12293 results for "free coins ultimate team Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..G9vn"

in 19.97 milliseconds.

• Ultra-deep sequencing of cell-free DNA derived from reference materials and a patient with asymmetric overgrowth

  This dataset contains: Ultra-deep sequencing data using the Duplex sequencing technology of: 1.) SeraSeq cfDNA reference materials with spike-in variants with allele frequencies from 0% to 5% 2.) One cfDNA sample from a CRC patient 3.) One cfDNA sample from a patient with asymmetric overgrowth Paired-end sequencing was performed with 2x151 bp reads on the NextSeq 500 system. Data is provided as mapped .bam files (aligned to GRCh38/hg38).

  Dataset EGAD00001009784

• Evolutionary Genome Analysis of Transformation into Small Cell Carcinomas from Lung Adenocarcinomas

  This dataset includes the high-throughput sequencing data from a study entitled "Clonal History and Genetic Predictors of Transformation into Small Cell Carcinomas from Lung Adenocarcinomas". Whole-genome sequencing libraries were generated by PCR-free methods, and sequencing run was made in HiSeq X or HiSeq 2500 machines. PCR duplicates-marked, indel-realigned, and base-recalibrarted BAM files are provided in our dataset.

  Dataset EGAD00001003315

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

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

  Study phs003524

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024

• National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Human Genetic Cell Repository Human Variation Panels including 100 African-Americans (HD100AA), 100 Caucasians (HD100CAU), 100 Han People of Los Angeles (HD100CHI) and 100 Mexican American Community of Los Angeles (HD100MEX)

  The Human Genetic Cell Repository is sponsored by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) with the mission of supplying scientists with the materials for accelerating disease gene discovery and functional studies. The resources available include highly-characterized, contaminant-free cell cultures and high quality, well-characterized DNA samples derived from these cultures, both subjected to rigorous quality control. The Repository was established in 1972 at Coriell and contains more than 9,500 cell lines, primarily fibroblasts and transformed lymphoblasts. The Repository has a major emphasis on inherited diseases and chromosomally aberrant cell lines. In addition, it contains a large collection dedicated to understanding human variation that includes samples from populations around the world, the CEPH collection, the Polymorphism Discovery Resource, Human Variation and many apparently healthy controls. The Human Variation collection provides cell lines and DNA samples from a variety of populations. The panels of African-Americans (HD100AA) and Caucasians (100CAU) used for this study are comprised of samples present in the Repository that were originally collected over the years from apparently healthy people to be used as "controls", for example, unaffected family members of persons with identified mono-genetic diseases. The samples for the Han people of Los Angeles (HD100CHI) and the Mexican American Community of Los Angeles (HD100MEX), however, were collected relatively recently from volunteers, identified as member of these communities, specifically for use in these panels. The Coriell Genotyping and Microarray Center in conjunction with the NIGMS repository used the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP 6.0 platform to genotype 400 samples from the NIGMS human variation panels. The populations genotyped included Americans of African, Caucasian, Mexican, and Han Chinese ancestry. The Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array detects approximately 940,000 SNPs and provides copy number information for more than 900,000 additional locations across the genome.

  Study phs000211

• 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

• The Oral Microbiome and Head and Neck Cancer

  Oral microbiota may influence head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) development, potentially related to carcinogen metabolism. The human oral cavity hosts a diverse microbiota, including bacteria and fungi. We performed shotgun sequencing and ITS1 sequencing on 236 HNSCC case participants who developed HNSCC during a mean follow-up of 5.1 years and 458 matched controls who remained HNSCC-free. Oral samples were obtained from a prospective nested case-control study within three epidemiological cohorts: the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort (ACS CPS-II), the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), and the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS). Control participants were selected using 2:1 frequency matching based on cohort, age, sex, race and ethnicity, and time since oral sample collection.

  Study phs004018

• Integrative single-cell and cell-free plasma RNA transcriptomics elucidates placental cellular dynamics

  10 single-cell placental RNA libraries were generated using the Chromium Single Cell 3′ Reagent Kit (10X Genomics). All single-cell libraries were sequenced with a customized paired end with dual indexing (98/14/8/10-bp) format according to the recommendation by 10X Genomics. The data were aligned using the Cell Ranger Single-Cell Software Suite (version 1.0). Moreover, plasma RNA from 22 samples were extracted using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen). cDNA reverse transcription, second-strand synthesis, and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) library construction were performed using the Ovation RNA-seq System V2 (NuGEN) kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol. For alignment of the plasma RNA library, adaptor sequences and low-quality bases on the fragment ends (i.e., quality score < 5) were trimmed, and reads were aligned to the human reference genome (hg19) using the TopHat (v2.0.4) software. All aligned reads were deposited in bam file format.

  Dataset EGAD00001003705

• The light chain IgLV3-21 defines a new poor prognostic subgroup in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: results from a multicenter study

  Purpose: Unmutated (UM) immunoglobulin heavy chain region (IgHV) status or IgHV3-21 gene usage is associated with poor prognosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Interestingly, IgHV3-21 is often co-expressed with light chain IgLV3-21 which is potentially able to trigger cell-autonomous BCR-mediated signaling. However this light chain has never been characterized independently of the heavy chain IgHV3-21.Experimental Design: we performed total RNA sequencing to characterize IgLV3-21 patients (n=32) and investigated IgLV3-21 prognostic impact in terms of treatment-free (TFS) and overall (OS) survival in 3 other independent cohorts for a total of 813 patients where IgLV3-21 presence was tested by real-time PCR and confirmed by Sanger sequencing.Results: Using total RNA sequencing to characterize 32 patients with high-risk CLL, we found a high frequency (28%) of IgLV3-21 rearrangements. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed that these patients present higher expression of genes responsible for ribosome biogenesis and translation initiation (P<0.0001) and MYC target genes (P=0.0003). Patients with IgLV3-21 rearrangements displayed a significantly shorter TFS and OS (P<0.05), in particular in IgHV mutated patients. In each of the 3 independent validation cohorts (n=813), we showed that IgLV3-21 rearrangements -similar to UM IgHV status- conferred poor prognosis compared to mutated IgHV (P<0.0001). Importantly, we confirmed in multivariate analysis that this was independent of IgHV mutational status or subset #2 stereotyped receptor (P<0.0001). Conclusions: We therefore demonstrate for the first time that a light chain can impact on CLL prognosis and that IgLV3-21 light chain usage defines a new poor prognostic subgroup in CLL.

  Study EGAS00001002894

• Histone chaperone CHAF1A promotes proliferation and tumorigenicity in gastric cancer and impacts prognosis via context-depedent regulation of gene expression

  The histone chaperone CHAF1A is associated with some tumors, but its mechanisms in tumor biology remain elusive. Gastric cancer (GC) has significant heterogeneity among patients, and novel prognostic markers and therapeutic targets may improve its outcomes. The role of CHAF1A in GC is unknown. In this study, we demonstrated that CHAF1A was overexpressed in GC tissues accompanied by low expression of wild-type P53 and high expression of the proliferation marker MKI67. In vitro, CHAF1A knockdown inhibited cell proliferation, induced cell cycle arrest and promoted apoptosis, while CHAF1A overexpression had contrary effects. In vivo, CHAF1A knockdown inhibited tumorigenicity of GC cells. A microarray assay with CHAF1A inhibition and a PathScan signaling antibody array with CHAF1A overexpression showed that CHAF1A inhibited the P53 pathway, activated stress response and induced glycolytic metabolism. In 665 patients, the expression level of CHAF1A protein was an independent predictor for overall survival and disease-free survival in non-cardia GC and also had survival associations in patients with small or perineural invasion-negative tumors. Tumor mRNA analyses based on next-generation sequencing in patients indicated that CHAF1A promoted the Warburg effect by depressing oxidative phosphorylation and increasing glycolysis. Furthermore, the heterogeneous clinical significance of CHAF1A among patient subgroups was associated with its differential regulation of gene expression involved with glycolysis and cell proliferation and survival, indicating that the role of CHAF1A is depended on patient characteristics. These results reveal critical roles and clinical values for CHAF1A in GC. CHAF1A may have context-dependent effects in GC, which increases understandings for GC heterogeneity.

  Study EGAS00001003064