1654 results for "fc coins xbox one Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Mezinárodně uznávaná společnost v herním průmyslu..L14h"

in 54.42 milliseconds.

• Federated EGA

  Federated EGA Federated EGA Index Overview Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Documentation Overview Federated EGA is a global network of repositories enabling secure discovery and access to sensitive human data. Our vision is to accelerate scientific discovery and healthcare breakthroughs by creating the go-to worldwide sensitive human data resource. Our values are: Privacy & Trust: Ensuring privacy of data subjects, security of services and acting with integrity to build community trust.FAIRness: Driving reuse of data through standardisation of metadata and clear access policies.Diversity: Expanding our network and representing global diversity in the data we host to bring benefits worldwide. Federated EGA - European by name, global by nature Federated EGA collaborates with European and global initiatives (GA4GH, ELIXIR, 1+ Million Genomes Framework, GDI), demonstrating that a network for transnational discovery of and access to human data is possible. By providing a solution to emerging challenges around secure and efficient management of human omics and associated data, the FEGA Network fosters data reuse, enables reproducibility, and accelerates biomedical research. For general enquiries or to request more information about Federated EGA, please send an email to fega-info [at] lists [dot] ega-archive [dot] org. Read more about the Federated EGA in our commentary in Nature Genetics! Learn more about setting up a Federated EGA Node in our onboarding documentation. Map of FEGA status across the world Current status of the FEGA Network Node Description Joined CEGA Central EGA is managed by the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and EMBL-EBI. The EGA has been a trusted repository for sensitive data since 2008. CEGA coordinates the FEGA network, hosts central services and the EGA catalogue. 2022 Finland FEGA Finland is hosted by CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd., which is the national ELIXIR Node in Finland. CSC is a state-owned company specialising in providing high-quality IT infrastructure and services for Finnish higher education and research. 2022 Germany The German Human Genome-Phenome archive (GHGA) is part of the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI). It is coordinated by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and includes over 20 academic partners. 2022 Norway FEGA Norway is a service by ELIXIR Norway, the Norwegian node of the European organisation ELIXIR. University of Oslo as a partner institution in ELIXIR Norway is hosting the service relying on the TSD infrastructure for sensitive data. ELIXIR Norway is a consortium of 5 Norwegian universities and is coordinated by University of Bergen. 2022 Spain FEGA Spain is co-hosted by the Barcelona Supercomputer Center (BSC) and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), both part of ELIXIR Spain and the Spanish National Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine associated with Science and Technology (IMPaCT). 2022 Sweden FEGA Sweden is hosted by the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS), which legally is part of Uppsala University. NBIS forms the bioinformatics platform at SciLifeLab and constitutes the Swedish node of the European organisation ELIXIR. 2022 Poland FEGA Poland is hosted by Biobank Lodz, which is part of University of Lodz. Biobank Lodz is an element of the infrastructure of the Regional Digital Medicine Centers established by the Medical Research Agency. 2022 Portugal FEGA Portugal is managed by BioData.pt, the distributed infrastructure for Life and Health data for Portugal. This entity is a non-profit association of 15 life sciences R&I organisations spread across the country, and the home of ELIXIR Node in Portugal. 2023 Canada Canadian Genome-phenome Archive is part of the Pan Canadian Genome Library, with the mandate to allow the secure and responsible sharing and analysis of Canadian genomic information. 2024 Switzerland Swiss FEGA is hosted by SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which is the national ELIXIR Node in Switzerland, on behalf of the Swiss FEGA Partnership which includes 4 other key partners (ETH Zurich, Health 2030 Genome Center, Swiss Data Science Center and Switch). 2025 Documentation Title Version Description Mission, vision, values Federated EGA Mission, vision, values 1.0 The official Mission-Vision-Values statement for FEGA, produced and formally approved by the FEGA Strategic Committee in September 2025. Structure and Organisation Federated EGA Structure and Organisation 2.0 The structure of the FEGA network and service expectations, responsibilities and commitments. FEGA is organised into three tiers: Central EGA, FEGA Nodes and FEGA Affiliates. Strategic Committee Federated EGA Strategic Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Strategic Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to provide direction and strategic planning for the FEGA network. The committee receives input from, and provides feedback for the EGA Strategic Committee. Operations Committee Federated EGA Operations Committee 1.1 Terms of reference for the FEGA Operations Committee describe the purpose and objectives of the committee, which is to review operational performance and coordinate technical roadmaps of FEGA Nodes and Central EGA. The committee receives advice from, and provides operational reporting to the FEGA Strategic Committee. Guidelines Node Operations guidelines 2.1 An overview of the operational areas which require resources in order to create a FEGA Node. The document is based on more than 15 years' experience of EMBL-EBI and CRG operating the EGA and initial expericences of the inaugural FEGA Nodes. The operational areas of responsability are in line with the FEGA Maturity Model, which guides establishment and operation of FEGA Nodes. Collaboration Federated EGA Node Collaboration Agreement 1.3 Nodes are welcome to make a copy of this current version of the CA to start its review with their legal teams and understand the responsibilities of joining FEGA. Nevertheless, this version (the one with a watermark) shall not be signed: the official version needs to be obtained from FEGA prior signing through its official channels.

  Documentation about/projects-and-funders/federated-ega

• Institut Curie Neuroblastoma Whole Genome Sequencing Diagnosis Relapse

  Neuroblastoma, a clinically heterogeneous pediatric cancer, is characterized by distinct genomic profiles but few recurrent mutations. As neuroblastoma is expected to have high degree of genetic heterogeneity, study of neuroblastoma's clonal evolution with deep coverage whole-genome sequencing of diagnosis and relapse samples will lead to a better understanding of the molecular events associated with relapse. Samples were included in this study if sufficient DNA from constitutional, diagnosis and relapse tumors was available for WGS. Whole genome sequencing was performed on trios (constitutional, diagnose and relapse DNA) from eight patients using Illumina Hi-seq2500 leading to paired-ends (PE) 90x90 for 6 of them and 100x100 for two. Expected coverage for sample NB0175 100x100bp was 30X for tumor and constitutional samples. For the seven other patients expected coverage was 80X for tumor samples with PE 100x100, 100X in the other tumor samples and 50X for all constitutional samples (see table 1). Following alignment with BWA (Li et al., Oxford J, 2009 Jul) allowing up to 4% of mismatches, bam files were cleaned up according to the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) recommendations (Van der Auwera et al., Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, 2013, picard-1.45, GenomeAnalysisTK-2.2-16). Variant calling was performed in parallel using 3 variant callers: GenomeAnalysisTK-2.2-16, Samtools-0.1.18 and MuTect-1.1.4 (McKenna et al., Genome Res, 2010; Li et al., Oxford J, 2009 Aug; Cibulskis et al., Nature, 2013). Annovar-v2012-10-23 with cosmic-v64 and dbsnp-v137 were used for the annotation and RefSeq for the structural annotation. For GATK and Samtools, single nucleotide variants (SNVs) with a quality under 30, a depth of coverage under 6 or with less than 2 reads supporting the variant were filter out. MuTect with parameters following GATK and Samtools thresholds have been used to filter our irrelevant variants. .SNVs within and around exons of coding genes overlapping splice sites.. Then,variants reported in more than 1% of the population in the 1000 genomes (1000gAprl_2012) or Exome Sequencing Project (ESP6500) have been discarded in order to filter polymorphisms. Finally, synonymous variants were filtered out. MuTect focuses on somatic by filtering with constitutional sample. Mpileup comparison between constitutional and somatic DNAs allowed us to focus also on tumor specific SNVs with GATK and Samtools. Finally, every SNV called by our pipeline and also supported in any constitutional samples were filtered our in order to prevent putative constitutional DNA coverage deficiency. Then we analyzed CNVs (copy number variants) with HMMcopy-v0.1.1 (Gavin et al., Genome Res, 2012) and control-FREEC-v6.7 (Boeva et al., Bioinformatics 2011) with a respective window of 2000bp and 1000 bp, and auto-correction of normal contamination of tumor samples for Control-FREEC. Finally we explored Structural variants (SVs) including deletions, inversions, tandem duplications and translocations using DELLY-v0.5.5 with standard parameters (Rausch et al., Oxford J, 2012). In tumors, at least 10 supporting reads were required to make a call and 5 supporting reads for the sample NB0175 with a coverage of only 40X (see table 2). To predict SVs in constitutional samples for subsequent somatic filtering, only 2 supporting reads were required in order not to miss one. To identify somatic events, all the SVs in each normal sample were first flanked by 500 bp in both directions and any SVs called in a tumor sample which was in the combined flanked regions of respective normal sample was removed (see graph 1). Deletions with more than 5 genes impacted or larger than 1Mb and inversions or tandem duplications covering more than 4 genes, were removed. We focused on exonic and splicing events for deletions, inversions, and tandem duplications. For translocation, we keep all SVs that occurred in intronic, exonic, 5'UTR, upstream or splicing regions. Bioinformatics detection of variations with Deep sequencing approach Once PE reads merged and adaptors trimmed by SeqPrep with default parameters, merged reads were aligned via the BWA (Li H. and Durbin R. 2009 PMID 19451168) allowing up to 1 differences in the 22-base-long seeds and reporting only unique alignments. Only reads having a mapping quality 20 or more have been further analysed. Variant calling software was not used, since we aimed to predict variations at low frequencies, observed in less than 1% of reads. Such variants require a custom approach. Using DepthOfCoverage functions of the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) v2.13.2 (McKenna A, et al., 2010 Genome Research PMID: 20644199), we focused on high quality coverage of bases A, C, G and T at the targeted variant position. Depth of coverage of each base following a mapping quality higher than 20 and a base quality higher than 10 have been taken into account in order to focus only on high quality data. Aiming to determine the background level of variability at the studied regions, 10 control samples were included in the analysis. The same approach and filtering criteria have been applied as introduced above over the entire amplicons. In order to highlight variants, for each sample the frequencies of each bases at each amplicon position were then compared to those observed in the set of controls. Statistical analyses were performed with the R statistical software (http://www.R-project.org). Fisher’s exact two-sided tests with a Bonferroni correction were performed to compare percentages of bases between the data sets, i.e. for a given base between a case and the controls. Finally, significant variations were filtered-in once (i) a significant increase in the percentage of avariant base and (ii) a significant decrease in the percentage of it's reference base following our p.values criteria was observed (p.val < 0.05).

  Dataset EGAD00001001356

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers

  A genomewide study of lung cancer in never smokers Abstract and specific aims In the United States, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates have been steadily declining over the past decade, following decline in the prevalence of tobacco smoking. However, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death, killing more patients than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Although tobacco smoke is the predominant risk factor for development of lung cancer, some patients develop the disease without a history of tobacco smoking. About 10 - 15% of all lung cancers occur in lilfetime never smokers. This figure will increase as the proportion of never smokers increases in the population. Even at present rates, lung cancer in never smokers, if considered a separate disease, is 6th to 8th top cause of cancer death. The growing number of never smokers in the USA and other countries emphasizes the importance of understanding the epidemiology and biology underlying lung cancer in this group. Genetic polymorphisms associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers are expected to overlap with those associated with the risk of lung cancer in ever smokers only partially. Epidemiological, molecular and clinical data suggest that molecular mechanisms of LC may differ in smokers and non-smokers, implying that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease compared to the lung cancer in smokers. One can expect that there should be stronger genetic component in the control lung cancer in never smokers because effects of the genetic factors in never smokers are unmasked by the lack of tobacco smoke exposure. The genetic epidemiology of lung cancer in never smokers has not been well explored, largely because of difficulties in accruing the needed sample size for association studies. We propose a multicenter (total 14 sites from the US and Europe) genomewide association study of lung cancer in never smokers with the following specific aims: Aim 1: To identify candidate SNPs influencing risk for lung cancer in never smokers using Discovery sample. In the Discovery phase we will genotype 1256 Caucasian cases and 1365 age- and gender-matched never smoker controls using the Illumina Human660W-Quad platform. In addition, we will include in the analysis 284 cases and 175 matched controls already genotyped on the 610Quad platform. In this phase we will only include the study sites that have collected blood specimens (MDACC, Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, The University of Liverpool Cancer research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, and Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, Canada). All the samples will be sent to the independent lab for genotyping, to reduce site-specific technical artifacts. The final sample will consist of 1540 cases and 1540 controls matched by study site. Aim 2: To perform the second phase (validation) analysis of significant SNPs identified in aim 1 using an independent set of cases and controls. SNPs associated with risk at the significance level of 0.01 or below in the discovery set will be included in the replication phase. The proposed threshold guarantees an adequate power to retain SNPs with the typical effect size of 1.3. We plan to carry 6000-7000 SNPs for validation. The independent replication set will include 800 cases and 800 controls, mostly from sites that collected tissue (Mayo Clinic, Karmanos Cancer Institute, UT Southwestern) or buccal specimens (UCLA), but also blood samples (Imperial College London, University of Pennsylvana, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa). We will then perform a joint analysis to test the significance of the SNPs identified in the first stage using a stringent critical p-value of 10-7. There will be 2340 cases and 2340 controls in the joint set. Based on our experience with GWAS in smokers and assuming that genetic component in lung cancer risk in never smokers can be higher than genetic component in smokers, we expect to identify about 5-10 candidate regions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers. Aim 3: To identify and explore pathways associated with the risk of lung cancer in never smokers. Results of the number of studies on the molecular mechanisms and drug response suggest that lung cancer in never smokers is a different disease and different pathways will be associated with lung cancer risk in non-smokers and smokers. To identify pathways and molecular functions associated with lung cancer risk in never smokers we will apply Ingenuity and DAVID bioinformatics tools. We will use at least 300 top candidate genes identified in joint and discovery analysis. The reason why we select rather large number of candidate genes for functional annotation is two-fold: 1. Both algorithms are looking for enrichment of pathways and function by most significant genes and they produce statistically robust results only when number of genes is relatively high. 2. Despite the fact that this study will be largest possible for never smokers we still are underpowered to detect SNPs with relatively small effect size. But though those SNPs will not reach genome wide level of significance they will tend to be on the top of the list. In other words genes from the gray zone (significant on individual level and non-significant for genome wide level) are expected to be enriched by true discoveries. True discoveries are likely to be associated with limited number of pathways / functions while false positives are expected to be uniformly distributed across functions and pathways. Therefore significant clustering of the gene to a given function will suggest that that those genes are true discoveries. This is the first GWAS aiming at identifying the genetic control of susceptibility to lung cancer in Caucasian never smokers. We will combine the available resources from the multiple sites to achieve the sample size sufficient for this study. The study will identify genetic architecture of the predisposition to the lung cancer in never smokers.

  Study phs000634

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Genome-Wide Association Study of HCC in Non-Asian USA Population

  This GWAS of HCC relied on existing biological and data resources from 7 USA sites and one Canadian site which allows for the integration of genetic and environmental data. Total of 2199 case patients and 1103 non cancer controls were genotyped. Case patients are defined as patients with pathological or radiological diagnosis of HCC with and without chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Study was restricted to Caucasian population without prior infection with chronic HBV infection. All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood. Study population of the participated sites are: Site-1: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center A hospital based-case-control study was initiated at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2000 and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Study design was previously described in detailed (1-3). Written informed consent for an interview and for a biological sample was obtained from each participant. At time of diagnosis prior to treatment exposure. Case patients were recruited from the population of patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were evaluated and treated at the institution's gastrointestinal medical and surgical oncology outpatient clinics. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC, U.S. residency, and the ability to communicate in English. Patients with concurrent or past history of other types of cancers were excluded. Control subjects were healthy spouses of patients with cancers other than liver, gastrointestinal, lung, or head and neck (smoking-related cancers) undergoing treatment at our institution. Eligibility criteria for control subjects were the same as those for patients, except that control subjects could not have ever had cancer. A short, structured questionnaire was used to screen potential control subjects on the basis of eligibility criteria. Control subjects and patients were recruited simultaneously. Case patients and control subjects were interviewed by well-trained interviewers who followed a written protocol to guide ascertainment and reduce surveillance, interviewer, and recall bias. No proxy interviews were conducted. The interviewers used a structured and validated questionnaire to collect information about demographic characteristics and potential risk factors for HCC such as personal smoking history, alcohol use, medical history, occupational history, and family history of cancer. Blood samples from cases and controls were tested for HBV and HCV. HCV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen were detected by use of a third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL). Important clinical information were retrieved from patients' medical records. Total of 1188 case patients and 278 controls from MD Anderson study were genotyped. Site-2: Mayo Clinic Case patients and controls included in the study from Mayo clinic were recruited as part of Mayo International Hepatobiliary Neoplasia Register and Biorepository. Only USA patients and controls were participated. All cases and controls signed informed consent indicating their willingness to participate in genetic studies. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from participants and retrieved from medical records. Total of 522 HCC case patients and 182 controls were genotyped in this study. Site-3: Toronto University Molecular Epidemiology of Hepatobiliary Tumors (HBT study, CAPCR 09-0289) is a hospital-based study that includes 1710 patients diagnosed with liver, bile duct or gallbladder adenocarcinoma (Hepatocellular carcinoma - HCC; cholangiocarcinoma - CCA; and gall bladder adenocarcinoma -GBCa) recruited at University Health Network (UHN) between 2009 and 2018. HBT study is a prospective study of cancer patients that collects self-reported demographic and epidemiological data, medical records/clinical information and blood samples for research purposes. Eligible patients recruited between 2009 and March 15 2016 were selected to participate in the Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GWAS in HCC, CAPCR 15-9943-CE), a sub-study of the HBT study. Eligible prospective patients recruited after March 15 2016 signed the Addendum to the HBT consent form and became eligible to participate in the GWAS in HCC study. Total of 271 cases and 21 controls were genotyped from Toronto University Site-4: University of Pittsburgh The design of the study has been described previously (4-6). Briefly, this population-based study enrolled 120 HCC patients and 230 matched controls from black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white residents of Los Angeles County who were between 18 and 74 years of age at diagnosis from January 1995 through December 2001. HCC Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. We sought to recruit up to two control subjects per case from the neighborhoods where HCC patients resided at the time of diagnosis, who were matched to the index case by sex, age (within 5 years), and race (Hispanic white, non-Hispanic white, black). Blood samples (plasma and buffy coat), medical and lifestyle factors were collected from all consenting participants. Total of 65 cases and 60 controls were genotyped in this study Site-5: South Western Dallas Under IRB approval, HCC Cases and controls were prospectively collected since 2015 from the outpatient Liver clinics from Parkland Health and Hospital System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, two large health systems in Dallas TX. A Total of 31 cases and 29 controls were genotyped from site 5. Site-6: Columbia University HCC patients from Columbia are those recruited as part of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Database Shared Resource which seeks to recruit all cancer patients for potential future studies. The PI is Dr. Katherine Crew AAAL5871. This resource collects sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical data on patients as well as a blood sample. Those who indicated on their consent form that they would participate in genetic studies were included. Total of 79 case patients with HCC were genotyped from Columbia University. Site-7: University of Michigan The study population included from University of Michigan were included from a prospective study of with chronic HCV infection recruited in Ann Arbor Patients who had under- gone liver transplantation, known coinfection with HIV, life expectancy <12 months due to extra-hepatic illnesses, or were receiving HCV treatment at enrolment, were excluded. Protocol, surveys, and data forms were developed where each enrolled patient completed the same questionnaire All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee at the University of Michigan. Detailed study description was previously published (7). Total of 44 cases and 347 controls were genotyped Site-8: Veteran Administration Medical Center in Houston This research including written informed consent form was jointly approved by Institutional Review Boards for the Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Study details have been previously published (8). Briefly, we prospectively recruited consecutive HCV-infected veterans prior to their previously scheduled HCV clinic visit at a large tertiary care VA medical center between May 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012. Patients completed a research assistant (RA) administered survey interrogating medical and risk factor history including lifetime alcohol use, had anthropometric measurements taken, and completed a fasting venipuncture for performance of the FibroSure-ActiTest as a measure of hepatic pathology. We restricted our current analysis to individuals who were: (1) White male veterans between 18 and 70 years; (2) had no history of HCC, liver transplant, decompensated liver disease including ascites, dementia, or psychosis; (3) were serologically-confirmed to have chronic HCV and to be negative for both HIV and active HBV infection; (4) were not currently receiving anti-HCV pharmacotherapy; and (5) had FibroSURE testing shown F3/F4 fibrosis consistent with cirrhosis.

  Study phs001744

• Study of Addiction: Genetics and Environment (SAGE)

  This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA) funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute. The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to addiction through a large-scale genome-wide association study of DSM-IV alcohol dependent (and frequently illicit drug dependent) cases and non-dependent, unrelated control subjects of European and African American descent. The focus of this proposal is a case-control design of unrelated individuals for a genetic association study of addiction. Cases are defined as individuals with DSM-IV alcohol dependence (lifetime) and potentially other illicit drug dependence. In addition to the categorical diagnosis, we have data on ordinal measurements of number of DSM-IV symptoms for alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, opiates and other drugs so that we will able to construct quantitative measurements of addiction severity over a wide range of substances. Controls are defined as individuals who have been exposed to alcohol (and possibly to other drugs), but have never met lifetime diagnosis for alcohol dependence or dependence on other illicit substances. Analyses that include refinement of the phenotype and incorporation of important demographic and environmental factors into association studies will be pursued. Cases and controls were selected from three large, complementary datasets: the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA), the Family Study of Cocaine Dependence (FSCD), and the Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND). COGA: COGA was initiated in 1989 and is a large-scale family study that has had as its primary aim the identification of genes that contribute to alcoholism susceptibility and related characteristics. COGA is funded through the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Subjects were recruited from 7 sites across the U.S. Alcohol dependent probands were recruited from treatment facilities and assessed by personal interview. After securing permission, other family members were also assessed. A set of comparison families was drawn from the same communities as the families recruited through the alcohol dependent probands. Assessment involved a comprehensive personal interview developed for this project, the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA), which gathers detailed information on alcoholism related symptoms along with other drugs and psychiatric symptoms. Families with three or more first-degree relatives who were alcohol dependent were invited for more extensive testing, including neurophysiology evaluations (ERPs and EEGs) and a battery of neuropsychological assessments. Blood was obtained for genetic studies. Institutional Review Boards at all sites approved the protocols, including sharing in the NIAAA national repository. COGA has four Co-Principal Investigators Bernice Porjesz, Victor Hesselbrock, Howard Edenberg, and Laura Bierut. COGA includes nine different centers where data collection, analysis, and storage take place. The nine sites and Principal Investigators and Co-investigators are: University of Connecticut (Victor Hesselbrock); Indiana University (Howard Edenberg, John Nurnberger, Jr., Tatiana Foroud); University of Iowa (Samuel Kuperman); SUNY Downstate (Bernice Porjesz); Washington University in St. Louis (Laura Bierut, Alison Goate, John Rice); University of California at San Diego (Marc Schuckit); Howard University (Robert Taylor); Rutgers University (Jay Tischfield); Southwest Foundation (Laura Almasy). Q. Max Guo serves as the NIAAA Staff Collaborator. This national collaborative study is supported by the NIH Grant U10AA008401 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Family Study of Cocaine Dependence (FSCD): This project was initiated in 2000 as a case-control family study of cocaine dependence funded through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA; PI: Laura Bierut). The primary goal was to increase the understanding of the familial and non-familial antecedents and consequences of cocaine dependence. Cocaine dependent individuals were systematically recruited from chemical dependency treatment units (both public and private; residential and outpatient) in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area. Community based control subjects were identified through a Missouri Driver's License Registry (maintained at Washington University for research purposes) and matched by age, race, gender, and residential zip code. As a supplement to this project, blood samples were collected for future genetic analysis and were included in the NIDA Genetics Consortium. Phenotypic data, DNA, and cell lines are in the NIDA Center for Genetics Studies. Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND): COGEND was initiated in 2001 as a three-part program project grant funded through the National Cancer Institute (NCI; PI: Laura Bierut). The three projects included a study of the familial transmission of nicotine dependence, a genetic study of nicotine dependence, and a study of the relationship of nicotine dependence with nicotine metabolism. The primary goal is to detect, localize, and characterize genes that predispose or protect an individual with respect to heavy tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, and related phenotypes and to integrate these findings with the family transmission and nicotine metabolism findings. The primary design is a community based case-control family study. All subjects were recruited from Detroit and St. Louis. Nicotine dependent cases and non-dependent smoking controls were identified and recruited. In addition, one sibling for each case and control subject was recruited in a subset of the sample. Over 56,000 subjects aged 25-44 years were screened by telephone, over 3,100 subjects were personally interviewed, and over 2,900 donated blood samples for genetic studies. All three studies (COGA, COGEND, FSCD) include measures of basic socio-demographic variables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, educational attainment, religious participation, and family structure. Other important covariates and/or potential moderators of genetic effects include comorbid addictions and age at initiation of use for cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. The assessments also include measures of various life stressors, such as physical and sexual abuse, which have been implicated in gene-environment interactions for several disorders. Coding for both individual variables and indices has been standardized across studies. All subjects were assessed in person by trained research assistants. Funding support for genotyping, which was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), was provided by the NIH GEI (U01HG004438), the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the NIH contract "High throughput genotyping for studying the genetic contributions to human disease"(HHSN268200782096C). Note for Publications Related to Study: The Study of Addiction: Genetics and Environment (SAGE) has not yet generated publications. Below is a listing of publications related to the three studies from which the SAGE sample was selected. COGA has over 228 publications listed at www.niaaagenetics.org This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to addiction through a large-scale genome-wide association study of DSM-IV alcohol dependent (and frequently illicit drug dependent) cases and non-dependent, unrelated control subjects of European and African American descent. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000092

• The Melbourne Urological Research Alliance (MURAL) Collection of Patient-Derived Models of Prostate Cancer

  1. Low-Dose Carboplatin Modifies the Tumor Microenvironment to Augment CAR T Cell Efficacy in Human Prostate Cancer Models.Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) was performed to analyze the transcriptional modifications in the tumor microenvironment of prostate cancer patient-derived xenografts (PDX). The analyzed PDX tumor was PDX-287R from the MURAL collection of PDXs (PMID: 34413304). Mice harboring PDX tumors were treated with the carboplatin chemotherapy, and tumors were harvested 3 weeks later. RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to define immune and non-immune cell populations and anti-tumor innate immune signaling within the tumor microenvironment.To investigate the response of tumor cells to carboplatin treatment in more detail, RNA-Seq was performed on FACs-isolated tumor cells from PDX-287R at one week post-treatment. Gene set enrichment analysis showed an enrichment for apoptotic pathways, with significantly increased expression of the pro-apoptotic genes FAS, BAX, BBC3, IFI6, and JUN. Previously, carboplatin has been shown to activate the cGAS/STING pathway, and here we also found an increase in STING signaling, with an enrichment for the cytosolic DNA sensing pathway and increased expression of STING1, STAT1 and STAT2. There was also a significant increase in the expression of genes involved in T cell chemotaxis, including CXCL10, CXCL11, and CCL20. Collectively, carboplatin-induced cell death in tumor cells likely initiated a pro-inflammatory phenotype in prostate cancer PDXs.2. Co-Targeting BET, CREBBP, and EP300 Inhibits Neuroendocrine Signaling in Androgen Receptor-Null Prostate Cancer.The landscape of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is characterized by a multitude of phenotypes, among which neuroendocrine disease holds a prominent position, each displaying unique responses to therapeutic interventions. The efficacy of inhibitors targeting BET and CREBBP/EP300 in prostate cancer treatment is widely acknowledged, primarily due to their ability to attenuate androgen receptor (AR) signaling. However, the effectiveness of these inhibitors in prostate cancers devoid of AR remains uncertain.This investigation sought to elucidate the role of BRD4, CREBBP, and EP300, which are co-expressed in both AR-positive and AR-null prostate cancer. Our study revealed that a compound targeting all three proteins, NEO2734, exhibited efficacy in suppressing the growth of organoids from both AR-positive and AR-null tumors, as evidenced by alterations in viability, size, and cellular composition. Furthermore, NEO2734 treatment consistently led to transcriptional downregulation of cell cycle pathways across various models. In the context of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC), NEO2734 demonstrated notable efficacy. Treatment with NEO2734 resulted in decreased expression of ASCL1 and other neuroendocrine markers (including SYP) , accompanied by a reduction in tumor growth in vivo. These findings collectively underscore the potential of epigenome-targeted inhibitors in impeding the growth of neuroendocrine prostate cancer, by disrupting lineage regulators in a phenotype-dependent manner. Consistent with the NEPC organoids and explants, NKX3-1 was upregulated in NEO2734-treated PDXs.In this study, we examined the impact of NEO2734 treatment on 6 organoids (treated for 24 hrs), 3 explants treated with JQ1 (for 48 hrs) and 2 PDXs (at two time points) using bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq). These results are available through this dbGaP submission. The implications of these results warrant further exploration and development of compounds possessing similar activities for clinical applications. The ability of NEO2734 to mitigate the growth of both AR-positive and AR-null prostate cancer underscores its potential as a versatile therapeutic agent. Moreover, its efficacy in targeting neuroendocrine phenotypes offers promising avenues for addressing a subtype of CRPC that poses significant clinical challenges. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the intricate interplay between epigenetic regulators and prostate cancer phenotypes. The observed effects of NEO2734 on growth inhibition and phenotype-specific disruption highlight the importance of continued research into compounds with similar epigenome-targeting mechanisms for advancing precision medicine approaches in the treatment of prostate cancer.3. Defining Focal Neuroendocrine Differentiation as a Transcriptionally Distinct Form of Prostate Cancer Pathology Characterized by the Expression of Androgen ReceptorsThe study aimed to understand the transcriptional differences among different neuroendocrine pathologies of prostate cancer. The study hypothesized that the diverse neuroendocrine pathology observed in prostate might be attributable to differences in transcriptional level that remain hidden in bulk RNA-Seq data. To investigate, we employed scRNA-seq to generate gene expression profiles of 18,632 individual tumor cells from 9 PDX models representing five distinct neuroendocrine pathologies of prostate cancer. Our analysis identified 3-8 transcriptionally distinct sub-populations per PDX. The expression of key oncogenic signaling pathways and master regulator activity varied across in neuroendocrine pathologies, with each type of pathology displaying a unique set of transcriptional sub-populations. We discovered that, like the amphicrine pathology, focal neuroendocrine differentiation (focal NED) cells maintain androgen receptor (AR) signaling. However, the expression profiles of focal NED cells differed from the other pathologies, indicating it should be considered as a distinct type of neuroendocrine pathology in prostate cancer. Analysis of copy number alterations suggested little clonal divergence between focal NED cells and neighboring adenocarcinoma cells, emphasizing the transcriptional distinctiveness of focal NED.Overall, the findings suggest potential differences in treatment approaches for tumors from prostate cancer patients showing neuroendocrine pathology, especially focal NED.4. Reprogramming of Androgen Receptor Activity in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer is Shaped by Truncated Variants.Under the influence of treatments that target the androgen receptor (AR) axis, prostate cancer cells undergo various changes to the AR gene. This includes the production of truncated AR variants that lack the ligand binding domain and are constitutively active. However, the exact role of these truncated variants in shaping the AR signaling axis and their importance in therapy resistance is not yet fully understood. By examining the AR cistrome in a group of patient-derived prostate cancer models with different mechanisms of castration resistance, we observed diverse changes in AR activity in metastatic prostate cancer, including castration-resistant models. Specifically, we identified a unique subset of tumors characterized by the expression of ARv567es, a variant resulting from structural rearrangements of the AR gene. Tumors positive for ARv567es showed a distinct AR binding profile and epigenome compared to those without ARv567es, which was linked to an altered transcriptional profile. The presence of ARv567es is associated with poor responses to treatments, such as castration and bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), regardless of the presence of full-length AR. This involves disruption of the autoregulatory loop that controls AR gene transcription and reduced transcriptional responses to treatment. Overall, this study demonstrates that ARv567es can lead to transcriptional reprogramming in advanced prostate cancer and drive therapy resistance. 5. The MURAL Collection of Prostate Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts Enables Discovery Through Preclinical Models of Uro-Oncology.We created a comprehensive PDX resource for prostate cancer to facilitate the rapid and systematic evaluation of new therapies. This collection includes 59 tumors from 30 patients, gathered between 2012 and 2020, aligning with the availability of abiraterone and enzalutamide in the clinic. The PDXs cover the clinical, pathological, and genomic spectrum of prostate cancer, ranging from treatment-naïve primary tumors to castration-resistant metastases. We characterized heterogeneity in adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine phenotypes using bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing. Additionally, organoids were cultured from PDXs, enhancing our preclinical study capabilities. Employing a 1x1x1 design, we quickly identified tumors with responses to combination therapies. To manage the distribution of PDXs, we established the Melbourne Urological Research Alliance (MURAL). This PDX collection significantly enhances our ability to test and prioritize effective treatments for future clinical trials in prostate cancer.6. Prostate Cancer Associated Fibroblasts Have Distinct Morpho-Mechanical Features That Are Associated With Patient Outcome.The tumor stroma, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), has a crucial role in tumor progression. This study focused on the morphological and mechanical properties of CAFs and normal prostatic fibroblasts. The findings revealed that CAFs had distinct morphological and mechanical characteristics compared to normal fibroblasts, such as differences in nuclear size, shape, F-actin arrangement, cellular volumes, and elasticity. Additionally, the study correlated these biophysical properties with transcriptomic data, identifying pathways and cellular components linked to the observed changes. Overall, high-throughput assessments of biophysical properties in prostate cancer cells and stromal components may serve as predictive tools for patient outcomes and help identify new therapeutic approaches targeting the tumor stroma.

  Study phs003369

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! 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! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal