431 results for "fc points ps4 Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Alles easy, top..XkV1"

in 9.89 milliseconds.

• Implementation of the GDPR

  Data Protection 1 About the EGA The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) was formally launched in 2008 at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), an outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), to address an identified need for archiving and sharing the results of genome-wide association studies from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. In late 2012, with the signing of a memorandum of understanding (and subsequent formal agreement in 2016) between EMBL-EBI and the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), the EGA formally became a joint project of the two institutes. The two institutes work together to support the EGA services, including supporting submissions, web site, strategic leadership, and data infrastructure developments. 2 EMBL-EBI & GDPR The EGA is co-managed by EMBL-EBI and CRG. EMBL-EBI is an international organisation established by treaty and has certain privileges and immunities (e.g. exemptions from the application of national law) and also may self-regulate its activities (e.g. establish its own institutional legal framework) within the framework of its founding act of 1973. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union (EU) regulation that legislates how organisations can share and process personal data of EU citizens. EMBL places great value in maintaining collaboration with researchers who are subject to GDPR. For that reason, it is of utmost importance for EMBL to handle data received from those collaborators in a secure and responsible manner. Mindful of its public mandate and the sensitivity of the data it handles, EMBL has always ensured a high level of data protection in its activities. Since the introduction of GDPR in May 2018, EMBL has established its internal policy on General Data Protection (IP68), exercising its right to self-regulate its operations,., IP 68 establishes a robust personal data protection framework that provides for data protection principles, enforceable data subject rights and oversight and redress mechanisms offering a level of protection comparable with GDPR. 3 CRG & GDPR The Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) is an international biomedical research institute of excellence, created in July 2000 and mainly participated by the Catalan Government. It is a non-profit foundation and its mission is to discover and advance knowledge for the benefit of society, public health and economic prosperity. The CRG is a CERCA center. CERCA is the collective organisation for all research centres of excellence in Catalonia. CERCA ensures these centres develop successfully by promoting synergies and strategic cooperation improving their visibility and the impact of their research and promoting the dialogue amongst both public and private stakeholders. As a legal entity based in Spain and operating within the EU, the CRG ensures the compliance with the GDPR and the legal regulations on personal data protection applicable at the national level, as well as any other legislation that may replace, modify or supplement the above-mentioned in terms of personal data protection. 4 EGA & GDPR EGA GDPR Schema 4.1 Genetic and phenotypic data Within GDPR, there are two main actors: data controllers and data processors. Data controllers are persons or entities which determine the purposes and means that the personal data may be processed, e.g. companies, researchers, or universities. For EGA, the data controller is ultimately the data producer and the submitter(s) who submit the data to EGA. The data controller also creates a Data Access Committee (DAC) who will decide on data access permissions at EGA. Data processors are the persons or entities which process the data on behalf of a data controller. With regard to GDPR, EGA is a data processor as it processes data as instructed by the data controller. GDPR applies to any organisation which accesses personal data from an individual within the EU. Under GDPR, personal data is defined as any data that is identifiable, including names and email addresses as well as health-related and genetic data. EGA does not accept personally identifiable data except genetic and phenotypic data, so all other data submitted to EGA, such as names and addresses, must be pseudonymised. GDPR requires that data controllers implement data protection principles, such as data minimisation, to minimise the risk of data leakage, and protect the rights of the data subjects. As a data processor, EGA has a set of security policies that are followed to minimise the risk of unauthorised data access or data loss. In its role as a data processor, EGA requires all submitters to sign a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) when the submission account is first created. This agreement is only required to be signed once per submitter, and will remain valid for future submissions to EGA. 4.2 Other personal data The EGA also collects personal data as part of our interactions with submitters, data access committees, and researchers accessing data distributed by EGA. The below privacy notices explain what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Privacy Notices for EGA Title Version Last Updated EGA Data Access Committee Account Privacy Notice for EGA Data Access Committee Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA User Account Privacy Notice for EGA User Account 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Helpdesk Service Privacy Notice for EGA Helpdesk Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 EGA Website Service Privacy Notice for EGA Website Service 1.0 February 6, 2019 Documentation Title Version Description EGA Security Overview Security Document 1.1 The EGA Security Document provides an overview of EGA’s practices in ensuring the security of data stored at EGA. EGA Data Processing Agreement Data Processing Agreement 1.5 The Data Processing Agreement must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please note that this document is non-negotiable. Authorised Submitters Authorised Submitters Formulary 1.0 The Authorised Submitters Form must be completed and returned as part of the submission process. Please list all those that should have access to the submission account in order to submit to the EGA should be detailed here. Dispute Resolution Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, the DPA (including the enforceability or breach thereof, any question regarding its existence, validity or termination) or relating to the EGA Service shall be resolved using the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of EGA including those related to Data Protection. The EGA’s internal dispute resolution mechanism has the following procedure: EGA OPERATIONAL PHASE: Meetings between EGA staff and the Data Controller.LEGAL MANAGEMENT PHASE: Meetings between legal teams of EMBL, CRG and the Data Controller. DIRECTION MANAGEMENT PHASE: Negotiation between the legal representatives of EMBL, the CRG and the Data Controller. If the internal dispute resolution mechanism doesn’t resolve the controversy or claim the next phase is:ARBITRATION PHASE: Resolution by arbitration under the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules (“Rules”).

  Documentation about/privacy-notice

• Jackson Heart Study (JHS) Cohort

  The Jackson Heart Study (JHS) is a large, community-based, observational study whose participants were recruited from urban and rural areas of the three counties (Hinds, Madison and Rankin) that make up the Jackson, MS metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Participants were enrolled from each of 4 recruitment pools: (1) random, 17%, (2) volunteer, 30%, (3) currently enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, 31%, and (4) secondary family members, 22%. The final cohort of 5,306 participants included 6.59% of all African American Jackson MSA residents, aged 35-84, during the baseline exam (N-76,426, US Census 2000). Among these, approximately 3,600 gave consent that allows genetic research and deposition of data into dbGaP. Major components of three clinic examinations (see study history) include medical history, physical examination, blood/urine analytes, and interview questions on areas such as physical activity, stress, coping and spirituality, racism and discrimination, socioeconomic position, and access to health care. Extensive clinical phenotyping includes anthropometrics, electrocardiography, carotid ultrasound, ankle-brachial blood pressure index, echocardiography, CT chest and abdomen for coronary and aortic calcification, liver fat, and subcutaneous and visceral fat measurements, and cardiac MRI. At 12-month intervals after the baseline clinic visit (Exam 1), participants have been contacted by telephone to update information, confirm vital statistics, document interim medical events, hospitalizations and functional status, and obtain additional sociocultural information. Questions about medical events, symptoms of cardiovascular disease and functional status are repeated annually. Ongoing cohort surveillance includes abstraction of medical records and death certificates for relevant International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes and adjudication of nonfatal events and deaths. CMS data are currently being incorporated into the dataset. Note: Regarding date variables warehoused in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) Cohort on dbGaP, the coordinating center has developed an algorithm that will systematically review and de-identify any of the (nearly 100) date-related variable types stored in the data package. To simultaneously minimize (i) de-identifiability of the data and (ii) impact on analyses utilizing sensitive data elements, a participant-level random number was generated to avoid the necessity of sharing any potentially sensitive data. The coordinating center maintains an archived linkage of these data in their raw form and regularly reviews ad hoc requests to utilize the raw data on a project-by-project basis. The JHS Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" section of this top-level study page phs000286 JHS Cohort. phs000402 ESP Heart GO JHS phs000498 JHS Allelic Spectrum Seq phs000499 JHS CARephs001069 MI Gen JHS phs001098 T2D GENES Exome Seq phs001356 Exome Chip phs002256 Cardiometabolic Renal Proteomics phs002369 Metabolomics Insulin Resistance

  Study phs000286

• Defining T cell States Associated with Response to Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Melanoma

  Checkpoint blockade therapy using antibodies targeting CTLA4, PD1 or PDL1 have changed the way cancer patients with advanced disease are being treated, as evident by their FDA approval in a wide variety of malignancies, and their ability to induce high response rates when compared to conventional therapies (e.g. chemotherapy). However, even in melanoma, despite the high response rate, most patients are refractory to therapy or acquire resistance in 10-12 months. To identify key immunological elements coupled with response or resistance to checkpoint immunotherapy, we performed an unbiased analysis on 16,291 CD45+ immune cells from 32 patients (48 samples) treated with checkpoint therapy (anti-PD1=37; anti-PD1/CTLA4=11), using single cell transcriptomics. Initial unsupervised clustering of all CD45+ cells identified 11 clusters. When examining the association of these clusters with clinical outcome, we found that two clusters (B-cells, p=0.005; memory T-cells, p=0.03) were significantly enriched in responder lesions while 4 clusters (monocytes/macrophages, p=0.003; dendritic cells, p=0.015; exhausted CD8+ T-cells, p=0.005; and exhausted/cell-cycle lymphocytes, 1.3x10-5) are enriched in non-responder lesions. Next, by leveraging our unbiased single cell approach, we identified not only clusters but also specific markers associated with either responder lesions (PLAC8, LTB, LY9, SELL, TCF7, IGKC and CCR7) or non-responder ones (CCL3, CD38, HAVCR2, ENTPD1 and WARS), many of which were not previously reported to be associated with clinical outcome to checkpoint therapy. Due to the importance of CD8+ T-cells in controlling tumors, the significant association of T-cell states with clinical outcome, and their high abundance in melanoma tumors, we next focused our analysis on CD8+ T-cells and identified 2 main clusters CD8_G (with increased expression of genes linked to memory) and CD8_B (enriched for genes linked to cell dysfunction), that were significantly enriched in responder (CD8_G, p=1.4x10-6) and non-responder (CD8_B, p=0.005) lesions, respectively. Since cells with both states coexist in each of the responder and non-responder lesions, we decided to calculate the ratio between the number of cells in these 2 clusters and observed a significant separation between responders (CD8_G/CD8_B>1) and non-responders (CD8_G/CD8_B<1) when looking at all samples, baseline or post samples separately. Similar results were detected when looking at the expression of a single transcription factor, TCF7, in CD8 T-cells in an independent cohort (n=43) using a simple immunofluorescence assay. Additionally, we validated the identity and function of some of the newly identified cell states as well as their epigenetic landscape, and found that cells expressing the inhibitory molecules CD39 and TIM3, on top of being enriched in non-responder lesions, are likely to play a crucial role in T-cell exhaustion in melanoma. Collectively, our study provides extensive unbiased data in human tumors for discovery of predictors and therapeutic targets to checkpoint immunotherapy.

  Study phs001680

• Mutational dynamics of triple negative breast cancer over neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment reveal frequent whole genome duplication events

  Background Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with poor survival rate and high genomic instability, generating complex tumour genomes. However, the processes generating this complexity are poorly studied over time. Here, we study the temporal dynamics of TNBC somatic mutations, revealing major transitions in tumour genome evolution, from diagnostic biopsies, through treatment, to cancer remission or recurrence. Methods Deep whole exome sequencing and CUTseq, a reduced representation whole genome sequencing approach, were performed in parallel, to comprehensively identify short nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy number alterations (CNAs) and aneuploidies genome-wide. We profiled (N=74) tumour samples from 22 patients across the course of disease, including spatially diverse samples from many tumours, allowing us to observe the gain and loss of candidate driver variants over time. Results As expected, tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) levels and residual cancer burden (RCB) score were negatively correlated, with good responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) seen in pre-treatment samples with high infiltration. In general, SNV mutational burden remained stable across disease progression and RCB classes. Recurrent SNVs across the cohort implicated several known TNBC driver genes in disease progression and response to treatment, with TP53, MICA, CYP2D6, BRCA1 and BRCA2 frequently altered. However, the presence of candidate driver SNVs in these genes often varied throughout a patient’s treatment, including the loss of those seen in a given driver gene in pre-treatment samples, but gain of novel variants in the same gene at later time points. Dramatic structural dynamics were seen in all tumours, including abundant CNA including chromosome arm aneuploidies seen in pre-treatment samples, followed by frequent loss of these alterations post-treatment, and their re-emergence at recurrence. Whole genome duplication (WGD) events appear to drive these dynamics, with a higher frequency of pre-treatment WGD seen in patients with the best response to NACT. Conclusions Comprehensive longitudinal profiling demonstrates the complex interplay of SNVs and copy number alterations during TNBC progression, leading to diverse evolutionary trajectories and patient outcomes. Complex mutational patterns emerge as important features during progression, with WGD events emerging as potential candidate biomarkers of response at both tumour establishment and recurrence.

  Study EGAS00001008261

• Genome-Wide associations of Lung Health Study (LHS)

  The 'Genome-Wide Associations Environmental Interactions in the Lung Health Study' at Johns Hopkins University aims to test for association between lung function decline as a primary outcome associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using banked DNA and phenotype data on 4,287 European Americans from the longitudinal, multicenter Lung Health Study (LHS). The broad goals of the LungGO/ESP-GO falls into two general categories: (i) discovery of all variants (i.e., common and rare) in all protein-coding regions of the human genome (i.e., the exome) conferring risk to complex pulmonary diseases including COPD, in a subset of the LHS cohort. The Johns Hopkins University LHS cohort offers a unique opportunity to elucidate genetic variants that cause COPD. The Lung Health Study I was a randomized multicenter clinical trial with 5887 participants carried out from October 1986 to April 1994, designed to test the effectiveness of smoking cessation and bronchodilator administration in smokers aged 35 to 60 with mild lung function impairment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: usual care, who received no intervention smoking intervention with the inhaled bronchodilator ipratroprium bromide smoking intervention with an inhaled placebo. The effect of intervention was evaluated by the rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). For the GWAS, only the subset of European American LHS participants for whom lung function data from three time points or more are available. Thus, the GWAS represents 73% of the 5,887 volunteers who participated in the LHS study. Importantly, LHS subjects included had similar demographics (including age, gender and BMI) and rates of lung function decline (mean annual change in FEV1% predicted: -0.96 %/yr vs. -0.99 %/yr, p=0.57) compared with those not included in the GWAS, reflecting little selection bias for our primary outcome. They were, however, more likely to have quit smoking after 5 years. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to lung function through large-scale genome-wide association studies of smokers enrolled in a multicenter clinical trial. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000335

• NSIGHT BabySeq Project

  The Genomic Sequencing for Childhood Risk and Newborn Illness (BabySeq Project) is a research study exploring the use of genomic sequencing in newborns. The National Institutes of Health is funding this study. Investigators enrolled 240 healthy infants and their parents from the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) Well Newborn Nursery and 240 sick infants and their parents at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) or the BWH Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). A small blood sample was taken from each infant and genome sequencing may have been performed. Whole-exome (WES) was performed at the Broad Institute. Six weeks later, the results were returned and explained. Over 12 months, the investigators studied the experiences of parents and pediatricians of infants who receive sequencing to help understand how best to use genomics in pediatric care. Parents were surveyed at four points over the 12 months after enrollment: baseline, immediately post-disclosure (approximately 6 weeks after enrollment), 3 months post-disclosure, and at 10 months post-disclosure. Primary outcome measures included: (1) downstream health care costs attributable to BabySeq Project disclosure measured as days of inpatient care; (2) Parents' distress using validated scales and a novel item assessing blame; (3) parent-child relationship using validated scales; (4) Parents' relationship using validated and novel measures of marital satisfaction; (5-9) downstream health care utilization attributable to BabySeq project disclosure measured as the number of health care provider visits, per-patient counts for number of medications at 10 months, number of emergency room visits, number of outpatient lab tests, and per-patient means for healthcare costs in U.S. dollars. A secondary outcome was whether there was a change in perceived utility toward genomic sequencing. Findings of BabySeq include: (1) interest in newborn genomic testing is high among parents of healthy children and the majority of couples had similar levels of interest; (2) parents reported several motivations to receive and reasons to decline adult-onset only results from newborn sequencing; (3) 88% of newborns had at least one recessive carrier variant that could be relevant to their parents' future reproductive planning; (4) 5% of babies had an atypical pharmacogenomic variant related to how they might process medications used in childhood; (5) parent surveys using validated measures showed no evidence that newborn genomic sequencing caused increased psychological distress, even if the baby had a disease risk identified; and (6) 11% of newborn babies in the study had unanticipated monogenic disease risks.

  Study phs002093

• Heart Failure Network: Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (HFN DOSE-BioLINCC)

  ObjectivesThe DOSE study sought to evaluate the most effective dosing (high vs. low) and administration (continuous infusion vs. intermittent boluses) combination of the diuretic Furosemide in the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure.BackgroundAcute decompensated heart failure is the most common cause of hospital admissions among patients older than 65 years of age and is responsible for more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in the United States. Intravenous loop diuretics are an essential component of current treatment and are administered to approximately 90% of patients who are hospitalized with heart failure. Despite decades of clinical experience with these agents, prospective data to guide the use of loop diuretics are sparse, and current guidelines are based primarily on expert opinion. As a result, clinical practice varies widely with regard to both the mode of administration and the dosing.SubjectsA total of 308 patients were enrolled between March 2008 and November 2009 at 26 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. DesignThe DOSE study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design. Patients were randomly assigned to either a low-dose strategy (total intravenous furosemide dose equal to their total daily oral loop diuretic dose in furosemide equivalents) or a high-dose strategy (total daily intravenous furosemide dose 2.5 times their total daily oral loop diuretic dose in furosemide equivalents) and to administration of furosemide either by intravenous bolus every 12 hours or by continuous intravenous infusion.The study treatment, with group assignments concealed, was continued for up to 72 hours. At 48 hours, the treating physician had the option of adjusting the diuretic strategy on the basis of the clinical response. An assessment of biomarkers, including creatinine, cystatin C, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, was performed at a central core laboratory at baseline, 72 hours, and 60 days. Patients were followed for clinical events to day 60. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours.ConclusionsAmong patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Felker et. al., 2011, PMID: 21366472)

  Study phs003524

• Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT-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.Objective: To determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Background: Heart failure is a common disorder. Standard treatment for HF includes diuretics to control fluid, and drugs called "neurohormonal antagonists" (such as beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors) to help the heart work more efficiently. The natriuretic peptides, specifically NT-pro-BNP, are biomarkers that reflect HF severity and are significantly associated with adverse outcomes in HF. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels (“guided therapy”) with inconsistent results.Participants: A total of 894 participants were enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Canada, with 446 randomized to the NT-pro-BNP-guided strategy treatment group and 448 randomized to the usual care treatment group.Design: GUIDE-IT was a multicenter randomized clinical trial with participants randomized to either the NT-pro-BNP-guided therapy strategy or usual care. Given the nature of the study intervention, treatment assignment was not blinded. For participants randomized to the NT-pro-BNP-guided strategy, clinicians were instructed to titrate HF therapy to target an NT-pro-BNP level After an initial visit at 2 and 6 weeks, visits occurred every 3 months throughout the remainder of the study. After therapy adjustment for HF (whether driven by NT-pro-BNP levels or clinical reasons), participants had a 2-week follow-up visit for reassessment. All participants in either group also had blinded NT-pro-BNP concentrations measured in a core laboratory at each study visit. The primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events. Conclusions: The guided strategy intervention was stopped in July of 2016 (median follow-up of 15 months) after the study met prespecified inefficacy criteria. Compared to usual care, a strategy of NT-pro-BNP-guided therapy was not more effective in improving time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality in high-risk participants with HFrEF.

  Study phs003621

• The UCSD / O'Connor "TSP" (Twin/Sibling/Pedigree) Resource in Hypertension

  Study Design: The UCSD / O'Connor "TSP" (Twin/Sibling/Pedigree) Resource in Hypertension contains N=797 participants. At the time of recruitment individuals ranged from 15-84 years of age and had varying ethnic backgrounds (Whites, African-Americans and Hispanics). The cohort was developed to study the genetic basis of autonomic dysfunction in human essential hypertension (reviewed in Zhang et al. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2011 13: 36-45. PMID: 21104344) and contains cross-sectionally collected phenotypes related to blood pressure regulation.  Phenotypes: Phenotype data specifically focuses on the sympathetic branch of the autonomic system, which is a key regulator of blood pressure. Data includes circulating concentrations of the secretory "quantum" (catecholamines, neuropeptides, chromogranins) which influence vascular responses to sympatho-adrenal activation resulting in blood pressure. Other measures on the twins and a subset of family members include a standard urine panel with absolute concentrations of potassium, sodium, uric acid, phosphorous; DynaPulse acquired heart rate and blood pressure measures including systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, Left Ventricular (LV) ejection time, LV contractility, cardiac output, stroke volume data including; and absolute concentrations of plasma aldosterone, endothelin, leptin, and insulin. Phenotype data is included for the 697 individuals sequenced here and 100 family members.  Whole Genome Sequence Data Generation: Whole genome sequencing (20X coverage) was conducted on plasma-derived DNA. The WGS was generated using the Illumina HiSeq X Ten sequencing platform with variants called by Human Longevity, Inc (HLI; Ref 1). Preparation of sample libraries was conducted by mechanical shearing of gDNA (100-800 bp), isolation of DNA fragments 300-500bp in size, followed by library PCR amplification employing high-fidelity, low-bias PCR to amplify library fragments consisting of appropriate adapter sequences on both ends. BAM files were created by alignment of sequence reads to the reference genome (GRCh38) using iSAAC-01.14.02.06 (Python2.7). Note: The user may want to realign the sequence data and recall variants. In total, the WGS dataset contains 30 monozygotic twin pairs represented by one member of the twin pair, 133 monozygotic twin pairs with both individuals sequenced, 7 dizygotic twin pairs represented by one member of the twin pair, 67 dizygotic twin pairs with both individuals sequenced, 8 twin pairs with undetermined zygosity (both individuals sequenced) and 1 triplet with mother (all individuals sequenced). The dataset also contains sequences of 260 family members of twins including their mother, father, non-twin sibling, and offspring. Table 1 describes the composition of families ("sibling" refers to a non-twin sibling in the cohort). Note: We suggest users check gender and family relatedness. Table 1: Description of the families with sequence data                                                                                                               Units with:Twin PairsTwin (no pairs)No twinSibshipsMother and Father511Mother only1222Father only113One or more siblings22133Mother and siblings132Father and siblings(s)211Offspring of twins11Non twin siblings2Sib with unknown relative1Only one member of8The UCSD/O'Connor "TSP" (Twin/Sibling/Pedigree) Resource in Hypertension is now being managed at the UCSD School of Medicine's Institute for Genomic Medicine (IGM). The TSP Resource has collected a wide range of information (phenotypic, genotypic, demographic, metabolomic) and reagents (blood, plasma, urine, DNA, human induced pluripotent stem cells). For additional information about the resource, including other data types available as well as references and links to data from studies with previous collaborators, please go to the resource website at IGM [http://igm.ucsd.edu/research/twins-resource.shtml] or contact Dr. Brinda Rana at UCSD [bkrana@ucsd.edu]. 

  Study phs002230

• How to use EGA Webin?

  EGA Webin EGA Webin serves as a platform for registering metadata for array based submissions, large scale sequence submission as well as for legacy EGA submission accounts (ega-box-XXXX). For large scale submitters of sequence data you have also the option to submit metadata via XMLS programmatic submission, while new submitters are advised to utilise the Submitter Portal for their submissions. You can request a legacy EGA submission account (ega-box-XXXX) by populating this form. Please, allow two business days for our Helpdesk team to contact you after populating this form. WEBIN actions: Register metadata for a sequence submission Register study, samples, experiments, runs, DAC, policy and dataset/s after file upload. Register components for your array-based metadata submission Register study, samples, DAC or policy before uploading files. Edit existing submission metadata Change or update previously submitted metadata. Register metadata for a sequence submission Ensure that all sequence files have been encrypted before uploading them to your submission account using the EgaCryptor. Go to the EGA Webin and log in using your submission account name (ega-box-XXX) and password. Register components of your metadata submission Study Samples Data Access Committee (DAC) Data access policy Dataset For array-base submissions: Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy may all be registered BEFORE file upload and dataset registration through the array-base template. Register your Study Go to the “Studies (Projects)” box Click on “Register Study” and fill in the information related to your study. Click on “Submit”, this will save the information and generate an EGA study ID. To use the study accession number in a publication, the study has to be previously released on the EGA website, we suggest the following format: "Sequence 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 on https://ega-archive.org and “The European Genome-phenome Archive in 202 "(10.1093/nar/gkab1059)" Register your Samples Go to the “Samples” box Click on “Register Samples” Select “Download spreadsheet to register samples” and customise your template, there is a default EGA template (EGA default checklist) but more attributes can be added if required. For the EGA default checklist, there are mandatory,recommended and optional attributes. As well custom fields which can be added if required. Mandatory attributes Field Name Description tax_id Taxonomy ID of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Entries in the NCBI Taxonomy database have integer taxon IDs. See our tips for sample taxonomy here scientific_name Scientific name of the organism as in the NCBI Taxonomy database. Scientific names typically follow the binomial nomenclature. For example, the scientific name for humans is Homo sapiens. sample_alias Unique name of the sample. If not selected system will auto generate an unique alias sample_title Title of the sample sample_description Description of the sample phenotype *** Where possible, please use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe your phenotypes. Recommended attributes Field Name Description subject_id Identifier for the subject where the sample has been derived from gender * Sex Optional attributes Field Name Description sex sex of the organism from which the sample was obtained disease_site Affected organ sample type Affected organ donor_id ** Identifier of the donor where the sample has been derived from *Gender should be described as 'male', 'female' or 'unknown'. If 'unknown' due to a known sex chromosome aneuploidy, please create a user defined attribute called 'Sex chromosome karyotype' and add the appropriate value, for example, 'XXY'. **Donor id (Subject id) should be a de-identified subject handle. If unknown, please add 'unknown' to the field. ***Phenotypes should, where possible, be an Experimental Factor Ontology accession. If a term cannot be found to describe your phenotype please use free text. All sample phenotypes considered important for further analysis of the data should be provided (for example, tumour type), additional phenotype attributes can be created by defining your own attributes; use the notion 'phenotype2', 'phenotype3', etc. After you have customised the fields for the sample submission, download the template and fill in the information. Example of the sample template: Finally upload the sample template to get the EGA accession IDs for the samples. Register your Data Access Committee (DAC) Further information on the role of your DAC Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dacs” Input the information about the DAC and register at least one main DAC contact. Register your Data Access Policy Your Data Access Policy provides the terms and conditions of data use, this is also referred to as the Data Access Agreement (DAA). Completion of a DAA by the applicant/s should form part of the application process to the Data Access Committee (DAC). Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Policies” Select the DAC to which this policy will be linked to and fill in the policy information. Submitting your Runs and Analyses This section is only for sequence data submission, for array-based submission it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata Runs Registration Go to the “Raw Reads (Experiments and Runs)” box Click on “Submit Reads” Select “Download spreadsheet template for Read submission” Select the template corresponding to your submission type For the templates you have the option to customise the optional fields. To check their description click on “Show Description “ Download the template and fill in the required information. Example of the runs template: We recommend that Fastq, BAM, and CRAM read files are submitted using Webin-CLI When using this interface instead of Webin-CLI, raw sequences must be uploaded in one of the supported data formats before they can be submitted. The files can be uploaded using FTP or Aspera. The study and the sequenced samples must be pre-registered before the raw reads are submitted. Please note that each individual study and sample should be registered only once. You will be asked to provide information about the sequencing libraries and instruments. Submitting your Dataset This section is only for sequence data submissions, for array based submissions it can be skipped. Please refer to our Submitting array based metadata The dataset describes the data files, defined by the run (EGARXXXXXXXXXXX) and analysis (EGAZXXXXXXXXXXX) accessions that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Data Access Committee and Data Access Policy. As a result, you must have registered your Reads and experiments, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy before submitting your Dataset. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of, for example, a case control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Please contact EGA Helpdesk for further assistance. Go to the “Data Access” box Click on “Register Dataset” Select the Data Access Committee (DAC) and Data access policy Register your dataset After submitting your dataset you should contact the EGA Helpdesk to provide a release date for your dataset. Datasets are automatically held (i.e. not released) unless they are affiliated to a study that has already been released. Edit/update existing submission metadata Go to the “Report” section of the object you would like to edit. Locate the object and click on the arrow under action. An option menu will be displayed. Objects can be edited through their XML or with the WEBIN menu. After an object has been edited, changes would be available on the website until the submission is released again. Please contact the EGA Helpdesk if you require further assistance.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/EGA_webin