11006 results for "fc points to coins calculator Visit Buyfc26coins.com Bardzo pod wrażeniem jakości usług..UK7B"

in 35.50 milliseconds.

• eMERGE Network Phase III: HRC SNV and 1000 Genomes SV Imputed Array Data of 105,000 Participants

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in June 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE Phase III (June 2015 - June 2020) consists of 10 study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. Included in this study are: Human Reference Consortium (HRC) single nucleotide variants and 1000 Genomes structural variants imputed array data of 105,108 eMERGE participants from nine Phase III study sites and three Phase II study site collaborators. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Case/control status for the following phenotypes: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection. Study sites and participants include: Boston Children's Hospital: The Gene Partnership (TGP) is a prospective longitudinal registry at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) to study the genetic and environmental contributions to childhood health and disease, collect genetic information on a large number of children who have been phenotyped, and implement the Informed Cohort and the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB). The term "The Gene Partnership" reflects a partnership between researchers and participants. Children seen at BCH are offered enrollment, as are their parents and siblings. DNA is collected on all enrollees. BCH has a comprehensive EMR system, and virtually all inpatient and outpatient data are captured electronically. Clinical data in the BCH EMR is loaded in the i2b2 data warehouse which is available to investigators. Cases, phenotypes, and covariates are ascertained using the i2b2 database. Participants at BCH in TGP have consented to receive any research result and/or incidental finding that arises from studies using TGP that is approved by the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB) and is in accordance with the participants'preferences;results are returned through the Personally Controlled Health Record (PCHR). BCH and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) have partnered as the Pediatric Alliance for Genomic and Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Research (PAGER) site for the eMERGE Phase II network for pediatric institutions, and the cohort for eMERGE at BCH is TGP. Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children's Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic health records (EHRs). EHRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston's Children's Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a pediatric institution dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. CCHMC brings an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE III who are committed to gain a better understanding of the genesis of disease and to elucidate the mechanisms of diseases that afflict children, specifically pediatric disease phenotypes that will leverage the available eMERGE adult genomic data and electronic medical records (EMRs) to discover meaningful use results. Generation of EMR phenotype algorithms, informed by natural language processing, using heuristic and machine learning methods is ongoing. CCHMC has developed tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examined the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and developed clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. The success of these eMERGE III studies is enhanced by the ongoing institutional investment made in the CCHMC Biobank, the comprehensive EMR (EPIC), the i2b2 de-identified medical record data warehouse, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. Columbia University: Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian (CUMC/NYP) Hospital system is one of the nation's largest and most comprehensive hospital systems with over 2 million inpatient and outpatient yearly visits that serves a racially and ethnically diverse urban patient population. The Columbia University GENomic Integration with EHR (GENIE) research study contributed and shared phenotype and genotype data for individuals who were recruited as part of a diverse array of initiatives within the hospital, including Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS), Pediatric Cardiac Genomic Consortium (PCGC), Caribbean Hispanics with Familial and Sporadic Late Onset Alzheimer's disease (AD), Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP), and Genetics of Chronic Kidney Disease study. Some of these individuals had kidney or neurological problems, some were healthy adult volunteers with self-reported health status information from the medically underserved Northern Manhattan community, and others were pediatric patients with cardiac conditions. For the kidney disease cohort, patients with the diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and healthy controls were recruited to the Columbia University CKD biobank. For the NOMAS cohort, eligible participants were stroke-free, were 40 years old, and resided for at least 3 months in a Northern Manhattan household with a telephone. The PCGC study recruited parent-offspring trios with pediatric probands diagnosed with congenital heart defects (CHD). For the Caribbean Hispanics with Alzheimer's disease project, individuals from families affected by AD and with sporadic AD were recruited, along with unrelated controls. Samples for the ADSP study have been selected from well-characterized cohorts of individuals with AD diagnosis. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Partners Health Care (Harvard): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 60,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 100 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington with the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~8,073.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes n=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (n=1,002), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo Vascular Disease Biorepository is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval;this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was <1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Case control study of venous thromboembolism (PI John Heit) Controls from a case control study of pancreatic cancer (PI Gloria Petersen) Mayo Clinic Biobank. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants'DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: BioVU, Vanderbilt's DNA databank, was designed as an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt's EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations. BioVU is currently the largest single site DNA collection world-wide, at >235,000 samples as of spring 2017.

  Study phs001584

• 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

• Genome-Wide Association Study of HCC in Non-Asian USA Population

  This GWAS of HCC relied on existing biological and data resources from 7 USA sites and one Canadian site which allows for the integration of genetic and environmental data. Total of 2199 case patients and 1103 non cancer controls were genotyped. Case patients are defined as patients with pathological or radiological diagnosis of HCC with and without chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Study was restricted to Caucasian population without prior infection with chronic HBV infection. All DNA samples were extracted from peripheral blood. Study population of the participated sites are: Site-1: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center A hospital based-case-control study was initiated at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2000 and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Study design was previously described in detailed (1-3). Written informed consent for an interview and for a biological sample was obtained from each participant. At time of diagnosis prior to treatment exposure. Case patients were recruited from the population of patients with newly diagnosed HCC who were evaluated and treated at the institution's gastrointestinal medical and surgical oncology outpatient clinics. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of HCC, U.S. residency, and the ability to communicate in English. Patients with concurrent or past history of other types of cancers were excluded. Control subjects were healthy spouses of patients with cancers other than liver, gastrointestinal, lung, or head and neck (smoking-related cancers) undergoing treatment at our institution. Eligibility criteria for control subjects were the same as those for patients, except that control subjects could not have ever had cancer. A short, structured questionnaire was used to screen potential control subjects on the basis of eligibility criteria. Control subjects and patients were recruited simultaneously. Case patients and control subjects were interviewed by well-trained interviewers who followed a written protocol to guide ascertainment and reduce surveillance, interviewer, and recall bias. No proxy interviews were conducted. The interviewers used a structured and validated questionnaire to collect information about demographic characteristics and potential risk factors for HCC such as personal smoking history, alcohol use, medical history, occupational history, and family history of cancer. Blood samples from cases and controls were tested for HBV and HCV. HCV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen were detected by use of a third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL). Important clinical information were retrieved from patients' medical records. Total of 1188 case patients and 278 controls from MD Anderson study were genotyped. Site-2: Mayo Clinic Case patients and controls included in the study from Mayo clinic were recruited as part of Mayo International Hepatobiliary Neoplasia Register and Biorepository. Only USA patients and controls were participated. All cases and controls signed informed consent indicating their willingness to participate in genetic studies. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from participants and retrieved from medical records. Total of 522 HCC case patients and 182 controls were genotyped in this study. Site-3: Toronto University Molecular Epidemiology of Hepatobiliary Tumors (HBT study, CAPCR 09-0289) is a hospital-based study that includes 1710 patients diagnosed with liver, bile duct or gallbladder adenocarcinoma (Hepatocellular carcinoma - HCC; cholangiocarcinoma - CCA; and gall bladder adenocarcinoma -GBCa) recruited at University Health Network (UHN) between 2009 and 2018. HBT study is a prospective study of cancer patients that collects self-reported demographic and epidemiological data, medical records/clinical information and blood samples for research purposes. Eligible patients recruited between 2009 and March 15 2016 were selected to participate in the Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GWAS in HCC, CAPCR 15-9943-CE), a sub-study of the HBT study. Eligible prospective patients recruited after March 15 2016 signed the Addendum to the HBT consent form and became eligible to participate in the GWAS in HCC study. Total of 271 cases and 21 controls were genotyped from Toronto University Site-4: University of Pittsburgh The design of the study has been described previously (4-6). Briefly, this population-based study enrolled 120 HCC patients and 230 matched controls from black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white residents of Los Angeles County who were between 18 and 74 years of age at diagnosis from January 1995 through December 2001. HCC Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. We sought to recruit up to two control subjects per case from the neighborhoods where HCC patients resided at the time of diagnosis, who were matched to the index case by sex, age (within 5 years), and race (Hispanic white, non-Hispanic white, black). Blood samples (plasma and buffy coat), medical and lifestyle factors were collected from all consenting participants. Total of 65 cases and 60 controls were genotyped in this study Site-5: South Western Dallas Under IRB approval, HCC Cases and controls were prospectively collected since 2015 from the outpatient Liver clinics from Parkland Health and Hospital System and UT Southwestern Medical Center, two large health systems in Dallas TX. A Total of 31 cases and 29 controls were genotyped from site 5. Site-6: Columbia University HCC patients from Columbia are those recruited as part of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center Database Shared Resource which seeks to recruit all cancer patients for potential future studies. The PI is Dr. Katherine Crew AAAL5871. This resource collects sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical data on patients as well as a blood sample. Those who indicated on their consent form that they would participate in genetic studies were included. Total of 79 case patients with HCC were genotyped from Columbia University. Site-7: University of Michigan The study population included from University of Michigan were included from a prospective study of with chronic HCV infection recruited in Ann Arbor Patients who had under- gone liver transplantation, known coinfection with HIV, life expectancy <12 months due to extra-hepatic illnesses, or were receiving HCV treatment at enrolment, were excluded. Protocol, surveys, and data forms were developed where each enrolled patient completed the same questionnaire All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee at the University of Michigan. Detailed study description was previously published (7). Total of 44 cases and 347 controls were genotyped Site-8: Veteran Administration Medical Center in Houston This research including written informed consent form was jointly approved by Institutional Review Boards for the Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas. Study details have been previously published (8). Briefly, we prospectively recruited consecutive HCV-infected veterans prior to their previously scheduled HCV clinic visit at a large tertiary care VA medical center between May 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012. Patients completed a research assistant (RA) administered survey interrogating medical and risk factor history including lifetime alcohol use, had anthropometric measurements taken, and completed a fasting venipuncture for performance of the FibroSure-ActiTest as a measure of hepatic pathology. We restricted our current analysis to individuals who were: (1) White male veterans between 18 and 70 years; (2) had no history of HCC, liver transplant, decompensated liver disease including ascites, dementia, or psychosis; (3) were serologically-confirmed to have chronic HCV and to be negative for both HIV and active HBV infection; (4) were not currently receiving anti-HCV pharmacotherapy; and (5) had FibroSURE testing shown F3/F4 fibrosis consistent with cirrhosis.

  Study phs001744

• A Study to Assess the Cardiovascular, Cognitive, and Subjective Effects of Atomoxetine in Combination with Intravenous Methamphetamine

  The Study to Assess the Cardiovascular, Cognitive, and Subjective Effects of Atomoxetine in Combination with Intravenous Methamphetamine started in 2007 and ended in 2011. It was a small pilot study that included methamphetamine abusing individuals and healthy control participants aged 18-50 years. Participants who qualified over the telephone were scheduled to visit the London Laboratory at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior for the In-Person Screening Phase. The screening procedures, usually scheduled over two visits, determined if participants were eligible to complete the subsequent study visits. Both groups completed identical screening procedures, including a SCID diagnostic interview to rule out any major psychiatric disorders. Methamphetamine users also answered questionnaires specific to their drug use. Urine toxicology for marijuana, opiates, cocaine, methamphetamine, and benzodiazepines were monitored at the beginning and throughout the study. Additionally, participants had blood samples to test for Rapid Plasma Reagin (exposure to syphilis), purified protein derivative (PPD), HIV and Hepatitis-C (HCV). Positive test results were relayed by a study physician and resulted in termination from continuing in the study. The inpatient portion of the study lasted a total of 24 days. To confirm compliance with abstinence from illicit and prescription drug use for the duration of the study, urine and breath alcohol testing was performed for both inpatient (methamphetamine users) and outpatient (healthy control) groups. Each subject was randomized to receive either atomoxetine (80 mg daily) or placebo. During inpatient days of the study, a study physician oversaw research subjects daily and experimental procedures were conducted in the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC). During drug administration sessions, heart rate and blood pressure were assessed at frequent intervals. Experimental sessions lasted around three hours and were conducted at approximately the same time of day for a given participant. Lunch was provided to participants at 11:30am with the prohibition of caffeine on study days involving methamphetamine administration. Participants were provided with smoke breaks as needed to assure that acute nicotine withdrawal did not negatively impact performance on cognitive testing. The following outlines the day to day procedures for a methamphetamine inpatient: Phase I Inpatient Study (15 days total) Days 1-3: On the day of admission, participants received blood tests and an EKG in order to determine that they had no occult medical conditions which would make their participation in the study medically contraindicated. A three day washout period was provided at the beginning of the study to establish an appropriate methamphetamine-free baseline for testing. Days 4-6: Participants completed cognitive test batteries to assess inhibitory control including self-report measures and cognitive testing, as well as up to three MRI scanning sessions. Day 7: On day 7, at 9AM and 1PM, participants received methamphetamine in a single-blinded condition. It was administered as two IV infusions of 15mg separated by a 60min break. The total dose of IV methamphetamine was 30mg. Participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in the absence of study medication. Day 8: On day 8 we evaluated the safety and residual effects of the methamphetamine administered on the previous day. Days 9-10: After demonstrating medical and psychiatric stability of the initial methamphetamine infusion, participants were then randomized to receive placebo or atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) under double-blind conditions, which would be given at 8AM on both study days. Days 11-12: On days 11 and 12, participants remained in the GCRC and took two doses of test compound atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) at 8AM and 8PM. On the morning of day 12, participants completed a series of cognitive testing. Day 13: On day 13, participants remained in the GCRC, and took two doses of the test compound atomoxetine (0 or 40mg) at 8AM and 8PM. At 9AM and noon, they received methamphetamine under double-blind conditions administered non-contingently as two infusions of 0 or 15mg by IV (intravenously), with each infusion separated by 60min. The total dose of IV methamphetamine that each participant received was 30mg. As before, participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in those participants receiving study medication. Day 14: On day 14 at 8AM, participants received their final dosing of the first test compound (atomoxetine 0 or 40mg). At 9AM and 1PM, participants selected between methamphetamine infusion or money using double-blind conditions in a multiple-choice self-administration paradigm. Participants were able to take up to two infusions of 0 or 15mg of methamphetamine, separated by 60min. The total dose of IV methamphetamine that each participant received on day 14 was 30mg. Participants were clinically evaluated by continuous cardiac telemetry, serial EKG and measurement of vital signs, during and after infusions, in order to determine the medical safety of methamphetamine infusion in those participants receiving study medication. At 5pm on day 14 discharge laboratory studies were drawn. Day 15: On day 15, a final EKG was performed as well as a review of discharge laboratory studies, including review of the EKG and continued medical and psychiatric stability. Upon clearance from a physician, participants were discharged on day 15. Participants spent at least 2 weeks (14 days) out of the hospital prior to returning to the UCLA GCRC for inpatient Phase II. Phase II Inpatient Study (9 days total) Day 1-2: On the day of re-admission, participants received blood tests and an EKG. A two day washout period was provided at the beginning of the study to establish an appropriate methamphetamine free condition for safe administration of the second test compound condition. Days 3-4: On days 3 and 4, given medical stability, participants were then switched to the opposite test compound (atomoxetine 0 or 40mg) under double-blind conditions, in the same manner as in Days 9-10 in Phase I. Days 5-6: Same procedure as in Days 11-12 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 7: Same procedure as in Day13 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 8: Same procedure as in Day14 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. Day 9: Same procedure as in Day14 in Phase I but with opposite medication condition. For healthy control participants, the study consisted of 30 days or fewer of out-patient testing. Healthy control participants had an extensive screening, including a history and physical exam performed by a study physician, an EKG, and laboratory studies performed to assess for medical or psychiatric conditions. Control participants meeting criteria were invited back to UCLA to undergo cognitive testing, and some participants received fMRI scans. Participants were required to refrain from illicit and prescription drug use for the duration of the study, which was confirmed with urine toxicology and breath alcohol level testing on examination days. Caffeine was restricted on study days for least 2 hours prior to cognitive testing and MRI scans. Participants were permitted to drink their normal daily intake of caffeine, given the caveat above. On study days, cigarette smoking was permitted to match conditions used with methamphetamine users. The incorporation of smoke breaks during the test day assured that acute nicotine withdrawal did not negatively impact performance on cognitive tests or neuroimaging. The following outlines procedures for healthy control participants: For normal controls, participation involved one day of outpatient screening, and one day of baseline cognitive testing and possible MRI scans. After these procedures were completed, participants were randomized to the first test compound (atomoxetine 40mg or placebo), to be taken once daily in the morning for 2 days. It was then increased to twice daily for the next 3 days, followed by a final dose (40mg or placebo) on the sixth day of study medication. Participants were also asked to bring their pill packages to assess compliance with the study medication. Additionally, control participants completed a series of repeated-measures cognitive testing (on placebo or atomoxetine, respectively) and possibly two fMRI sessions (separated by a short break). After at least a four-day washout period, control participants were instructed to start the opposite test compound (atomoxetine 40mg or placebo), again to be taken once daily in the morning for two days, then twice daily for 3 days, reaching the final dose (40mg or placebo) of the second test compound in the morning. Participants were again asked to bring their pill packages to assess compliance and had blood drawn to assess atomoxetine levels. Control participants then completed another series of cognitive testing and fMRI testing sessions. They were subsequently discharged from the study. Normal control participants returned two weeks after completion of both study phases in order to complete assessments to their physical and psychological status following treatment.

  Study phs001195

• Development and Use of Network Infrastructure for High-Throughput GWA Studies

  The "Development and Use of Network Infrastructure for High-Throughput GWA Studies" project is collaboration between Group Health Cooperative (GH), the University of Washington (UW), and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC). It is one of 5 sites participating in The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) with additional funding from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). The overall eMERGE project is designed to assess whether linking biorepositories of patients in healthcare delivery systems with electronic medical records (EMRs) is an efficient strategy for high-throughput genome wide association (GWA) studies and whether information can be pooled across sites. The primary phenotype in the Group Health/UW Aging and Dementia eMERGE study project is dementia. Phenotyped participants originated from four population-based sources. Seattle-area members of GH (a large integrated health care system in Washington State) consented and enrolled in 1) the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Patient Registry (ADPR) and 2) the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study, 3) Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP), a population-based DNA, plasma and serum biobank of 20,000 adults, 4) Vanderbilt's BioVU, a de-identified DNA biobank. The ADPR (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is a population-based registry of incident dementia cases designed to identify all new dementia cases within GH from 1987 to 1996. Potential dementia cases were identified through referrals from primary care physicians, mental health services, and neurologists, as well as review of CT scans, neurology, emergency room, geriatrician, and mental health clinic logs, and hospital discharge diagnoses. Medical history, physical, laboratory testing, and neuropsychological testing were performed on all consenting potential cases. These data were reviewed by a consensus conference including a neuropsychologist, study physicians, and an epidemiologist. After discussion of the case, dementia status is assigned using DSM-III-R criteria. Alzheimer's disease status was assigned using the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke-Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria. The study base of the ADPR population was stable with an attrition rate of less than 1%/year. The ACT study (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is an ongoing community-based cohort study designed to determine the incidence of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), other types of dementia, and cognitive impairment and to determine risk factors for these conditions. The original cohort of 2,581 was enrolled in 1994-1996. An expansion cohort of 811 was enrolled in 2000-2002. Continuous enrollment to keep 2,000 persons enrolled and at-risk for dementia outcomes was begun in 2005. To date the study has accrued more than 4,000 participants. Dementia-free participants are enrolled in this cohort and evaluated every two years by study personnel with many evaluations including an assessment of cognitive functioning using the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), which is an extended version of the Mini-Mental State Examination that has been widely used in epidemiological studies of the elderly. Persons with CASI scores lower than 86 or in whom interviewers suspect unusual cognitive decline are followed up with dementia diagnostic evaluations which include physical and neurological examinations and neuropsychological tests. Medical records are reviewed, and laboratory tests and neuroimaging are obtained if not available. The dementia diagnoses and dementia subtypes are determined during a consensus conference attended by the examining clinicians and other study physicians, a neuropsychologist, and research nurse. After discussion of the case, dementia status is assigned using DSM-IV criteria. Alzheimer's disease status was assigned using NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Individuals diagnosed with dementia are seen again one year following diagnosis using the same procedures. Individuals not diagnosed with dementia are returned to the pool of at-risk individuals and are seen at their next routinely scheduled biennial visit. The ACT sub-sample is stable; for the original cohort, median enrollment in GH was 19 years prior to joining the ACT study, and 85% of the cohort has ≥ 10 years of GH enrollment. DNA for the ADPR participants were obtained through a companion study, Genetic Differences in Cases and Controls (PI: Walter Kukull; NIH/NIA R01 AG007584). DNA obtained through both studies were extracted from blood using Gentra Systems Puregene methods. DNA concentration is determined by UV optical density. All samples are checked for quality by OD 260/280 ratio. For long-term storage, samples are aliquoted and stored at -70°C. The Marshfield study, Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP), a population-based DNA, plasma and serum biobank of 20,000 adults. PMRP was started in 2002 as a 3 Phase project. Completed in April 2004, the objectives of Phase I were to build and develop a large population-based biobank with DNA, plasma and serum samples to facilitate genomics research. Phase 1 was also to educate, inform and consult with the Marshfield Epidemiologic Study Area population and communities concerning potential studies, create the DNA foundation of the personalized medicine database and build the bioinformatics tools to store securely and analyze genotypic and phenotypic data. Phase I tasks included operation of the ethics and security advisory board, scientific advisory board and community advisory group. More than 18,000 residents aged 18 and above from 19 different zip codes surrounding Marshfield, WI were invited to participate in Phase I. After providing written informed consent, participants completed brief questionnaires that included questions about demographics, some environmental exposures, family history of disease, and adverse drug reactions, as well as family members living in the area. Participants provided 50ml of blood from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum samples were stored. The informed consent process allowed access to electronic medical records and included language about non-disclosure of personal research results. A tick-off box was included so that participants could either allow or decline subsequent recontact for future research studied. The objectives of Phase II are to create the phenotypic database, establish the scientific and administrative infrastructure to support genetic mapping of the DNA and the initial discovery projects and genotype a sufficient portion of the genetic material to support these discovery projects. The objectives of Phase III are to expand the discovery projects, complete the genotyping of the genetic database and expand physician/health care provider education and community consultation. The Vanderbilt BioVU model uses discarded blood leftover from clinical care and de-identified clinical information, both of which are tracked with a Research Unique Identifier that is permanently disconnected from the medical record number used to generate it. The Vanderbilt IRB determined that the project does not qualify as "human subject" research under §46.102(f)(1)(2). The program has been reviewed by OHRP twice (the latest immediately prior to launch), and the determination of the Vanderbilt IRB that the project is consistent with the 8/10/2004 guidance has been validated. The model includes a simple opt out mechanism developed for patients who do not wish to have their samples included. Planning (including community involvement, ethics and IRB discussions, focus groups, development of operating procedures and pilot studies to assess them) began in May 2004, and the resource commenced sample collection in February 2007 and as of May 2009 contains approximately 56,000 samples. The current resource will be available to all Vanderbilt investigators who sign a Data Use Agreement. The resource represents Vanderbilt's broad patient population and thus provides a potential resource for research in a range of common and rare diseases as well as drug response or medication safety. BioVU patient protection model: There has been extensive involvement by the ethics community and the IRB to put in place procedures to provide privacy protection. The overall protection plan is multifaceted and includes a combination of technology and policy: (1) creation of the SD described above; (2) return of only the specific clinical data items requested by investigators (rather than the complete de-identified chart); (3) submission of any specific proposed project to the IRB and to a separate protocol review committee, both of which must approve; (4) implementing a Data Use Agreement that permits only approved queries and data analyses, specifically prohibits attempts at re-identification (at the risk of institutional sanctions), and mandates redeposit of all genetic information generated in a research study back into a genomic database; and (5) tracking and auditing all use.

  Study phs000234

• 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-naïve 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

• Submission FAQ

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

• 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 — under the direction of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NHLBI — 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 — 5,124 of the original participants' children and the spouses of these children — 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® 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' 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® 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 'shareid' will allow you to merge the simulated phenotype data with the Problem 2 genotype data, and reconstruction of the pedigrees using the distributed 'triplet_sim' file or for larger families' 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

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with >261,000 consents that allow return of results to >84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world's largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n>450,000), specifically from >100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n>12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute's Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (<1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level >155 or >120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients' health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• What is a DAC?

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

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