10714 results for "fc coins olx Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Podpora pro profesionální hráče a týmy..zSiZ"

in 13.56 milliseconds.

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Duplex sequencing

  A total of 387 buccal swab samples were subjected to error-corrected sequencing (duplex sequencing).

  Study EGAS50000000054

• DETECT-A protein data

  This dataset includes all protein biomarker measurements from the DETECT-A study. All protein biomarkers were evaluated with Luminex bead-based immunoassays obtained from Millipore.

  Dataset EGAD50000000444

• Genome sequence data from a GBM patient PT-FR7453

  Genome sequence data from a GBM patient PT-FR7453

  Dataset EGAD00001004236

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Celiac Disease

  Celiac disease (gluten-sensitive enteropathy, celiac sprue) is a common disease with significant morbidity and mortality. It is caused by sensitivity to the dietary protein gluten, resulting in a chronic enteropathy in the small intestine. Celiac disease is now recognized to be a common disease, with reports that the disease frequency is 1:133 in the United States, similar to European estimates. There is recent evidence to suggest that the incidence of the disease is rising. Occult disease is frequently present with minimal classic symptoms or signs. The ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic celiac disease is estimated to be 1:7. Some complications of celiac disease include lymphoma, osteoporosis, anemia, miscarriages, seizures, vitamin deficiencies, and co-occurrence of other autoimmune diseases. The only treatment is a gluten-free diet, so that recurrence of symptoms and complications may occur after minor dietary indiscretions. Identifying the underlying genetic causes of celiac disease may allow us to identify susceptible individuals, as well as advance new ways to prevent the disease and to treat it once it occurs. Several genome-wide linkage studies and one genome-wide association study of celiac disease have been conducted. Other than the common locus at HLA, few putative celiac disease loci have been replicated between studies, suggesting that the disease is heterogeneous and complex. A portion of the genetic predisposition can be attributed to HLA, but the etiology is likely due to a number of rare, high penetrant genes (as would be identified in linkage analysis) and to more common, low penetrant genes (as would be identified in association studies). The objective of this study is to identify new loci that increase risk to develop celiac disease. We will capitalize on existing North American resources, including three large collections of celiac cases and controls (Aim 1) and an independent set of celiac cases and their families (Aim 3). We propose a comprehensive multi-stage approach, with the following specific aims. In Aim 1, we will conduct a genome-wide association (GWA) study of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and copy number variants (CNVs). The GWA will include1900 disease cases and 3400 matched controls, genotyped using the Illumina Human 610-quad chip. Statistical analyses will be performed to test for associations with celiac disease. In Aim 2, we will conduct a combined analysis of our GWA dataset from Aim 1 and a previous GWA dataset to identify additional low-penetrance loci. In Aim 3, we will attempt to replicate significant findings from the GWA study in two independent sample sets. At the conclusion of this study, we expect to have validated a number of SNPs and CNPs from regions in the genome that alter the risk of developing celiac disease. These SNPs may prove useful at both the clinical and research level. The data from the study will be shared with the scientific community.

  Study phs000274

• Understanding the genetic risk underlying racial disparities in uterine fibroids

  Fibroids affect 77% of women by onset of menopause in the U.S. and account for $2.1 billion in healthcare costs each year. Fibroids negatively impact reproductive health causing heavy and painful menses, pelvic pain and pressure, pregnancy complications, and interventions including myomectomy and hysterectomy. Until recently, tumor tissue and cell culture studies investigating fibroid growth have been the primary sources for understanding fibroid pathophysiology. Genetic analysis can provide a powerful and cost effective tool to identify etiological and causal factors, especially since a genetic predisposition to fibroids has already been documented from twin studies. As much as 69% of risk is explained by genetic factors. Racial disparities also support a role for genetics with fibroid risk. African American women have earlier age of onset, more numerous and larger fibroids with a greater lifetime incidence compared to Caucasians. We propose to identify genetic markers for risk of fibroids through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of African American and Caucasian participants, leveraging ancestral differences to narrow down genomic regions for targeted follow- up analyses. To accomplish this we will take advantage of a unique Vanderbilt resource, the BioVU DNA databank. BioVU currently has over 122,470 adults linked to electronic medical records. From BioVU we have already identified 2,902 African American and Caucasian subjects who meet our stringent inclusion criteria to conduct a GWAS of fibroids, including pelvic imaging. Available imaging is critical, because many women with fibroids are asymptomatic and without imaging, studies may misclassify as many as 51% of women. We have also defined definitive controls who reached menopause without fibroids. We have a strong group of nationally known fibroid researchers who will provide over 10,000 samples for replication. Our first Specific Aim is to conduct a GWAS for association between common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and fibroid risk. Using a case-control design we will perform a GWAS in 2,902 (1,451 fibroid cases and 1,451 controls) women from BioVU stratified by African American and Caucasian race. Secondary admixture mapping (AM) analyses will also be performed to identify chromosomal regions of interest to prioritize for replication. Our second Aim is to resequence chromosome regions identified from GWAS and AM to discover rare variants. Finally, in Aim 3 we will replicate SNPs selected from Aim 1 and 2 in independent samples of at least 3,230 fibroid cases and 7,097 controls. We propose an efficient and cost-effective approach to identify genetic risk factors for fibroids, by taking advantage of imaging information and DNA available through BioVU. This study represents the largest GWAS of uterine fibroids and the first among African Americans leveraging emerging technologies and new statistical approaches to conduct this study. Our proposed study will fundamentally change knowledge about fibroids and lay the ground work for breakthroughs in understanding mechanisms of fibroid formation and in identifying novel therapeutic approaches.

  Study phs001409

• Blood Somatic Mutations in TCGA Donors Suffering from Solid Tumors

  Blood somatic mutations identified across 8,530 solid tumor patients in TCGA cohort. We reasoned that low-coverage whole-genome sequencing of blood samples routinely carried out in cancer genomics projects may be repurposed to detect clonal hematopoiesis (CH). Thus, inspired by a previous approach to identify early mutations in the development of the hematopoietic system, we implemented a pipeline to systematically carry out this "reverse" somatic mutation calling on the paired blood/tumor samples. Blood somatic mutations were called using a 'reverse' approach, in which the tumor sample taken from each patient was used as control of their germline genome. Blood somatic mutations are thus detected as variants in the blood (with respect to the human reference genome) that are absent in the tumor sample. The variant calling was carried out in our in house cluster on downloaded blood/tumor BAM files. The matched blood and tumoral BAM files -- masked and deduplicated using GATK -- of 8,530 whole-exome patients were obtained as described above. The variant calling was carried out using Strelka2 (employing default parameters) with the blood sample as the tumoral input and the tumor sample as control (reverse calling). All variants with two or more supporting reads matching the caller PASS filter and with VAF<0.5 were kept. Mutations in lowly mappable regions as defined by the DUST algorithm (k=30) and UMAP68 (36-kmers) were excluded. Contiguous variants were merged into double-base substitutions. Variants with greater frequency across the cohorts than the DNMT3A R882H or JAK2 V617F hotspot in a cohort-specific Panel of Normals and in gnomAD v2.1 were removed. This was equivalent to discarding variants present in these datasets with an allele frequency greater than 0.008 in PoN TCGA and 0.0003 in gnomAD v2.1. Additionally, common SNPs as defined by the dbSNP 151 Common UCSC track and dbSNP were excluded. Mutations within segmental duplications, simple repeats and masked regions as defined in UCSC tracks were also removed. Finally, samples with the mutation count above the 97.5 percentile of the mutation burden across the cohort were deemed unreliable and excluded for further analyses. We call the set of variants obtained after the application of these filters the full set. A more conservative subset of somatic mutations was generated from the full set of blood somatic mutations. To this end, we applied MosaicForecast, a software designed to phase mutations to polymorphisms with the aim of identifying somatic mutations in a small number of cells and also predict mosaicism for the unphased ones with a random forest classifier. As a result, we obtained a subset of mosaic-phased mutations, and a subset of mutations likely to be somatic (mosaic set).In order to obtain access to this study, please first obtain access to TCGA study (phs000178).

  Study phs002867

• National Institute on Aging (NIA) Long Life Family Study (LLFS)

  The Long Life Family Study (LLFS) is an international collaborative study of the genetics and familial components of exceptional survival, longevity, and healthy aging. Families were recruited through elderly probands (generally in their 90s) who self-reported on the survival history of their parents and siblings, and on the basis of this information, families which showed clustering of exceptional survival were recruited. [Specifically, a Family Longevity Selection Score (FLOSS) ≥7 was required. The FLOSS measures the average excess Observed lifespan over that Expected based upon lifetables, while adding a bonus term for still-living individuals. Thus FLOSS is a useful tool for scoring and selecting families for inclusion in a research study of exceptional survival (Sebastiani et al., 2009, PMID: 19910380)]. Probands resided in the catchment areas of four Field Centers (Boston University, Columbia University, University of Pittsburgh, and University of Southern Denmark). Recruited family members were phenotyped through extensive in-home visits by teams of technicians who traveled all over the USA and Denmark. Blood assays were centrally processed at a Laboratory Core (University of Minnesota) and protocols were standardized, monitored and coordinated through a Data Management Coordinating Center (Washington University). We examined and extensively phenotyped in all major domains of healthy aging, 4,953 individuals in 539 families through comprehensive in-home visits. Of these, 4,815 gave dbGaP sharing permission and had sufficient quantity/quality of DNA for GWAS genotyping. This large collection of families, selected on the basis of clustering for exceptional survival, is a unique resource for the study of human longevity and healthy aging. We estimate that less than 1% of the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) families (a roughly random population family sample) would meet the minimal entrance criteria for exceptional survival required in the LLFS (Sebastiani et al., 2009, PMID: 19910380). Thus, the least exceptional LLFS families show more clustering for exceptional longevity than 99% of the FHS families. Although the LLFS pedigrees were selected on the basis of longevity per se in the upper generation (and the generation above that), the children's generation have significantly lower rates of many major diseases and have better healthy aging profiles for many disease phenotypes (Newman et al., 2011, PMID: 21258136). The participants had their first in-person visit between 2006 and 2009. After that visit, they were contacted annually by telephone to update vital status, medical history, and general health. Between 2014 and 2017, willing participants completed a second in-person visit. The second visit followed the same protocols and centralized training as the first visit. During the second visit, a portable carotid ultrasound exam was added. Again, participants were continuously contacted annually for telephone follow-up during the period of the second in-person visit and after that. Annual telephone follow-ups currently ongoing, and plans for a third in-person visit are in progress.

  Study phs000397

• Kids First: Whole Genome Sequencing in Structural Defects of the Neural Tube

  Myelomeningocele (aka meningomyelocele, MM) is the most severe form of spina bifida, a neural tube defect (NTD) in humans and the most common CNS birth defect. MM is considered a genetically complex disease, and occurs in 3.72/10,000 live US birth, and is partly preventable with prenatal folate, but the genetic basis and the mechanisms by which folate work to reduce disease incidence remain obscure. MM is associated nearly uniformly with prenatal hydrocephalus and the Arnold-Chiari malformation, as well as paraplegia and lifelong neuromotor disability. The genes for several rare syndromic forms of NTDs are known, but the causes for the majority with sporadic MM remain unknown. Despite the importance of MM, most previous research has been limited to targeted sequencing and association studies of folate metabolism genes, or very small-scale exome sequencing. We hypothesize that de novo mutations (DNMs) produce likely gene disrupting (LGD) events that contribution to MM risk. Using conservative estimates of between 50-100 recurrently mutated discoverable genes contributing to risk, and our preliminary data demonstrating an excess of LGD DNMs in MM compared with control individuals, we estimate that with a cohort size of 1000 trios, we should uncover between 5-20 new recurrently mutated genes underlying MM, with minimal false-discovery. With this in mind, we formed the Spina Bifida Sequencing Consortium, and established a platform for data and sample sharing. Preliminary analysis of our first batch of 100 trios analyzed by WGS from GMKF suggests a wealth of important gene mutations. We have embarked on a new recruitment effort of an additional cohort of 400 new simplex MM trios, in collaboration with the US Spina Bifida Association, consented trios to allow for data sharing, and have performed detailed sample quality control. We also have preliminary data that use of dried bloodspot DNA from trios performs comparably to whole blood DNA, so will be happy to swap saliva for bloodspot recruitment at NIH's preference. This cohort is now half-way assembled, with the remaining cohort to be ascertained in the next 6 months. We have established a workflow for de novo SNP/INDEL/SV detection from WGS and have ample computer storage and nodes to see the project to completion. We also plan to continue recruitment into the future with the goal of 2000 trios in the next 5 years. We propose a detailed bioinformatics workflow to identify gene mutations within a statistical framework, considering detailed scRNA expression profiling from developing mammalian neural tube, and have developed a robust functional validation workflow using Xenopus and mouse gene targeting. Our project has the potential to uncover a host of causes for this most common of the CNS birth defects, paving the way for future breakthroughs in detection, treatment, and prevention.

  Study phs002591

• Submitter Portal API

  Submitter Portal API The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. For those that want a more flexible and automated approach, we also provide a programmatic approach using the Submitter Portal AP in addition to the user interface of the Submitter Portal. With the help of our API, you can quickly include the submission of metadata into your own workflow for a more effective and individualised experience. Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified, you will have to request a submitter role and sign the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). When the DPA is signed, you must send it to EGA Helpdesk for further validation. Please, note that if you already have an EGA account, or you have an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step.  Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find the relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Programmatic submission All the calls to the API need to be Authenticated. We use the OpenID Connect protocol. API Usage Flow: Click here to check the API usage flow schema Obtain Access and Refresh Token: The first step to using the API is to obtain an access and refresh token. These tokens are required for authentication and authorisation of API requests. To obtain these tokens, you need to log in using your EGA credentials. Example: curl "https://idp.ega-archive.org/realms/EGA/protocol/openid-connect/token" \ -d "grant_type=password" \ -d "client_id=sp-api" \ -d "username=your-username" \ --data-urlencode "password=your-password" Use Access Token in API Calls: Once you have obtained the access token, you must use it in all the calls to the API. The access token is valid for a limited time period. When it expires, you will need to use the refresh token to obtain a new access token. Create Submission Object: After authentication, you can start creating a submission object. This object will be used to store all the metadata objects and files related to the submission. Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My submission title\", \"description\":\"My submission description\" }" Create EGA Metadata Objects: Within the submission object, you can create other metadata objects required for the submission. These objects may include information about the submitter, study, sample, experiment, and run. Example of study creation: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions/{submisison-id}/studies" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My study title\", \"description\":\"My study description\", \"study_type\":\"Metagenomics\" }" If you would like to reuse already registered objects in new submissions, bear in mind that they must have an accession which you must use to reference them. You cannot reuse objects that have not been finalised and accepted yet.For example, when creating a new run which is reusing a previously submitted experiment, instead of using experiment_provisional_id, you must use experiment_accession_id. Enums There are some fields that only accept specific values, i.e. study_type. The API provides several enumerations to list these values. You can list all the enumerations, or a specific one, for example, study_types. Obtain IDs of files You can list the files available in your inbox and filter by a prefix by adding the prefix param, i.e. &prefix=/my_folder/abc Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/files?status=inbox&prefix=/my_folder/abc" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" To improve performance and manageability, we have limited the number of files that the Submitter Portal API can return in a response. If a given call exceeds this limit, user will be asked to narrow down the search by using the query parameters already available in this endpoint. Finalise Submission: Once all the metadata objects are created and linked to the submission, you can finalise the submission. Finalising the submission sends it to the Helpdesk team for review. Please, note that all files linked to the submission must be ingested, and all objects created in a submission must be linked before you can finalise the submission. API Reference: For a full API reference, please check our specification documentation.

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