611 results for "fc 26 ultimate team fast coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com Hyvä käyttöliittymä verkkosivustolla..xlc6"

in 14.09 milliseconds.

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (CCDG): Genetics of Orofacial Clefts and Related Phenotypes

  The purpose of this study is to investigate the genetics of orofacial clefts (OFCs) in a large study population, and importantly, to incorporate subclinical phenotypic features into these studies. Orofacial clefts (OFCs) comprise a significant fraction of human birth defects (about 1/700 live births (Rahimov et al. 2012) and represent a major public health challenge, as individuals with these anomalies require surgical, nutritional, dental, speech, medical and behavioral interventions, thus imposing a substantial economic and personal burden (Berk and Marazita 2002*). The most common forms include OFCs of the lip alone (CL, Figure 1A), CL plus cleft palate (CL+CP, Figure 1B) or of the palate only (CP, Figure 1C). Individuals born with OFC may have their first surgical repair at age 3 months, but this initial surgery is just the beginning of a lifetime of health burdens. An individual born with an OFC has a hospital use rate increased for most ages (up to 233% increase for children ages 0-10 years and 16% for middle aged adults (Wehby et al. 2012). Healthcare costs for children with OFCs are estimated to be 800% greater compared with their unaffected peers (Boulet et al. 2009). Data from Denmark show that people born with CL with or without CP (CL/P) have an increased mortality up to age 55, which may be attributed to an increased risk of suicide and/or certain cancers (Christensen et al. 2004). The focus of most OFC genetic research has been CL and/or CP. Furthermore, the majority of OFC, i.e. about 70% of CL/P and 50% of CP is considered "nonsyndromic" (Jones 1988), i.e. isolated anomalies with no other apparent cognitive or structural abnormalities. Figure 1 Sample OFC Types A: Bilateral Cleft Lip; B:Cleft Lip plus Cleft Palate; C:Cleft Palate Alone The factors leading to the majority of nonsyndromic OFCs are still unclear, particularly at an individual family level. As is true for many complex traits, substantial progress in gene identification has occurred in the OFC field in the last two years (Dixon et al. 2011; Marazita 2012). Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and sequencing studies to date by our research team and others have focused on genetic risk factors for overt CL/P and CPO-and have been very successful. A major finding from this work is that OFCs exhibit significant genetic heterogeneity, i.e., multiple genetic regions have been implicated (Beaty et al. 2010; Ludwig et al. 2012). Thus, approaches are needed to understand this genetic heterogeneity. Are there GxG interactions at work? Are there subsets of families, each due to a different gene? Our research group has shown that a promising approach to dissect the etiology of OFC is to focus on subclinical phenotypic features within entire cleft families (not just in affected cases, but also in their non-cleft relatives). These subtle features are believed to represent mild manifestations of the same underlying genetic susceptibility responsible for OFCs; as such, their inclusion in case-control and family-based genetic studies can help to clarify and refine the relationship between genotype and phenotype. The study population comprises a large number of families and individuals (~12,000 individuals) from multiple populations worldwide (Caucasians from the US and Europe, Asians from China and the Philippines, Mixed Native American/Caucasians from South America, and Africans from Nigeria and Ethiopia). There are cases, case families (nuclear families and extended kindreds), as well as controls with no history of OFC nor other developmental defects. *Berk NW, Marazita ML (2002) Costs of Cleft lip and Palate: Personal and Societal Implications. In: Wyszynski DF (ed) Cleft Lip and Palate: From Origin to Treatment. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp 458-467.

  Study phs000774

• Clonal selection after gene therapy in sickle cell disease

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

  Dataset EGAD00001010913

• Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN): A Phase II, RCT of Mesenchymal Stem Cells & Cardiac Stem Cells in Subjects With Ischemic HF (CONCERT HF-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. ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), alone or in combination, in participants with ischemic heart failure.Background The prognosis of heart failure (HF) caused by chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction), hereby referred to as “ischemic HF”, remains poor. Many studies have explored the use of various types of stem or progenitor cells in participants with chronic ischemic HF, with encouraging results. Several clinical trials have suggested that MSCs and CPCs are both safe and beneficial in participants with ischemic HF. At the time of this study, no information was available on the efficacy of MSCs and CPCs in humans, however, both cell types have been shown to attenuate left ventricle (LV) dysfunction in animal models. Preclinical models indicate that combining MSCs and CPCs increases the therapeutic effects, but this had not yet been tested in humans. The CONCERT-HF study was initiated to assess whether autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, can be manufactured and delivered to participants with ischemic HF; are well-tolerated; and improve LV function, quality of life, and functional capacity, and/or reduce scar size. Participants A total of 125 participants were randomized with 33 participants randomized to the MSCs and CPCs group, 29 participants to the MSCs alone group, 31 participants to the CPCs alone group, and 32 participants to the placebo group. Design The CONCERT-HF study was a multi-center Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSCs alone, CPCs alone, and their combination compared with placebo as well as each other in patients with ischemic HF. In Stage 1 (open label, lead-in study) participants were randomized 1:1 to either a standard-of-care control group (i.e., they did not undergo harvest, mapping, or injection procedures) or combination therapy (MSCs + CPCs, as described for Stage 2) to complete safety assessments. Once approval was granted for Stage 2, participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatments: placebo, autologous MSCs (target dose, 150 × 106 cells), autologous CPCs (target dose, 5 × 106 cells), or a combination of autologous MSCs and CPCs. At the harvest visit, right ventricular endocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed in participants randomized to receive CPCs alone or a combination of MSCs and CPCs. Participants randomized to receive MSCs alone or placebo had a sham procedure (right heart catheterization without EMB). All participants underwent a bone marrow aspiration and approximately 14 weeks later had transendocardial, electromechanically-guided injections of study product. Visits occurred at 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after study product injection. A telephone contact took place at 24 months to assess the participant's current medications, as well as morbidity and mortality. Study endpoints included measures of safety, feasibility, and efficacy. Safety outcomes included all adverse events grade 2 and higher, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to HF (death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and HF exacerbation not requiring hospitalization). Efficacy endpoints included quality of life, MRI measures of LV function and structure, functional capacity, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Conclusions In patients with ischemic HF, autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, are safe and feasible; CPCs were associated with a reduction in the incidence of MACE related to HF compared to placebo; MSCs, either alone or in combination with CPCs, were associated with improved quality of life; these seemingly beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs on clinical outcome were not associated with changes in LV function or structure; and combination therapy with MSCs and CPCs was associated with the best clinical outcomes with respect to both MACE related to HF and quality of life.

  Study phs004055

• Best Practices for DACs

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

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

• 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

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) (PETAL CLOVERS-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL CLOVERS include plasma, and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Objectives: To compare the effects of a restrictive fluid strategy (with early use of vasopressors) to a liberal fluid strategy in participants with sepsis-induced hypotension.Background: Intravenous fluid resuscitation is a common therapy used in the initial treatment of participants with septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension. The goal of initial fluid therapy is to increase depleted or functionally reduced intravascular volume that occurs in sepsis due to a vasodilated vascular network. However, intravenous fluid resuscitation can create dilutional coagulopathy, fluid overload, and pathogenic edema in the lungs and other organs. Vasopressor agents are also commonly used to treat hypoperfusion by inducing constriction of arterioles and venules and increasing cardiac contractility. Vasopressor therapy also comes with risks that include vasoconstriction resulting in tissue ischemia, increased cardiac workload, and arrhythmias. Clinicians have used these strategies, typically in combination, to provide supportive care for participants with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, at the time of the CLOVERS study, there was limited data to guide specific use of these therapies, including fluid volumes, in the early care of participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. The CLOVERS study hypothesized that a restrictive fluid strategy used during the first 24-hours of resuscitation for sepsis-induced hypotension would lead to lower mortality before discharge home by day 90 than a liberal fluid strategy.Participants: A total of 1,563 participants, from 60 medical centers, of the planned 2,230 participants were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Enrollment in the trial was ended after the second interim analysis due to a lack of significant difference observed between the two 24-hour strategies.Design: This study was a multi-center, prospective, phase 3 randomized non-blinded interventional trial of fluid treatment strategies in the first 24 hours for participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a restrictive fluid strategy (with early vasopressor use) or a liberal fluid strategy. In each group, the assigned protocol was followed for a period of 24 hours. The restrictive fluid protocol prioritized vasopressors as the primary treatment for sepsis-induced hypotension, with 'rescue fluids' being permitted for prespecified indications that suggested severe intravascular volume depletion. The liberal fluid protocol consisted of a recommended initial 2000-ml intravenous infusion of isotonic crystalloid, followed by fluid boluses administered on the basis of clinical triggers (e.g., tachycardia) with 'rescue vasopressors' permitted for prespecified indications. A protocol amendment implemented in October, 2019, allowed for limiting the initial infusion to 1,000 ml if the participant's blood pressure and heart rate had stabilized and the clinical assessment was that the participant was unlikely to benefit from additional intravenous fluid administration. The clinical team could override the protocol-specified care instructions at any time if it was judged to be in the best interest of the participant.The primary outcome was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. Secondary outcomes included 28-day measures of the number of days free from ventilator use, days free from renal-replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, days out of the ICU, and days out of the hospital. Conclusions: Among participants with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality, or other measures of recovery such as length of hospital stay, before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy.

  Study phs004080

• Genes and Blood Clotting Study (GABC)

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

  Study phs000304

• The Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) Tissue Biopsy Study

  The Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study is a long-term effort to identify genetic variants that predispose to type 2 diabetes (T2D) or that impact the variability of T2D-related quantitative traits (QTs). Most of the variants associated with T2D and related traits (glucose and insulin, anthropometrics, lipids) through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) occur in non-coding regions, suggesting a strong regulatory component to disease susceptibility. Regulatory element activity is often tissue-specific, which further complicates discovery of the causal/functional variation. Therefore, there is a critical need to identify the appropriate cell type, regulatory elements, target genes, and causal variants(s) in T2D-relevant tissues. We hypothesize that a subset of T2D and related variants alter gene expression regulation in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue - two major insulin target tissues and play key roles in insulin resistance. To that end, our study contains a comprehensive survey of genomics, epigenomics and transcriptomics in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue from individuals with glucose tolerance categories ranging from normal to T2D.For this FUSION Tissue Biopsy Study, we obtained RNA-Seq, microRNA (miRNA)-Seq, and DNA methylation (methyl)-Seq data on biopsy samples from 331 individuals from across the range of glucose tolerance: 124 normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 77 impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), 44 impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and 86 newly-diagnosed T2Ds. Participants completed two study visits, two weeks apart. First visits comprised most of the clinical phenotyping, including four-point OGTT (fasting, and 30, 60, and 120 minute post-load); BMI, WHR; lipids; blood pressure; and many other variables. Participants also completed FUSION health history, medication, and lifestyle questionnaires. On the second visit, we obtained ~250mg vastus lateralis skeletal muscle, ~750mg abdominal subcutaneous adipose, and a ~5x15mm section of abdominal skin. Visits were completed in March 2013. RNA isolation is ongoing in the Collins laboratory at the NIH, RNA and miRNA sequencing at the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center (NISC), and genotyping at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Individual-level data is available here for the 306 individuals who consented to data deposit. To focus on evaluation of gene expression and its regulation in skeletal muscle, we analyzed mRNA extracted from vastus lateralis skeletal muscle obtained from 271 of the 331 individual subjects from Finland, along with genome-wide genotypes. Individual-level data is available here for the 250 subjects who consented to the use of their data.Release phs001048.v2.p1 adds muscle data for an additional 42 subjects and data from adipose tissue for 276 subjects. Total RNA was isolated using Trizol extraction in the Collins laboratory at the NIH. The mRNA was poly-A selected, 24-plex libraries were generated using the Illumina TruSeq directional mRNA-seq library protocol and RNA sequencing was performed on HiSeq2000 sequencers using 101bp paired-end reads at NISC. miRNA libraries were prepared from total RNA from 296 muscle and 270 adipose samples, pooled and sequenced 50bp single-end reads on Illumina HiSeq2500. Data for 272 muscle and 251 adipose samples are available here for individuals with consent for data deposit. DNA was extracted from blood in the Collins laboratory, and genotyping on the Illumina Omni2.5M array was performed at CIDR. Genotypes were imputed using the HRC 2016 reference panel. In order to assess regions of open chromatin in skeletal muscle, we obtained muscle tissue from a commercial provider to perform ATAC-seq; these samples were sequenced at the University of Michigan DNA Sequencing Core.Release phs001048.v3.p1 adds single-nucleus (sn) RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data in 287 skeletal muscle samples out of the original 331 individuals. Individual-level data is available here for the 265 subjects who consented to the use of their data. The frozen tissue biopsy samples were processed in ten batches, each consisting of 40-41 samples. These batches were organized using a randomized block design to protect against experimental contrasts of interest including cohort, age, sex, BMI among others. Samples in each batch were pulverized, pooled together followed by nuclei isolation. The nuclei were processed on the 10X Genomics Chromium platform separately for snATAC-seq and snRNA-seq (v. 3.1 chemistry for snRNA-seq).Release phs001048.v4.p1 adds additional phenotypes and provides some corrections to several previous phenotypes.

  Study phs001048

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

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

  Study phs000206

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submission. To start a new submission click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only” or “Read & Write”). If you want to invite all the collaborators from a previous submission, you can add them by selecting said submission.In the event that the submission has been closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you will need to modify one of the objects in the submission, for example, copy and paste the title. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv and the sample will be created.Add single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols and machines. Experiments generate the connection between samples and study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample - file linkage. Upload the run.csv and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh. Add single run: select the file format, sample and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded in your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested please delete them from your SFTP INBOX before finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button, and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more file to a closed submission, you will need to re-open the submission where the dataset was registered. Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission id (EGA0XXX).  Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, you must edit any object within the submission. For example, you can copy and paste the title. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guidance of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal