Select the datasets you're interested in, and then compose a message indicating your access request. Click the "Send" button to submit your request, which will include the chosen datasets. Please be sure to review the data usage policies for the requested datasets, as policies can vary among datasets managed by the same DAC. I am a co-applicant. Will I be given a joint access account? Each applicant needs to create an EGA account themselves, with unique login details. User log-in details are for individual use only and should never be shared, under any circumstances. EGA services are only provided to EGA account holders. Therefore, the co-applicant will send a formal request to the DAC. What happens if a co-applicant leaves or a new member needs to be added to an existing DAC application? The appropriate Data Access Committee (DAC) should be contacted and informed about the required changes so that the application can be updated. I have changed my place of work since my EGA account was created. Can I still have access to data? You must contact the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC did not reply to my data access request. How should I proceed? There is no estimated time for DAC response. Please allow up to four weeks for a response. In the meantime, please send them a weekly reminder of the status of your request by emailing them directly.If the DAC becomes unresponsive, meaning that they fail to communicate with a requestor within the specified time frame, please contact the EGA Helpdesk team. I have an account with the EGA and would like access to further datasets. How should I proceed? You need to reapply to the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). Once the DAC has approved your application your account will be updated and an email will be sent to notify you of a change made to your account. How do I download files of the datasets I have been granted access to? The preferred method for data download and decryption is the EGA Secure Download Client. Please carefully review the provided documentation. How do I download metadata? Metadata is retrieved from the EGA webpage; you will not need to use any download client. Be informed that you will only be able to download metadata of your approved datasets. For such download, you should first log in the EGA webpage with your credentials. Then browse the metadata's dataset you have gained access and you will find a metadata download button. You may also want to have a look our metadata schema. I have forgotten or misplaced my user account password; how do I get a new one? Click on “Log in”, located in the top right corner of the EGA homepage. Then click “Forgot password”, type in your registered institutional email address, and instructions for resetting your password will be sent to you. Please check both regular and junk/spam folders. I was sent a link to set a password for my download account, but it seems like the link has expired. What should I do? The procedure is the same as the one for a forgotten password, explained in the previous question.

  Documentation access/request-data/how-to-request-data