201 results for "fc coins kopen xbox Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Ohne Probleme, top..EgjF"

in 19.41 milliseconds.

• Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

  Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.

  Study phs001327

• Characterization_of_individual_foci_of_multicentric_multifocal_breast_cancer_using_targeted_next_generation_sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the “quadrants” of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients’ survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Study EGAS00001000407

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with >261,000 consents that allow return of results to >84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world's largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n>450,000), specifically from >100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n>12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute's Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (<1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level >155 or >120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients' health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-BioLINCC)

  Related StudiesWhole genome and whole exome data is available on a subset of participants with phs001411. ECG signal data is available with phs003562.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients. Lipid Therapy Trial: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood Pressure Trial: Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy: Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients. MIND Substudy: Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain. Participants10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy: A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Participants who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded. MIND Substudy: A subgroup of 2977 participants was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded participants aged Design Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy: EYE Substudy participants were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. MIND Substudy: The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses. Conclusions Glycemia Trial: As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, et al.,2008, PMID:18539917). Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial: Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Ismail-Beigi et al., 2010, PMID: 20594588) Lipid Therapy Trial: The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228404). Blood Pressure Trial: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228401). EYE Substudy: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20587587). MIND Substudy: Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Launer et al., 2011, PMID: 21958949).

  Study phs003551

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• How to encrypt files with EGACryptor

  File preparation Due to the processes used at the EGA for file archival the use of non-alphanumeric characters in a filename will cause issues in archival. By convention whitespaces in filenames are to be avoided and should be replaced with the underscore character (_). Before encrypting your files please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &  Crypt4gh EGACryptor Files encrypted with EGACryptor must be uploaded via FTP EGACryptor The EGACryptor v.2.0.0 is a JAVA-based application which enables submitters to produce EGA compliant encrypted files along with files for the encrypted and unencrypted md5sum for each file to be submitted. The application will generate an output folder that will by default mirror the directory structure containing the original files. This output folder can subsequently be uploaded to the EGA FTP staging area via an FTP or Aspera client. Download EgaCryptor Download EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Encrypting single file Encrypting multiple files Encrypting all files in folder Points to note Troubleshooting Troubleshooting Download EGACryptor The required jar files can be obtained by downloading EgaCrytptor jar file After the file has been downloaded, extraction of the zipped archive is required. The EGACryptor has been built to work with Java Runtime Environments from version 6 and above and with the OpenJDK Environment. Please refer to the relevant resources for installation guidance. Installing the latest version of the OpenJDK will include the JCE files. If your installation of Java JRE is less than 1.8.0_151 will require the manual installation of the JCE Policy Files. You can verify the version of the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) installed by using the command: $ java -version If you need to install the JCE please follow the instructions below: Installing the JCE policy files (due to licensing terms and conditions the required policy files must be downloaded direct from the ORACLE website) : Download the unlimited strength JCE policy files (JRE 6 / JRE 7/ JRE 8) Uncompress and extract the downloaded file. This will create a subdirectory called JCE. This directory contains the following files: README.txt, COPYRIGHT.html, local_policy.jar and US_export_policy.jar Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your java home directory. Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your directory. The standard place for JCE jurisdiction policy JAR files is: /lib/security [Unix] or \lib\security [Win32] Notes: refers to the directory where the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) was installed. Additional performance enhancements that have been included in the EGACryptor V2.0.0: The ability to parallelise the processing of datasets through the use of the resources on a system. Multicore systems will allow the user to specify n-1 cores for an n-core system. The use of this feature on clusters may speed up the processing of datasets that have large file numbers but consult your local cluster guide to ensure that there are not monopolising resources that are needed by other system users. The default for this process remains single threaded. 3 levels of system usage can be specified. Full usage within the limits detailed above. A limited mode that will ensure that 50% of the system resources are available for other tasks. Maximum mode is limited to 75% of system resources, this allows encryption to be prioritised but allows for the system to be usable for light alternate tasks. Finally there is a throttling mode that allows you to specify the exact number of computational threads to be used. the EGACryptor is able to ingest a structured directory and will output a directory with the same structure containing the encrypted files along with the md5checksums for the plain and encrypted files. The entire output directory can then be uploaded to the EGA for archival. as with the input path, it is now possible to specify the output path. the options have been updated inline with the upgraded functionality. The tool can only be used via the command line. The EGACryptor is designed to perform a single task, encrypting your data, for upload of these files please refer to our uploading guide Using the EgaCryptor Below are the three ways on how the EGACryptor tool can be used: Encrypting a single file : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i example1.bam Encrypting multiple files : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i "example1.bam,example2.bam" Encrypting all the files within a folder java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i path/to/target/directory By default the EGACryptor v2 will create a new output directory containing all encrypted files and the relevant checksums within the target directory. If a specific directory is desired this can be specified by using the -o flag. This can be achieved in a similar manner to the following example: java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i /path/to/target/directory -o /path/to/output/directory The tool will output three files per input file: file.gpg ( encrypted file ) file.md5( file md5 sum value file ) file.gpg.md5 ( encrypted file md5 sum value file ) All output files must then be uploaded to your submission account using Aspera or FTP. Further documentation on how to upload files: FTP and Aspera. Points to note Remember to provide the path to EgaCryptor.jar and run the command from within the directory the file/s are located. ECryptor writes files to the source directory of your local file system, as a result you must have write-access permissions for the source directory. Troubleshooting If in doubt about the function of the EGACryptor it is recommended to first consult the built-in documentation. This can be accessessed by using the -h flag as stated in the following table. Built-in Commands Table: list of the command line options built into EGA-Cryptor v2.0.0. Command line Option Action --------------------- ----------- -f Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads to utilise full capacity of cores/processors available on machine -h Use this option to view the bult-in help menu * -i File(s) to encrypt. Provide file/folder path or comma separated file path if multiple files in double quotes -l Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 50% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -m Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 75% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -o Path of the output file. This is optional. If not provided then output files will be generated in the same path as that of source file (default: output- files) -t Set this option if user wants to control application to create maximum threads as specified. Application will calculate no. of cores/processors available on machine & will create threads accordingly Encryption Errors UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively (Native Method) The error is thrown by UNIX ("UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)"). It appears that the user does not have write-access to the file system where the file to be uploaded is located. EGACryptor always writes MD5 checksums into files before uploading them to the server, and these files are created in the same location where the uploaded file itself resides.Solution: address your directory permission issue and re-run the command. Install JCE Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy files The JCE policy unlimited strength jurisdiction files should be installed according to your current java version If you are still facing difficulty with the EGACryptor v.2 after having consulted the documentation please contact the EGA Helpdesk.

  Documentation submission/data/file-preparation/egacryptor

• Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Cohort

  MESA The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a study of the characteristics of subclinical cardiovascular disease (disease detected non-invasively before it has produced clinical signs and symptoms) and the risk factors that predict progression to clinically overt cardiovascular disease or progression of the subclinical disease. MESA researchers study a diverse, population-based sample of 6,814 asymptomatic men and women aged 45-84. Thirty-eight percent of the recruited participants are white, 28 percent African-American, 22 percent Hispanic, and 12 percent Asian, predominantly of Chinese descent. Participants were recruited from six field centers across the United States: Wake Forest University, Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and University of California - Los Angeles. Each participant received an extensive physical exam to determine coronary calcification, ventricular mass and function, flow-mediated endothelial vasodilation, carotid intimal-medial wall thickness and presence of echogenic lucencies in the carotid artery, lower extremity vascular insufficiency, arterial wave forms, electrocardiographic (ECG) measures, standard coronary risk factors, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle factors, and psychosocial factors. Selected repetition of subclinical disease measures and risk factors at follow-up visits allows study of the progression of disease. Blood samples have been assayed for putative biochemical risk factors and stored for case-control studies. DNA has been extracted and lymphocytes cryopreserved (for possible immortalization) for study of candidate genes and possibly, genome-wide scanning, expression, and other genetic techniques. Participants are being followed for identification and characterization of cardiovascular disease events, including acute myocardial infarction and other forms of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and congestive heart failure; for cardiovascular disease interventions; and for mortality. In addition to the six Field Centers, MESA involves a Coordinating Center, a Central Laboratory, and Central Reading Centers for Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound, and Electrocardiography (ECG). Protocol development, staff training, and pilot testing were performed in the first 18 months of the study. The first examination took place over two years, from July 2000 - July 2002. It was followed by four examination periods that were 17-20 months in length. Participants have been contacted every 9 to 12 months throughout the study to assess clinical morbidity and mortality. MESA Family The general goal of the MESA Family Study, an ancillary study to MESA funded by a grant from NHLBI, is to apply modern genetic analysis and genotyping methodologies to delineate the genetic determinants of early atherosclerosis. This is being accomplished by utilizing all the current organizational structures of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and Genetic Centers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and University of Virginia. In the MESA Family Study, the goal is to locate and identify genes contributing to the genetic risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), by looking at the early changes of atherosclerosis within families (mainly siblings). 2128 individuals from 594 families, yielding 3,026 sibpairs divided between African Americans and Hispanic-Americans, were recruited by utilizing the existing framework of MESA. MESA Family studied siblings of index subjects from the MESA study and from new sibpair families (with the same demographic characteristics) and is determining the extent of genetic contribution to the variation in coronary calcium (obtained via CT Scan) and carotid artery wall thickness (B-mode ultrasound) in the two largest non-majority U.S. populations. In a small proportion of subjects, parents of MESA index subjects participating in MESA Family were studied but only to have blood drawn for genotyping. The MESA Family cohort was recruited from the six MESA Field Centers. MESA Family participants underwent the same examination as MESA participants during May 2004 - May 2007. DNA was extracted and lymphocytes immortalized for study of candidate genes, genome-wide linkage scanning, and analyzed for linkage with these subclinical cardiovascular traits. While linkage analysis is the primary approach being used, an additional aspect of the MESA Family Study takes advantage of the existing MESA study population for testing a variety of candidate genes for association with the same subclinical traits. Genotyping and data analysis will occur throughout the study. MESA Air The general goal of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (&#39;MESA Air&#39;) is to prospectively examine the relation between an individual level assessment of long-term ambient air pollution exposures (including PM2.5 and the progression of subclinical cardiovascular disease in a multi-city, multi-ethnic cohort. MESA Air will also prospectively examine the relationship between an individual level assessment of long-term ambient air pollution exposures and the incidence of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. MESA AIR is funded by a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the University of Washington and subcontracts from the UW to other participating institutions. MESA Air will assess if ambient air pollution is associated with changes over time in subclinical measures of atherosclerosis and plasma markers of inflammation, oxidative damage, and endothelial activation in a longitudinal data model, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and specific cardiovascular risk factors (such as diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and diet). The study will similarly assess if the incidence of cardiovascular events is associated with long-term exposure to ambient air pollution, using a proportional hazards model. The study includes refinement of statistical tools, and explores joint/independent effects of acute and long-term pollutant exposure in the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The MESA Air study is built on the foundation of the ongoing MESA study. The parent MESA Study cohort is located in six geographic areas (&#39;Field Centers&#39;) that capture tremendous exposure heterogeneity, comparable to or greater than the variability in locations of prior U.S. cohort studies. In addition to the six Field Centers, the study involves a Coordinating Center, a Central Laboratory, and Reading Centers for Computed Tomography (CT), ultrasound and air pollution data. The cohort for the MESA Air study currently includes 6226 subjects: 5479 enrolled in the parent MESA study; 257 recruited specifically for this study, and 490 recruited from the MESA Family study. The entire MESA Air cohort will be followed over a 10-year project period for the occurrence of cardiovascular disease events. On two occasions over the ten-year study period, 3600 subjects from the MESA Air cohort, residing in nine locales, will undergo computed tomography scanning to assess presence and extent of coronary artery calcification (CAC), and ultrasound of the carotid artery to determine intima-media thickness (IMT). We will also repeatedly assess plasma markers of inflammation, oxidative damage, and endothelial function in 720 subjects. MESA Air adds state-of-the-art air pollution exposure assessment information to the MESA cohort study, and introduces new subjects and outcome measures to achieve our aims. The study will assess long-term individual-level exposure to ambient air pollutants for each subject using community-scale monitoring, outdoor spatial variation, subject proximity to pollution sources, pollutants&#39; infiltration efficiency, and personal time-activity information. The exposure models will be validated using detailed monitoring in a subset of subjects. The MESA Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs000209 MESA Cohort. phs000420 MESA SHARe phs000283 MESA CARe phs000403 MESA ESP Heart-GO

  Study phs000209

• GAW16 Framingham and Simulated Data

  Important links to apply for individual-level data Genetic Analysis Workshop Instructions to Request Authorized Access Data Use Certification Requirements (DUC) Apply here for controlled access to individual level data Research Use Statement Questions regarding GAW16 should be directed to Vanessa Olmo at vanessa@business-endeavors.com. Problem 2: Description of the Framingham Heart Study In GAW16, we use data drawn from the Framingham Heart Study. The Framingham Heart Study &#8212; under the direction of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NHLBI &#8212; began in 1948 with the recruitment of adults from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century and had become an American epidemic. The Framingham Heart Study is now conducted in collaboration with Boston University. The objective of the Framingham Heart Study was to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to CVD by following its development over a long period of time in a large group of participants who had not yet developed overt symptoms of CVD or suffered a heart attack or stroke. Between 1948 and 1953 the researchers recruited 5,209 subjects (2,336 men and 2,873 women) between the ages of 29 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts and began the first round of extensive physical examinations and lifestyle interviews that they would later analyze for common patterns related to CVD development. Subjects were recruited from lists of addresses recorded for the town. Two out of every three households were approached for participation in the study. While there was no intention to recruit families for family studies, the plan was to recruit all household members in the ages 30-60 within each house that was selected for study. Hence, many biologically related individuals were recruited, including 1644 spouse pairs. Since 1948, these participants have returned to the study every two years for a detailed medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Now in 2008 at 60 years of follow up, there remain about 500 participants from this cohort. Between 1971 and 1975 the study enrolled a second-generation group &#8212; 5,124 of the original participants&#39; children and the spouses of these children &#8212; to participate in similar examinations. 2,616 subjects are offspring of the original spouse pairs and 34 are stepchildren. A total of 898 offspring are children of cohort members where only one parent was a study participant and 1,576 are spouses of the offspring. The Offspring Cohort has been followed every four years through 2001 (except between Exams 1 and 2 with an intervening 8 years) using protocols similar to those used for study of the Original Cohort. Between 2002 and 2005 the study enrolled the third generation (Gen3) of the Framingham Heart Study - 4095 offspring of the second generation. None of their spouses were recruited. An additional 103 parents of this third generation, who were not recruited between 1971 and 1975, were also recruited at this time. The latter group is not included in the GAW16 data. With the recruitment of this third generation, the study has increasingly focused on genetic factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease and its associated risk factors. To date, there is only one examination of this generation of participants. A description of the recruitment of this third generation and comparison with the earlier generations at their initial recruitment is presented in Splansky GL et al., 2007. Further information on the Study can be found at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/index.html. Genome-wide Dense SNP Scan in Framingham Heart Study Genetic studies did not begin in the FHS until the 1990s. In the late 1980s and through the 1990s DNA was extracted from blood samples of surviving FHS participants. In 2007, the FHS entered a new phase with the conduct of genotyping for the FHS SHARe (SNP Health Association Resource) project, for which dense SNP genotyping was performed using approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip&#174; Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel) in 10,775 samples (some duplicates) from the three generations of subjects (including over 900 pedigrees). Affymetrix conducted all genotyping for the FHS SHARe project, using the 250K Sty, 250K Nsp, and the supplemental 50K platforms. Eighty-nine percent of the DNA samples were collected during the 1990s. To maximize the power of the study, we also extracted DNA from 1133 blood samples, drawn from subjects who had no DNA, to include in the SHARe project. These samples had been sitting in our refrigerators for some time, a few as far back as the 1970s. We refer to these DNA samples as the legacy samples. These samples had a higher failure rate in the genotyping process (40%) than the other eighty-nine percent (3%). Affymetrix invoked its own criteria for a sample to succeed in genotyping. All non-legacy samples must succeed on all three platforms, while legacy samples needed to pass on at least one platform. When a sample failed, additional attempts were made. Samples that repeatedly failed 2-4 times were called failures. Other samples failed due to issues of genotyped sex identification not matching our records or low SNP concordance among SNPs common across arrays or contamination. Eighty-nine percent of the legacy samples for which genotyping results are available passed all three platforms. The genotyping data from the 10,043 samples from 9354 subjects that passed the Affymetrix criteria were additionally checked for gender consistency and consistency with family structure, resulting in genotyping data for 9,274 participants in FHS SHARe. Genotype calls were made with the BRLMM algorithm. The SHARe database is housed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information database of genotypes and phenotypes (NCBI dbGaP) and contains all ~550,000 SNPs. This genome-wide dense SNP scan and a subset of phenotypes from the Framingham Heart Study are the focus of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16. Further information on the specific variables in the Problem 2 dataset can be found by clicking on the Documents tab at the top of the page. Problem 3: Description of the Simulated Data Set The focus of this simulation is gene discovery in genome-wide association scans (GWAS). The Framingham Heart Study data set (distributed as "Problem 2") is the basis for the FHS* simulated data. The pedigree structures are derived from the data distributed for Problem 2, and we distribute an accompanying triplet file (triplet_sim) containing person ID, father ID, mother ID, to ensure the identical subjects, pedigrees, and singletons are used in the simulated data analysis. Consistent with standard practice, founders and singletons are designated as subjects with both fshare and mshare equal to zero (missing). The simulated data includes a total of 6,479 subjects with both phenotype and genotype data, in 942 pedigrees distributed among 3 generations and 188 singletons. Data inclusion is consistent with the subjects&#39; consent for use by both for-profit and not-for-profit researchers. The genotypes for all Problem 3 replicates are fixed as measured and distributed for Problem 2 for both the genomewide scan and the additional candidate gene SNPs, for a total of approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip&#174; Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel). Thus, to analyze the Problem 3 simulated data you also will need to download the Problem 2 genotypes. Note that there are slight discrepancies in counts between Problems 2 and 3 due to a change in consents between the two datasets. Several phenotypes that contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD) were simulated for all individuals with genotypes across three different time points, 10 years apart. All genotyped individuals have complete data; the effects of missing values can be investigated by user-specified missing value patterns. There are 200 longitudinal datasets created, based on the generating model, and each replication is found in a separate dataset. We suggest that if only one replication is to be analyzed, that it be replication 1 to enable more precise comparisons among analytical approaches. The &#39;shareid&#39; will allow you to merge the simulated phenotype data with the Problem 2 genotype data, and reconstruction of the pedigrees using the distributed &#39;triplet_sim&#39; file or for larger families&#39; relationships with the triplet distributed with the Problem 2. The simulated data problem is further described in the associated readme file, and a data dictionary is provided defining all the variables. For disclosure of the generating model for these data, please contact Jean MacCluer at jean@sfbrgenetics.org.

  Study phs000128

• Distribution of data using Live Distribution

  Live Distribution Welcome to the documentation for using the Live Distribution feature for distributing data files securely through the EGA platform. This guide will walk you through the process of downloading encrypted files and decrypting them using Crypt4GH. Please follow the steps below to ensure a smooth experience. Before Downloading Create an EGA user. Make sure that you have the permissions to download the dataset of interest. In case you don’t have access, request access to the dataset. Add your Crypt4GH-compatible public key to your EGA account. Please allow a few hours for your public key to be synced with your profile. Afterwards, you will be able to connect to your EGA outbox using the SFTP protocol. Download Graphical User Interface (GUI) You can use any GUI that supports SFTP connections, such as FileZilla, an open-source FTP client. For Filezilla as your GUI, follow these steps to download files: Open FileZilla and access Site Manager (File > Site Manager). Create a new connection with the following settings (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer Protocol Host: __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ Logon Type: Key file User: your EGA username Key file: path/to/your/private_key Figure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_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 EGA outbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. Click Connect to access your Outbox. This folder serves as your storage space within the EGA cloud, containing files accessible for download in a secure way. Browse the remote directory on the right side of the FileZilla screen. Select the files you wish to download, right-click, and choose Download (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually downñoad files from __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can downñoad data from the EGA outbox to their local storage by following the depicted steps SFTP command line You can also use the SFTP command line to securely download files from the EGA Outbox. Using SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal window Enter the following command to connect: sftp username@hostname Enter your EGA password To see a list of available sftp commands type help sftp> put – Upload file sftp> get – Download file sftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’ sftp> pwd – Display remote working directory sftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’ sftp> lpwd – Display local working directory sftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directory sftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directory Type get command to download files. For example: get encrypted_file.c4gh Use the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). Convenient SSH settings Include the following settings in your SSH config file, located in ~/.ssh/config Host __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ EGA-outbox hostname __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ User username IdentityFile path/to/the/private/key Replace username and path/to/the/private/key with the appropriate settings, and you will be able to connect to the __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ simply using sftp EGA-outbox. How to decrypt Files archived at the EGA are encrypted based on Crypt4GH. Hence, to decrypt the files you need to install Crypt4GH. You can install a python implementation of it, with pip install crypt4gh or directly from the Github repository pip install git+https://github.com/EGA-archive/crypt4gh.git After installing Crypt4GH, decrypt files using the following command: crypt4gh decrypt --sk /path/private/key < encrypted_file.c4gh > decrypted_filename The command reads the encrypted file from stdin (with <) and output the decrypted version to stdout (with >). Replace encrypted_file.c4gh and decrypted_filename with the appropriate filenames but make sure to not use the same filename for both reading and writing because your SHELL would then truncate both files before you even read or write. Frequently Asked Questions What username should I use to log in to my outbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username, not your email address. Therefore, if you registered a username different from your email address when creating your EGA account, you must use that username to log in. If you have forgotten your registered username, please, contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. I see that some files in my dataset have 'unavailable' as extension. What should I do? Within your Outbox, you'll find a list of all the datasets available for download. Occasionally, certain files may be marked as "unavailable". These unavailable files can be identified by the "unavailable" extension added to their filenames (e.g. filename.fastq.gz.unavailable.c4gh). If you encounter an unavailable file that you need, please reach out to our Helpdesk. We'll promptly work on making the file accessible for download as soon as possible. Specific to using keys 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_OUTBOX_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 access/download/files/live-outbox

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! 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. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. 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. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac