10741 results for "fc coins olx Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Podpora pro profesionální hráče a týmy..zSiZ"

in 12.85 milliseconds.

• Whole Exome Data for two affected individuals in a family with severe congenital neutropenia (SCN).

  Raw Whole Exome Sequencing data from Blood samples drawn from related Female participants presenting severe congenital neutropenia.

  Dataset EGAD00001005937

• Epigenetic subtypes of neuroblastoma - RNAseq

  In the absence of recurrent gene mutations, evidence accumulates that epigenetic deregulation plays a prominent role in neuroblastoma biology. Here we provide RNAseq profiles in 71 primary and relapse neuroblastoma samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001006286

• The University of Hong Kong Intestinal Metaplasia Organoids Study scRNASeq Data

  Single cell encapsulation and cDNA libraries were prepared by Chromium™ Single Cell 5’ Reagent Kits and Chromium™ Single Cell A Chip Kit.

  Dataset EGAD00001015422

• TSG knock-out in hiPSCs (2017-08-10)

  We will perform RNAseq to evaluate the effects of the loss of a list of TSGs on the transcriptome. This dataset contains all the data available for this study on 2017-08-10.

  Dataset EGAD00001003556

• Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer somatic variants (SomaticSniper)

  Sequence was aligned to the GRCH38 reference genome. Aligned sequence was analyzed with SomaticSniper. Somatic variant calls are in VCF format. In total there are 94 tumour samples, each with a matched normal.

  Dataset EGAD00001004128

• Locally advanced rectal cancer samples

  Fastq files from exome sequencing of paired normal/tumor (pre and post-nCRT) samples from 7 patients with rectal tumors. All samples were sequenced on a 5500xl SOLiD sequencing platform (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

  Dataset EGAD00001004378

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

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

  Study phs003922

• From research to data sharing: exploring EGA user's experiences

  The Cell Plasticity and Regeneration Group at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL focuses on the process of recruitment of macrophages that takes place in the small intestine during injury and healing. They recently published a paper titled “Mucosal Macrophages Govern Intestinal Regeneration in Response to Injury" in Gastroenterology Journal. As part of the research, some experiments were conducted using human intestinal organoid lines. These cells were processed for RNA sequencing, and the sequencing data were deposited at the EGA to be made available to the scientific community. When dealing with human genomic information, repositories must ensure the availability of the datasets while ensuring data protection. In this context, the European Genome-phenome Archive stands as a service for secure archiving and sharing of genetic, phenotypic and clinical data resulting from biomedical research. Following the recent publication of their paper, we took the opportunity to talk to Ilias Moraitis, first author, and Jordi Guiu, group leader, to find out about their experience with data sharing. Could you explain the focus of your research? In the lab, we study intestinal regeneration and how immune cells participate in this process. We use several techniques: engineered mouse models, image tracing, as well as mouse and human cells intestinal organoids. What challenges do you face regarding data management? We didn’t have a lot of problems. Always the informatic part, the data analysis, can give problems. But everything was smooth and working. We think it’s very important to deposit the data in repositories. For the mouse data it is very straightforward, but for us it was the first time depositing human data, which is sensitive because it comes from patients, and this is legally regulated. That’s why we thought about the EGA, and it was our first time. Why do you think it is important to submit data to repositories such as EGA? Because we think data is important for the science. Nowadays, we are sequencing a lot everywhere worldwide and having these resources shared with the scientific community it’s not only good for science, but it is also saving money and reducing costs. And there is so much data in there that can be used for other projects and for other questions. And it saves time! How was the process of submitting the data to the EGA? The communication worked very well but it was slower than we would like. But I think this is something we learn on the way. People usually wait until the last minute to do this before publication but if you know it in advance, you can start the process earlier. If you had to repeat the process, would you do anything differently? It’s like everything, isn’t it? For the first time you don’t know, you aren’t sure, but for the second time you know the steps, you know what to do and it’s faster. Of course, we would to do it earlier. Also, there were some things related to the control access that we didn’t know how to manage, but it was something more internal to us. Who is going to receive the communications and when, is our ethical committee going to evaluate this? All these technicalities that we didn’t know before starting this process, so we had to think about all these things. Next time it will be faster on our side. Do you have any suggestions for us to improve the submission process? Maybe we’ll need to ask our bioinformatician who did it! He was in charge of this part. Besides that, we think if the process were faster, it would be better for everyone. Also, in science a lot of times you have to do a lot of things at the very last minute, because of the nature of the experiments, or the need to accomplish for submitting a paper. Being faster in the process would be a plus. On your side, we went through the process and were able to find some information, but there were aspects we weren't aware of and weren't sure how to handle. I'm not sure if other institutes have different protocols for managing data requests or how they handle these internally. We believe the main issue lies in how the forms are filled out. Do you have any recommendations for other submitters? The main advice is to do this with enough time. Submit the data when you have the sequences, and don’t wait until the last minute. And then it can be under embargo, so you don’t need to make it public at that moment. As soon as you sequence, upload it and then it will be there for whenever you need to publish. How do you think we could encourage other researchers to submit their data? There are different layers here. One is that it is mandatory. You have to do this. The other is that we belong to a research community, to the same community and sharing this is making our research community stronger and more efficient. And then, also because this gives you visibility. The data is there, other people can analyse your data, and this also will bring citations to your papers. It has many advantages.

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing

• sn-RNAseq profiling of the impact of a cytokine storm model in human cardiac organoids

  We developed conditions to model conditions of diastolic dysfunction caused by inflammatory factors in human cardiac organoids. Our organoid model is based on conditions promoting maturation (Mills et al., PNAS, 2017 and Voges et al., In Revision) and incorporating human pluripotent stem cell derived cardiomyocytes, epicardial cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and pericytes. Following 15 days of differentiation (Voges et al., Development, 2017) we formed human cardiac organoids incorporating both our multicellular differentiation (Mills et al., PNAS, 2017) and additional endothelial cells (Voges et al., In Revision). After another 12 days of maturation in 5 days maturation medium and 5 days weaning medium (Voges et al., In Revision) human cardiac organoids were either treated with weaning medium or “cardiac cytokine storm” comprised of 100 ng/ml IFNg, 10 ng/ml IL-1 β and 10 µg/ml poly(I:C). After 48 hours human cardiac organoids were harvested and snap frozen in -80C before nuclei isolation and single nuclei RNA sequencing.Pooled hCO (~40) were homogenized in 4 mL lysis buffer (300 mM sucrose, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH = 8), 5 mM CaCl2, 5 mM magnesium acetate, 2 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM EGTA, 1 mM DTT)(all Sigma-Aldrich) with 30 strokes of a dounce tissue grinder (Wheaton). Large pieces of hCO were allowed to settle and homogenate was passed through pre-wetted 40 µm cell strainers (Becton Dickinson). Remaining hCO material in the douncer was resuspended in 4 mL and the douncing and filtering steps were repeated twice. All steps of the homogenization were performed on ice. The filtered homogenate was centrifuged at 1500 x g for 5 min at 4oC. Nuclei pellets were then re-suspended in PBS. A fraction of resuspended nuclei were then stained with hoechst nuclear stain (1:500 dilution) and counted on a haemocytometer under fluorescent microscope.The nuclei were then re-centrifuged (1500 x g for 5 min at 4°C) and resuspended at a density to load ~5,000 nuclei per sample. Cell were loaded into the Chromium Controller (10X Genomics) for gel bead emulsion (GEM) formation. Library preparation was conducted according to the manufacturer’s recommended protocol using the Chromium Next GEM Single Cell 3’ GEM, Library & Gel Bead Kit v3.1. Libraries were sequenced on the NextSeq 500/550 v2 (Illumina) with 150 bp reads.In the snRNA-seq we note the lower than expected percentage of non-myocytes and the loss of endothelial cells (Mills et al., PNAS, 2017 and Voges et al., In Revision), indicating the protocol requires further optimization for hCO samples.

  Study EGAS00001005174

• Breast Cancer Follow Up Series

  This study's purpose is to use data generated in whole genome and exome Breast Cancer sequencing to target specific areas in multiple other Breast Cancer samples. These areas will then be subjected to PCR in multiple cases, tagged and then pool the resultant amplicons. These amplicons will then be sequenced on the Illumina GAII. This is hoped to show the prevalence of previous findings in multiple individuals in a high throughput method.

  Study EGAS00001000002