6938 results for "fc coins xbox one Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..hLXt"

in 15.29 milliseconds.

• Variant call of single Jakun Individual

  One Jakun individual was sequenced on IIllumina HiSeq 2000. Variant calling was performed through GATK

  Dataset EGAD50000001024

• Germline variant analysis in childhood AML

  This dataset contains one vcf file with variants from whole exome sequencing of 24 paediatric AML samples at diagnosis.

  Dataset EGAD00001008783

• VCRC Genetic Repository One Time DNA Protocol

  The purpose of this study is to identify genes that increase the risk of developing vasculitis, a group of severe diseases that feature inflammation of blood vessels. Better methods are needed to recruit patients with these rare diseases into cohorts of adequate size for high-quality genetics studies, and the existing infrastructure of the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium (VCRC) provides the means for such recruitment. Results of these studies will provide vasculitis researchers with insight into the causes of these diseases and generate new ideas for diagnostic tests and therapies, and will be of great interest to the larger communities of researchers investigating vasculitis and other autoimmune, inflammatory, and vascular diseases. This study will enhance the VCRC Data and Specimen Repository.

  Study phs001712

• Development, maturation and maintenance of human prostate inferred from somatic mutations

  Stem cells within prostate epithelium frequently undergo malignant transformation, but there is limited information on their clonal dynamics and mutation burden in healthy human prostates. We sequenced whole genomes from 409 microdissections of prostate epithelium across 8 donors, using phylogenetic reconstruction with spatial mapping in a 59-year-old man’s prostate to provide high-resolution reconstruction of tissue dynamics across the lifespan. Somatic mutation burden increases linearly with age, at ~16 mutations/year/clone, and is higher in peripheral than peri-urethral regions. The 24-30 independent glandular subunits are established as rudimentary ductal structures during fetal development by 5-10 embryonic cells each. Puberty induces formation of further side branches and terminal acini by local stem cells disseminated through the rudimentary ducts during development. During adult tissue maintenance, clonal expansions are small, with limited geographic scope and minimal migration. Driver mutations are rare in normal ageing prostate epithelium, but the one canonical driver we did observe generated a sizable intraepithelial clonal expansion. By resolving unbiased, continuously occurring lineage-marking mutations, we define stem cell dynamics through embryogenesis, puberty and ageing, with relevance for prostate cancer.

  Dataset EGAD00001006591

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? The most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. How can I add my dataset to the cBioPortal instance? In order to link your data to the cBioPortal, you must register it as a normal dataset in the Submitter Portal. For more information, please refer to the cBioPortal documentation. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Pomalidomide for the Treatment of Bleeding in HHT (PATH-HHT)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Objectives: To determine efficacy (reduction in severity of epistaxis), tolerability, and improvement in quality of life of pomalidomide compared to placebo after 24 weeks of treatment.Background: This study addresses the efficacy of pomalidomide in the treatment of epistaxis in patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) who have anemia and/or require blood transfusion or iron infusion for treatment of bleeding-induced anemia and iron deficiency. HHT (also known as Osler-Weber-Rendu disease) is an inherited bleeding disorder. Over 95% of patients develop recurrent epistaxis, which may be severe and result in chronic anemia, need for iron infusions and blood transfusions, substantial psychiatric comorbidity (including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder) and reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HHT is clinically diagnosed using the Curacao criteria, which consists of 1) spontaneous and recurrent epistaxis, 2) telangiectasias at characteristic sites, 3) visceral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) or telangiectasias, and 4) a first degree relative with HHT (inheritance is usually autosomal dominant). Patients with three criteria are considered to have definite HHT, and those with 2 criteria probable HHT. HHT affects approximately 1 in 3,800 individuals. Significant manifestations of HHT often do not appear until the third or fourth decades, sometimes later.Participants: 144 patients from 11 clinical centers were enrolled.Design: This is a multi-center, double blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in patients with HHT and chronic epistaxis leading to iron-deficiency anemia or requiring intravenous iron infusions or blood transfusion.Screening evaluation included the Epistaxis Severity Score (ESS) with three-month recall, which reflected the patient's history of epistaxis and bleeding over the prior three months, as well as detailed review of iron infusion and red cell transfusion over the preceding six months. Eligible patients were provided a diary to record the duration of each epistaxis event that occurred during the 4 weeks prior to the baseline visit, and then returned for the baseline randomization visit, at which time patients underwent genetic testing, if this had not been previously performed, and completed an ESS with 4-week recall and quality of life assessments. Patients were randomized 2:1, stratified by study site, to either pomalidomide 4 mg/day or matching placebo during each of six 28 day cycles (24 weeks). Patients were seen every four weeks during treatment, and at a 4-week post-treatment follow-up visit to measure the ESS (with 4-week recall), laboratory assessments including iron stores and need for iron infusion, CBC, and metabolic profile. Patients were assessed for adverse events (AE) throughout the study. Treatment dosage could be reduced, or temporarily or permanently discontinued following AE-specific guidelines related to fatigue, cytopenias or other toxicities.Quality of life assessments were completed at baseline, and the 12- and 24-week visits, and the 4-week post-treatment follow-up visit using validated NIH instruments of 1) Neuro-QOL satisfaction with social roles and activities, 2) PROMIS emotional distress – depression, and 3) PROMIS fatigue, and the HHT-specific quality of life instrument developed specifically for this study. The effect of pomalidomide on duration of epistaxis was assessed via diary between weeks 8-12, 20-24 and the 4-week post-treatment period.Conclusions: Among patients with HHT, pomalidomide treatment resulted in a significant, clinically relevant reduction in epistaxis severity. No unexpected safety signals were identified (Al-Samkari et al., 2024; PMID: 39292928)

  Study phs003948

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding to Treat People with Acute Lung Injury or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDSNet EDEN-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-EDEN include bronchial lavage, plasma, DNA, and urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic and non-genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days (VFDs) and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding. Background: Mechanically ventilated patients cannot eat normally and if not fed for long periods become malnourished. Because malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, artificial nutrition is often provided, especially in those with acute lung injury (ALI) and with expected longer duration of mechanical ventilation. When feasible, enteral nutrition targeting full caloric needs has been advocated over parenteral nutrition. However, feeding intolerance and common care practices often serve as practical barriers to reaching recommended goals. Although confounded by indication and severity of illness, several observational studies have shown improved clinical outcomes, including fewer infections, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower mortality for patients receiving a higher percentage of calculated caloric needs. Nonetheless, the best timing, formulation, and amount of enteral nutrition remain unknown. Participants: A total of 1,000 participants were enrolled. Design: Participants were randomized, stratified by site and presence of shock at enrollment, to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation. The initial 272 patients were also simultaneously randomized to a separate trial (the OMEGA study) comparing a nutritional supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants with an isocaloric, isovolemic control in a 2 × 2 factorial design.The designated feeding strategy was initiated within 6 hours of randomization and continued until death, extubation, or day 6. The care of mechanically ventilated patients still receiving enteral feedings after day 6 was managed according to the full feeding strategy in both groups. In extubated patients who then required reintubation, enteral nutrition was restarted and managed according to the study protocol.In the full-feeding group, enteral nutrition was initiated at 25 mL/h and advanced to goal rates as quickly as possible. Gastric residual volumes were checked every 6 hours while enteral feeding was increased. Patients randomized to the initial trophic-feeding group had enteral nutrition initiated at 10 mL/h (10-20 kcal/h) for the first 272 patients who also received the omega-3 or control supplement (240 mL volume per day). After the data and safety monitoring board stopped the OMEGA portion of the factorial design, the initial trophic feeding rate was changed to 20 kcal/h to approximate the calories that had been delivered in the OMEGA study. Gastric Residual Volumes (GRVs) were checked every 12 hours during trophic feeding. In patients randomized to trophic feeding, enteral nutrition was advanced to full-energy feeding rates following the same protocol used for the full-feeding group if they were still receiving mechanical ventilation at 144 hours. Conclusions: There was no difference between groups with regard to the primary end point, VFDs to day 28. There also were no differences in 60-day mortality, organ failure−free days, ICU-free days, or the incidence of infection between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in VFDs or survival when analyzed by body mass index category or when subsets of patients with shock or more severe lung injury (acute respiratory distress syndrome) were examined.JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):795-803

  Study phs004168

• GA4GH

  Standards The EGA is a long-standing supporter of the Global Alliance for Genomics & Health (GA4GH) to enhance responsible sharing of human genetic data through the development of interoperable global standards for human data access. The EGA is one of the founding GA4GH Driver Projects and has contributed to the development and implementation of several GA4GH standards and APIs. Below is a list of the GA4GH standards and APIs that are currently available or planned for implementation at EGA. TechnicalStandards Purpose SpecificationVersion SupportedVersion Implementation Large Scale Genomics htsget A protocol for secure, efficient, and reliable access to sequencing read and variation data. V1.3.0 V1.0.0 Specification Documentation Endpoint Read File Formats (SAM/BAM/CRAM) Specifications for storing next-generation sequencing read data. V3.0.0 V3.0.0 Implementation Example of Usage Variation File Formats (VCF/BCF) The specifications for Variant Call Format Files (VCF) and its binary counterpart BCF. V4.0.0 V2.0.0 V4.0.0 V2.0.0 Implementation Example of Usage Crypt4GH v1.0 Enables direct byte-level compatible random access to encrypted genetic data stored in community standards (e.g. CRAM, VCF) V1.0 V1.0 Specification Documentation Endpoint refget API Enables access to reference sequences using an identifier derived from the sequence itself. V1.2.6 NA Specification RNAget API v1 Provides a means of retrieving data from several types of RNA experiments including (i) feature-level expression data from RNA-seq type measurements and (ii) coordinate-based signal/intensity data similar to a bigwig representation via a client/server model. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Discovery Beacon v2 Supports discovery of genomic variants, phenotypes, and individuals V1.0.1 V0.3 Web UI API Source Code Service Info API v1 The Service Info API is an endpoint for describing GA4GH service metadata, designed for extension and inclusion in other APIs. Service info is used to describe a single service, while Service Registry is used to describe multiple services. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Service Registry API v1 provides information about other GA4GH services, primarily for the purpose of organizing services into networks or groups and service discovery across organizational boundaries. V1.0.0 NA Documentation Data Use Researcher Identities Data Use Ontology (DUO) Allow users to semantically tag genomic datasets with usage restrictions, allowing them to become automatically discoverable based on a health, clinical, or biomedical researcher’s authorisation level or intended use. 2021-02-23 2021-02-23 Specification Documentation Endpoint Authentication & Authorization Infrastructure (AAI) The GA4GH AAI specification leverages OpenID Connect (OIDC) Servers for use in authenticating the identity of researchers desiring to access clinical and genomic resources from data holders adhering to GA4GH standards, and to enable data holders to obtain security-related attributes of those researchers. V1.2.0 V1.2.0 API URI: ega.ebi.ac.uk:8443 Documentation Repository Researcher IDs (passport, visa) Specify the collection of researchers that may access a dataset at any given time, and the credentials they must supply. V1.0.1 V1.0.1 Specification Documentation Endpoint Cloud Tool Registry Service API TRS is a standard API for exchanging tools and workflows to analyze, read, and manipulate genomic data. V2.0.1 NA Documentation Repostiory Data Repository Service API ​DRS API is a standard for building data repositories and adapting access tools to work with those repositories, works with other approved APIs from the GA4GH Cloud Work Stream to allow researchers to discover algorithms across different cloud environments and send them to datasets they wish to analyse. V1.0.3 NA Documentation Repostiory Workflow Execution Service API This API lets users run a single workflow (defined using CWL or WDL) on multiple different platforms, clouds, and environments, and be confident that it will work the same way. The API provides methods to request that a workflow be run, pass parameters to that workflow, get information about running workflows, and cancel a running workflow. V1.0.1 NA Documentation Repostiory Genomic Knowledge Standards Variation Representation v1 Provides a flexible framework of computational models, schemas, and algorithms to precisely and consistently exchange genetic variation data across communities. V1.3.0 EGA team is contributing to including it in in Beacon v2 Specification and Elixir Reference Implementation Documentation Repostiory Clin/ Pheno Data Capture Phenopackets Provides information models with different levels of complexity to enable high level clinical phenotype information as well as deep clinical phenotype information to be exchanged. V2.0.0 Included in Ongoing Submissions EGA team is contributing to including it in in Beacon v2 Specification and Elixir Reference Implementation Documentation Repostiory Driver Project The EGA, jointly coordinated by the EBI and the CRG, was announced, in 2017, to be one of the 15 Driver Projects for GA4GH. Driver Projects are international genomic data initiatives, focussed on real projects and challenges that will guide the development efforts in order to accelerate and enable completely responsible and standarised data sharing by 2022. All chosen Driver Projects make a cross-sectional effort by playing an important role across the different workstreams. Thomas Keane, Jordi Rambla, Mallory Freeberg, and Aina Jené have been named Driver Project Champions for the EGA. All Driver Project Champions will be leading this ambitious initiative for the following years.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/ga4gh

• 20180208_EGA_Trench_MetCellLine.1

  Illumina platform sequencing data of SureSelect exome libraries prepared from 3 samples from one donor: a normal, primary breast cancer, and cell line derived from metastasis

  Dataset EGAD00001003956

• Exome Sequencing of Spanish Patients with rare genetic diseases.

  Whole exome sequencing of Spanish patients suffering from a rare genetic disease. The study was carried out in 2013 as a part of a public call from CNAG (Centro Nacional de Análisis Genómico), where data of eight spanish families were sent to analyse. The study concluded with three solved cases: two of aniridia and one syndromic RP.

  Study EGAS00001004028