619 results for "fc points pc 26 Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Günstig, schnell..SJBD"

in 107.09 milliseconds.

• CIDR: NCI Genome Wide Predictors of Survival in Colorectal Cancer

  CIDR/Molecular Correlates: This study genotyped archived blood samples from colorectal cancer cases participating in clinical trials. The goals of this project were to identify genetic variants associated with survival outcomes treatment and treatment-related severe adverse events among patients with colorectal cancer. Another goal was to examine the impact of adding information on germline genetic loci to existing prognostic models. MOSAIC: Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/ 5FU-LV in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer (MOSAIC). A randomized, open label efficacy trial to evaluate the FOLFOX regimen versus LV5FU2 in the adjuvant treatment of stage II and III colon cancer. The primary end point was disease-free survival. CPT.ES1.604: Randomized phase 3 study of weekly irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil (FUIRI) versus biweekly irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic CRC. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that a regimen without leucovorin (LV) (FUIRI) is not inferior to the standard FOLFIRI (response rate). 03-TTD-01: The purpose of this phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in continous infusion (5-FU CI) as first line treatment in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary outcome measure is time to disease progression. Secondary outcome measures are to determine safety of combination, objective response rate, time to onset of response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, one year survival time, and overall survival time. 03-TTD-01: The purpose of this phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in continous infusion (5-FU CI) as first line treatment in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary outcome measure is time to disease progression. Secondary outcome measures are to determine safety of combination, objective response rate, time to onset of response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, one year survival time, and overall survival time. N0147: Randomized phase III clinical trial for adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer patients enrolled at institutions across North America. Originally designed to compare three different chemotherapy regimens, and then later expanded to evaluate adding cetuximab to each original arm (leading to six total arms). Further modification later added pre-screening for KRAS mutation status, with the resulting goal to assess the potential benefit of cetuximab added to the modified sixth version of the FOLFOX regimen (mFOLFOX6) in patients with resected stage III wild-type KRAS colon cancer. Main outcome of interest is disease-free survival in patients with wild-type KRAS, while secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. N9741: Randomized phase III trial to compare the effectiveness of various combination chemotherapy regimens in treating patients who have advanced, recurrent, or metastatic colorectal cancer that cannot be treated with surgery or radiation therapy. C-08: A Phase III Clinical Trial Comparing Infusional 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) Every Two Weeks With Bevacizumab to the Same Regimen Without Bevacizumab For the Treatment of Patients With Resected Stages II and III Carcinoma of the Colon. The primary aim of the trial was to compare the relative efficacy of mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab with that of mFOLFOX6 alone in prolonging disease-free survival and the secondary aim was to compare the relative efficacy of mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab with that of mFOLFOX6 alone in prolonging survival.

  Study phs001290

• T2D-GENES Project 2: San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies

  The Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Genetic Exploration by Next-generation sequencing in Ethnic Samples (T2D-GENES) Consortium is a collaborative international effort to identify genes influencing susceptibility to T2D in multiple ethnic groups using next generation sequencing. T2D-GENES Project 2 is a complex pedigree-based study designed to identify low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D, using whole genome sequence (WGS) information from 1,043 individuals in 20 Mexican American T2D-enriched pedigrees from San Antonio, Texas. The major objectives of this study are to identify low frequency or rare variants in and around known common variant signals for T2D, as well as to find novel low frequency or rare variants influencing susceptibility to T2D. The sampled individuals are obtained from two studies: the San Antonio Family Heart Study (SAFHS) and the San Antonio Family Diabetes/Gallbladder Study (SAFDGS), collectively referred to as the San Antonio Mexican American Family Studies (SAMAFS). The strategy is to sequence approximately 600 individuals at an average of 50x coverage across the entire genome, then impute genome wide genotypes for about 440 additional family members. The 600 sequenced individuals are specifically chosen for their value in imputing sequence information into other family members. By studying large pedigrees, we expect to find multiple individuals carrying each genetic variant, even if this variant is very rare in the population at large. Thus, a pedigree-based approach provides an excellent opportunity for identifying rare novel variants influencing risk of T2D and quantitative variation in T2D-related phenotypes. The whole genome sequencing has been done commercially by Complete Genomics, Inc. (CGI). The final data set includes whole genome sequence data for 607 individuals. After quality control, 585 sequenced individuals provide data for family based imputation, using Merlin linkage analysis software, into approximately 440 additional family members for whom chip based genotypes are available to indicate which parental haplotype is transmitted. Extensive phenotype data is provided for 1048 individuals. These include 5 sequenced individuals who do not belong to any of the 20 large pedigrees. Phenotype information was collected between 1991 and 2011 in the two contributing longitudinal studies. SAFHS participants may have information from up to 5 visits, and SAFDGS participants may have up to 4 visits. The clinical variables reported are coordinated with T2D-GENES Project 1 (multi-ethnic exome sequencing) and include T2D status and age at diagnosis, glycemic traits (fasting and 2 hour glucose and insulin), blood pressure, blood lipids (total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, calculated LDL cholesterol and triglycerides), clinical chemistry (cystatin c, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody titer (GadAb), creatinine, adiponectin and leptin). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was not measured for these individuals and insulin C-peptide is not included in this data set. Additional phenotype data include the medication status at each visit, classified in four categories as any current use of diabetes, hypertension or lipid-lowering medications, and, for females, current use of female hormones. Anthropometric measurements include age, sex, height, weight, hip circumference, waist circumference and derived ratios. Each phenotype variable has an initial summary column containing the most recent non-missing measurement for each individual, followed by the five potential time points for each individual, the number of non-missing measurements, and the age and year for the most recent non-missing measurement. For historical reasons, the order in which variables are presented on the dbGaP web site differs from their order in the data download file. When reading the comment fields for each variable, please note that commas are omitted to support data exchange in .csv format.

  Study phs000462

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-BioLINCC)

  Available DataThe available data include all elements of the previously released SPRINT Primary Outcome Paper (SPRINT-POP) data, the full SPRINT clinical data including the MRI and MIND data, and select ancillary study data (Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring, APOL1, Acute Kidney Injury, ASK, Heart, FAST, PWV, Renal Resistance, Biomarkers, Plasma AD).ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group.DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy.Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003483

• Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT-Imaging)

  Available DataSystolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, SPRINT-Imaging, provides access to ECG signals data from the SPRINT clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with SPRINT-BioLINCC, phs003483.ObjectiveThe Systolic Blood Pressure Trial (SPRINT) was conducted to test the hypothesis that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared to a target of less than 140 mm Hg, would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. BackgroundHypertension is a highly prevalent condition among adults and is a leading risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke. Further, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in adults over 50 years of age. Observational studies have shown a monotonic increase in cardiovascular risk with systolic blood pressures above 115 mm Hg; however, general population clinical trials have only documented the benefits of lowering systolic blood pressure to a target of 150 mm Hg. A 2007 expert panel sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designated the hypothesis that lowering the systolic blood pressure goal to a level SubjectsA total of 9361 participants were enrolled, with 4,678 randomized to the intensive-treatment group and 4,683 randomized to the standard-treatment group. DesignSPRINT was a randomized, single blinded (outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment) treatment trial with participants randomized to a systolic blood-pressure target of either less than 140 mm Hg (the standard-treatment group) or less than 120 mm Hg (the intensive-treatment group). Following randomization, baseline hypertensive regimens were adjusted in accordance with study treatment algorithms established for each group. The study formulary included all major classes of antihypertensive agents. Investigators could prescribe other antihypertensive medications, but the use of drug classes with the strongest evidence for reduction in cardiovascular outcomes was encouraged. This included thiazide-type diuretics as the first-line agent, loop diuretics for participants with advanced chronic kidney disease, and beta-adrenergic blockers for participants with coronary artery disease. Medications for participants in the intensive-treatment group were adjusted on a monthly basis to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg. Medications for participants in the standard-treatment group were adjusted to target a systolic blood pressure of 135 to 139 mm Hg, and the dose was reduced if systolic blood pressure was less than 130 mm Hg on a single visit or less than 135 mm Hg on two consecutive visits. Lifestyle modification was encouraged as part of the management strategy. Participants were seen monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained at baseline and every 3 months thereafter. A structured interview was used in both groups every 3 months to obtain self-reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Medical records and electrocardiograms were obtained for documentation of events. Incidences of hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, electrolyte abnormalities, and bradycardia that were evaluated in an emergency department were included in adverse event reporting. Occurrences of acute kidney injury or acute renal failure requiring hospitalization were also monitored. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. ConclusionsThe blood pressure intervention was stopped in August of 2015 (median follow-up of 3.26 years) after the cardiovascular outcome results exceeded the boundary for efficacy at two consecutive time points. Compared with a systolic blood pressure target of less than 140 mm Hg, an intensive systolic blood pressure target of 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. Significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group.

  Study phs003566

• Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.ObjectivesThe HF-ACTION study examined whether exercise training reduces a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure symptoms. Background Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing cardiovascular syndrome that is the end result of many cardiovascular disorders. Although evidence-based drug and device therapies decrease mortality, hospitalizations, and HF symptoms and improve quality of life, many patients treated with these regimens often remain burdened by dyspnea and fatigue, diminished exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life, recurrent hospitalizations, and early mortality. Whereas rest was traditionally recommended for HF patients, there has been evidence that physical deconditioning may play a key role in the progression of symptoms and poor outcomes. Previous studies have shown positive effects of exercise training on exercise capacity, quality of life, and biomarkers and suggest that exercise training might improve survival and decrease HF hospitalizations. Nonetheless, there remains a safety concern regarding exercise training in HF and a large scale, multicenter, controlled clinical trial was needed to provide definitive clinical outcome data. Participants A total of 2,331 participants were randomized. 2,130 consented to share data with non-commercial entities, and 1,753 consented to share for commercial purposes. Design All participants underwent baseline cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Test results were reviewed by investigators to identify significant arrhythmias or ischemia that would prevent safe exercise training, to determine appropriate levels of exercise training, and to establish training heart rate ranges. Demographics, socioeconomic status, past medical history, current medications, physical exam, and the most recent laboratory tests were obtained prior to randomization. All participants received detailed self-management educational materials which included information on medications, fluid management, symptom exacerbation, sodium intake, and physical activity. Participants randomized to the exercise training arm first participated in a structured, group-based, supervised exercise program, with a goal of 3 sessions per week for a total of 36 sessions in 3 months. The primary exercises were walking, treadmill, or stationary cycling. Exercise was initiated at 15 to 30 minutes per session at a heart rate corresponding to 60% of heart rate reserve, and was increased after 6 sessions to 30 to 35 minutes duration and 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants began home-based exercise after completing 18 supervised sessions and were to fully transition to home exercise after 36 supervised sessions. The target training regimen for home exercise was 5 times per week for 40 minutes at a heart rate of 60% to 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants randomized to the usual care group were not provided with a formal exercise prescription. To provide comparable levels of attention from study personnel, all participants were called every 2 weeks for the first 9 months, monthly until 24 months of follow-up, and quarterly thereafter. Participants returned for clinic visits every 3 months for the first 2 years of participation and yearly thereafter for up to 4 years. Follow-up assessments included cardiopulmonary exercise testing, a 6-minute walk test, and a physical activity questionnaire. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Conclusions After adjustment for highly prognostic predictors of the primary end point, exercise training was associated with modestly significant reductions for both all-cause mortality or hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

  Study phs003599

• Clonal selection after gene therapy in sickle cell disease

  While gene therapy (GT) provides a potentially curative treatment option for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), the occurrence of myeloid malignancies in clinical trials has prompted concern. To interrogate potential mechanisms underlying increased cancer risk, we used hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) clonal tracking by whole genome sequencing (WGS) to map the somatic mutation and clonal landscape of 2,592 gene modified as well as unmodified single stem and progenitor cells from six SCD patients undergoing gene therapy (7-26 years old, average 12.7× depth). Pre-GT phylogenetic trees in SCD were highly polyclonal and mutation burdens per cell were elevated in some, but not all, patients. Post-GT, no clonal expansions were identified. However, an increased frequency of driver mutations associated with myeloid neoplasms or clonal hematopoiesis (DNMT3A- and EZH2-mutated clones in particular) were seen in both genetically modified and unmodified cells suggested positive selection of mutant clones during gene therapy. This work sheds light on the mutation landscape and HSC clonal dynamics in gene therapy for SCD and highlights enhanced fitness of some HSCs harboring pre-existing driver mutations following gene therapy. Future studies should define the long-term fate of mutant clones including any contribution to expansions associated with myeloid neoplasms.

  Dataset EGAD00001010913

• Genes and Blood Clotting Study (GABC)

  Objectives: Use genome-wide approaches to identify genetic variants that influence common thrombosis and hemostasis factors, as well as selected common human traits. Design/Methods: The GABC study was a prospective sibling cohort design. Siblings were recruited by targeted email to the undergraduate and graduate student email lists at the University of Michigan. Healthy persons between 14 and 35 years old who had healthy siblings within the same age restriction were able to participate. Study participants agreed to an online informed consent and subsequently completed a 52-question online survey describing their specific bleeding traits as well as many common human traits. Fifty milliliters of blood was collected into a citrate-dextrose solution (ACD) from each participant. An aliquot of whole blood was used for an automated complete blood count analysis and the remainder was processed into platelet poor plasma and buffy coat portions. Plasma and buffy coat aliquots were snap frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen for future studies. 1189 individuals representing 507 sibships were collected between 06/26/2006 and 01/30/2009. Phenotyping Survey Details: To characterize individual bruising and bleeding history, the online survey recorded answers to questions based on a modified von Willebrand Disease (VWD) screening questionnaire. To characterize a collection of participant's common human traits, the survey recorded answers to questions about height, weight, presence of skin tags, history of acne, eye color, hair color, hair line characteristics, skin sunburn sensitivity, skin tanning ability, natural skin color, freckling, cheek dimpling, earlobe shape, shoe size, foot arch characteristics, hand fifth digit morphology, history of dyslexia, history of migraine headaches, history of seasonal allergies, history of apthous ulcers, tendency to sneeze while walking into a bright sunny place, history of dental caries, need for corrective eye lenses, handedness and like or dislike of strongly flavored foods. Biochemical phenotyping: Assays for plasma Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) antigen were performed using ELISA and "Alphalisa" techniques. Automated complete blood count analysis was performed on a Bayer Advia 120 on all participants (including WBC differential, RBC indices, and platelet count.) For the dbGaP v2 update, new biochemical phenotypes have been submitted and include von Willebrand Factor, von Willebrand Factor propeptide, plasminogen, gamma prime fibrinogen, ADAMTS 13, antithrombin III, protein C, and protein S. All new phenotypes were obtained using "Alphalisa" techniques. Genotyping Details: SNP genotyping was performed using genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood at the Broad Institute, (MIT/Harvard). Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Omni-1 quad chip at the Broad Institute. For the dbGaP v2 update, genotyping data from the Illumina Human Exome was deposited. 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 blood clotting through large-scale genome-wide association studies of siblings. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization was performed by the primary investigators at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. This study serves as a resource for investigators who are interested in the genetic determinants of specific plasma proteins in a healthy population. The sibling cohort design allows for linkage analysis in addition to association studies. Analysis of thrombosis and hemostasis related traits should help elucidate specific biochemical and genetic networks that maintain hemostasis. We hope to identify specific genetic determinants of VWF levels in order to better understand the factors that influence the development of VWD.

  Study phs000304

• Metadata Public API

  Metadata Rest Endpoints Common Aspects Functionality Identifiers Requests and Responses Request Response Querying Querying by Object Cross-Querying by Object Common Aspects Functionality The Metadata REST API allows EGA users to request metadata from the EGA. Using this api you will be able to obtain the publicly available information from EGA study, sample, experiment, run, analysis, policy, dac and dataset. The API also allows for objects to be cross-referenced in order to obtain for example all the datasets linked to a dac. Identifiers EGA objects can be identified by their unique accession. These are ID's displayed everywhere, shared among all EGA locations and specific for each data type (More information on the list below) EGA Accession ID EGA Object description EGAS EGA Study Accession ID EGAC EGA DAC Accession ID EGAP EGA Policy Accession ID EGAN EGA Sample Accession ID EGAR EGA Run Accession ID EGAX EGA Experiment ID EGAZ EGA Analysis Accession ID EGAD EGA Dataset Accession ID EGAB EGA Submission ID EGAF EGA File Unique Accession ID Server Request and Response Request All the endpoints implement these two HTTP methods, GET and HEAD. Moreover, there is an authentication layer that allows to disclose the private information about each object if the user runs the endpoint with their token and has permissions to the related dataset. HTTP Method Description GET Returns the objects and their public information (including private information if the user has permissions) HEAD Returns the count of objects to be returned Response API responses are diverse but they always return a status call. Below you have a summary on what these codes mean and some tips that can help you troubleshooting them: HTTP Status Code Description Resolution 200 OK No error handling necessary 206 Partial Content Expected status code when paginating the results. No error handling necessary 400 BAD REQUEST Request incorrectly formulated 401 UNAUTHORISED/FORBIDDEN You do not have permissions over the object you are trying to access. / The authorised user is not permitted to make the given request. 404 NOT FOUND The object/resource you are trying to access does not exist. 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR This is a server-side error, try later. If the issue persists, contact the Heldpesk. Querying Querying by Object In the below documentation, worked examples can be found on how to use the API, to query about each unique EGA object. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/analyses/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/runs/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/{id} https://metadata.ega-archive.org/studies/{id} Worked example for the EGA data access committee(DAC) EGAC00001000514 https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000514 Points to notice Please, be advised that all EGA objects can be queried by using the same endpoint. For example: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets Returns all the datasets registered at the EGA. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets?limit=5&offset=15 Returns 5 results skipping the initial 15 results. Cross-Querying by Object The EGA REST API Metadata also allows for the crossquerying of public metadata. For example, should I want to query the datasets included in the ICGC DAC: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001000010/datasets Below, you can find worked examples on how to perform the call to the API. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000645/analyses https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasetsEGAD00001000645/files https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/runs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001000620/samples https://metadata.ega-archive.org/samples/EGAN00001092114/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/dacs https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/datasets https://metadata.ega-archive.org/files/EGAF00000056146/studies There are more endpoints included in this category. Please, find all the possibilities (green tick) in the table below. Table The table displays in a ordered fashion the objects that can be crossreferenced using the metadata API. BY Analysis Dac Dataset Experiment Policy Run Sample Study File Analysis ✔ ✔ Dac ✔ ✔ Dataset ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Experiment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Policy ✔ Run ✔ ✔ ✔ Sample ✔ ✔* ✔ Study ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔* File ✔ *: These cross queries do not include data from Array-File submissions. Check out the SPEC

  Documentation discovery/metadata/public-metadata-api

• Submission FAQ

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

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• GEnomics and Transcriptomics of Human INsulinoma (GETHIN)

  The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) The common forms of diabetes - Types 1 and 2 - ultimately result from a deficiency of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) study was performed in order to identify novel approaches to inducing human pancreatic beta cells to replicate and regenerate. As a corollary, developing drugs that are able to expand human beta cell mass in people with diabetes should reverse diabetes. Unfortunately, identifying druggable pathways that can enhance human beta cell replication has been a major challenge. In 2017, there is only one class of drugs - the harmine analogues - that can induce human beta cells to replicate, and in this case, higher replication rates are desirable. Thus, identifying additional drugs and druggable pathways is a priority in diabetes research. Insulinomas are rare, benign adenomas of the pancreatic beta cell that cause excess insulin production and hypoglycemia: exactly the opposite of Types 1 and 2 diabetes. Beta cell proliferation rates in insulinomas are abnormally high. Thus, the premise for The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma study is that benign human insulinomas hold the genomic and transcriptomic "recipe", and the repertoire of druggable pathways, that can be exploited to induce regeneration or replication of human beta cells in diabetes. Because, insulinomas are so rare, are almost always benign (non-malignant), and are easily resected by laparoscopic surgery, little attention has been paid to understanding the genomics or transcriptomics of insulinoma. There are at present only three published studies employing next-gen sequencing in insulinoma (PMID:24326773; PMID:25787250; and PMID:25763608). These studies contained 10, 7 and 8 insulinomas, respectively, and highlighted likely mutations in YY1 and MEN1. Our goal was to markedly expand the database and to add RNAseq to these earlier studies. The GETHIN study reports next-gen sequencing on 38 insulinomas, by far the largest series of human insulinomas subjected to next-gen sequencing (see the Selected publications section for reference). This includes paired (genomic plus tumor) whole exome sequencing on 26 human insulinomas (22 sequenced at Mount Sinai, 4 downloaded from Cao et al, PMID:24326773), and 25 sets of RNAseq from insulinomas, some of which also had paired whole exome sequencing, and some of which did not. The insulinoma RNAseq was compared to RNAseq from 22 sets of FACS-sorted normal human beta cells. Since insulinomas are so rare, the 38 insulinomas were collected by several investigators at several institutions over several decades, but most (22 whole exome sets, and all RNAseq) were sequenced at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. The current dataset contains whole exome sequencing and RNAseq on the 11 insulinomas harvested at Mount Sinai. The four from Cao et al can be retrieved from Cao et al PMID:24326773. Fastq files from the remaining 23 insulinomas will be added as the local IRBs and Institutional Certifications are acquired. Complete patient data are provided in our Nature Communications report. Going forward, our intention is to expand this series, with the goal of sequencing 100 human insulinomas. These will be added to dbGaP as they accrue. Paired-end whole exome sequencing (mean usable sequencing depth 79X and 105X for blood and insulinoma, respectively) was performed using an Illumina HiSeq 2500. Insulinoma and sorted normal beta cell RNAseq was performed on Ribozero and polyA paired end libraries using the Illumina HiSeq 2500. Complete sequencing and bioinformatic details are provided in our Nature Communications report. The principal findings from the study are that although each insulinoma has a different set of presumptive driver mutations, the majority converge on genes that are members of the Polycomb Complex, Trithorax Complex and other epigenetic modifying enzymes. In addition, 20% of insulinomas have copy number loss or loss of heterozygosity of all or most of chromosome 11, and the majority display abnormalities in CpG methylation and imprinting control on the imprinted Chr 11 p15.5-15.4 region that contains INS, IGF2, CDKN1C, KCNQ1, and other genes involved in beta cell specification and proliferation.

  Study phs001422