427 results for "fc points prijs Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Super Service..8TeB"

in 41.30 milliseconds.

• 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

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API! This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• Data Use Ontology (DUO)

  Data Use Ontology Data Use Ontology at EGA The EGA is committed to its involvement in the work of GA4GH. In an effort to enhance data discoverability and streamline data access, EGA have implemented the use of the Data Use Ontology (DUO), based on consent codes as described in Dyke et al. 2017. The Data Use Ontology codes will be displayed on the live dataset page of your submission to advise any would be requestor on how the data can be used and also to enhance data discoverability as users will be able to search on these codes to find applicable datasets. DUO can be browsed online via the Ontology Lookup Service Learn more reading the Data Use Ontology publication and the GA4GH Machine-Readable Consent Guidance! Check our DAC Portal Take The Tour and learn how to add DUO codes to your policy! Term Shorthand Label Description DUO:0000004 NRES no restriction This data use permission indicates there is no restriction on use. DUO:0000042 GRU general research use This data use permission indicates that use is allowed for general research use for any research purpose. DUO:0000006 HMB health or medical or biomedical research This data use permission indicates that use is allowed for health/medical/biomedical purposes; does not include the study of population origins or ancestry. DUO:0000007 DS disease specific research This data use permission indicates that use is allowed provided it is related to the specified disease. DUO:0000011 POA population origins or ancestry research only This data use permission indicates that use of the data is limited to the study of population origins or ancestry. DUO:0000012 RS research specific restrictions This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to studies of a certain research type. DUO:0000015 NMDS no general methods research This data use modifier indicates that use does not allow methods development research (e.g., development of software or algorithms). DUO:0000016 GSO genetic studies only This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to genetic studies only (i.e., studies that include genotype research alone or both genotype and phenotype research, but not phenotype research exclusively) DUO:0000018 NPUNCU not for profit, non commercial use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit organizations and not-for-profit use, non-commercial use. DUO:0000019 PUB publication required This data use modifier indicates that requestor agrees to make results of studies using the data available to the larger scientific community. DUO:0000020 COL collaboration required This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must agree to collaboration with the primary study investigator(s). DUO:0000021 IRB ethics approval required This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must provide documentation of local IRB/ERB approval. DUO:0000022 GS geographical restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to within a specific geographic region. DUO:0000024 MOR publication moratorium This data use modifier indicates that requestor agrees not to publish results of studies until a specific date. DUO:0000025 TS time limit on use This data use modifier indicates that use is approved for a specific number of months. DUO:0000026 US user specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use by approved users. DUO:0000027 PS project specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use within an approved project. DUO:0000028 IS institution specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use within an approved institution. DUO:0000029 RTN return to database or resource This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must return derived/enriched data to the database/resource. DUO:0000043 CC clinical care use This data use modifier indicates that use is allowed for clinical use and care. DUO:0000044 NPOA population origins or ancestry research prohibited This data use modifier indicates use for purposes of population, origin, or ancestry research is prohibited. DUO:0000045 NPU not for profit organisation use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit organisations. DUO:0000046 NCU non-commercial use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit use. Point to Notice: For the consent code DUO:0000007 where data is restricted to use on a specific disease, please accompany it with an appropriate ontology from MONDO e.g., If the data is restricted to the use of research into juvenile idiopathic arthritis the code should be displayed as DUO:0000007; MONDO:0011429.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/data-use-ontology

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe 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. 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

• 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

• How to request data

  Request Data Access If you're looking to access data from the EGA for your research, you are in the right documentation page! In this page you will find a step by step guide on how to request data archived at the EGA, as well as some frequently asked questions you might find useful. When requesting data, you'll need to provide information about your research project and intended use of the data. Keep in mind that your data access request may require additional approvals or agreements depending on the datasets and data providers involved. Step by step guide Register yourself as an EGA user. Validate your account. A validation link will be sent to your email to activate your EGA user account. Log into the EGA page. Search the dataset of interest from the dataset catalogue or search bar. Click on “Request access” Add a comment requesting these files and send your request Your request is successfully registered, and the DAC will receive a notification about your request In addition to submitting your request, you should also contact the DAC directly via e-mail. You can access the DAC's contact information from the relevant dataset page. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Which is the role of the EGA in the data access process? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) facilitates the secure distribution under controlled access of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data. Data Access Committee (DAC) is a body of one or more individuals who are responsible for data release to external requestors, based on participant consent and/or National Research Ethics terms. How do I request access to multiple datasets? To request access for multiple datasets managed by the same Data Access Committee (DAC), please start by visiting the DAC catalogue to locate the DAC of your choice. Once you've found the relevant DAC, proceed to its dedicated page where you'll find a "Request access" button. After logging in to the EGA website, you'll be presented with a comprehensive list of datasets under the chosen DAC. Select the datasets you're interested in, and then compose a message indicating your access request. Click the "Send" button to submit your request, which will include the chosen datasets. Please be sure to review the data usage policies for the requested datasets, as policies can vary among datasets managed by the same DAC. I am a co-applicant. Will I be given a joint access account? Each applicant needs to create an EGA account themselves, with unique login details. User log-in details are for individual use only and should never be shared, under any circumstances. EGA services are only provided to EGA account holders. Therefore, the co-applicant will send a formal request to the DAC. What happens if a co-applicant leaves or a new member needs to be added to an existing DAC application? The appropriate Data Access Committee (DAC) should be contacted and informed about the required changes so that the application can be updated. I have changed my place of work since my EGA account was created. Can I still have access to data? You must contact the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC did not reply to my data access request. How should I proceed? There is no estimated time for DAC response. Please allow up to four weeks for a response. In the meantime, please send them a weekly reminder of the status of your request by emailing them directly.If the DAC becomes unresponsive, meaning that they fail to communicate with a requestor within the specified time frame, please contact the EGA Helpdesk team. I have an account with the EGA and would like access to further datasets. How should I proceed? You need to reapply to the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). Once the DAC has approved your application your account will be updated and an email will be sent to notify you of a change made to your account. How do I download files of the datasets I have been granted access to? The preferred method for data download and decryption is the EGA Secure Download Client. Please carefully review the provided documentation. How do I download metadata? Metadata is retrieved from the EGA webpage; you will not need to use any download client. Be informed that you will only be able to download metadata of your approved datasets. For such download, you should first log in the EGA webpage with your credentials. Then browse the metadata's dataset you have gained access and you will find a metadata download button. You may also want to have a look our metadata schema. I have forgotten or misplaced my user account password; how do I get a new one? Click on “Log in”, located in the top right corner of the EGA homepage. Then click “Forgot password”, type in your registered institutional email address, and instructions for resetting your password will be sent to you. Please check both regular and junk/spam folders. I was sent a link to set a password for my download account, but it seems like the link has expired. What should I do? The procedure is the same as the one for a forgotten password, explained in the previous question.

  Documentation access/request-data/how-to-request-data

• Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP)

  NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE SEQUENCING PROJECT (ADSP) GENETIC AND PHENOTYPIC DATA: ADSP whole exome and whole genome sequence data that are shared through dbGaP were mapped to the Genome Reference Consortium human genome GRCh37 (build 37). These data are from the Discovery Phase of the project (described below) and will continue to be available at this site. Please see the ADSP Design page for the complete study description. All data that are mapped to GRCh38 (hg38) are being shared through the NIA Genetics of Alzheimer's Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) Data Sharing Service (DSS). For instructions on how access the ADSP Build 38 data that are shared through NIAGADS DSS, visit the Application Instructions page. STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR dbGaP BUILD 37 ADSP DATA: The overarching goals of the Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) are to: (1) identify new genomic variants contributing to increased risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease (AD), (2) identify new genomic variants contributing to protection against developing AD, and (3) provide insight as to why individuals with known risk factor variants escape from developing AD. These factors will be studied in multi-ethnic populations in order to identify new pathways for disease prevention. Such a study of human genomic variation and its relationship to health and disease requires examination of a large number of study participants and needs to capture information about common and rare variants (both single nucleotide and copy number) in well phenotyped individuals. Using existing samples from NIH funded and other studies, three NHGRI funded Large Scale Sequencing and Analysis Centers (LSAC) - Broad, Baylor, and Washington University - produced the DNA sequence data. Variant call data are being made available to the scientific community through NIH-approved data repositories. Statistical analysis of the sequence data is anticipated to identify new genetic risk and protective factors. The ADSP will conduct and facilitate analysis of sequence data to extend previous discoveries that may ultimately result in new directions for AD therapeutics. Analysis of ADSP data will be done in two phases. The Discovery Phase analysis (2014-2018) is funded under PAR-12-183. The entire Discovery dataset contains whole-genome sequencing data on 584 subjects from 113 families, and pedigree data for > 4000 subjects; whole exome sequencing data on 5096 cases 4965 controls; and whole exome sequence data on an additional 853 (682 Cases [510 Non-Hispanic, 172 Hispanic]), and 171 Hispanic Control subjects from families that are multiply affected with AD. The Replication Phase (2016-2021) analysis will be funded under RFA-AG-16-001 and RFA-AG-16-002 and is expected to include a combination of genotyping and sequencing approaches on at least 30,000 subjects. Targeted sequencing will be done by the LSACs. GRCh37 Data Releases The first ADSP data release occurred on November 25, 2013. It included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format on 410 individuals. The second ADSP data release occurred on March 31, 2014, and included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format for an additional 168 individuals. The third ADSP data release occurred on November 03, 2014 and included whole-exome sequencing data in BAM file format for 10,939 individuals. The fourth ADSP data release occurred on February 13, 2015 and included revised ethnic data for subjects with whole-exome sequencing data. The fifth ADSP data release occurred on July 13, 2015 and included whole-genome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to pedigree structures and sample IDs. The sixth ADSP data release occurred on December 8, 2015, and included whole-exome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to subject IDs. This seventh ADSP data release on April 12, 2016 includes: (1) WES and WGS SNV VCF files (2) WES and WGS Indel PLINK files ADSP Data Available through dbGaP: ADSP - Whole Genome Sequencing ADSP - Whole Exome Sequencing Comments DNA-Seq (BAM) n=578 n=10913 Sequence data available (plus n=38 replications w/out genotype data) Concordant SNV Genotypes (PLINK format) N/A n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas (Baylor's) and GATK (Broad's) calling pipelines (a subset of the consensus genotype set) Consensus Genotypes (PLINK and VCF format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between Atlas and GATK pipelines as well as those that that were called uniquely by Atlas or GATK Concordant Indel Genotypes (PLINK format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas and GATK calling pipelines Phenotype Data n=4735 n=10913 Data of n=53 phenotype variables available (plus administrative data), including APOE genotype. WGS phenotypes include data of connecting family members. Please use the release notes provided by dbGaP to obtain detailed information about study release updates. The ADSP data portal provides a customized interface for users to quickly identify and retrieve files by covariates, phenotypes, and data properties such as sequencing facility or coverage. For more information about the ADSP study and the data portal, please visit https://www.niagads.org/adsp/.

  Study phs000572

• From research to data sharing: exploring EGA user's experiences

  The Cell Plasticity and Regeneration Group at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL focuses on the process of recruitment of macrophages that takes place in the small intestine during injury and healing. They recently published a paper titled “Mucosal Macrophages Govern Intestinal Regeneration in Response to Injury" in Gastroenterology Journal. As part of the research, some experiments were conducted using human intestinal organoid lines. These cells were processed for RNA sequencing, and the sequencing data were deposited at the EGA to be made available to the scientific community. When dealing with human genomic information, repositories must ensure the availability of the datasets while ensuring data protection. In this context, the European Genome-phenome Archive stands as a service for secure archiving and sharing of genetic, phenotypic and clinical data resulting from biomedical research. Following the recent publication of their paper, we took the opportunity to talk to Ilias Moraitis, first author, and Jordi Guiu, group leader, to find out about their experience with data sharing. Could you explain the focus of your research? In the lab, we study intestinal regeneration and how immune cells participate in this process. We use several techniques: engineered mouse models, image tracing, as well as mouse and human cells intestinal organoids. What challenges do you face regarding data management? We didn’t have a lot of problems. Always the informatic part, the data analysis, can give problems. But everything was smooth and working. We think it’s very important to deposit the data in repositories. For the mouse data it is very straightforward, but for us it was the first time depositing human data, which is sensitive because it comes from patients, and this is legally regulated. That’s why we thought about the EGA, and it was our first time. Why do you think it is important to submit data to repositories such as EGA? Because we think data is important for the science. Nowadays, we are sequencing a lot everywhere worldwide and having these resources shared with the scientific community it’s not only good for science, but it is also saving money and reducing costs. And there is so much data in there that can be used for other projects and for other questions. And it saves time! How was the process of submitting the data to the EGA? The communication worked very well but it was slower than we would like. But I think this is something we learn on the way. People usually wait until the last minute to do this before publication but if you know it in advance, you can start the process earlier. If you had to repeat the process, would you do anything differently? It’s like everything, isn’t it? For the first time you don’t know, you aren’t sure, but for the second time you know the steps, you know what to do and it’s faster. Of course, we would to do it earlier. Also, there were some things related to the control access that we didn’t know how to manage, but it was something more internal to us. Who is going to receive the communications and when, is our ethical committee going to evaluate this? All these technicalities that we didn’t know before starting this process, so we had to think about all these things. Next time it will be faster on our side. Do you have any suggestions for us to improve the submission process? Maybe we’ll need to ask our bioinformatician who did it! He was in charge of this part. Besides that, we think if the process were faster, it would be better for everyone. Also, in science a lot of times you have to do a lot of things at the very last minute, because of the nature of the experiments, or the need to accomplish for submitting a paper. Being faster in the process would be a plus. On your side, we went through the process and were able to find some information, but there were aspects we weren't aware of and weren't sure how to handle. I'm not sure if other institutes have different protocols for managing data requests or how they handle these internally. We believe the main issue lies in how the forms are filled out. Do you have any recommendations for other submitters? The main advice is to do this with enough time. Submit the data when you have the sequences, and don’t wait until the last minute. And then it can be under embargo, so you don’t need to make it public at that moment. As soon as you sequence, upload it and then it will be there for whenever you need to publish. How do you think we could encourage other researchers to submit their data? There are different layers here. One is that it is mandatory. You have to do this. The other is that we belong to a research community, to the same community and sharing this is making our research community stronger and more efficient. And then, also because this gives you visibility. The data is there, other people can analyse your data, and this also will bring citations to your papers. It has many advantages.

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Analysis

  The Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Program is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study to systematically assess the effects of pre-analytical factors on the molecular profile of biospecimens. A robust biospecimen collection infrastructure was established to prospectively collect biospecimens using rigorous standard operating procedures to control for most variables while introducing experimental conditions to study specific biospecimen handling issues, including the cold ischemic time (delay to formalin fixation), time in formalin, freezing methods, and storage temperatures and durations. RNA and DNA from biospecimens collected under these conditions was analyzed on multiple molecular platforms. The potential effects of these pre-analytical conditions on protein integrity and detection of metabolites were also examined. Data from this study will be used to develop evidence-based biospecimen standard operating procedures and best practices for fit-for-purpose collection, processing, and storage of biospecimens. The BPV Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Substudies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 BPV Cohort. The substudy links will be active once they are released by dbGaP. Preanalytical Impacts on Global Metabolite Profiling - plasma (MassSpec by Metabolon) This study was to evaluate the impact of the storage temperature (s) (-80°C and LN2 vapor) and the length of storage on human plasma quality using LC-MS/MS (liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry) based global metabolite profiling. The study includes 240 plasma samples collected from 40 donors. Investigate the effect of the delay to fixation on the proteome and phosphoproteome -FFPE (MassSpec by Caprion). The study is to do proteome and phosphoproteome analysis on Delay to fixation was carried out using FFPE tumor samples from colon and ovarian cancer patients comparing 2, 3, and 12hr delay to fixation to the 1hr time point. The study includes 100 samples 20 donors. Investigate the effect of storage conditions of tumor specimens on the proteome and phosphoproteome profiling- Frozen tissue and plasma (MassSpec by Caprion). The study was to evaluate the effects of storage conditions on tumor specimens. Plasma samples from 40 cancer patients stored at two different temperatures (-80°C and LN2) for a given period (0-2, 6-8, and 12-14 months) were evaluated. Frozen kidney tumor samples from 20 patients were compared for effects of different snap frozen (dry ice vs. LN2) and storage temperatures (-80°C and LN2). The study includes 100 tissue and 240 plasma samples from 60 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Genomic Sequencing by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology (mRNA/miRNA and WES by Expression Analysis). The goal of the study is to determine the effects of cold ischemic delay-to-fixation (4 time points) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on the nature and quality of genomic profiles using the matched freshly frozen sample as the gold standard, which including WES, RNAseq. The study includes 395 samples from 37 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Copy Number Variation (CNV) Detection by aCGH technology (aCGH by Georgetown University). This study was to use aCGH to evaluate the effect of variation in cold ischemia time and time in formalin fixation on CNV in DNA extracted from kidney cancer specimens. The study includes 235 samples from 40 donors. Evaluation of frozen conditions on mRNA profiling by TaqMan assay (mRNA expression by Georgetown University). This study was to utilize gene expression profiling, using custom TaqMan arrays, to compare the molecular profiles of RNA from frozen tumor samples collected using two freezing methods (dry ice or LN2), two storage temperatures (-80°C or LN2 vapor), as well as Optimal Cutting Temperature (OCT) compound and non-OCT embedded. The study includes 100 samples from 20 donors. mRNA signature for stratification by cold ischemia time (mRNA expression by IBBL). The study was to determine the effects of cold ischemic time (delay-to-fixation) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on mRNA detection by Taqman assay using tumor tissue specimens from kidney, colon and ovarian cancer patients. There are160 samples from 40 donors. The Biospecimen PV cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP individual studies. To view molecular data, and derived variables collected in these individual studies, please click on the following individual studies below or in the "Sub-studies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 Biospecimen PV cohort. phs001634 CIT mRNA phs001635 CNV aCGH phs001636 Fixation Delay phs001637 Global Metabolite Profiling phs001638 mRNA TaqMan phs001639 NGS phs001640 Tumor Storage

  Study phs001304

• Gene Expression and Regulatory Networks in Human Leukocytes - Immunological Variation Consortium

  Profiling of gene expression with microarrays holds great potential for human health, for illuminating disease pathways or providing biomarkers to monitor disease or its resolution. Using high-throughput approaches for genotyping, immunophenotyping and gene expression analysis, the project will examine the basis for the control of gene expression in human immune cells, and how it is influenced by natural genetic variation or aging. In practice, the project will combine several cross-informative approaches: 1) Building on the established sample/data pipelines and robust protocols of the Immunological Genome (ImmGen) project, and on established cohorts of ethnically diverse healthy volunteers at hand, microarray techniques will be used to generate whole-genome expression profiles from purified naive CD4+ lymphocytes and monocytes from 600 healthy volunteers. A dense genetic map will be established for all donors. The results will elucidate how variation in the human genome affects the expression of immune genes, of key importance in understanding gene variants that bring susceptibility to immune or inflammatory disease. Computational analysis of these rich data will allow the reconstruction of regulatory connections between genes, helping to establish general modules and those specific of a given immune cell type. These data will be complemented by an orthogonal data group, generated from a restricted subset of 10 individuals, in which we will profile a larger set of 28 carefully delineated cell populations that exist in human blood. This work will also benefit from powerful interspecies comparison with similar experiments being performed in mice by ImmGen. 2) In addition, RNA from the same set of 28 defined cell populations will be probed with microarrays that explore other aspects of the transcriptome: i) microRNAs and other non-coding RNAs; ii) exon or splice junction arrays that will establish a map of differential splicing in human blood leukocyte. 3) The composition and reactivity of blood cells from the same donors will be established at the time of sample collection using high-throughput flow cytometry, correlating immune phenotypes with gene expression and genetic variation. 4) Genetic variability conditions the baseline levels of gene expression, but also the responsiveness to activating challenges. With samples from the same donors, NanoString technology for transcript counting will be used to analyze the transcriptional response of defined gene sets, representing response signatures of T or dendritic cells, for a fine-grained dissection of responses to different triggers (different bacterial ligands for dendritic cells, different cytokine environment for T cells). In keeping with the resource aspect of this project, all data and interpretations will be made publicly available rapidly upon curation, allowing public querying and browsing of the data, by using and evolving the existing web architectures of the ImmGen project, of the Broad Institute, and of international repositories. RELEVANCE: Exploration with DNA chips of the genome's expression microarrays holds great potential for human health, to better understand disease and to serve as diagnostic tools. Using a combination of high-throughput genomic techniques and computational biology, we will perform a broad exploration of gene expression in human blood cells across groups of African-American, Asian and European ancestry, asking how these profiles are affected by genetic variation or by age. These results will provide an invaluable reference benchmark for the interpretation of genetic and immunological studies. Additionally, over 90% of genetic variants associated with complex human traits map to non-coding regions, but little is understood about how they modulate gene regulation in health and disease. One possible mechanism is that genetic variants affect the activity of one or more cis-regulatory elements leading to gene expression variation in specific cell types. To identify such cases, in a second study we analyzed ATAC-seq and RNA-seq profiles from stimulated primary CD4+ T cells in up to 105 healthy donors. We found regions of accessible chromatin (ATAC-peaks) are co-accessible at kilobase and megabase resolution. 15% of genetic variants located within ATAC-peaks affected the accessibility of the corresponding peak (ATAC-QTLs). ATAC-QTLs have the largest effects on co-accessible peaks, are associated with gene expression, and are enriched for autoimmune disease variants. Our results provide insights into how natural genetic variants modulate cis-regulatory elements, in isolation or in concert, to influence gene expression. In another study we analyzed RNA-seq profiles from primary CD4+ T cells of two healthy donors at six time points from 0 to 72 hours after stimulation with bead-bound antibodies against CD3 and CD28.

  Study phs000815

• Virtual Growing Child 5-Dimensional Functional Models for Treating Respiratory Anomalies (dMRI-VGC)

  Objectives We are sharing a database of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) scans of normal children, which can serve as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The database can also be useful to advance future AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis. Background In pediatric patients with respiratory abnormalities, it is important to understand the alterations in regional dynamics of the lungs and other thoracoabdominal components, which in turn requires a quantitative understanding of what is considered as normal in healthy children. Currently, such a normative database of regional respiratory structure and function in healthy children does not exist. Participants 200 normal children (ages 6-18 years) participated in our research study related to this dataset. DesignThe shared open-source normative database is from our ongoing virtual growing child (VGC) project, which includes 4D dMRI images representing one breathing cycle for each normal child and also segmentations of 10 objects at end expiration (EE) and end inspiration (EI) phases of the respiratory cycle in the 4D image. The lung volumes at EE and EI as well as the excursion volumes of chest wall and diaphragm from EE to EI, left and right sides separately, are also reported. The database has thus 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children in total. The database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. All dMRI scans are acquired from normal children during free-breathing. The dMRI acquisition protocol was as follows: 3T MRI scanner (Verio, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), true-FISP bright-blood sequence, TR=3.82 ms, TE=1.91 ms, voxel size ~1×1×6 mm3, 320×320 matrix, bandwidth 258 Hz, and flip angle 76o. With recent advances, for each sagittal location across the thorax and abdomen, we acquired 40 2D slices over several tidal breathing cycles at ~480 ms/slice. On average, 35 sagittal locations are imaged, yielding a total of ~1400 2D MRI slices, with a resulting total scan time of 11-13 minutes for any particular study participant.The collected dMRI scan data then went through the procedure of 4D image construction, image processing, object segmentation, and volumetric measurements from segmentations. 4D image construction: For the acquired dMRI scans, we utilized an automated 4D image construction approach to form one 4D image over one breathing cycle (consisting of typically 5-8 respiratory phases) from each acquired dMRI scan to represent the whole dynamic thoraco-abdominal body region. The algorithm selects 175-280 slices (35 sagittal locations × 5-8 respiratory phases) from the 1400 acquired slices in an optimal manner using an optical flux method. Image processing: Intensity standardization is performed on every time point/3D volume of the 4D image so that image values have the same tissue-specific meaning across all subjects. Object segmentation: For each subject, there are 10 objects segmented at both EE and EI time points in this database. They include the thoracoabdominal skin outer boundary, left and right lungs, liver, spleen, left and right kidneys, diaphragm, and left and right hemi-diaphragms. All dMRI scans utilize large field of view images, which include the full thorax and abdomen to the inferior aspect of the kidneys in the sagittal plane. We used a pretrained U-Net based deep learning network to first segment all objects, and then all auto-segmentation results were visually checked and manually refined as needed, under the supervision of a radiologist with over 25 years of expertise in MRI and thoracoabdominal radiology. Manual segmentations have been performed for all objects in all datasets. Volumetric measurements based on object segmentations for lung volumes (left and right separately) at EE and EI, as well as for chest wall and diaphragm excursion volumes (left and right separately) are reported. ConclusionsThe provided database is unique and provides dMRI images, object segmentations, and quantitative regional respiratory measurement parameters of volumes for normal children. The database has 4,000 3D segmentations from 200 normal children, which to our knowledge is the largest and only such dMRI dataset to date. All images and object segmentations are saved in DICOM. All DICOM files (176,574 in total) have been anonymized, and PHI has been removed. The database can be used as a reference standard to quantify regional respiratory abnormalities in young patients with various respiratory conditions and facilitate treatment planning and response assessment. The large amount of object segmentations can potentially benefit AI-based research on image-based object segmentation and analysis.

  Study phs004002

• Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort) - BioLINCC

  Data Access NOTE Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Related Studies Other Framingham data available include: Imaging studies (Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort)-Imaging, phs003593), Genetics and genomics (Framingham Cohort, phs000007), Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R): (Framingham Heart Study, phs002911), and as a component of the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS-BioLINCC, phs003637). Available Data Original cohort: data now include examination data from the first 32 clinical exams, selected ancillary data, and event follow-up through 2018. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: Data available include Framingham Offspring examination data from the first 9 clinical exams and selected ancillary data and event follow-up through 2019. Also included are the first 4 exams from the OMNI 1 cohort. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: Data available include Framingham Generation 3 examination data from the first 3 clinical exams, selected ancillary data and event follow-up through 2019. Also included are the OMNI 2 and New Offspring (NOS) cohorts. A genetic pedigree is not provided for the Framingham phenotype only data. Objectives The objectives of the Framingham Study are to study the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors, trends in CVD incidence and its risk factors over time, and familial patterns of CVD and risk factors. Other important objectives include the estimation of incidence rates of disease and description of the natural history of cardiovascular disease, including the sequence of clinical signs and systems that precede the clinically recognizable syndrome and the consequences and course of clinically manifest disease. Background Original cohort: The original cohort of the Framingham Study began in 1948 under the U.S. Public Health Service and was transferred under the direct operations of the new National Heart Institute, NIH, in 1949. Participants were sampled from Framingham, Massachusetts, including both men and women. This was the first prospective study of cardiovascular disease and identified the concept of risk factors and their joint effects. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: With the aging of the Framingham cohort and with interest in familiar aggregation and heritability, a new cohort consisting of the offspring of the original cohort was sampled. Spouses of offspring were also included. This new sample, began enrollment in 1971 and constituted a second generation of participants, permitting new assessment of risk factors and outcomes, and provided a resource for the genetic analyses which were yet to come. The Offspring participants have had repeated examinations, though at typically longer intervals than the original cohort. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: Thirty-one years after enrollment began for the second generation of the Framingham Heart Study (Framingham Offspring Study), Framingham investigators began enrolling adults with at least one parent enrolled in the Offspring study into the Framingham Generation 3 cohort. The addition of the third generation was expected to facilitate investigation of secular trends in risk factors and indicators of health and disease within families, to enhance statistical power to detect genetic and environmental determinants of complex diseases, and to clarify how subclinical cardiovascular disease predicts occurrence of overt clinical events. Participants Original cohort: At entry to the study in 1948-1952, the study recruited 5,209 men and women, ages 28-62 years, living in Framingham, MA. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: 5,124 men and women, ages 5-70 years at entry consisting of offspring of the original Framingham cohort (and spouses of the offspring). In 1994, the Omni Cohort 1 enrolled 507 men and women of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Pacific Islander and Native American origins, who at the time of enrollment were residents of Framingham and the surrounding towns. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: 4095 men and women, almost all who self reported their ethnicity as white, ages 19+ years at entry, with at least one parent in the Framingham Offspring study, participated in the Gen III cohort. The New Offspring Cohort enrolled spouses of Offspring participants that were not otherwise enrolled and had at least two biological children participating in Gen III. 103 New Offspring Spouses (47 men and 56 women) participated. The OMNI 2 cohort enrolled additional ethnically diverse participants, including many individuals related to the participants of Omni Cohort 1 and also individuals unrelated to Omni Cohort 1 members for a total of 410 new participants. Design The cardiovascular disease conditions under investigation include coronary heart disease (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, coronary insufficiency and sudden and non-sudden death), stroke, hypertension, peripheral arterial disease and congestive heart failure. Original cohort: The Framingham Study is a longitudinal investigation of constitutional and environmental factors influencing the development of CVD in men and women. Examination of participants has taken place every two years and the cohort has been followed for morbidity and mortality over that time period. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: By 1975, a sample of 5,124 men and women, consisting of offspring of the original Framingham cohort (and spouses of the offspring) had participated in the study. Additional studies of these subjects have continued under research contracts. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: The children of Offspring Cohort participants were initially identified who would be 20 years of age or older by the end of the enrollment period. A higher priority for recruitment was assigned to individuals who belonged to large extended families, in order to complement phenotypic and genotypic information already obtained from prior generations. The baseline examination was begun in 2002 and completed in 2005.

  Study phs003594

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD - Imaging)

  Available DataAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Imaging), provides access to ECG signals data from the ACCORD clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with ACCORD-BioLINCC, phs003551.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients.Lipid Therapy Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease.Blood Pressure Trial:Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy:Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients.MIND Substudy:Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain.Subjects10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy:A subgroup of 2856 patients was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Patients who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded.MIND Substudy:A subgroup of 2977 patients was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded patients aged DesignPatients were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy:EYE Substudy patients were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy.MIND Substudy:The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses.ConclusionsGlycemia Trial:As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (NEJM. 2008; 358(24): 2545-59).Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial:Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Lancet. 2010; 376(9739): 419-30)Lipid Therapy Trial:The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (NEJM. 2010; 362(17): 1563–1574).Blood Pressure Trial:In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (NEJM. 2010; 362: 1575-1585).EYE Substudy:Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (NEJM. 2010; 363: 233-244).MIND Substudy:Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Lancet Neurol. 2011; 10(11): 969–977).

  Study phs003562

• Providing access to COVID-19 data: one year later

  response efforts On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. Four months later, the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) released its first COVID-19 dataset. This dataset – single cell RNA and VDJ sequencing of B cells from 60 COVID-19 patients – showed that neutralizing antibodies could be identified by high-throughput sequencing in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. That was one year ago. Today, the EGA provides access to fifteen COVID-19 datasets from researchers across seven countries in Asia, Europe, and North America. These studies represent almost 17,000 individuals and have resulted in at least sixteen publications and preprints. Researchers deposit controlled access COVID-19 data at EGA The global research community has come together rapidly to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and better understand the related disease, COVID-19. These research efforts generate valuable genetic and phenotypic data from patients and research participants that can be shared with approved researchers. The EGA enables sharing of this research data by providing a service for archiving and controlled distribution of sensitive data. Over the past year, the EGA has worked with researchers to archive and distribute COVID-19 data from high-throughput sequencing experiments, genotyping studies, and phenotypic information. These datasets investigate the immune system, blood, and cells and tissues of the lung, which are relevant for studying a contagious respiratory illness caused by a viral infection. *Study Spotlight. In January 2021, Ancestry.com demonstrated the utility of deep phenotyping based on self-reported outcomes from a large population of mild and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. They identified genetic associations with eight COVID-19 phenotypes and showed distinct patterns of association, most notably related to the chr3/SLC6A20/LZTFL1 and chr9/ABO regions. The supporting data is available at the EGA to approved researchers and includes both genotype and phenotype data for 15,000 individuals. EGA collaborates with global COVID-19 community Since the coronavirus outbreak, the EGA has collaborated with other life science resources to support discovery and access to COVID-19 datasets. COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative. With the NHGRI’s Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space (AnVIL) platform, the EGA enables sharing of individual-level genetic and phenotypic data from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (HGI). This initiative aims to generate, share, and analyze data from COVID-19 host genetics research projects to better understand the genetic determinants of COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, and outcomes. In response to COVID-19, the EGA actively supports COVID-19 data submissions and integration of data access and flow into the COVID-19-HGI analysis platform. *Study Spotlight. The COVID-19 HGI has combined individual-level data for 13,868 COVID-19 positive patients (N=7,167 hospitalized) from 17 cohorts in nine countries. The data were used to assess the association of the major common COVID-19 genetic risk factor (chromosome 3 locus tagged by rs10490770) with mortality, COVID-19-related complications, and laboratory values. The genotype and phenotype data for 10 of these cohorts is available at the EGA to approved researchers under accession EGAS00001005304. Fig 1: EGA COVID-19 studies are searchable in the European COVID-19 Data Portal alongside other COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 public datasets. European COVID-19 Data Portal. EGA-archived COVID-19 data are discoverable via the European COVID-19 Data Portal (Fig. 1), which brings together public and controlled access data to accelerate coronavirus research for the international community. By indexing all COVID-19-related data in one place, researchers can more easily discover relevant datasets of interest, thus increasing the “FAIRness” (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) of this valuable data. Fig 2: SARS-CoV-2 viral sequences are imported from ENA and analysed in Galaxy to detect variants. Results are accessible to researchers through the COVID-19 Viral Beacon. COVID-19 Viral Beacon. The COVID-19 Viral Beacon tool was developed in collaboration with the European Nucleotide Archive and Galaxy to enable near real-time browsing of SARS-CoV-2 variability at genomic, amino acid, and motif levels (Fig. 2). The COVID-19 Viral Beacon allows researchers to (i) perform detailed searches about genomic variants, (ii) filter queries and find unique cases, (iii) filter data based on strain-specific variants, and (iv) explore associated metadata. It uses the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) Beacon standard including new Beacon v2 features. With this tool, researchers can study intra-host mutations on genomic regions of interest, or trace any variant frequency over time using raw read data. More than 200,000 SARS-CoV-2 analysed genomic data files are now available to researchers for further exploration. Ongoing COVID-19 efforts at EGA Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is a global effort. Federated resources are necessary to support transnational deposition, access, and analysis of sensitive COVID-19 host genetics and other related data. At the same time, many countries now have emerging personalized medicine programmes which are generating data from national or regional healthcare initiatives. These data are subject to more stringent information governance than research data and often must comply with national data protection legislation. To address this need, the Federated EGA was established to serve as the primary global resource for discovery and access of sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use. The Federated EGA will comprise a network of national human data repositories and will implement community standards and common interfaces. Launching Federated EGA promises to accelerate not only global research efforts to understand, diagnose, and treat COVID-19, but also to foster data reuse, enable reproducibility, and accelerate biomedical and disease research to ultimately improve human health.

  Blog providing-access-to-covid-19

• Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

  Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.

  Study phs001327

• The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation

  In this study, we will apply a multi-staged approach to reveal genes harboring rare variants that are associated with aggressive PCa. Whole-exome sequencing (Aim 1a) of 2,774 aggressive cases and 2,776 non-aggressive cases of European ancestry will be conducted followed by rare variant analysis of single sites and gene burden testing to identify novel susceptibility loci/genes for aggressive disease. We will validate the most significantly associated genes (~500) through targeted sequencing in an additional 6,415 aggressive and 5,586 non-aggressive cases and 1,890 controls (Aim 1b). Next, we will investigate the clinical predictive utility of the genes/variants identified in 2,291 cases in the STHM3 trial who are undergoing biopsy based on PSA and genetic risk score stratification (Aim 2). Through this tiered approach we expect to significantly advance knowledge of aggressive PCa etiology and health disparities as well as guide the development of early detection and prognostic strategies for the subset of men who are most susceptible to this fatal form of disease. In this case-case study of aggressive vs non aggressive prostate cancer, aggressive cases are defined as prostate cancer as cause of death, (T4 disease or T3 disease) and Gleason 8+. Non-aggressive cases are men with T1/2 disease and Gleason ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and CONTRIBUTING SITES CAPS, PROCAP, STHM1, STHM2: Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2016/818), Swedish Research Council (2014/2269).STHM3: Stockholm County Council (Stockholms Läns Landsting).MEC: Funding provided by the National Cancer Institute: Understanding Ethnic Differences in Cancer, 2U01CA164973 and The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation, 5R01CA196931-02.ATBC: The ATBC Study is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and by U.S. Public Health Service contract HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services.COSM: The Swedish Research Council/National Research Infrastructure Grant (VR 2014/6397; VR 2015/5997) The Swedish Cancer Foundation (CAN 2013/456; CAN 2016/727)CPSII: The authors express sincere appreciation to all Cancer Prevention Study II participants and to each member of the study and biospecimen management group. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study-II cohort.MCCS/APCS/PCFS: The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria and further supported by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants 209057 and 396414. The Aggressive Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (APCS) was funded by NHMRC grant 623204. The Prostate Cancer Family Study (PCFS) was fully funded by Cancer Council Victoria. Cancer Council Victoria funds the continuing maintenance and updating of the MCCS, APCS and PCFS. Cases and their vital status are ascertained and followed up through the Victorian Cancer Registry and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database.PLCO: The Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and also by the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London which has additional infrastructure support provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The national cohorts are supported by: Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam- Rehbruecke (DIfE), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy, Compagnia di SanPaolo and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS) - Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, and the Catalan Institute of Oncology - ICO (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C8221/A19170 and C8221/A29017 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk; MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford). (United Kingdom). DFCI: Linda and Arthur Gelb and Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky. HPFS and PHS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by U01 167552 and P01 CA228696 from the National Cancer Institute, and with support from the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490 and HL34595.Northwestern: P50CA180995 (Catalona) 08/01/15 – 07/31/20 NIH/NCI SPORE in Prostate Cancer; The Urological Research FoundationPROMPT: MRC UK - Project reference G0500966, Cambridge BRC infrastructure funding, Cambridge Biomedical Research Campus (BRC-1215-20014), CRUK Cambridge Cancer Centre infrastructure funding (they are requesting this statement is written in blue for publications).ICR: This work was supported by the NIH R01 grant 5R01CA196931-02. The samples from the UK were from UKGPCS and PrompT. The UKGPCS study was supported by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. We also acknowledge The Institute of Cancer Research, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK for their ongoing support. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.Funding:CIDR grant X01HG008336

  Study phs001524

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-BioLINCC)

  Related StudiesWhole genome and whole exome data is available on a subset of participants with phs001411. ECG signal data is available with phs003562.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients. Lipid Therapy Trial: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood Pressure Trial: Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy: Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients. MIND Substudy: Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain. Participants10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy: A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Participants who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded. MIND Substudy: A subgroup of 2977 participants was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded participants aged Design Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy: EYE Substudy participants were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. MIND Substudy: The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses. Conclusions Glycemia Trial: As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, et al.,2008, PMID:18539917). Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial: Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Ismail-Beigi et al., 2010, PMID: 20594588) Lipid Therapy Trial: The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228404). Blood Pressure Trial: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228401). EYE Substudy: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20587587). MIND Substudy: Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Launer et al., 2011, PMID: 21958949).

  Study phs003551

• DAC Portal documentation

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

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

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal

  With the DAC Portal, it is possible to streamline the process of managing access to sensitive data, ensuring that researchers have the necessary resources to advance scientific discovery while maintaining the highest standards of data protection and privacy. We know that, as a new tool, its first use can be complex. For this reason, in this article we will try to show all the elements of interest. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the DAC Portal and who doesn't? Only new users (since September the 12th) need to create an EGA account to access the DAC Portal. The EGA team went one step ahead by creating EGA accounts for former DAC members to login to the DAC Portal. These accounts are linked to the personal email used in the DAC structure: To check the linked email, DAC members can paste the DAC ID right after this link: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/ (e.g. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001002543) In case of password oblivion, it is possible to set a new one. All the process is channelled through the personal email. Some DAC members may be interested in updating the DAC email. This action can be done contacting our Helpdesk team. For the correct functioning of the DAC Portal, users must add the missing information of the DAC Profile. For a deeper dive, check out our documentation. The first step: knowing your workspace on the Portal Once logged in to the platform using the EGA User credentials, note the sections available: DACs and Policies. In the first one it is possible to check all user's registered DACs by default. It provides a comprehensive overview of each DAC, including its EGA accessions (EGAC), title, status, and the number of data access requests associated with each DAC. Whereas the Policies section is where users can manage and view all their registered policies, along with their associated EGA accessions, links, and titles. A drop-down menu is available with shortcuts to the most useful pages in the top right corner. It is possible to check DACs and policies, as well as creating new ones. In this menu, users can also contact the Helpdesk team using the “Need Help?” section to make inquiries about DACs and policies. Comprehending the DACs list & making the most of all the features Colours are crucial in the DAC's section as they will indicate the user role and the status in every committee, namely: Yellow: you are the administrator of the DAC and have full control to add other contacts, modify the content, and manage data access requests. Orange: you are a member of the DAC and have the authority to manage data access requests but cannot make any changes to the content. Blue: you have been invited to join the DAC and need to either accept or decline the invitation. Grey: the DAC is currently pending validation by the EGA Helpdesk team. Red: the DAC has been declined by the EGA Helpdesk team. Discover more information on how to view the message from Helpdesk containing the declination reason or how to validate or reject a DAC invitation by taking the tour of the DAC Portal. How to create, register and edit a DAC Creating a DAC is an easy process that only requires users to complete the necessary information. After that, the EGA Helpdesk team will review the proposal and validate the proposal. Once the DAC is validated it is possible for authorised users with admin role to edit it at any time, ensuring that all information and contacts associated with the committee is accurate and up to date. Membership management is controlled by searching for the EGA user looking for their username, email, or organisation. Please, note that for a person's details to appear in this search engine, they must have registered as a EGA user. Data Access Committee administrators manage two types of permissions that apply to contacts: Main contact and Role. Both can be modified at any time: Main contact refers to the primary person we firstly contact for any inquiry about the DAC (please, note that we can contact all DAC members, and this refers to the person we will contact first). Role defines the actions that can be taken by each contact. There are two possible status, admin and member, details of which can be found in the Take the Tour. Keep in mind that, to save the modifications, it is always necessary to click on “Update”. Moreover, it is also possible to delete any contact in a DAC whenever it is needed. The data request process: how to manage access requests The data request process is now channelled through the EGA website. Once a user sends a request access, the petition will go directly to the DAC Portal profile of the DAC members liked to the requested dataset. Whenever a request is received, a sand clock symbol will be displayed next to the DAC responsible for the dataset involved. By clicking on the DAC, it is possible to discover more information about requester(s). In this section, DAC Portal users will also be able to modify the display of the data access requests. It is possible to group requests by dataset accession or username, depending on the user preferences. Additionally, it is possible to isolate specific requests by user or dataset. To accept a request, users must slide the button to the right. Once the button turns green, it signifies that the request is accepted; the requester will be granted access to the requested dataset. To make lives easier, we have implemented a “Select all” button to easily accept or revoke multiple requests at once. To decline requests, it is necessary to slide the button to the left. A red button means the requester will not be granted access to the dataset. The DAC Portal will always ask to submit the reason why the data access was denied. Please, note that any decision, grant or denial, must be confirmed clicking the "Apply" button. This will update the status of the request and notify the requester accordingly. Taking control of the activity in the DAC Portal: checking the requests history The History button is a useful feature that allows users to access a list of all the requests that have been granted. This is especially useful for auditing purposes, as it enables to keep track of who has been granted access to the data and when. To facilitate control for those users with several requests we have included a filtering option. It allows to filter requests by user, mail, dataset, EGA ID, and date (these are combinable to boost the search). Don't forget about policies: creation, management, and update Similarly to the DACs section, in the Policies one users can manage and view all their registered policies. By clicking on any policy, it is possible to view its details as well as making any necessary updates or modifications. The sheets symbol and its adjacent number indicate the quantity of objects using a policy. By clicking in the location symbol users will go directly to the DAC page on the DAC Portal to see more information about that DAC. DAC Portal users can create new policies. The first step requires to link the policy to a registered DAC. After defining the title, users can either add a link to an external URL containing terms & conditions or write the policy content directly on the DAC Portal. Keep in mind that both options can be included. Data Use Ontology (DUO) codes can be added to new policies. These codes are used to specify the permitted and prohibited uses of the data. Please, note that some of them require a modifier to provide additional specificity. Find out more by checking out this specific content on the DAC Portal Tour. Policies can be modified at any given time by clicking on one registered policy, which will display the current information.

  Blog new-dac-portal

• Genetic Causes of Growth Disorders

  Description of the disorder: A very common disorder presenting to pediatricians/pediatric endocrinologists is childhood growth failure. Sometimes the cause is evident, for example, growth hormone deficiency. In other children, the etiology remains unknown despite extensive evaluation, resulting in the unhelpful diagnosis of severe idiopathic short stature (SISS). These conditions are quite heterogeneous, including children with isolated growth failure and others who also have other abnormalities such as developmental delay or a constellation of congenital anomalies (syndromic short stature). Sometimes, the disorder appears to primarily affect the growth plate, which drives skeletal growth and thereby determines overall body proportions, whereas in other children, the disorder affects skeletal and non-skeletal tissues equally. Some cases of SISS have a polygenic inheritance while others appear to follow a Mendelian inheritance model, recessive, dominant or X-linked. Very recently, genome-wide analysis for copy number variants (CNVs) and whole-exome sequencing have begun to identify some of the molecular etiologies of these disorders.1 Identifying the molecular etiology of growth disorders has clinical and scientific value. Clinically, identifying a molecular cause prevents extensive further testing and may direct anticipatory care for associated medical problems. For example, we recently studied aggrecan (ACAN) gene mutations in families with autosomal dominant short stature and accelerated skeletal maturation. These mutations affect both growth plate cartilage, causing linear growth failure, and also articular cartilage, causing osteochondritis dissecans and early-onset osteoarthritis.1 Etiological classification of idiopathic growth failure allows more precise characterization of prognosis and response to treatment, which are currently highly imprecise because of the locus heterogeneity. In some cases, finding the genetic etiology points to a novel treatment approach that targets the specific molecular pathway involved. The proposed project is central to the main focus of our group, the Section on Growth and Development, NICHD. Our primary goal is to investigate cellular and molecular mechanisms governing childhood growth and to gain insight into the many human genetic disorders causing childhood growth failure. The proposed project is well suited for the intramural program because it takes advantage of Clinical Center expertise to phenotype subjects with SISS. Study subjects: We will study subjects with SISS and nuclear family members. SISS will be defined by height SDS < -2.5 for age without evident cause after routine evaluation including: growth hormone axis evaluation; thyroid function testing; celiac disease screening; urinalysis; CBC; chemistry; karyotype (girls, for Turner syndrome); and testing for single gene defects based on the clinical evaluation (for example, SHOX or Noonan-associated genes). Candidate families will include isolated growth disorders and growth disorders that are accompanied by congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or other syndromic short stature. Strong preference will be given to subjects with a severe phenotype and a pedigree that indicates a Mendelian inheritance. Multiple independent families with the same phenotype will have priority. The pool of applicants for recruitment is large, and we receive many inquiries by emails and phone consultations from pediatric endocrinologists for advice regarding diagnosis and management of unusual growth disorders, including familial disease. Often these families are seeking further evaluation and are willing to participate in a research study. From this pool, we will be selecting pedigrees with very favorable Mendelian characteristics, for example de novo dominant occurrences where two normal parents have a child with SISS, and the child grows up to be an adult who passes this phenotype on to multiple grandchildren in the next generation. Subjects and family members will be brought to the NIH Clinical Center (NIHCC) for outpatient evaluation. Participants will be evaluated by pediatric endocrinology fellows (as part of our training program) and by senior staff to establish the clinical findings and construct a pedigree. Subjects will receive additional biochemical and imaging studies at the Clinical Center to complete the phenotyping and assign affected status. The growth abnormality will be evaluated by assessing body proportions, relative organ size, and skeletal imaging as indicated. Associated clinical abnormalities beyond altered growth will be characterized with the help of other Clinical Center subspecialists. Subjects and family members will be evaluated by SNP microarray and whole-exome sequencing. We anticipate 4-5 persons for each of 16-20 families, for a total of 72-90 whole-exome sequences. Half of the families will be recruited and studied within the first year and half in the second year. We will use freshly collected peripheral blood as the DNA source for SNP array and NextGen Sequencing. Analytic approach: The candidate genes will be chosen based on 1) inheritance state consistency, 2) population frequency in the ESP and UDP databases, and 3) predictions of deleteriousness. We will use VarSifter and the B road Institute Integrated Genome Viewer to filter and visualize these data. The genetic model will be dependent on the family's pedigree. For a simple trio, we will explore variants using genetic models including autosomal recessive, de novo (dominant), compound heterozygous, deletion/point mutation recessive, and X-linked (male only). The candidate variants will be identified using Boolean logic sets in VarSifter following intramural NHGRI/UDP methods. We will also use SNP microarray data to identify copy number variations, complete/single copy deletions, duplications, non-paternity, consanguinity for homozygosity mapping, uniparental isodisomy, mosaicism, and segregation patterns (bed file generation for use in VarSifter filter work). After a list of candidate sequence variants has been generated, annotation will include using the Exome Variant Server, Polyphen-2, MutationTaster, Sift, and CADD predictions of deleteriousness. Biological laboratory data will be included to prioritize candidate variants. Our group has expertise in the molecular mechanisms regulating both skeletal growth2,3 and growth of other tissues4,5, which may be helpful in this phase of the analysis. The most promising candidate mutations will be confirmed by Sanger sequencing and studied functionally, in vitro and/or in vivo. For mutations that affect skeletal growth, we will use experimental systems related to growth plate cartilage. For in vitro studies, we have experience transfecting chondrocyte cell lines, such as ATDC5, and primary chondrocytes. We will determine whether the mutation alters protein and/or cell function. In vivo studies can be used to explore pathophysiology. We have recently successfully used a new approach, the CAS9/CRISPR system to knockout multiple loci in mice (unpublished), which can be used again in the future to create mouse models efficiently. 1J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2014 (PMID: 24762113) 2J Mol Endocrinol, 2014 (PMID: 24740736) 3Hum Mol Genet, 2012 (PMID: 22914739) 4Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2013 (PMID: 23530192) 5Endocr Rev, 2011 (PMID: 21441345)

  Study phs001617

• Distribution of data using Live Distribution

  Live Distribution Welcome to the documentation for using the Live Distribution feature for distributing data files securely through the EGA platform. This guide will walk you through the process of downloading encrypted files and decrypting them using Crypt4GH. Please follow the steps below to ensure a smooth experience. Before Downloading Create an EGA user. Make sure that you have the permissions to download the dataset of interest. In case you don’t have access, request access to the dataset. Add your Crypt4GH-compatible public key to your EGA account. Please allow a few hours for your public key to be synced with your profile. Afterwards, you will be able to connect to your EGA outbox using the SFTP protocol. Download Graphical User Interface (GUI) You can use any GUI that supports SFTP connections, such as FileZilla, an open-source FTP client. For Filezilla as your GUI, follow these steps to download files: Open FileZilla and access Site Manager (File > Site Manager). Create a new connection with the following settings (Figure 1): Protocol: SFTP - SSH File Transfer Protocol Host: __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ Logon Type: Key file User: your EGA username Key file: path/to/your/private_key Figure 1: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using a key file as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the EGA outbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. Click Connect to access your Outbox. This folder serves as your storage space within the EGA cloud, containing files accessible for download in a secure way. Browse the remote directory on the right side of the FileZilla screen. Select the files you wish to download, right-click, and choose Download (Figure 2). Figure 2: Step-by-step process of manually downñoad files from __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using FileZilla, with FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. The figure demonstrates how users can downñoad data from the EGA outbox to their local storage by following the depicted steps SFTP command line You can also use the SFTP command line to securely download files from the EGA Outbox. Using SFTP command line client in Linux/Unix Open a terminal window Enter the following command to connect: sftp username@hostname Enter your EGA password To see a list of available sftp commands type help sftp> put – Upload file sftp> get – Download file sftp> cd path – Change remote directory to ‘path’ sftp> pwd – Display remote working directory sftp> lcd path – Change the local directory to ‘path’ sftp> lpwd – Display local working directory sftp> ls – Display the contents of the remote working directory sftp> lls – Display the contents of the local working directory Type get command to download files. For example: get encrypted_file.c4gh Use the bye command to close the connection (SFTP session). Convenient SSH settings Include the following settings in your SSH config file, located in ~/.ssh/config Host __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ EGA-outbox hostname __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ User username IdentityFile path/to/the/private/key Replace username and path/to/the/private/key with the appropriate settings, and you will be able to connect to the __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ simply using sftp EGA-outbox. How to decrypt Files archived at the EGA are encrypted based on Crypt4GH. Hence, to decrypt the files you need to install Crypt4GH. You can install a python implementation of it, with pip install crypt4gh or directly from the Github repository pip install git+https://github.com/EGA-archive/crypt4gh.git After installing Crypt4GH, decrypt files using the following command: crypt4gh decrypt --sk /path/private/key < encrypted_file.c4gh > decrypted_filename The command reads the encrypted file from stdin (with <) and output the decrypted version to stdout (with >). Replace encrypted_file.c4gh and decrypted_filename with the appropriate filenames but make sure to not use the same filename for both reading and writing because your SHELL would then truncate both files before you even read or write. Frequently Asked Questions What username should I use to log in to my outbox? The authentication process for logging in to the EGA website, as well as accessing your inbox and outbox, requires the use of your username, not your email address. Therefore, if you registered a username different from your email address when creating your EGA account, you must use that username to log in. If you have forgotten your registered username, please, contact our Helpdesk team for assistance. I see that some files in my dataset have 'unavailable' as extension. What should I do? Within your Outbox, you'll find a list of all the datasets available for download. Occasionally, certain files may be marked as "unavailable". These unavailable files can be identified by the "unavailable" extension added to their filenames (e.g. filename.fastq.gz.unavailable.c4gh). If you encounter an unavailable file that you need, please reach out to our Helpdesk. We'll promptly work on making the file accessible for download as soon as possible. Specific to using keys Can I access one EGA account from different devices? Yes, you can access your account from different devices by linking several public keys to your EGA account. Each device can generate a unique public-private key pair, and the corresponding public keys can be linked to the same account. This way, you can use different public keys on different devices and still have access to the same account and data. I have several keys and I don't remember which one is which When generating SSH keys, it's a good practice to add a comment using the -C flag. This will allow you to add a descriptive tag to your key, making it easier to identify later on. Here's an example command that generates an SSH key with a comment: ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -C work-pass In this example, we're generating an ed25519 SSH key with the comment work-pass. Once you have multiple keys with different comments, you can use the comments to easily identify each key. To view the comments for your existing SSH keys, you can use the following command: ssh-keygen -l -f /path/to/key This will display the key fingerprint and the associated comment. By checking the comments, you should be able to identify which key is which. What if I can't find my SSH keys for uploading files with a key file, and how can I use new keys? If you can't find your SSH keys, don't worry - you can make new ones. To do this, open your terminal or command prompt and type a command to make a new SSH key. You can pick a name for the key, and choose a password to keep it safe. After making the key, you can add the new key to your account or server where you want to upload files using the key file. This usually involves copying and pasting the key's "public" (e.g. file.pub) part to the right place. If you lose track of the key again, just make a new one and add it again. Keep in mind that SSH keys belong to you and your computer, so if you switch computers or accounts, you'll need to make new keys. I don't want to type the passphrase every time I use the key. What can I do? You can use an ssh-agent to avoid typing the passphrase every time you use the key. An ssh-agent is a program that stores your private keys in memory and provides them to ssh when needed. You can add your key to the ssh-agent using the command ssh-add followed by the path to your key file.Here's an example of the steps to follow: Open a terminal window.Start the ssh-agent by typing the command eval $(ssh-agent).Add your key to the ssh-agent by typing the command ssh-add [key filepath]. For instance, if your key file is located in the home directory with the name mykey, the command will look like this: ssh-add ~/mykey After adding your, key to the ssh-agent, you should be able to use ssh without having to enter your passphrase every time. Can I use my password for authentication (without my private key)? If you prefer to use your username and password for authentication instead of your private key, you can still do so. When using a Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as FileZilla, you can select Ask for password as your Logon Type (Figure 3). This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click Connect, instead of using your private key. Figure 3: This option will prompt you to enter your password when you click "Connect", instead of using your private key. Figure 3: Process of establishing a new connection to __EGA_OUTBOX_DOMAIN__ using your password as the logon method in FileZilla. The figure showcases the FileZilla version 3.52.2 operating on IOS v11.2.3. By following the depicted steps, users can create a secure and efficient connection to the inbox, ensuring seamless data transfers. It's worth noting that using a password for authentication can be less secure than using an SSH key, as passwords can be more easily compromised through various means. However, if you choose to use your password for authentication, selecting "Ask for password" as your Logon Type is a good way to do so securely via a GUI. Why is it better to use my key and not my password? SSH keys for authentication is generally considered to be more secure and convenient than using passwords. SSH keys are more difficult to crack than passwords, and they can be restricted to specific users and machines, giving you more control over access. Once you set up your SSH keys, you can use them to authenticate quickly and easily, without having to enter a password every time. This makes automation of tasks, such as uploading encrypted files, much simpler. Additionally, SSH keys provide better logging, allowing you to keep track of who is accessing your systems and when. All in all, using SSH keys is a good practice for improving security and convenience in your authentication process.

  Documentation access/download/files/live-outbox

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

  1. Low-Dose Carboplatin Modifies the Tumor Microenvironment to Augment CAR T Cell Efficacy in Human Prostate Cancer Models.Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) was performed to analyze the transcriptional modifications in the tumor microenvironment of prostate cancer patient-derived xenografts (PDX). The analyzed PDX tumor was PDX-287R from the MURAL collection of PDXs (PMID: 34413304). Mice harboring PDX tumors were treated with the carboplatin chemotherapy, and tumors were harvested 3 weeks later. RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to define immune and non-immune cell populations and anti-tumor innate immune signaling within the tumor microenvironment.To investigate the response of tumor cells to carboplatin treatment in more detail, RNA-Seq was performed on FACs-isolated tumor cells from PDX-287R at one week post-treatment. Gene set enrichment analysis showed an enrichment for apoptotic pathways, with significantly increased expression of the pro-apoptotic genes FAS, BAX, BBC3, IFI6, and JUN. Previously, carboplatin has been shown to activate the cGAS/STING pathway, and here we also found an increase in STING signaling, with an enrichment for the cytosolic DNA sensing pathway and increased expression of STING1, STAT1 and STAT2. There was also a significant increase in the expression of genes involved in T cell chemotaxis, including CXCL10, CXCL11, and CCL20. Collectively, carboplatin-induced cell death in tumor cells likely initiated a pro-inflammatory phenotype in prostate cancer PDXs.2. Co-Targeting BET, CREBBP, and EP300 Inhibits Neuroendocrine Signaling in Androgen Receptor-Null Prostate Cancer.The landscape of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is characterized by a multitude of phenotypes, among which neuroendocrine disease holds a prominent position, each displaying unique responses to therapeutic interventions. The efficacy of inhibitors targeting BET and CREBBP/EP300 in prostate cancer treatment is widely acknowledged, primarily due to their ability to attenuate androgen receptor (AR) signaling. However, the effectiveness of these inhibitors in prostate cancers devoid of AR remains uncertain.This investigation sought to elucidate the role of BRD4, CREBBP, and EP300, which are co-expressed in both AR-positive and AR-null prostate cancer. Our study revealed that a compound targeting all three proteins, NEO2734, exhibited efficacy in suppressing the growth of organoids from both AR-positive and AR-null tumors, as evidenced by alterations in viability, size, and cellular composition. Furthermore, NEO2734 treatment consistently led to transcriptional downregulation of cell cycle pathways across various models. In the context of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC), NEO2734 demonstrated notable efficacy. Treatment with NEO2734 resulted in decreased expression of ASCL1 and other neuroendocrine markers (including SYP) , accompanied by a reduction in tumor growth in vivo. These findings collectively underscore the potential of epigenome-targeted inhibitors in impeding the growth of neuroendocrine prostate cancer, by disrupting lineage regulators in a phenotype-dependent manner. Consistent with the NEPC organoids and explants, NKX3-1 was upregulated in NEO2734-treated PDXs.In this study, we examined the impact of NEO2734 treatment on 6 organoids (treated for 24 hrs), 3 explants treated with JQ1 (for 48 hrs) and 2 PDXs (at two time points) using bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq). These results are available through this dbGaP submission. The implications of these results warrant further exploration and development of compounds possessing similar activities for clinical applications. The ability of NEO2734 to mitigate the growth of both AR-positive and AR-null prostate cancer underscores its potential as a versatile therapeutic agent. Moreover, its efficacy in targeting neuroendocrine phenotypes offers promising avenues for addressing a subtype of CRPC that poses significant clinical challenges. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the intricate interplay between epigenetic regulators and prostate cancer phenotypes. The observed effects of NEO2734 on growth inhibition and phenotype-specific disruption highlight the importance of continued research into compounds with similar epigenome-targeting mechanisms for advancing precision medicine approaches in the treatment of prostate cancer.3. Defining Focal Neuroendocrine Differentiation as a Transcriptionally Distinct Form of Prostate Cancer Pathology Characterized by the Expression of Androgen ReceptorsThe study aimed to understand the transcriptional differences among different neuroendocrine pathologies of prostate cancer. The study hypothesized that the diverse neuroendocrine pathology observed in prostate might be attributable to differences in transcriptional level that remain hidden in bulk RNA-Seq data. To investigate, we employed scRNA-seq to generate gene expression profiles of 18,632 individual tumor cells from 9 PDX models representing five distinct neuroendocrine pathologies of prostate cancer. Our analysis identified 3-8 transcriptionally distinct sub-populations per PDX. The expression of key oncogenic signaling pathways and master regulator activity varied across in neuroendocrine pathologies, with each type of pathology displaying a unique set of transcriptional sub-populations. We discovered that, like the amphicrine pathology, focal neuroendocrine differentiation (focal NED) cells maintain androgen receptor (AR) signaling. However, the expression profiles of focal NED cells differed from the other pathologies, indicating it should be considered as a distinct type of neuroendocrine pathology in prostate cancer. Analysis of copy number alterations suggested little clonal divergence between focal NED cells and neighboring adenocarcinoma cells, emphasizing the transcriptional distinctiveness of focal NED.Overall, the findings suggest potential differences in treatment approaches for tumors from prostate cancer patients showing neuroendocrine pathology, especially focal NED.4. Reprogramming of Androgen Receptor Activity in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer is Shaped by Truncated Variants.Under the influence of treatments that target the androgen receptor (AR) axis, prostate cancer cells undergo various changes to the AR gene. This includes the production of truncated AR variants that lack the ligand binding domain and are constitutively active. However, the exact role of these truncated variants in shaping the AR signaling axis and their importance in therapy resistance is not yet fully understood. By examining the AR cistrome in a group of patient-derived prostate cancer models with different mechanisms of castration resistance, we observed diverse changes in AR activity in metastatic prostate cancer, including castration-resistant models. Specifically, we identified a unique subset of tumors characterized by the expression of ARv567es, a variant resulting from structural rearrangements of the AR gene. Tumors positive for ARv567es showed a distinct AR binding profile and epigenome compared to those without ARv567es, which was linked to an altered transcriptional profile. The presence of ARv567es is associated with poor responses to treatments, such as castration and bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), regardless of the presence of full-length AR. This involves disruption of the autoregulatory loop that controls AR gene transcription and reduced transcriptional responses to treatment. Overall, this study demonstrates that ARv567es can lead to transcriptional reprogramming in advanced prostate cancer and drive therapy resistance. 5. The MURAL Collection of Prostate Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts Enables Discovery Through Preclinical Models of Uro-Oncology.We created a comprehensive PDX resource for prostate cancer to facilitate the rapid and systematic evaluation of new therapies. This collection includes 59 tumors from 30 patients, gathered between 2012 and 2020, aligning with the availability of abiraterone and enzalutamide in the clinic. The PDXs cover the clinical, pathological, and genomic spectrum of prostate cancer, ranging from treatment-na&#239;ve primary tumors to castration-resistant metastases. We characterized heterogeneity in adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine phenotypes using bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing. Additionally, organoids were cultured from PDXs, enhancing our preclinical study capabilities. Employing a 1x1x1 design, we quickly identified tumors with responses to combination therapies. To manage the distribution of PDXs, we established the Melbourne Urological Research Alliance (MURAL). This PDX collection significantly enhances our ability to test and prioritize effective treatments for future clinical trials in prostate cancer.6. Prostate Cancer Associated Fibroblasts Have Distinct Morpho-Mechanical Features That Are Associated With Patient Outcome.The tumor stroma, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), has a crucial role in tumor progression. This study focused on the morphological and mechanical properties of CAFs and normal prostatic fibroblasts. The findings revealed that CAFs had distinct morphological and mechanical characteristics compared to normal fibroblasts, such as differences in nuclear size, shape, F-actin arrangement, cellular volumes, and elasticity. Additionally, the study correlated these biophysical properties with transcriptomic data, identifying pathways and cellular components linked to the observed changes. Overall, high-throughput assessments of biophysical properties in prostate cancer cells and stromal components may serve as predictive tools for patient outcomes and help identify new therapeutic approaches targeting the tumor stroma.

  Study phs003369

• GAW16 Framingham and Simulated Data

  Important links to apply for individual-level data Genetic Analysis Workshop Instructions to Request Authorized Access Data Use Certification Requirements (DUC) Apply here for controlled access to individual level data Research Use Statement Questions regarding GAW16 should be directed to Vanessa Olmo at vanessa@business-endeavors.com. Problem 2: Description of the Framingham Heart Study In GAW16, we use data drawn from the Framingham Heart Study. The Framingham Heart Study &#8212; under the direction of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NHLBI &#8212; began in 1948 with the recruitment of adults from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century and had become an American epidemic. The Framingham Heart Study is now conducted in collaboration with Boston University. The objective of the Framingham Heart Study was to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to CVD by following its development over a long period of time in a large group of participants who had not yet developed overt symptoms of CVD or suffered a heart attack or stroke. Between 1948 and 1953 the researchers recruited 5,209 subjects (2,336 men and 2,873 women) between the ages of 29 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts and began the first round of extensive physical examinations and lifestyle interviews that they would later analyze for common patterns related to CVD development. Subjects were recruited from lists of addresses recorded for the town. Two out of every three households were approached for participation in the study. While there was no intention to recruit families for family studies, the plan was to recruit all household members in the ages 30-60 within each house that was selected for study. Hence, many biologically related individuals were recruited, including 1644 spouse pairs. Since 1948, these participants have returned to the study every two years for a detailed medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Now in 2008 at 60 years of follow up, there remain about 500 participants from this cohort. Between 1971 and 1975 the study enrolled a second-generation group &#8212; 5,124 of the original participants&#39; children and the spouses of these children &#8212; to participate in similar examinations. 2,616 subjects are offspring of the original spouse pairs and 34 are stepchildren. A total of 898 offspring are children of cohort members where only one parent was a study participant and 1,576 are spouses of the offspring. The Offspring Cohort has been followed every four years through 2001 (except between Exams 1 and 2 with an intervening 8 years) using protocols similar to those used for study of the Original Cohort. Between 2002 and 2005 the study enrolled the third generation (Gen3) of the Framingham Heart Study - 4095 offspring of the second generation. None of their spouses were recruited. An additional 103 parents of this third generation, who were not recruited between 1971 and 1975, were also recruited at this time. The latter group is not included in the GAW16 data. With the recruitment of this third generation, the study has increasingly focused on genetic factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease and its associated risk factors. To date, there is only one examination of this generation of participants. A description of the recruitment of this third generation and comparison with the earlier generations at their initial recruitment is presented in Splansky GL et al., 2007. Further information on the Study can be found at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/index.html. Genome-wide Dense SNP Scan in Framingham Heart Study Genetic studies did not begin in the FHS until the 1990s. In the late 1980s and through the 1990s DNA was extracted from blood samples of surviving FHS participants. In 2007, the FHS entered a new phase with the conduct of genotyping for the FHS SHARe (SNP Health Association Resource) project, for which dense SNP genotyping was performed using approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip&#174; Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel) in 10,775 samples (some duplicates) from the three generations of subjects (including over 900 pedigrees). Affymetrix conducted all genotyping for the FHS SHARe project, using the 250K Sty, 250K Nsp, and the supplemental 50K platforms. Eighty-nine percent of the DNA samples were collected during the 1990s. To maximize the power of the study, we also extracted DNA from 1133 blood samples, drawn from subjects who had no DNA, to include in the SHARe project. These samples had been sitting in our refrigerators for some time, a few as far back as the 1970s. We refer to these DNA samples as the legacy samples. These samples had a higher failure rate in the genotyping process (40%) than the other eighty-nine percent (3%). Affymetrix invoked its own criteria for a sample to succeed in genotyping. All non-legacy samples must succeed on all three platforms, while legacy samples needed to pass on at least one platform. When a sample failed, additional attempts were made. Samples that repeatedly failed 2-4 times were called failures. Other samples failed due to issues of genotyped sex identification not matching our records or low SNP concordance among SNPs common across arrays or contamination. Eighty-nine percent of the legacy samples for which genotyping results are available passed all three platforms. The genotyping data from the 10,043 samples from 9354 subjects that passed the Affymetrix criteria were additionally checked for gender consistency and consistency with family structure, resulting in genotyping data for 9,274 participants in FHS SHARe. Genotype calls were made with the BRLMM algorithm. The SHARe database is housed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information database of genotypes and phenotypes (NCBI dbGaP) and contains all ~550,000 SNPs. This genome-wide dense SNP scan and a subset of phenotypes from the Framingham Heart Study are the focus of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16. Further information on the specific variables in the Problem 2 dataset can be found by clicking on the Documents tab at the top of the page. Problem 3: Description of the Simulated Data Set The focus of this simulation is gene discovery in genome-wide association scans (GWAS). The Framingham Heart Study data set (distributed as "Problem 2") is the basis for the FHS* simulated data. The pedigree structures are derived from the data distributed for Problem 2, and we distribute an accompanying triplet file (triplet_sim) containing person ID, father ID, mother ID, to ensure the identical subjects, pedigrees, and singletons are used in the simulated data analysis. Consistent with standard practice, founders and singletons are designated as subjects with both fshare and mshare equal to zero (missing). The simulated data includes a total of 6,479 subjects with both phenotype and genotype data, in 942 pedigrees distributed among 3 generations and 188 singletons. Data inclusion is consistent with the subjects&#39; consent for use by both for-profit and not-for-profit researchers. The genotypes for all Problem 3 replicates are fixed as measured and distributed for Problem 2 for both the genomewide scan and the additional candidate gene SNPs, for a total of approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip&#174; Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel). Thus, to analyze the Problem 3 simulated data you also will need to download the Problem 2 genotypes. Note that there are slight discrepancies in counts between Problems 2 and 3 due to a change in consents between the two datasets. Several phenotypes that contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD) were simulated for all individuals with genotypes across three different time points, 10 years apart. All genotyped individuals have complete data; the effects of missing values can be investigated by user-specified missing value patterns. There are 200 longitudinal datasets created, based on the generating model, and each replication is found in a separate dataset. We suggest that if only one replication is to be analyzed, that it be replication 1 to enable more precise comparisons among analytical approaches. The &#39;shareid&#39; will allow you to merge the simulated phenotype data with the Problem 2 genotype data, and reconstruction of the pedigrees using the distributed &#39;triplet_sim&#39; file or for larger families&#39; relationships with the triplet distributed with the Problem 2. The simulated data problem is further described in the associated readme file, and a data dictionary is provided defining all the variables. For disclosure of the generating model for these data, please contact Jean MacCluer at jean@sfbrgenetics.org.

  Study phs000128

• OncoArray: Prostate Cancer

  Original description of the study: From ELLIPSE (linked to the PRACTICAL consortium), we contributed ~78,000 SNPs to the OncoArray. A large fraction of the content was derived from the GWAS meta-analyses in European ancestry populations (overall and aggressive disease; ~27K SNPs). We also selected just over 10,000 SNPs from the meta-analyses in the non-European populations, with a majority of these SNPs coming from the analysis of overall prostate cancer in African ancestry populations as well as from the multiethnic meta-analysis. A substantial fraction of SNPs (~28,000) were also selected for fine-mapping of 53 loci not included in the common fine-mapping regions (tagging at r2&#62;0.9 across &#177;500kb regions). We also selected a few thousand SNPs related with PSA levels and/or disease survival as well as SNPs from candidate lists provided by study collaborators, as well as from meta-analyses of exome SNP chip data from the Multiethnic Cohort and UK studies. The Contributing Studies: Aarhus: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Patients treated for prostate adenocarcinoma at Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby (Aarhus, Denmark). Source of controls: Age-matched males treated for myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary angioplasty, but with no prostate cancer diagnosis based on information retrieved from the Danish Cancer Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. AHS: Nested case-control study within prospective cohort. Source of cases: linkage to cancer registries in study states. Source of controls: matched controls from cohort ATBC: Prospective, nested case-control. Source of cases: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline. Source of controls: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline BioVu: Cases identified in a biobank linked to electronic health records. Source of cases: A total of 214 cases were identified in the VUMC de-identified electronic health records database (the Synthetic Derivative) and shipped to USC for genotyping in April 2014. The following criteria were used to identify cases: Age 18 or greater; male; African Americans (Black) only. Note that African ancestry is not self-identified, it is administratively or third-party assigned (which has been shown to be highly correlated with genetic ancestry for African Americans in BioVU; see references). Source of controls: Controls were identified in the de-identified electronic health record. Unfortunately, they were not age matched to the cases, and therefore cannot be used for this study. Canary PASS: Prospective, Multi-site, Observational Active Surveillance Study. Source of cases: clinic based from Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, University of California at San Francisco, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, University of Washington, VA Puget Sound. Source of controls: N/A CCI: Case series, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Cross Cancer Institute. Source of controls: N/A CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): Case-Control, Prospective, Observational, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients, treated in French departments of Urology, who had histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were recruited as participating in a systematic health screening program and found unaffected (normal digital rectal examination and total PSA &#60; 4 ng/ml, or negative biopsy if PSA &#62; 4 ng/ml). COH: hospital-based cases and controls from outside. Source of cases: Consented prostate cancer cases at City of Hope. Source of controls: Consented unaffected males that were part of other studies where they consented to have their DNA used for other research studies. COSM: Population-based cohort. Source of cases: General population. Source of controls: General population CPCS1: Case-control - Denmark. Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPCS2: Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPDR: Retrospective cohort. Source of cases: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Source of controls: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center ACS_CPS-II: Nested case-control derived from a prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Identified through self-report on follow-up questionnaires and verified through medical records or cancer registries, identified through cancer registries or the National Death Index (with prostate cancer as the primary cause of death). Source of controls: Cohort participants who were cancer-free at the time of diagnosis of the matched case, also matched on age (&#177;6 mo) and date of biospecimen donation (&#177;6 mo). EPIC: Case-control - Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK. Source of cases: Identified through record linkage with population-based cancer registries in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Germany and Greece, follow-up is active and achieved through checks of insurance records and cancer and pathology registries as well as via self-reported questionnaires; self-reported incident cancers are verified through medical records. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer EPICAP: Case-control, Population-based, ages less than 75 years at diagnosis, H&#233;rault, France. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all public hospitals and private urology clinics of d&#233;partement of H&#233;rault in France. Cases validation by the H&#233;rault Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Population-based controls, frequency age matched (5-year groups). Quotas by socio-economic status (SES) in order to obtain a distribution by SES among controls identical to the SES distribution among general population men, conditionally to age. ERSPC: Population-based randomized trial. Source of cases: Men with PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam. Source of controls: Men without PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam ESTHER: Case-control, Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all hospitals in the state of Saarland, from 2001-2003. Source of controls: Random sample of participants from routine health check-up in Saarland, in 2000-2002 FHCRC: Population-based, case-control, ages 35-74 years at diagnosis, King County, WA, USA. Source of cases: Identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER cancer registry. Source of controls: Randomly selected, age-frequency matched residents from the same county as cases Gene-PARE: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients that received radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Source of controls: n/a Hamburg-Zagreb: Hospital-based, Prospective. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases seen at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Source of controls: Population-based (Croatia), healthy men, older than 50, with no medical record of cancer, and no family history of cancer (1st &#38; 2nd degree relatives) HPFS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the HPFS cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the HPFS cohort IMPACT: Observational. Source of cases: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. Source of controls: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has not been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. IPO-Porto: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Early onset and/or familial prostate cancer. Source of controls: Blood donors Karuprostate: Case-control, Retrospective, Population-based. Source of cases: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 237 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending public and private urology clinics; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 148 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa. Source of controls: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 277 controls recruited from men participating in a free systematic health screening program open to the general population; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 134 controls recruited from subjects attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa KULEUVEN: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases recruited at the University Hospital Leuven. Source of controls: Healthy males with no history of prostate cancer recruited at the University Hospitals, Leuven. LAAPC: Subjects were participants in a population-based case-control study of aggressive prostate cancer conducted in Los Angeles County. Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program rapid case ascertainment system. Eligible cases included African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with a first primary prostate cancer between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. Eligible cases also had (a) prostatectomy with documented tumor extension outside the prostate, (b) metastatic prostate cancer in sites other than prostate, (c) needle biopsy of the prostate with Gleason grade &#8805;8, or (d) needle biopsy with Gleason grade 7 and tumor in more than two thirds of the biopsy cores. Eligible controls were men never diagnosed with prostate cancer, living in the same neighborhood as a case, and were frequency matched to cases on age (&#177; 5 y) and race/ethnicity. Controls were identified by a neighborhood walk algorithm, which proceeds through an obligatory sequence of adjacent houses or residential units beginning at a specific residence that has a specific geographic relationship to the residence where the case lived at diagnosis. Malaysia: Case-control. Source of cases: Patients attended the outpatient urology or uro-onco clinic at University Malaya Medical Center. Source of controls: Population-based, age matched (5-year groups), ascertained through electoral register, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia MCC-Spain: Case-control. Source of cases: Identified through the urology departments of the participating hospitals. Source of controls: Population-based, frequency age and region matched, ascertained through the rosters of the primary health care centers MCCS: Nested case-control, Melbourne, Victoria. Source of cases: Identified by linkage to the Victorian Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer MD Anderson: Participants in this study were identified from epidemiological prostate cancer studies conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Houston Metropolitan area. Cases were accrued in the Houston Medical Center and were not restricted with respect to Gleason score, stage or PSA. Controls were identified via random-digit-dialing or among hospital visitors and they were frequency matched to cases on age and race. Lifestyle, demographic, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. MDACC_AS: A prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Men with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer meeting eligibility criteria for a prospective cohort study of active surveillance at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Source of controls: N/A MEC: The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) is comprised of over 215,000 men and women recruited from Hawaii and the Los Angeles area between 1993 and 1996. Between 1995 and 2006, over 65,000 blood samples were collected from participants for genetic analyses. To identify incident cancer cases, the MEC was cross-linked with the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries in California and Hawaii, and unaffected cohort participants with blood samples were selected as controls MIAMI (WFPCS): Prostate cancer cases and controls were recruited from the Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine using sequential patient populations as described previously (PMID:15342424). All study subjects received a detailed description of the study protocol and signed their informed consent, as approved by the medical center&#39;s Institutional Review Board. The general eligibility criteria were (i) able to comprehend informed consent and (ii) without previously diagnosed cancer. The exclusion criteria were (i) clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases; (ii) chronic inflammatory conditions; and (iii) infections within the past 6 weeks. Blood samples were collected from all subjects. MOFFITT: Hospital-based. Source of cases: clinic based from Moffitt Cancer Center. Source of controls: Moffitt Cancer Center affiliated Lifetime cancer screening center NMHS: Case-control, clinic based, Nashville TN. Source of cases: All urology clinics in Nashville, TN. Source of controls: Men without prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. PCaP: The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is a multidisciplinary population-based case-only study designed to address racial differences in prostate cancer through a comprehensive evaluation of social, individual and tumor level influences on prostate cancer aggressiveness. PCaP enrolled approximately equal numbers of African Americans and Caucasian Americans with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer from North Carolina (42 counties) and Louisiana (30 parishes) identified through state tumor registries. African American PCaP subjects with DNA, who agreed to future use of specimens for research, participated in OncoArray analysis. PCMUS: Case-control - Sofia, Bulgaria. Source of cases: Patients of Clinic of Urology, Alexandrovska University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria, PrCa histopathologically confirmed. Source of controls: 72 patients with verified BPH and PSA&#60;3,5; 78 healthy controls from the MMC Biobank, no history of PrCa PHS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort PLCO: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Men with a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Source of controls: Controls were men enrolled in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial without a diagnosis of cancer at the time of case ascertainment. Poland: Case-control. Source of cases: men with unselected prostate cancer, diagnosed in north-western Poland at the University Hospital in Szczecin. Source of controls: cancer-free men from the same population, taken from the healthy adult patients of family doctors in the Szczecin region PROCAP: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were ascertained from the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study, a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients with localized prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PROGReSS: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases from the Hospital Cl&#237;nico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Source of controls: Cancer-free men from the same population ProMPT: A study to collect samples and data from subjects with and without prostate cancer. Retrospective, Experimental. Source of cases: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals. Source of controls: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals ProtecT: Trial of treatment. Samples taken from subjects invited for PSA testing from the community at nine centers across United Kingdom. Source of cases: Subjects who have a proven diagnosis of prostate cancer following testing. Source of controls: Identified through invitation of subjects in the community. PROtEuS: Case-control, population-based. Source of cases: All new histologically-confirmed cases, aged less or equal to 75 years, diagnosed between 2005 and 2009, actively ascertained across Montreal French hospitals. Source of controls: Randomly selected from the Provincial electoral list of French-speaking men between 2005 and 2009, from the same area of residence as cases and frequency-matched on age. QLD: Case-control. Source of cases: A longitudinal cohort study (Prostate Cancer Supportive Care and Patient Outcomes Project: ProsCan) conducted in Queensland, through which men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from 26 private practices and 10 public hospitals were directly referred to ProsCan at the time of diagnosis by their treating clinician (age range 43-88 years). All cases had histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer, following presentation with an abnormal serum PSA and/or lower urinary tract symptoms. Source of controls: Controls comprised healthy male blood donors with no personal history of prostate cancer, recruited through (i) the Australian Red Cross Blood Services in Brisbane (age range 19-76 years) and (ii) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (age and post-code/ area matched to ProsCan, age range 54-90 years). RAPPER: Multi-centre, hospital based blood sample collection study in patients enrolled in clinical trials with prospective collection of radiotherapy toxicity data. Source of cases: Prostate cancer patients enrolled in radiotherapy trials: CHHiP, RT01, Dose Escalation, RADICALS, Pelvic IMRT, PIVOTAL. Source of controls: N/A SABOR: Prostate Cancer Screening Cohort. Source of cases: Men &#62;45 yrs of age participating in annual PSA screening. Source of controls: Males participating in annual PSA prostate cancer risk evaluations (funded by NCI biomarkers discovery and validation grant), recruited through University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and affiliated sites or through study advertisements, enrolment open to the community SCCS: Case-control in cohort, Southeastern USA. Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: SCCS entry population. Source of controls: SCCS entry population SCPCS: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Health Care Financing Administration beneficiary file SEARCH: Case-control - East Anglia, UK. Source of cases: Men &#60; 70 years of age registered with prostate cancer at the population-based cancer registry, Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre, East Anglia, UK. Source of controls: Men attending general practice in East Anglia with no known prostate cancer diagnosis, frequency matched to cases by age and geographic region SNP_Prostate_Ghent: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Men treated with IMRT as primary or postoperative treatment for prostate cancer at the Ghent University Hospital between 2000 and 2010. Source of controls: Employees of the University hospital and members of social activity clubs, without a history of any cancer. SPAG: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Guernsey. Source of controls: Guernsey STHM2: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PCPT: Case-control from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial SELECT: Case-cohort from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial TAMPERE: Case-control - Finland, Retrospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Identified through linkage to the Finnish Cancer Registry and patient records; and the Finnish arm of the ERSPC study. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer UGANDA: Uganda Prostate Cancer Study: Uganda is a case-control study of prostate cancer in Kampala Uganda that was initiated in 2011. Men with prostate cancer were enrolled from the Urology unit at Mulago Hospital and men without prostate cancer (i.e. controls) were enrolled from other clinics (i.e. surgery) at the hospital. UKGPCS: ICR, UK. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Royal Marsden hospital and nationwide NCRN hospitals. Source of controls: Ken Muir&#39;s control- 2000 ULM: Case-control - Germany. Source of cases: familial cases (n=162): identified through questionnaires for family history by collaborating urologists all over Germany; sporadic cases (n=308): prostatectomy series performed in the Clinic of Urology Ulm between 2012 and 2014. Source of controls: age-matched controls (n=188): age-matched men without prostate cancer and negative family history collected in hospitals of Ulm WUGS/WUPCS: Cases Series, USA. Source of cases: Identified through clinics at Washington University in St. Louis. Source of controls: Men diagnosed and managed with prostate cancer in University based clinic. Acknowledgement Statements: Aarhus: This study was supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council (now Innovation Fund Denmark) and the Danish Cancer Society. The Danish Cancer Biobank (DCB) is acknowledged for biological material. AHS: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119). ATBC: This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, HHSN261201000006C, and HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. BioVu: The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center&#39;s BioVU which is supported by institutional funding and by the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975-01 (which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant 2 UL1 TR000445-06). Canary PASS: PASS was supported by Canary Foundation and the National Cancer Institute&#39;s Early Detection Research Network (U01 CA086402) CCI: This work was awarded by Prostate Cancer Canada and is proudly funded by the Movember Foundation - Grant # D2013-36.The CCI group would like to thank David Murray, Razmik Mirzayans, and April Scott for their contribution to this work. CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): None reported COH: SLN is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship COSM: The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Foundation CPCS1 &#38; CPCS2: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, DenmarkCPCS1 would like to thank the participants and staff of the Copenhagen General Population Study for their important contributions. CPDR: Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences HU0001-10-2-0002 (PI: David G. McLeod, MD) CPS-II: The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. CPS-II thanks the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, and cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health; Greek Ministry of Education (Greece); the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); the Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); the Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andaluc&#237;a, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020), Red de Centros RCESP, C03/09 (Spain); the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Sk&#229;ne and V&#228;sterbotten, Fundacion Federico SA (Sweden); the Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom). EPICAP: The EPICAP study was supported by grants from Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Ligue d&#233;partementale du Val de Marne; Fondation de France; Agence Nationale de s&#233;curit&#233; sanitaire de l&#39;alimentation, de l&#39;environnement et du travail (ANSES). The EPICAP study group would like to thank all urologists, Antoinette Anger and Hasina Randrianasolo (study monitors), Anne-Laure Astolfi, Coline Bernard, Oriane Noyer, Marie-H&#233;l&#232;ne De Campo, Sandrine Margaroline, Louise N&#39;Diaye, and Sabine Perrier-Bonnet (Clinical Research nurses). ERSPC: This study was supported by the DutchCancerSociety (KWF94-869,98-1657,2002-277,2006-3518, 2010-4800), The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311, 62300035), The Dutch Cancer Research Foundation (SWOP), and an unconditional grant from Beckman-Coulter-HybritechInc. ESTHER: The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden W&#252;rttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. The ESTHER group would like to thank Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Heiko M&#252;ller, Karina Dieffenbach, Katja Butterbach for valuable contributions to the study. FHCRC: The FHCRC studies were supported by grants R01-CA056678, R01-CA082664, and R01-CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC would like to thank all the men who participated in these studies. Gene-PARE: The Gene-PARE study was supported by grants 1R01CA134444 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, PC074201 and W81XWH-15-1-0680 from the Prostate Cancer Research Program of the Department of Defense and RSGT-05-200-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society. Hamburg-Zagreb: None reported HPFS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by grants UM1CA167552, CA133891, CA141298, and P01CA055075. HPFS are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians&#39; Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. IMPACT: The IMPACT study was funded by The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, CR-UK Project grant (C5047/A1232), Cancer Australia, AICR Netherlands A10-0227, Cancer Australia and Cancer Council Tasmania, NIHR, EU Framework 6, Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia, and Philanthropic donation to Northshore University Health System. We acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust. IMPACT acknowledges the IMPACT study steering committee, collaborating centres, and participants. IPO-Porto: The IPO-Porto study was funded by Funda&#231;&#228;o para a Ci&#234;ncia e a Tecnologia (FCT; UID/DTP/00776/2013 and PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014) and by IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP-16-2012 and CI-IPOP-24-2015). MC and MPS are research fellows from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, N&#250;cleo Regional do Norte. SM is a research fellow from FCT (SFRH/BD/71397/2010). IPO-Porto would like to express our gratitude to all patients and families who have participated in this study. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the the Frech National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la ProstateKarusprostate thanks S&#233;verine Ferdinand. KULEUVEN: F.C. and S.J. are holders of grants from FWO Vlaanderen (G.0684.12N and G.0830.13N), the Belgian federal government (National Cancer Plan KPC_29_023), and a Concerted Research Action of the KU Leuven (GOA/15/017). TVDB is holder of a doctoral fellowship of the FWO. LAAPC: This study was funded by grant R01CA84979 (to S.A. Ingles) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Malaysia: The study was funded by the University Malaya High Impact Research Grant (HIR/MOHE/MED/35). Malaysia thanks all associates in the Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF) and the Malaysian Men&#39;s Health Initiative (MMHI). MCCS: MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553, and 504711, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MCC-Spain: The study was partially funded by the Accion Transversal del Cancer, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI09/00773-Cantabria, PI11/01889-FEDER, PI12/00265, PI12/01270, and PI12/00715), by the Fundaci&#243;n Marqu&#233;s de Valdecilla (API 10/09), by the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) Scientific Foundation and by the Catalan Government DURSI grant 2009SGR1489. Samples: Biological samples were stored at the Parc de Salut MAR Biobank (MARBiobanc; Barcelona) which is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (RD09/0076/00036). Also sample collection was supported by the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya sponsored by Pla Director d&#39;Oncologia de Catalunya (XBTC). MCC-Spain acknowledges the contribution from Esther Gracia-Lavedan in preparing the data. We thank all the subjects who participated in the study and all MCC-Spain collaborators. MD Anderson: Prostate Cancer Case-Control Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388. MDACC_AS: None reported MEC: Funding provided by NIH grant U19CA148537 and grant U01CA164973. MIAMI (WFPCS): ACS MOFFITT: The Moffitt group was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park). NMHS: Funding for the Nashville Men&#39;s Health Study (NMHS) was provided by the National Institutes of Health Grant numbers: RO1CA121060. PCaP only data: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. For HCaP-NC follow-up data: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. For studies using both PCaP and HCaP-NC follow-up data please use: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) and the Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study are carried out as collaborative studies supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052 and the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS, respectively. For any PCaP data, please include: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. For studies using PCaP DNA/genotyping data, please include: We would like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). For studies using PCaP tissue, please include: We would like to acknowledge the RPCI Department of Urology Tissue Microarray and Immunoanalysis Core for our tissue processing, storage and sample disbursement. For studies using HCaP-NC follow-up data, please use: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the HCaP-NC study for their important contributions. For studies that use both PCaP and HCaP-NC, please use: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP and HCaP-NC studies for their important contributions. PCMUS: The PCMUS study was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2-2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012) with additional support from the Science Fund of Medical University - Sofia (contract 51/2009; 8I/2009; 28/2010). PHS: The Physicians&#39; Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490, and HL34595. PHS members are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians&#39; Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. PLCO: This PLCO study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIHPLCO thanks Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the screening center investigators and staff of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We thank Mr. Thomas Riley, Mr. Craig Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, and Ms. Shannon Merkle at Information Management Services, Inc., for their management of the data and Ms. Barbara O&#39;Brien and staff at Westat, Inc. for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We also thank the PLCO study participants for their contributions to making this study possible. Poland: None reported PROCAP: PROCAP was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (08-708, 09-0677). PROCAP thanks and acknowledges all of the participants in the PROCAP study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skilful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. We acknowledge The NPCR steering group: P&#228;r Stattin (chair), Anders Widmark, Stefan Karlsson, Magnus T&#246;rnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andr&#233;n, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, G&#246;ran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Roy Ehrnstr&#246;m. PROGReSS: The PROGReSS study is founded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (INT15/00070; INT16/00154; FIS PI10/00164, FIS PI13/02030; FIS PI16/00046); the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PTA2014-10228-I), and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER 2007-2013). ProMPT: Founded by CRUK, NIHR, MRC, Cambride Biomedical Research Centre ProtecT: Founded by NIHR. ProtecT and ProMPT would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK. Cancer Research UK grants (C8197/A10123) and (C8197/A10865) supported the genotyping team. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research which funds the Cambridge Bio-medical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment (PROMPT) collaborative (grant code G0500966/75466) which has funded tissue and urine collections in Cambridge. We are grateful to staff at the Welcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Addenbrooke&#39;s Clinical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK for their help in conducting the ProtecT study. We also acknowledge the support of the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the DOH HTA (ProtecT grant), and the NCRI/MRC (ProMPT grant) for help with the bio-repository. The UK Department of Health funded the ProtecT study through the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99). The ProtecT trial and its linked ProMPT and CAP (Comparison Arm for ProtecT) studies are supported by Department of Health, England; Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466, and The NCRI, UK. The epidemiological data for ProtecT were generated though funding from the Southwest National Health Service Research and Development. DNA extraction in ProtecT was supported by USA Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280, Yorkshire Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the ProtecT study research group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health of England. The bio-repository from ProtecT is supported by the NCRI (ProMPT) Prostate Cancer Collaborative and the Cambridge BMRC grant from NIHR. We thank the National Institute for Health Research, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the Human Research Tissue Bank (Addenbrooke&#39;s Hospital), and Cancer Research UK. PROtEuS: PROtEuS was supported financially through grants from the Canadian Cancer Society (13149, 19500, 19864, 19865) and the Cancer Research Society, in partnership with the Minist&#232;re de l&#39;enseignement sup&#233;rieur, de la recherche, de la science et de la technologie du Qu&#233;bec, and the Fonds de la recherche du Qu&#233;bec - Sant&#233;.PROtEuS would like to thank its collaborators and research personnel, and the urologists involved in subjects recruitment. We also wish to acknowledge the special contribution made by Ann Hsing and Anand Chokkalingam to the conception of the genetic component of PROtEuS. QLD: The QLD research is supported by The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Project Grants (390130, 1009458) and NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and Cancer Australia PdCCRS funding to J Batra. The QLD team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the urologists, pathologists, data managers and patient participants who have generously and altruistically supported the QLD cohort. RAPPER: RAPPER is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1094/A11728; C1094/A18504) and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre funding (C1467/A7286). The RAPPER group thank Rebecca Elliott for project management. SABOR: The SABOR research is supported by NIH/NCI Early Detection Research Network, grant U01 CA0866402-12. Also supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant to the Cancer Therapy and Research Center from the National Cancer Institute (US) P30 CA054174. SCCS: SCCS is funded by NIH grant R01 CA092447, and SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SCPCS: SCPCS is funded by CDC grant S1135-19/19, and SCPCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). SEARCH: SEARCH is funded by a program grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. SNP_Prostate_Ghent: The study was supported by the National Cancer Plan, financed by the Federal Office of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium. SPAG: Wessex Medical ResearchHope for Guernsey, MUG, HSSD, MSG, Roger Allsopp STHM2: STHM2 was supported by grants from The Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linn&#233; Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, number 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; The Swedish Research Council (number K2010-70X-20430-04-3) and The Swedish Cancer Society (numbers 11-0287 and 11-0624); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;rs minne; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), number 2012-0073STHM2 acknowledges the Karolinska University Laboratory, Aleris Medilab, Unilabs and the Regional Prostate Cancer Registry for performing analyses and help to retrieve data. Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Britt-Marie Hune for their enthusiastic work as research nurses. Astrid Bj&#246;rklund for skilful data management. We wish to thank the BBMRI.se biobank facility at Karolinska Institutet for biobank services. PCPT &#38; SELECT are funded by Public Health Service grants U10CA37429 and 5UM1CA182883 from the National Cancer Institute. SWOG and SELECT thank the site investigators and staff and, most importantly, the participants who donated their time to this trial. TAMPERE: The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland (251074), The Finnish Cancer Organisations, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (X51003). The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). TAMPERE would like to thank Riina Liikanen, Liisa Maeaettaenen and Kirsi Talala for their work on samples and databases. UGANDA: None reported UKGPCS: UKGPCS would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. UKGPCS should also like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses, data managers, and consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. UKGPCS would like to thank all urologists and other persons involved in the planning, coordination, and data collection of the study. ULM: The Ulm group received funds from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). WUGS/WUPCS: WUGS would like to thank the following for funding support: The Anthony DeNovi Fund, the Donald C. McGraw Foundation, and the St. Louis Men&#39;s Group Against Cancer.

  Study phs001391