6261 results for "fc 26 ultimate team coins buy Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..E4Pd"

in 22.82 milliseconds.

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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