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

in 14.19 milliseconds.

• Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in multi-Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES)

  The T2D-GENES/GoT2D 13K exome sequencing study includes ~13,000 samples, half T2D cases and half T2D controls, from five ancestries (~5K Europeans, ~2K each of African-American, East-Asian, South-Asian, and Hispanic). Samples underwent deep exome sequencing, with SNVs and INDEls called according to GATK best practices; variant sites were then filtered according to the GATK best practices, and then samples and variants underwent further filtering based on aggregate genotype quality as described in Fuchsberger et al. (e.g. low call rate, excess heterozygosity for samples, low call rate or coverage for variants). Please note that one of the samples in the T2D-GENES vcf does not have phenotype data.

  Dataset EGAD00001002246

• Exome sequencing of a Novel Primary T Cell Immunodeficiency Kindred (2019-08-19)

  Primary T cell immunodeficiency disorders have a heterogeneous genetic basis. This study will focus on one case characterised by severe T cell lymphopenia in the index case. We aim to sequence the complete exomes of this individual, her three unaffected siblings and parents in an effort to identify the causative genetic mutation responsible for this disorder. We will perform exome capture using Agilent SureSelect system, followed by sequencing on the HiSeq platform. Our study has the potential to uncover genes important for T cell development and novel therapeutic strategies to treat T cell immunodeficiencies. . This dataset contains all the data available for this study on 2019-08-19.

  Dataset EGAD00001005263

• What is a DAC?

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

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

• IL-17 Signaling in Human iPSC-derived Midbrain Neurons in Parkinson's Disease

  To determine IL-17-induced global transcriptome changes in midbrain neurons derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from three sporadic Parkinson&#39;s disease (PD) patients and three age- and sex-machted controls, deep RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of IL-17-treated and untreated PD and control iPSC-dderived midbrain neurons was performed. Total RNA was isolated from untreated and IL-17-treated cells with the TruSeq RNA Sample Preparation Kit v2 (Illumina). RNA libraries were quantified using the KAPA SYBR FAST ABI Prism Library Quantification Kit (Kapa Biosystems) and cluster generation was performed on the cBot with the TruSeq SR Cluster Kit v3 (Illumina). The sequencing run was performed on a HiSeq 1000 instrument (Illumina) using the indexed, 50 cycles single read (SR) protocol and the TruSeq SBS v3 Kit (Illumina). Image analysis and base calling resulted in .bcl files that were then converted into .fastQ files by the CASAVA1.8.2 software. FastQ files were aligned to the human genome (hg19) using STAR.and annotated with gencode.v19. DESeq2 was used to determine differential expression. Criteria to determine significantly dysregulated genes were as follows: adjusted p-value below 0.05 and log2FC (fold change) of greater than one. Only genes with a mean expression value of greater than one RPKM (reads per kilobase per million mapped reads) throughout the dataset were considered. Control and PD samples were analyzed as two independent datasets. Upon IL-17 treatment only 17 genes were found to be dysregulated in controls but 125 genes were dysregulated in iPSC-derived midbrain neurons from PD patients. The 125 IL-17-dependent genes in PD iPSC-derived neurons separated the treated from untreated PD samples using an unsupervised, hierarchical clustering applying an Euclidean distance metric. More detailed study information can be found in Sommer A, Maxreiter F, Krach F, Fadler T, Grosch J, Maroni M, Graef D, Eberhardt E, Riemenschneider MJ, Yeo GW, Kohl Z, Xiang W, Gage FH, Winkler J, Prots I, Winner B. Th17 Lymphocytes Induce Neuronal Cell Death in a Human iPSC-Based Model of Parkinson&#39;s Disease. Cell Stem Cell. 2018 Jul 5;23(1):123-131.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.06.015. PMID: 29979986

  Study phs001686

• GEI Studies - Psoriasis

  The GEI Studies Project was started as an NIH consortium involving 5 disease groups with funding provided through the Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The objective of the project was to optimize strategies for identifying rare variants as a follow up to genome-wide association studies (GWAS) using next-generation sequencing technology. One of the five targeted diseases, Psoriasis, is a multifactorial skin disease characterized by epidermal hyperproliferation and chronic inflammation that affects approximately 2% of Americans. Because only about one-third of all patients with psoriasis have a relative who is also affected with the disorder, psoriasis is not widely recognized as a genetic disease. However, previous research on families and identical twins has shown psoriasis has a strong genetic component, although environmental factors (such as infections, stress, and injuries) are also important. Although no definite psoriasis gene has yet been identified, research during the last ten years has revealed over forty potential gene locations that may contribute to the disease. Large amounts of data generated using next-generation sequencing technology would provide a more detailed characterization of sequence variation which would in turn increase the likelihood of detecting causative loci. With the presumption that rare variants are frequently the cause of a large portion of phenotypic variation, it was necessary to use large sample sets. In the main body of this study, we sequenced 4,966 samples (812 dermatologist-diagnosed cases of purely cutaneous psoriasis (PsC), 1,497 cases of rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis, 665 cases of cutaneous psoriasis with uncertain psoriatic arthritis status (PsV) and 1,992 controls) across 5.7 Mb of sequence containing 100 psoriasis candidate loci and 769 genes. For each candidate locus, we considered sequences within 250 kb of the strongest association signal. Within this window, three strategies were employed. For ten of the strongest psoriasis signals, we used a whole-region approach which included non-coding intergenic and intronic sequence. For four established loci of lesser significance, we targeted all full transcription units within the +/- 250 kb interval. For the remaining signals, we targeted the exons of all transcription units within the +/- 250 kb interval. Due to complexities of high-efficiency targeting of HLA genes we selected 5 specific candidate genes for sequencing near the HLA-C gene.

  Study phs000766

• Genetic Testing to Understand and Address Renal Disease Disparities

  People of African ancestry (Blacks) have increased risk of kidney failure due to numerous socioeconomic, environmental, and clinical factors. Two variants in the APOL1 gene (GeneID: 8542) are now thought to account for much of the racial disparity associated with hypertensive kidney failure in Blacks. One in 7 AAs carry this risk allele, but it is nearly absent in other populations; the variants protect against infection with African trypanosomiasis which is endemic to Africa. However, this knowledge has not been translated into clinical care to help improve patient outcomes and address disparities. It is unknown whether patient or clinician knowledge of genetic risk impacts patient care (i.e., renal surveillance, BP medication use/intensification) or outcomes such as BP control and CKD. GUARDD is a randomized trial to evaluate the effects and challenges of incorporating genetic risk information into primary care. Hypertensive, nondiabetic, adults with self-reported African ancestry, without kidney dysfunction, are recruited from diverse clinical settings and randomized to undergo APOL1 genetic testing at baseline (intervention) or at one year (waitlist control). Prior to enrolling their patients, providers are educated about genomics and APOL1. Guided by a genetic counselor, trained staff return APOL1 results to patients and provide low-literacy educational materials. Real-time clinical decision support tools alert clinicians of their patients&#39; APOL1 results and associated risk status at the point of care. Our academic - community clinical partnership designed a study to generate information about the impact of genetic risk information on our primary outcome - patient care (renal surveillance by clinicians, of serum creatinine and/or urine albumin tests. with a sub-aim of reduction of systolic blood pressure). Secondary outcomes include impact on primary outcomes at 12 months, psycho-behavioral differences of patients between groups and over time, clinician knowledge, attitudes and beliefs at baseline and 12 months, and differences in outcomes between those tested and not tested. GUARDD will help establish the effective implementation of APOL1 risk informed management of hypertensive patients at high risk of CKD, and will provide a robust framework for future endeavors to implement genomic medicine in diverse clinical practices. It will also add to the important dialog about factors that contribute to and may help eliminate racial disparities in kidney disease.

  Study phs001620

• (Epi)genetic Risk Architectures of Opioid-Dependent Brain

  With nearly 20,000 overdose deaths in 2014 alone, opioid addiction (OA) has emerged as one of the most pressing public health crises in recent US history. One-fifth of individuals who try heroin develop an addiction to opioids. Genetics is a major contributor to OA with an estimated 60% heritability, only somewhat less than schizophrenia (80%) which has recently seen substantial gains in identified underlying genetics. Yet, studies to date have failed to uncover most of the genes that predispose individuals to OA, leaving the overwhelming fraction of OA heritability unexplained. The proposed study takes a novel, integrated "omics-based" strategy to investigate the molecular basis of OA and uncover both genetic and epigenetic factors associated with opioid addiction. The premise for our approach is founded on studies from our labs, and others, implicating regulatory variation in common traits and diseases, including those associated with complex brain phenotypes like addiction. We have collected the largest known cohort of postmortem brains from addicts who overdosed on opioids, along with matched control brains from non-users. From both cases and control specimens, we will isolate cells from 2 regions of the brain closely implicated in the addiction phenotype: the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) and the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc). In Aim 1, we propose ChIP-seq studies to identify regulatory elements that distinguish cases from controls and define the opioid addiction phenotype. The regulatory differences will be connected to their gene targets through high resolution in situ Hi-C. In Aim 2, we propose QTL-based approaches to identify genetic variants that underlie the regulatory differences (hmQTLs). We also propose eQTL analyses to identify genetic variants that underlie differences in transcript levels between cases and controls. Aim 3 leverages the largest heroin addiction GWAS meta-analysis to date to test the hypothesis that SNPs in regions associated with chromatin and expression differences between cases and controls define novel loci for predisposition to OA. Each Aim has the potential for discovery independent of the others (differential HM, RNAexp, QTLs, and variant-phenotype associations) but their synergy is the most powerful component of the proposed study: identifying regulatory pathways that generate, not only phenotype associations, but hypothesized mechanisms for those associations which can be the focus of new opioid addiction prevention and treatment development.

  Study phs002724

• National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Istanbul Faculty of Medicine Genome-wide Association Study of Behçet's Disease (Turkish)

  IntroductionBeh&#231;et&#39;s disease (BD) is a genetically complex multisystem disease of unknown etiology, characterized by recurrent inflammatory attacks affecting orogenital mucosa, eyes, skin, joints, blood vessels, and less frequently, the central nervous system and gastrointestinal tract. Family studies suggest a genetically complex contribution to BD. With the exception of HLA-B51, which explains less than 20% of the genetic risk, the identities of alleles that are responsible for the complex inheritance of this disease have remained unclear. AimTo identify genes that contribute to BD susceptibility. MethodsA genome-wide association study was undertaken with 311,459 informative and high quality SNPs in a collection of 1215 BD patients and 1278 healthy controls from Turkey using a beadchip microarray assay (Infinium SNP genotype assay, Illumina). HLA-B types were determined with a reverse sequence-specific oligonucleotide method (One Lambda). Regions with evidence for association were fine-mapped using Sequenom iPLEX gold assays. Disease-associated SNPs were genotyped in additional ethnically matched case/control collections from diverse genetic backgrounds, including a total of 2430 cases and 2660 controls, using TaqMan SNP genotype assays. Association data were combined in a meta-analysis of all the collections. ResultsWe confirmed the known association with HLA-B51 and found evidence for a second, independent susceptibility locus in the Class I region of the MHC. In addition, we identified one SNP with genome-wide evidence for disease association (P &lt; 5.0 x 10-8) within the gene encoding the immunoregulatory cytokine, interleukin-10 (IL10). A meta-analysis of the data from all the collections established associations with the IL10 variant (rs1518111, P = 3.54 x 10-18, odds ratio 1.45 with 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 1.58) and with a variant located between the interleukin-23 receptor (IL23R) and interleukin 12 receptor &#946;2 (IL12RB2) genes (rs924080, P = 6.69 x 10-9, odds ratio 1.28 with 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.39). The disease-associated IL10 variant was associated with diminished mRNA expression and low protein production by cells obtained from healthy blood donors. ConclusionsThese data suggest that genetically encoded low production of IL-10 increases risk of BD and suggest novel interventional targets in the IL-10 and IL-23 pathways. Note: The submitted data are the genotypes of the 311,459 SNPs in 1215 cases and 1278 controls.

  Study phs000272

• Immune-Related Adverse Events after Immune Checkpoint Blockade-Based Therapy are Associated with Improved Survival in Advanced Sarcoma

  Immune activation after immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can lead to a unique group of adverse events (AEs), which have been associated with improved outcome in many carcinomas. The association between immune-related AEs (irAEs) and outcome in patients with sarcoma is not well studied. This study has two components: (1) a retrospective clinical study of irAEs among 131 patients treated with ICB at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and (2) an analysis of a subset of these patients who have whole transcriptome sequencing available for analysis. In the clinical study portion, we reviewed a cohort of patients with advanced sarcoma treated on prospective clinical trials utilizing ICB-based therapy between April 2017 and January 2020. The objectives were to pool the safety data from each trial, identify irAEs, and correlate them with best overall response by RECIST 1.1, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Association of irAEs with response and survival was assessed using a Cox regression model. A total of 131 patients were included. Forty-two (32%) had at least one irAE of any grade and 16 (12%) had at least one Grade &#8805; 3 irAE. On Cox analysis adjusting for clinical covariates that were significant in the univariate setting, the hazard ratio (HR) for an irAE (HR 0.662, 95% CI 0.421 - 1.041) approached, but did not reach statistical significance for PFS (P = 0.074), while patients had a significantly lower HR for OS (HR 0.443, 95% CI 0.246 &#8211; 0.798; P = 0.007) compared to those without or before an irAE. Tumor samples with available RNA sequencing data were stratified by presence of an irAE to identify patterns of differential gene expression. In total, 71 unique patients had RNA sequencing available for analysis. The transcriptomes of 31 of these patients have been previously uploaded to dbGaP (phs002852), leaving 36 unique transcriptomes that have not been previously publicly shared. Three patients did not agree for their sequencing to be publicly shared. Therefore, 33 unique patient samples will be uploaded to this dbGaP study. Overall, this study found that gene expression profiling on baseline tumor samples from patients who had an irAE had higher numbers of tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells, CD8+ T cells, and regulatory T cells as well as upregulation of immune and inflammatory pathways.

  Study phs003284

• SPECIAL: Dissecting the melanoma ecosystem one cell at the time during immunotherapy

  The aim of this study was to identify potential biomarkers of response to immunotherapy (anti-PD1-based) as well as gain understanding of the biological mechanism of therapy resistance (either intrinsic or acquired) in melanoma patients. Single cell RNA sequencing was performed from pre- and on-treatment (2-3 weeks after immunotherapy) metastatic biopsies from stage III and IV melanoma patients.

  Study EGAS00001006488