1372 results for "fc coins xbox series s Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Immer beste Preise..CNcP"

in 11.28 milliseconds.

• CCDG CVD: VIRGO - Variation in Recover-Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) Patients

  The VIRGO study is a four year research project funded by the NHLBI to study young women and men with heart attacks. A total of 2,000 women who are 18 - 55 years of age and a smaller comparison group of 1,000 similarly aged men will be enrolled in this multi-site observational study from approximately 120 different hospitals across the country. Young women have a much greater risk of dying after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) than similarly aged men. Their mortality risk is markedly higher than that of young men, and limited data on young minority women suggest that they may have the highest risk of any young subgroup. Findings from the small number of published studies of young women with ischemic heart disease suggest that the biology, epidemiology, care, and outcomes of this group are distinct from those of men. To date, there have been no large studies of this population, even as the death toll is comparable to that from breast cancer in this country. This study will help researchers identify key factors that influence recovery from a heart attack and potentially improve the care and outcomes of young women and men with AMI. Specific Aims: To investigate the excess risk in young women with AMI and to identify key demographic, clinical, metabolic, psychosocial, health care delivery, and biological determinants of prognosis, we propose a national, prospective, observational study of 2,000 women who are 55 years or younger with AMI and a smaller comparison group of 1,000 men. Our prior work and preliminary studies indicate that the sex differences are most prominent in this age group and suggest that by 1 year after discharge, there are substantial sex differences in outcomes. We will also develop risk stratification tools that will help clinicians to identify young women with the highest and lowest risk. Specific Aim 1: Determine sex differences in outcomes following AMI. Specific Aim 2: Determine sex differences in the prevalence and prognostic importance of demographic, clinical, and psychosocial risk factors. Specific Aim 3:Determine sex differences in quality of care. Specific Aim 4: Determine sex differences in the prevalence and prognostic importance of selected biochemical biomarkers following AMI. These samples have been whole genome sequenced as part of the NHGRI's Center for Common Disease Genetics at the Broad Institute.

  Study phs001259

• MediMer: A versatile do-it-yourself peptide-receptive MHC class I multimer platform for tumor neoantigen-specific T cell detection

  Peptide-loaded MHC class I (pMHC-I) multimers have revolutionized our capabilities to monitor disease-associated T cell responses with high sensitivity and specificity. To improve the discovery of T cell receptors (TCR) targeting neoantigens of individual tumor patients with recombinant MHC molecules, we developed a peptide-loadable MHC class I platform termed MediMer. MediMers are based on soluble disulfide-stabilized β2-microglobulin/heavy chain ectodomain single-chain dimers (dsSCD) that can be easily produced in large quantities in eukaryotic cells and tailored to individual patients’ HLA allotypes with only little hands-on time. Upon transient expression in CHO-S cells together with ER-targeted BirA biotin ligase, biotinylated dsSCD are purified from the cell supernatant and are ready to use. We show that CHO-produced dsSCD are free of endogenous peptide ligands. Empty dsSCD from more than 30 different HLA-A,B,C allotypes, that were produced and validated so far, can be loaded with synthetic peptides matching the known binding criteria of the respective allotypes, and stored at low temperature without loss of binding activity. We demonstrate the usability of peptide-loaded dsSCD multimers for the detection of human antigen-specific T cells with comparable sensitivities as multimers generated with peptide-tethered β2m-HLA heavy chain single-chain trimers (SCT) and wild-type peptide-MHC-I complexes prior formed in small-scale refolding reactions. Using allotype-specific, fluorophore-labeled competitor peptides, we present a novel dsSCD-based peptide binding assay capable of interrogating large libraries of in silico predicted neoepitope peptides by flow cytometry in a high-throughput and rapid format. We discovered rare T cell populations with specificity for tumor neoepitopes and epitopes from shared tumor-associated antigens in peripheral blood of a melanoma patient including a so far unreported HLA-C*08:02-restricted NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cell population. Two representative TCR of this T cell population, which could be of potential value for a broader spectrum of patients, were identified by dsSCD-guided single-cell sequencing and were validated by cognate pMHC-I multimer staining and functional responses to autologous peptide-pulsed antigen presenting cells. By deploying the novel CHO producer cell-based dsSCD MHC-I MediMer platform, we hope to significantly improve success rates for the discovery of personalized neoepitope- specific TCR in the future by being able to also cover rare HLA allotypes.

  Study EGAS50000000065

• FASTQ files of total RNA-Seq data of POPS control samples

  Placental biopsies (n = 64 female placentas, n = 67 male placentas) were selected from healthy pregnancies from the POPs cohort. These patients had no evidence of hypertension at booking and during pregnancy, did not experience pre-eclampsia, Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes, and Low Platelets (HELLP) syndrome, gestational diabetes, or diabetes mellitus type I or type II and other obstetric complications. They delivered live babies with a birth weight percentile in the normal range (20-80th percentile), with no evidence of slowing in fetal growth trajectory. Chorionic villi from the corresponding placentas (free from decidua, visible infarction, calcification, hematoma, or damage) were collected and processed within 30 minutes of separation from the uterus. After repeated washes in chilled phosphate buffered saline, the samples were placed in RNA later (Applied Biosystems) and stored at -80°C. Total placental RNA was extracted using mirVana Isolation Kit (Ambion). For each placenta, approximately 5 mg of tissue were homogenized in the Lysis/Binding solution for 20 sec at 6 m/s using a bead beater (FastPrep24) and Lysing Matrix D Tubes (MP Biomedicals). The samples were then spun at 13,000 rpm for 5 min at 4°C and the supernatants recovered. Afterwards, the manufacturer's instructions were followed. Immediately after the RNA extraction, placental RNA samples were DNase-treated using DNA-free DNA Removal Kit (Ambion), aliquoted, and stored in -80°C. Quantity and quality of the RNA samples were assessed using the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer, the Agilent RNA 6000 Nano Kit (Agilent Technologies), and Qubit fluorometer. Libraries were prepared starting with 300-500 ng of good quality total RNA (RIN ≥7.5) using the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Prep Kit with Ribo-Zero Human/Mouse/Rat (Illumina), according to the manufacturer's instructions. The kit contains 96 uniquely indexed adapter combinations in order to allow pooling of multiple samples prior to sequencing. After determining their size (with the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and the Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit by Agilent Technologies) and concentration (by qPCR with the KAPA Illumina ABI Prism Library Quantification Kit, Kapa Biosystems), libraries have been pooled and sequenced (single-end, 125 bp) using a Single End V4 Cluster Kit and an Illumina HiSeq2500 or HiSeq4000 instrument.

  Dataset EGAD00001003457

• Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS)

  The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) is a multi-center prospective, longitudinal, observational study of risk factors for vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures in older men, and of the sequelae of fractures in men. The original specific aims of the study include: (1) to define the skeletal determinants of fracture risk in older men, (2) to define lifestyle and medical factors related to fracture risk, (3) to establish the contribution of fall frequency to fracture risk in older men, (4) to determine to what extent androgen and estrogen concentrations influence fracture risk, (5) to examine the effects of fractures on quality of life, (6) to identify sex differences in the predictors and outcomes of fracture, (7) to collect and store serum, urine and DNA for future analyses as directed by emerging evidence in the fields of aging and skeletal health, and (8) define the extent to which bone mass/fracture risk and prostate diseases are linked. The MrOS study population consists of 5,994 community dwelling, ambulatory men aged 65 years or older from six communities in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA; Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA). Inclusion criteria were designed to provide a study cohort that is representative of the broad population of older men. The inclusion criteria were: (1) ability to walk without the assistance of another, (2) absence of bilateral hip replacements, (3) ability to provide self-reported data, (4) residence near a clinical site for the duration of the study, (5) absence of a medical condition that (in the judgment of the investigator) would result in imminent death, and (6) ability to understand and sign an informed consent. To qualify as an enrollee, the participant had to provide written informed consent, complete the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), attend the clinic visit, and complete at least the anthropometric, DEXA, and vertebral X-ray procedures. There were no other exclusion criteria. The baseline examination was completed over a 25-month period from March 2000 to April 2002. Participants completed questionnaires regarding medical history, medications, physical activity, diet, alcohol intake, and cigarette smoking. Objective measures of anthropometric, neuromuscular, vision, strength, and cognitive variables were obtained at a clinic visit. Skeletal assessments included DEXA, calcaneal ultrasound, and vertebral radiographs. Vertebral and proximal femoral QCT was performed on a subset (65%) of participants. Serum, urine, and whole blood specimens were collected. During the study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that obtains information concerning the occurrence of incident falls and fractures. Follow-up is over 99% complete. All reported fractures are confirmed using physician review of radiology reports or study radiologist review of x-rays. All deaths are also centrally adjudicated using death certificates and recent hospitalization records. In additional to the baseline study visit and tri-annual questionnaires, all surviving active participants were invited to follow-up visits and questionnaires. A second comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2005 and May 2006 or about 4.5 years after baseline. Most baseline measures, including vertebral radiographs, were repeated at the second visit. A third comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2007 and March 2009 or about 7.0 years after baseline. Many baseline measures were repeated at the third visit. A measure of energy expenditure was also obtained utilizing an accelerometer based armband device. Surviving participants have also completed two extensive mailed questionnaires designed to updated information obtained at clinic visits. The first questionnaire was mailed between baseline and visit 2 between July 2002 and March 2004. The second questionnaire was mailed after the third questionnaire between March 2009 and February 2011. The MrOS Sleep Study, an ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was conducted between December 2003 and March 2005 and recruited 3,135 MrOS participants for a comprehensive sleep assessment. Men were screened for nightly use of mechanical devices during sleep including pressure mask for sleep apnea (CPAP or BiPAP), mouthpiece for snoring or sleep apnea, or oxygen therapy and were generally excluded. The sleep visit included objective measures of sleep using actigraphy and polysomnography. Other measures at the sleep visit include neuropsychiatric measures, performance measures, health related questionnaires, routine exam measures previously completed at MrOS clinic visits and a urine and serum specimen collection. During the sleep study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that contains information about incident cardiovascular events. All reported events are centrally adjudicated utilizing hospital records, study ECGs and other supporting documentation. The Hip Osteoarthritis study, another ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was completed at the second clinic visit between March 2005 and May 2006. Participants were asked for consent for a hip x-ray and osteoarthritis measurements were obtained from these x-rays. DNA was extracted from baseline whole blood samples for use in genetic research. Consent for use of DNA was obtained through written consent. Raw GWAS data is housed at the study's coordinating center and not released as part of the dbGAP release. The raw data can be requested from the study's coordinating center. Only QC cleaned Plink files are available on dbGAP.

  Study phs000373

• A study of the genetic basis of evation by Acute Myeloid Leukaemia of Graft vs Leukaemia effects after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation

  Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is an aggressive and molecularly diverse disease with a poor overall survival of 20-25%. With an annual incidence of 2.9 per 100,000, AML is currently the commonest myeloid malignancy in Europe, yet the two main therapeutic options for this disease, anthracyclines and purine analogues, have remained unchanged for over 20 years. Currently patients are stratified at diagnosis according to a series of clinicopathological parameters (e.g. age, white cell count and presence/absence of previous clonal haematological disease) and molecular markers (e.g. chromosomal translocations/deletions, aneuploidy and mutations in genes such as FLT3 and NPM1). Patients with adverse prognostic features, whose prognosis is particularly poor (e.g. <15% long-term survival) are offered treatment with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo-BMT) if a sibling or unrelated donor is available. This can significantly improve survival (e.g. up to 40% long-term survival in some contexts), albeit at the expense of significant toxicity and transplant-related mortality (TRM). Allo-BMT is thought to work in part by allowing the delivery of large doses of chemotherapy followed by haemopoietic "rescue" with donor haemopoietic stem cells (haemopoietic failure would otherwise ensue). However, potentially the most potent effect of allo-BMT is the cytotoxic effect of donor lymphocytes against AML blasts, a phenomenon known as graft-vs-leukaemia (GVL) effect. Increasingly, transplants using reduced chemotherapy intensity (mini-allografts) are being used that partially circumvent the toxicity from chemotherapy and rely on GVL to effect cure. Nevertheless, AML relapse after allo-BMT still occurs at a significant rate of up to 80% depending on the type of transplant. There is accumulating evidence that genetic events in residual leukaemic cells enable them to evade immunodetection and therefore survive the GVL effect and expand to cause relapse. The most striking example of this is the loss of HLA antigens after transplants in which donor and recipient are not fully HLA-matched. In these cases, the leukaemia "deletes" the genomic region containing the disparate HLA antigen which was preferentially targeted as "foreign" by the GVL effect. However, the genetic basis of immune evasion in the majority of transplants, which are fully HLA matched, is not known. One possibility is that loss of genes coding for antigens outside the HLA locus but which are also targets of GVL may operate, alternatively genetic events that affect processes downstream of immunological cytotoxicity may be responsible. The identification of genetic events that mediate immune evasion would not only facilitate the understanding of this process but can help plan therapeutic interventions that improve the outcomes of allogeneic transplantation for AML and other disorders. We intend to study this by conducting exome sequencing on 6 cases of AMLs from patients that attend my clinic at Addenbrooke's hospital and have relapsed after allogeneic transplantation. Samples from AML diagnosis, remission/normal and AML relapse (total n=18) will be studied to identify somatic mutations in the primary AML and those acquired by the relapsed clone. The 18 samples will also be studied by array CGH to detect regions of genomic amplification or deletion.

  Dataset EGAD00001000404

• 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

• Whole Genome Scan for Pancreatic Cancer Risk in the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanScan)

  Within the framework of the NCI-sponsored Cohort Consortium, investigators from 12 prospective epidemiologic cohorts formed the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium in 2006. This study, also known as "PanScan", is funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and involves conducting a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of common genetic variants to identify markers of susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. In 2007, the study was expanded to include 8 case-control studies. The study team includes scientists from the cohorts comprising the Consortium, the NCI and the Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4). PanScan I and II were conducted in 12 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies, leading to the discovery of four novel regions in the genome associated with risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The third phase of PanScan (PanScan III) was conducted using recently identified incident pancreatic cancer cases drawn from fourteen cohorts from the cohort consortium, including nine prospective cohorts who participated in PanScan I, and five newly joined cohorts. The nine cohort studies that participated in PanScan I and had new genotyping of cases in PanScan III include ATBC, CPS-II, EPIC, HPFS, NHS, PHS, PLCO, SMWHS, and WHI; the five newly joined cohort studies include the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC), the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS), the Vitamins and Lifestyle Study (VITAL), and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). In addition to the cases from cohorts, we also included cases from the Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Study (DFCI-GCC); from the University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany, which is part of a larger European clinical case-control study (PANDoRA); and from clinic-based cases from eastern Spain (PANKRAS-II). The dbGaP datasets available include all subjects previously made available from PanScan I and II, plus 1,582 new incident pancreatic cancer cases of European descent from prospective cohorts, case-control studies or case series (genotyped as part of PanScan III). Also included are 61 pancreatic cancer cases and 67 control subjects from PanScan I as well as 173 pancreatic cancer cases from PanScan III of Asian ancestry from the Shanghai Men's and Women's Health Study (Supplemental Table 10, Wolpin et al. (Nat Genet, 2014)). The control population used in the analysis for the Wolpin et al. manuscript included cancer-free individuals from the prospective cohorts that contributed pancreatic cancer cases to PanScan III and controls from the Spanish Bladder Cancer SBC/EPICURO study that were previously genotyped using the OmniExpress, Omni 1M or Omni 2.5M SNP arrays. The data from these control subjects were posted to dbGaP under the GWAS in which they were initially genotyped and will not be made available in duplicate under this dbGaP study.The summary statistics for PanScan I-III were generated as detailed in Wolpin BM. et al., Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Genetics 2014; 46(9):994-1000 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3052), and Klein, A. et al., Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies five new susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Communications, 2018;9(1):556 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02942-5). The dataset includes results from an association study of 5,117 individuals diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and 8,845 control individuals, or a total of 13,962 subjects of European ancestry (as compared to the genotype and phenotype information under this project that includes 9,437 individuals (PanScan I and II PDAC case and control individuals and PanScan III PDAC cases only). This is due to the fact that PanScan III &#8220;borrowed&#8221; GWAS data from control individuals genotyped separately from the PanScan GWAS project and are therefore not included as raw genotypes in phs000206.v5.p3. Association analysis was performed separately for PanScan I-II and PanScan III, followed by a meta-analysis of the two datasets. Results were filtered based on a minor allele frequency (MAF) &lt; 0.01, an imputation INFO score &lt; 0.3 and a heterogeneity P-value &lt; 1x10-10 leaving a total of 9,758,390 variants. Columns in the summary statistics dataset are as follows: ID: variant rsIDChr: chromosome numberPosition: position in the chromosome, genome build GRCh37/hg19MarkerName: variant identifierAllele1: reference alleleAllele2: alternative alleleFreq1: allele frequency for allele2FreqSE: standard error of the allele frequencyMinFreq: the minimal allele frequency across studiesMaxFreq: the max allele frequency across studiesEffect: effect size for allele2StdErr: standard errorP-value: meta-analysis p-valueDirection: summary of effect direction for each studyHetISq: I^2 statistic which measures heterogeneity on scale of 0-100%HetChiSq: chi-squared statistic in simple test of heterogeneityHetDf: degrees of freedom for heterogeneity statisticHetPVal: P-value for heterogeneity statistic

  Study phs000206

• A Multiethnic Genome-wide Scan of Prostate Cancer

  Multiple GWA studies of prostate cancer conducted in European White populations are ongoing. These studies will continue to have a dramatic impact on our understanding of the contribution of common genetic variation on inter-individual susceptibility to this common cancer. Important questions that will remain unanswered, however, are whether all common risk alleles for prostate cancer will be revealed in studies limited to populations of European ancestry. A comprehensive examination of common genetic variation in men of Japanese, Latino, and African ancestry will be required to understand population differences in disease risk and to reveal the full spectrum of causal alleles that exist in these populations. Further, genetic and environmental diversity is likely to contribute to ethnic heterogeneity of genetic effects. Elucidating gene x gene and gene x environment interactions is also likely to provide knowledge that may be critical for understanding the contribution of genetic susceptibility to racial/ethnic disparities in prostate cancer incidence and for translating the findings from GWA studies into interventions. In this study we plan to undertake a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of prostate cancer in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study. We propose the following hypotheses: (a) that inherited DNA variation influences risk of prostate cancer; (b) that many of the causal alleles will be outside known "candidate genes" requiring an agnostic, comprehensive search; and (c) that performing this search in a multi-ethnic cohort is more powerful than a study limited to a single population to reveal the full range of causal alleles relevant to the U.S. population. The version 1 release of this dataset will include genotype data for the Japanese and Latino populations in the study. The version 2 release will include data for the African ancestry population along with the Japanese and Latino subjects. The version 3 release will include fully-cleaned genotype data for all three populations. 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 prostate cancer through large-scale genome-wide association studies of a well-characterized multi-ethnic cohort. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center and at the University of Southern California. Data cleaning and harmonization were performed at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. As an add-on to this GWAS we performed a targeted re-sequencing of all known prostate cancer risk loci in the samples from the MEC. Sequencing was performed in Dr. Reich&#39;s lab at Harvard Medical School.

  Study phs000306

• A Prospective Natural History Study of Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes of Children with SCID Disorders

  Individuals with a recent or new diagnosis of severe combined immune deficiency (including infants who were identified by newborn screening) may be eligible to be enrolled on the PIDTC research study 6901. Speak to your doctor to determine if you or your child may be eligible. Protocol 6901 follows patients with SCID prospectively, meaning the 6901 study enrolls participants where there is a plan to receive a blood and marrow transplant, enzyme therapy, or gene therapy in the future. Patients are then followed according to a schedule set out by the study protocol after the procedure. The times the study requests follow up will be the same as when your doctor would want to be seeing you or your child as part of their regular ongoing medical care. Patients with &#34;leaky SCID&#34;, reticular dysgenesis, and Omenn syndrome may also be eligible to participate in 6901. The 6901 research study does NOT dictate how your or your child&#39;s doctors should treat you or your child, as the PIDTC recognizes that there are many complex factors that go into this decision. The decision about how you or your child with SCID will be treated is made by your doctor. The 6901 study simply follows how you or your child do over time. There are no experimental therapies on this study. The 6901 study has been open since August 2010, and continues to be open and enrolling patients to the present day. The study plans to enroll approximately 250 patients with SCID. By studying new patients undergoing treatment for SCID, the goal is to learn more about: (1) outcomes from the treatment of SCID in the modern era of medicine, (2) what factors lead to the best long-term outcomes, such as best donor, conditioning regimen, timing of transplant, etc. and (3) what impact newborn screening and the early diagnosis of SCID has had on the long-term outcomes following BMT or gene therapy. A significant amount of information is also being gathered on how and when the immune system recovers after BMT, quality of life for long-term survivors, and about whether children develop normally after treatment. The 6901 study is the largest coordinated prospective study of patients with SCID ever performed. Information that we will learn, both now and in the future, will help doctors and other health professionals to better treat children with SCID. All hospitals within the PIDTC are enrolling patients with SCID on 6901, ensuring that the outcomes are reflective of what happens in the &#34;real world&#34; as opposed to at just one or two large centers.

  Study phs001392

• Inflammatory Bowel Disease Exome Sequencing Study

  The Broad Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) are launching a new initiative to perform large-scale exome sequencing in inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn&#39;s disease and ulcerative colitis). Given the considerable unmet therapeutic need in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the recent emergence of rapid and efficient genome sequencing technologies and the compelling evidence for the role of genetics in these disorders have motivated the founding of a collaborative sequencing effort geared toward the discovery of high-impact genetic variants influencing IBD risk that can serve as guides to future therapeutic development and diagnostic tools. The initiative will be directed by experienced IBD researchers from MGH and the Broad Institute but aims to develop a collaborative exome sequencing network that will partner with researchers worldwide. Two large pilot exome sequencing projects are being launched immediately as part of this initiative based on established genetic study designs that enrich for the discovery of rare, high-impact risk and protective variants. 1) Early-onset pediatric IBD: a major focus of the work will surround full-exome sequencing of the earliest-onset childhood IBD cases. It has long been recognized in many diseases that penetrant genetic risk factors are much more likely to be found in cases with unusually early onset. The Broad Institute has completed more than 50,000 exomes in the past two years; and their technical expertise in generating and processing such sequencing data, along with population genetic variation patterns from these experiments, will provide a foundation for obtaining the best outcome in the interpretation of these cases. Samples with IBD onset before 6 years of age - and in some cases going up to age 10 - collected by IBD researchers around the world are welcomed for inclusion in this study. 2) Adult-onset IBD case-control study: Genetic mapping has provided dramatic insights into IBD pathogenesis in recent years, but a substantial amount of heritability - in particular the role of strong-acting rare mutations - is yet to be elucidated. To deliver those insights, IBD cases with an unusually low burden of known genetic risk factors (particularly emphasizing those with positive family history and/or from isolated or enriched populations) will be contrasted with population controls that have an extremely high burden of known IBD risk factors, enhancing discovery of critical protective variants that may provide the best clues for therapeutic development. This project will also be initiated as an international collaboration, particularly among researchers with sample sets with Immunochip genotyping that will enable the immediate genetic identification of these enriched target populations. This project will be supported by the NHGRI Large-Scale Sequencing Program, with all generated data made publicly available to the research community through standard NIH databases.

  Study phs001076