16146 results for "free fc coins and points Visit Buyfc26coins.com Alennukset toistuvista ostoista..p4v2"

in 38.79 milliseconds.

• Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Colorectal Cancer with Focus of Rare and Less Frequent Variants

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies conducted in North America and Europe. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, replicating and fine-mapping of GWAS discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 20 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. The Black Women's Health Study (BWHS): Is the largest follow-up study of the health of African-American women (Cozier et al., 2004; Rosenberg et al., 1995) [PMID: 15018884; PMID: 7722208]. The purpose is to identify and evaluate causes and preventives of cancers and other serious illnesses in African-American women. Among the diseases being studied are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, uterine fibroids, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cardiovascular disease. The study began in 1995, when 59,000 black women from all parts of the United States enrolled through postal questionnaires. The women provided demographic and health data on the 1995 baseline questionnaire, including information on weight, height, smoking, drinking, contraceptive use, use of other selected medications, illnesses, reproductive history, physical activity, diet, use of health care, and other factors. The participants are followed through biennial questionnaires to determine the occurrence of cancers and other illnesses and to update information on risk factors. Self-reports of cancer are confirmed through medical records and state cancer registry records. Mouthwash-swish samples, as a source of DNA, were obtained from ~26,000 BWHS participants in 2002-2007. DNA was isolated from the mouthwash-swish samples at the Boston University Molecular Core Genetics Laboratory using the QIAAMP DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). All incident colorectal cancer cases with a DNA sample were included in the present analysis. Two controls per case, selected from among BWHS participants free of colorectal cancer at end of follow-up, were matched to cases on year of birth (+/- 2 years) and geographical region of residence (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total 209 colorectal cancer cases and 423 controls were sent for genotyping. Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II): The Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease, is a prospective cohort designed to identify biomarkers and other factors associated with risk of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions (Kakourou et al., 2015) [PMID: 26220152]. 32,894 participants were recruited from May through October 1989 from Washington County, Maryland and surrounding communities. Colorectal cancer cases (n = 297) and matched controls (n = 296) were identified between 1989 and 2000 among participants in the CLUE II cohort of Washington County, Maryland. Colorectal Cancer Study of Austria (CORSA): In the ongoing colorectal cancer study of Austria (CORSA), more than 13,000 Caucasian participants have been recruited within the province-wide screening project "Burgenland Prevention Trial of Colorectal Disease with Immunological Testing" (B-PREDICT) since 2003 (Hofer et al., 2011) [PMID: 21422235]. All inhabitants of the Austrian province Burgenland aged between 40 and 80 years are annually invited to participate in fecal immunochemical testing and haemoccult positive screening participants are invited for colonoscopy. CORSA includes genomic DNA and plasma of colorectal cancer cases, low-risk and high-risk adenomas, and colonoscopy-negative controls. Controls received a complete colonoscopy and were free of colorectal cancer or polyps. CORSA participants have been recruited in the four KRAGES hospitals in Burgenland, Austria, and additionally, at the Medical University of Vienna (Department of Surgery), the Viennese hospitals "Rudolfstiftung" and the "Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Sud", and at the Medical University of Graz (Department of Internal Medicine). 1403 colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal adenoma cases, and 1404 matched controls were selected for the study. Distribution of factors sex and age (5 year strata) were evenly matched between cases and controls. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2014) [PMID: 12015775; PMID: 25472679]. At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. A total of 360 cases and 359 controls were selected for this study. Czech Republic Colorectal Cancer Study (Czech Republic CCS): Cases with positive colonoscopy results for malignancy, confirmed by histology as colon or rectal carcinomas, were recruited between September 2003 and May 2012 in several oncological departments in the Czech Republic (Prague, Pilsen, Benesov, Brno, Liberec, Ples, Pribram, Usti and Labem, and Zlin). Two control groups, sampled at the same time of cases recruitment, were included in the study. The first group consisted of hospital-based individuals with a negative colonoscopy result for malignancy or idiopathic bowel diseases. The reasons for the colonoscopy were: i) positive fecal occult blood test, ii) hemorrhoids, iii) abdominal pain of unknown origin, and iv) macroscopic bleeding. The second control group consisted of healthy blood donor volunteers from a blood donor center in Prague. All individuals were subjected to standard examinations to verify the health status for blood donation and were cancer-free at the time of the sampling. Details of CRC cases and controls have been reported previously (Vymetalkova et al., 2014; Naccarati et al., 2016; Vymetalkova et al., 2016) [PMID: 24755277; PMID: 26735576; PMID: 27803053]. All subjects were informed and provided written consent to participate in the study. They approved the use of their biological samples for genetic analyses, according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The design of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. All subjects included in the study were Caucasians and comprised 1792 cases and 1764 matched controls. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age and sex. Age was matched on +-5 years, whereas sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex. Early Detection Research Network (EDRN): The aim of the EDRN initiative is to develop and sustain a biorepository for support of translational research (Amin et al., 2010) [PMID: 21031013]. High-quality biospecimens were accrued and annotated with pertinent clinical, epidemiologic, molecular and genomic information. A user-friendly annotation tool and query tool was developed for this purpose. The various components of this annotation tool include: CDEs are developed from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Checklists and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACR) standards. The CDEs provides semantic and syntactic interoperability of the data sets by describing them in the form of metadata or data descriptor. A total of 352 colorectal case samples and 399 controls were selected for this study. Controls were matched to CRC cases based on age and sex. The EPICOLON Consortium (EPICOLON): The EPICOLON Consortium comprises a prospective, multicentre and population-based epidemiology survey of the incidence and features of CRC in the Spanish population (Fernandez-Rozadilla et al., 2013) [PMID: 23350875]. Cases were selected as patients with de novo histologically confirmed diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease-related CRC, and cases where patients or family refused to participate in the study were excluded. Hospital-based controls were recruited through the blood collection unit of each hospital, together with cases. All of the controls were confirmed to have no history of cancer or other neoplasm and no reported family history of CRC. Controls were randomly selected and matched with cases for hospital, sex and age (+- 5 years). A total of 370 cases and 370 controls were selected for genotyping. Hawaii Adenoma Study: For this adenoma study, two flexible-sigmoidoscopy screening clinics were first used to recruit participants on Oahu, Hawaii. Adenoma cases were identified either from the baseline examination at the Hawaii site of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial during 1996-2000 or at the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii's Gastroenterology Screening Clinic during 1995-2007. In addition, starting in 2002 and up to 2007, we also approached for recruitment all eligible patients who underwent a colonoscopy in the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Gastroenterology Department. Cases were patients with histologically confirmed first-time adenoma(s) of the colorectum and were of Japanese, Caucasian or Hawaiian race/ethnicity. Controls were selected among patients with a normal colorectum and were individually matched to the cases on age at exam, sex, race/ethnicity, screening date (+-3 months) and clinic and type of examination (colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy). We recruited 1016 adenoma cases (67.8% of all eligible) and 1355 controls (69.2% of all eligible); 889 cases and 1169 controls agreed to give a blood and 29 cases and 34 controls, a mouthwash sample. A total of 989 cases and 1185 controls were genotyped for this study. Columbus-area HNPCC Study (HNPCC, OSUMC): Patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at six participating hospitals were eligible for this study, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis were not eligible for this study. These six hospitals perform the vast majority of all operations for CRC in the Columbus metropolitan area (population 1.7 million). The institutional review board at all participating hospitals approved the research protocol and consent form in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Briefly, during the period of January 1999 through August 2004, 1,566 eligible patients with CRC were accrued to the study (Hampel et al., 2008) [PMID 18809606]. A total of 1472 colorectal cancer samples had enough blood DNA remaining to be sent for genotyping. Control samples were provided by the Ohio State University Medical Center%#39;s (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank. The Columbus Area Controls Sample Bank is a collection of control samples for use in human genetics research that includes both donors' anonymized biological specimens and linked phenotypic data. The data and samples are collected under the protocol "Collection and Storage of Controls for Genetics Research Studies", which is approved by the Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board at OSUMC. Recruitment takes place in OSUMC primary care and internal medicine clinics. If individuals agree to participate, they provide written informed consent, complete a questionnaire that includes demographic, medical and family history information, and donate a blood sample. 4-7 ml of blood is drawn into each of 3 ACD Solution A tubes and is used for genomic DNA extraction and the establishment of an EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell culture, cell pellet in Trizol, and plasma. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1:1. Matching was done on age at reference time (age_ref), race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on +-5 years. Sex and race were matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race with 1:1 ratio. Since controls are fewer than cases, one control is matched on 2 cases at most. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses' Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990) [PMID: 2090285]. Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma 1 cm or larger in diameter and/or with tubulovillous, villous, or highgrade dysplasia/carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month/ year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. In total, 159 advanced adenoma cases and 109 controls were selected for genotyping. Leeds Colorectal Cancer Study (LCCS): Following local ethical approval, colorectal cancer cases were recruited from 1997 until 2012 in Leeds, UK through surgical clinics. Initially, funding was provided by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (subsequently the Food Standards Agency) and Imperial Cancer Research Fund (subsequently Cancer Research UK). Recruitment also occurred similarly in Dundee, Perth and York between the periods of 1997 and 2001 using the same protocol and the data and samples were combined. Pathologically confirmed cases were consented at outpatient clinics, providing information on known and postulated risk factors for colorectal cancer (diet, lifestyle and family history) as well as providing a blood sample for DNA. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing diverticular disease and an inability to complete the questionnaire. The General Practitioners of cases (all UK residents have a nominated General Practitioner to whom to refer initial medical queries) and these GPs were asked to send letters to other persons on their patient list of the same gender and born within 5 years of the case. Subsequently to enhance the number of controls, we systematically invited patients from selected GP practices. Diet was assessed in cases and controls using an extensive dietary and lifestyle questionnaire modified by that produced by the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer (EPIC). The frequency that each specific food items were eaten was recorded and we also obtained average fruit and vegetable consumption as a cross-check. In total, 1591 cases and 739 controls provided a DNA sample. The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I/II): The North Carolina Colon Cancer Studies (NCCCS I- colon and NCCCS II-rectal) were population-based case-control studies conducted in 33 counties of North Carolina. Cases were identified using the rapid case ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon (cecum through sigmoid colon) between October 1996 and September 2000 were classified as potential cases in the NCCCS I. The NCCCS II included patients with a first diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, or rectum (hereafter collectively referred to as rectal cancer) between May 2001 and September 2006. Additional eligibility requirements were: aged 40-80 years, residence in one of the 33 counties, ability to give informed consent and complete an interview, had a driver's license or identification card issued by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (if under the age of 65), and had no objections from the primary physician in regards to contacting the individual. Controls, identified and sampled during the respective study dates, were selected from two sources. Potential controls under the age of 65 were identified using the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles records. For those 65 years and older, records from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used. Controls were matched to cases using randomized recruitment strategies. Recruitment probabilities were done using strata of 5-year age, sex, and race groups. Dietary information was collected using a modified version of the semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed at the National Cancer Institute. In addition, participants were asked about vitamin and mineral supplementation, special diets, restaurant eating, sodium use, and fats used in cooking. In NCCCS I, 515 colorectal cases and 687 matched controls were sent for genotyping. In NCCCS II, 796 colorectal cases and 823 controls were sent from the NCCCS II for genotyping. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age, race, and sex. Age was matched on +-5 years. Race and sex was matched exactly. For the cases without matched controls, matching was done only on sex and race. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978) [PMID: 248266]. Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989 -1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. After excluding participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were previously constructed from which DNA was isolated from either buffy coat or buccal cells for genotyping. In addition to colorectal cancer cases and controls, a set of advanced adenoma cases and matched controls with available DNA from buffy coat were selected for genotyping. Over the follow-up period, data were collected on endoscopic screening practices and, if individuals had been diagnosed with a polyp, the polyps were confirmed to be adenomatous by medical record review. Adenoma cases were ascertained through June 1, 2011. A separate case-control set was constructed of participants diagnosed with advanced adenoma matched to control participants who underwent a lower endoscopy in the same time period and did not have an adenoma. Advanced adenoma was defined as an adenoma more than 1 cm in diameter and/or with tubulovillous, villous, or high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma-in-situ histology. Matching criteria included year of birth (within 1 year) and month/year of blood sampling (within 6 months), the reason for their lower endoscopy (screening, family history, or symptoms), and the time period of any prior endoscopy (within 2 years). Controls matched to cases with a distal adenoma either had a negative sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy examination, and controls matched to cases with proximal adenoma all had a negative colonoscopy. A total of 272 cases and 236 matched controls were sent to CIDR for the advanced adenoma case-control set. Northern Swedish Health and Disease Study (NSHDS): Comprises over 110,000 participants, including approximately one third with repeated sampling occasions, from three population-based cohorts (Dahlin et al., 2010; Myte et al., 2016) [PMID: 20197478; PMID: 27367522]. The largest is the ongoing Vasterbotten Intervention Programme, in which all residents of Vasterbotten County are invited to a health examination upon turning 30 (some years), 40, 50 and 60 years of age. Extensive measured and self-reported health and lifestyle data, as well as blood samples for central biobanking in Umea, Sweden, are collected at the health exam. Leucocyte DNA samples for 1:1-matched CRC case-control sets from the NSHDS, of which 878 samples are included in this study, have been selected for genotyping. This is in addition to 354 samples from the NSHDS previously analyzed as part of the multicenter EPIC cohort. Cancer-specific and overall survival data are available for all patients. For at least 425 patients, archival tumor tissue has been analyzed for the BRAF V600E mutation and by sequencing codon 12 and 13 for KRAS mutations, as well as for MSI screening status by immunohistochemistry and for an eight-gene CIMP panel using quantitative real-time PCR (MethyLight). Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI, OSUMC): OCCPI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01850654) is a population-based study of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in one of 51 hospitals throughout the state of Ohio from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The OCCPI was created to decrease CRC incidence in Ohio by identifying patients with hereditary predisposition (statewide universal tumor screening for newly diagnosed CRC patients), increase colonoscopy compliance for first-degree relatives of CRC patients, and encourage future research through the creation of a biorepository. The 51 Ohio hospitals participating in the OCCPI were selected to represent a cross-section of clinical centers in the state based on high reported volume of CRC patients, affiliation with a high volume hospital, or interest in participation. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained by the individual hospitals, Community Oncology Programs, or by ceding review to the OSU IRB. Written informed consent was obtained. A total of 2139 colorectal cases were genotyped. Patients were considered eligible for this study if they were age 18 or older at the time of enrollment, if they had a surgical resection (or biopsy if unresectable) in the state of Ohio demonstrating an adenocarcinoma of the colorectum from 1/1/13 - 12/31/16. Matched control samples were selected from the Ohio State University Medical Center's (OSUMC) Human Genetics Sample Bank in an identical way to the selection for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study (please refer to the description for the Columbus-area HNPCC Study). Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. In the observational (control) arm, buccal cells were collected via mail using the "swish-and-spit" protocol and participation rate was 65%. Details of this study have been previously described (Huang et al., 2016) [PMID: 27673363] and are available online (http://dcp.cancer.gov/plco). For this study 1651 advanced adenoma cases and 1392 controls were selected for genotyping. Selenium and Vitamin E Prevention Trial (SELECT): The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial which explored using selenium and vitamin E alone and in combination to prevent prostate cancer in healthy men (Lippman et al., 2009) [PMID: 19066370]. Secondary endpoints included the prevention of colorectal and lung cancers. SELECT was conducted at 427 sites and centers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico; 35,533 men 55 years and older (50 or older if African American) were randomized beginning August 22, 2001. Supplementation was discontinued on October 23, 2008 due to futility. 308 colorectal cancer cases and 308 matched controls were selected from the SELECT population and sent for genotyping. Screening Markers For Colorectal Disease Study and Colonoscopy and Health Study (SMS-REACH): Details on this study population were previously reported (Burnett-Hartman et al., 2014) [PMID: 24875374]. Participants were enrollees in an integrated health-care delivery system in western Washington State (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington) aged 24-79 years who underwent an index colonoscopy for any indication between 1998 and 2007 and donated a buccal-cell or blood sample for genotyping analysis. Study recruitment took place in 2 phases, with phase 1 occurring in 1998-2003 and phase 2 occurring in 2004-2007. Persons who had undergone a colonoscopy less than 1 year prior to the index colonoscopy, persons with inadequate bowel preparation for the index colonoscopy, and persons with a prior or new diagnosis of colorectal cancer, a familial colorectal cancer syndrome (such as familial adenomatous polyposis), or another colorectal disease were ineligible. Patients diagnosed with adenomas or serrated polyps and persons who were polyp-free at the index colonoscopy (controls) were systematically recruited during both phases of recruitment. Approximately 75% agreed to participate and provided written informed consent. Based on medical records, persons who agreed to participate and those who refused study participation were similar with respect to age, sex, and colorectal polyp status. Study protocols were approved by the institutional review boards of the Group Health Cooperative and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle, Washington). A total of 575 cases and 508 matched were selected for the study. Controls were matched to CRC cases as 1:1 ratio. Matching was done on age_ref, race, and sex. Age_ref was matched on +-5 years. The Women's Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts: a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/d] or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS)examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed cases of invasive colorectal cancers, or deaths from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from September 30, 2015 database. Controls were participants free of colorectal cancer (invasive or in situ) as of September 30, 2015. Potential cases and controls were excluded if they (1) were non-White; (2) had history of colorectal cancers at baseline; (3) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (4) DbGAP ineligible; (5) had <1.25ug of DNA; (6) selected for WHI study M26 Phase I or II; (7) selected for WHI study AS224 and also included in the imputation project. A total of 578 cases and 104,429 controls met the eligibility criteria. Each case was matched with 1 control (1:1) that exactly met the following matching criteria: age (+-5 years), 40 randomization centers (exact), WHI date (+-3 years), CaD date (+-3 years), OS flag (exact), HRT assignments (exact), DM assignments (exact), and CaD assignments (exact). Control selection was done in a time-forward manner, selecting one control for each case from the risk set at the time of the case's event. The matching algorithm was allowed to select the closest match based on a criteria to minimize an overall distance measure (Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized matching of cases to controls. Technical Report #56, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN. April 1995). Each matching factor was given the same weight. When exact matches could not be found, the matching criteria were gradually relaxed among unmatched cases and controls until all cases had found matched controls. Using the matching criteria specified above, 559 of the 578 eligible cases found exact matches. The matching criteria was then relaxed to : Age+-5, randomization centers, WHI date +- 3 years, CaD date +- 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, DM flag, CaD flag. 17 of the remaining 19 unmatched cases found matched controls. By matching on Age+-5, randomization centers, WHI date +- 3 years, CaD date +- 3 years, OS flag, HRT flag, the remaining 2 unmatched cases found their matches.

  Study phs001415

• 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

• Submission FAQ

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

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• 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

• How to use EGA Webin?

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

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/EGA_webin

• Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss

  The Demographically Diverse Substance Use Disorder Cohorts of Dr. Stanley H. Weiss, which constitute the Epidemiology of the Weiss Cohort Projects, consist of a series of inter-connected projects, building upon a set of cohort projects of various groups, mainly drug users from medication-assisted treatment programs, that Dr. Stanley H. Weiss first developed in the 1980’s plus several newer initiatives, each with an array of collaborators. Beginning in the 1980’s, Dr. Stanley H. Weiss started several long-term studies of persons who inject drugs (PWID) across the United States, ultimately enrolling over 10,000 participants through the early 1990’s with an average age then in their 30’s. About a quarter were enrolled from sites in New Jersey (NJ). These studies included the first testing of PWID for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the human T-cell lymphotropic viruses (HTLV I and HTLV II). Cumulative past support (initiation thru ~ 1999) for these cohort studies included ~ $20 million from intramural resources from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), plus multiple grants and in-kind support from the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) totaling ~ $1 million. The Weiss Cohort Projects include the first large AIDS-era cohorts to include women at high risk for HIV. A high percentage of subjects in these studies are black or Latino. Thus, this is an ethnically diverse US cohort, with a high proportion of women included. These subjects are at high risk of parenteral and sexual infection from both drug use and sexual practices. Samples from other studies conducted by Dr. Weiss, in which detailed interviews were conducted, are included as controls (persons documented by us not to have a history of opioid drug use). As one of our groups of subjects have many persons of Haitian ancestry, we specifically included some Haitians who had never used opioids as controls. Our documentation includes such ancestry. These cohorts demonstrated high rates of HIV and HTLV-II infection in PWIDs, including one study initiated in 1981 with confirmation in the later cohorts. In the first two decades of these studies, among numerous publications was the first study showing a very high rate of hepatitis C infection among PWIDs. An example of how the studies’ long-time horizon proved essential was that it first became possible to test whether a person had ever been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), as well as how much HCV was in each person’s blood, many years after the specimens were collected. This allowed HCV amounts in blood to be compared for subjects who had died of liver disease early in the study versus those who survived. Then a sequence of published papers culminated in demonstrating, using a nested case-control design, that a high baseline HCV titer was predictive of early progression to death from end-stage liver failure. Outcomes related to HCV (end stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma) remain under study. In the original cohort studies, the mean age at enrollment was ~ 33 years old, so that those still alive in 2022 are mainly now ~ 60 - 75 years old. Many participants have already died. The tincture of time has led to subjects reaching ages when many more are dying from a wide array of outcomes, including from many chronic diseases (including cancer) as well as from infectious agents (especially HIV, HCV) or drug overdose. Renewed collaboration with local drug treatment programs has led to new field-based studies, including examination of some currently evolving problems among drug users. Dr. Weiss joined the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Genetics Consortium (NGC) in 2017, and through the NIDA project officer has had access to NGC contract resources (see below). NIH Certificate of Confidentiality, CC-DA-16-214 (attached) protects these studies. Past arrangements related to data on our subjects leads to restrictions on the use of data emanating from our study, such as potential commercialization and restrictions on whom may access and use these data. NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC) resources further support these endeavors and will be used as part of the NGC analyses studying the genetics of substance use. Study participants signed informed consent for the information collected from them to be used with no time limit and for biologic specimens collected from them to be used without restriction in future research. Serum samples were collected from participants, and from many also plasma, white blood cells and/or urine samples. About 100,000 vials were stored. All specimens have been continuously preserved at sufficiently cold temperatures to prevent deterioration, and many subjects separated white blood cells were processed and frozen in such a way as to maintain viability. Detailed data from the participants has been accumulated over time, and in general, linkage has been retained in each sub-study in accordance with the consent forms and protocols. For some participants, specimens were collected at multiple times (that is, sequential specimens). Multiple specimens from a single person exist in this database, and efforts at de-duplication remain ongoing. Dr. Weiss should be contacted if an investigator requires unique individuals since: • Multiple phases of enrollment occurred, and as our prospective follow-up continues; Dr. Weiss may identify new instances of multiple enrollment. • Some persons are related to each other. • In general, in this dataset for dbGaP, only a single specimen/record form a given person is included. Advances in laboratory testing techniques now permit innovative new uses for our linked research biospecimen repository. The ongoing focus of an interdisciplinary research program based on these cohorts relates subjects’ diseases, behaviors, medical history, and outcomes with biological and exposure markers. Participants’ use of various substances was ascertained on study enrollments, many serially over time. Quantitative frequency of use data, also sometimes sequential over time, were ascertained. Active ascertainment of outcomes is being conducted, including matching to mortality and cancer databases. Investigators interested in collaborations on specific outcomes (which is not part of this dbGaP dataset) or in the use of our stored specimens are encouraged to contact the principal investigator, Dr. Weiss. The processing of the genomic data was done in conjunction with NIDA, and in accordance with some longstanding data cleaning steps used by NIDA in the NIDA Genetics Consortium (NGC), a group to which we shall be contributing these data for collaborative analyses. Since there is the potential for these steps to introduce certain types of potential biases, we summarize these here. Under contract from NIDA, cryopreserved sera or plasma (-80 C) or cells (in liquid nitrogen) were used, with most stored having been stored for 30 to 40 years in our biorepository. In the case of serum or plasma, in which only (largely) cell-free DNA fragments were available, DNA was extracted and restored prior to amplification. Industry standard DNA amplification techniques were done on all samples prior to genotyping in accord with established protocols of the NIDA Genetics Consortium. Our genotype data were run and processed on the Illumina Infinium OmniExpress_v_1.3 array. This array has 714,238 SNPs, and was designed many years ago. There were 628 SNPs on the array that do not correspond to any chromosome position, and these were removed. Genotype data were submitted by NIDA’s contracted genotyping laboratory in six batches over time to NIDA’s contracted dbGaP data management group, which conducted quality control (QC) analyses. QC analysis included an assessment of batch effects on for five of the six batches. (One of the batches, with only 12 samples, was too small for QC analysis of batch effects.) Standard NIDA Genetic Consortium cleaning was performed. Samples with a call rate <.85 were removed. Only one sample per person was retained. When more than one specimen was genotyped from one subject, only the sample with the higher call rate was retained (provided, of course, that that call rate was ≥ 0.85). We have retained some people we know are related, including some found to have been related through genotyping; the pedigree file describes those relationships. In summary, key cleaning steps include: 1. Using PLINK to check gender discrepancy. 2. Using PREST-PLUS and KING (Kinship-based Inference for GWAS) to check relatedness. 3. Using PEDCHECK and PLINK to check/zero-out Mendelian error. 4. Using PLINK to perform sample QC, SNP QC, along with KING to perform chromosome X and chromosome Y QC. 5. SNP-QC: Batch-effect: 5 Batches were compared (one batch, with few samples, was not). These five batches were compared to each other in all ten possible pairs, one batch vs. another batch, examining SNP allele frequency discrepancies by population (from GRAF), Fisher Exact Allelic test, with the criterion of p<5e-8 for removal. 6. SNP-QC: discordant SNPs in QC duplicates. Compared 25 QC duplicated samples with call rate > 0.95, removed SNPs with 3+ discordance. 7. There were 1,056 SNPs that were monomorphic; these have been retained so they can be included in analyses in which our dbGaP data are combined with those from other cohorts (in the latter of which those SNPs may not be monomorphic). The final cleaned dataset submitted has 8,898 samples and 606,793 SNPs.

  Study phs002140

• 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

• OncoArray: Prostate Cancer

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

  Study phs001391

• HBCC Postmortem Psychiatric Molecular Studies

  This postmortem study examines molecular, genetic and epigenetic signatures in the brains of hundreds of subjects with or without mental disorders conducted by the DIRP NIMH Human Brain Collection Core (HBCC). The brain tissues are obtained under protocols approved by the CNS IRB (NCT00001260), with the permission of the next-of-kin (NOK) through the Offices of the Chief Medical Examiners (MEOs) in the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Central Virginia. Additional samples were obtained from the University of Maryland Brain and Tissue Bank (contracts NO1-HD-4-3368 and NO1-HD-4-3383) (http://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/btbank/ and the Stanley Medical Research Institute: http://www.stanleyresearch.org/brain-research/). Clinical characterization, neuropathological screening, toxicological analyses, and dissections of various brain regions were performed as previously described (Lipska et al. 2006; PMID: 16997002). All patients met DSM-IV criteria for a lifetime Axis I diagnosis of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and major depression. Controls had no history of psychiatric diagnoses or addictions. SNP array: Array-based genotyping was performed on most samples published in this collection. The number of SNPs assayed via Illumina chips varied between 650,000 and 5 Million. Cerebellar tissue was generally used for genotyping studies. # Diagnosis SNP Array 1 Anxiety Disorder 1 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder 13 3 Bipolar Disorder 114 4 Control 387 5 Eating Disorder (ED) 2 6 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) 186 7 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 5 8 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 0 9 Schizophrenia 220 10 Other 7 11 Tic Disorder 3 12 Undetermined 1 13 Williams Syndrome 2 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. DNA extraction: 45-80 mg of cerebellar tissue was pulverized for DNA extractions. The QIAamp DNA mini Kit (Qiagen) method was employed for tissue DNA extraction. The tissue was initially lysed using Tissue Lyser (Qiagen) and extractions were accomplished according to manufacturer's protocol. The DNA was captured in 500uL elution buffer. The concentrations were measured using Thermo Scientific's NanoDrop 1000/NanoDrop ONE. The mean yield was 128.85 uG (+/- 79.48), the mean ratio of 260/280 was 1.87 (+/- 0.105), and the mean ratio of 260/230 was 2.48 (+/-1.75). Genotyping methods: Three types of Illumina Beadarray chips were used: HumanHap650Y, Human1M-Duo, and HumanOmni5M-Quad (San Diego, California). The genotyping was done according to the manufacturer's protocol (Illumina Proprietary, Catalog # WG-901-5003, Part # 15025910 Rev.A, June 2011). Approximately, 400ng DNA was used and each DNA sample was QC tested for 260/280 ratio by nanodrop and DNA band intactness on 2% agarose gel. Briefly, the samples were whole-genome amplified, fragmented, precipitated and resuspended in appropriate hybridization buffer. Denatured samples were hybridized on prepared Bead Array Chips. After hybridization, the Bead Chip oligonucleotides were extended by a single fluorescent labeled base, which was detected by fluorescence imaging with an Illumina Bead Array Reader, iScan. Normalized bead intensity data obtained for each sample were loaded into the Illumina Genome Studio (Illumina, v.2.0.3) with cluster position files provided by Illumina, and fluorescence intensities were converted into SNP genotypes. Microarray: We generated RNA expression data using array technology for psychiatric subjects compared to non-psychiatric subjects as controls. We used tissues from three different brain regions i.e. hippocampus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and dura mater for a large cohort of individuals (total number 552 subjects for hippocampus, 800 for DLPFC and 146 for dura). Total RNA was extracted from ~100 mg of tissue using the RNeasy kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's protocol. RNA quality and quantity were examined using the Bioanalyzer (Agilent, Inc) and NanoDrop (Thermo Scientific, Inc), respectively. Samples with RNA integrity number (RIN) # Diagnosis DLPFC Hippo Dura 1 Anxiety Disorder 1 0 0 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder 14 6 0 3 Bipolar Disorder 90 49 0 4 Control 336 270 75 5 Eating Disorder (ED) 2 1 0 6 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) 144 87 0 7 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 5 3 0 8 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 6 0 0 9 Schizophrenia 192 125 71 10 Other 5 6 0 11 Tic Disorder 3 3 0 12 Undetermined 1 1 0 13 Williams Syndrome 2 1 0 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. RNA-Seq of Dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex: All brains were collected and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortical (DLPFC) samples dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029-6574. RNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. RNA isolation: Total RNA from 468 HBCC samples was isolated from approximately 100 mg homogenized tissue from each sample by TRIzol/chloroform extraction and purification with the Qiagen RNeasy kit (Cat#74106) according to manufacturer's protocol. Samples were processed in randomized batches of 12. The order of extraction for schizophrenia, bipolar, and MDD disorders and control samples was assigned randomly with respect to diagnosis and all other sample characteristics. The mean total RNA yield was 24.2 ug (+/- 9.0). The RNA Integrity Number (RIN) was determined by 4200 Agilent TapeStation System. Samples with RIN DLPFC RNA-Seq quantified expression data are provided for 364 samples. Data were generated, QC'd, processed and quantified as follows: RNA library preparation and sequencing: All samples submitted to the New York Genome Center for RNAseq were prepared for sequencing in randomized batches of 94. The sequencing libraries were prepared using the KAPA Stranded RNAseq Kit with RiboErase (KAPA Biosystems). rRNA was depleted from 1ug of RNA using the KAPA RiboErase protocol that is integrated into the KAPA Stranded RNAseq Kit. The insert size and DNA concentration of the sequencing library was determined on Fragment Analyzer Automated CE System (Advanced Analytical) and Quant-iT PicoGreen (ThermoFisher) respectively. Schizophrenia Bipolar Control 89 65 210 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. RNA-Seq of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC): All the 200 post-mortem brain samples (61 controls; 39 bipolar disorder; 46 schizophrenia; 54 major depressive disorder) were collected by the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. RNA Extraction and Quality Assessment: Tissue from sgACC was pulverized and stored at -80&#176;C. Total RNA was extracted from 50-80 mg of the tissue using QIAGEN RNeasy Lipid Tissue Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Cat. # 74804) with DNase treatment (QIAGEN, Cat. # 79254). The RNA Integrity Number (RIN) for each sample was assessed with high-resolution capillary electrophoresis on the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, California). The concentration of RNA and their 260/280 ratio (2.1+/- 0.032 SD) were determined with NanoDrop (Thermo Scientific). RNA sequencing: Stranded RNA-Seq libraries were constructed after rRNA depletion using Ribo-Zero GOLD (Illumina). RNA sequencing was performed at National Institute of Health Intramural Sequencing Center (NISC). Schizophrenia Bipolar Control MDD 46 39 61 54 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. Whole Genome Sequencing: All brains were collected and dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. This study generates whole genome sequencing data using sequencing of DNA in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) or cerebellum of 443 individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder and non-psychiatric controls. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029-6574. DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. All specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. DNA Library Preparation and Sequencing: All samples submitted to the New York Genome Center for WGS were prepared for sequencing in randomized batches of 95. The sequencing libraries were prepared using the Illumina PCR-free DNA sample preparation Kit. The insert size and DNA concentration of the sequencing library was determined on Fragment Analyzer Automated CE System (Advanced Analytical) and Quant-iT PicoGreen (ThermoFisher) respectively. A quantitative PCR assay (KAPA), with primers specific to the adapter sequence, was used to determine the yield and efficiency of the adaptor ligation process. Performed on the Illumina HiSeqX with 30X coverage. Schizophrenia Bipolar Control 115 78 230 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. ChIP-Seq: All brains were collected and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortical (DLPFC) samples dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. This study generates epigenetic data using sequencing of DNA after chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-Seq) for marks H3K4me3 and H3K27ac in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029,6574. Chromatin precipitation, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays for histone marks H3K4me3 and H3K27ac were carried out using Native ChIP. Micrococcal Nuclease (MNase) (Sigma, N3755) treatment was used to digest chromatin into mononucleosomes. The following antibodies were used for chromatin pull-down: anti-H3K4me3 (Cell Signaling, Cat# 9751BC, lot 7) and anti-H3K27ac (Active Motif, Cat# 39133, Lot # 31814008). Histone modification-enriched genomic DNA fragments were recovered using Protein A/G magnetic beads (Thermo Scientific, 88803-88938 or Millipore 16-663), and then washed, eluted, and treated with RNAse A and proteinase K. Final ChIP DNA products were isolated using phenol-chloroform extraction followed by ethanol precipitation. The efficiency of each ChIP assay was validated using Qubit concentration measurement and qPCR for positive (GRIN2B, DARPP32) and negative (HBB) control genomic regions. Only ChIP assays that passed quality control were further processed for library preparation and sequencing; this included ChIP DNA that was not detectable on Qubit but showed a good signal and expected enrichment patterns in qPCR. HISTONE_MARK H3K27ac H3K4me3 Input Bipolar 56 4 7 Control 158 11 24 Schizophrenia 79 11 12 Table: Numbers of individuals in each assay grouped by histone mark or input.Long-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) Cohort Description: Brain specimens were obtained from the Human Brain Collection Core (HBCC), part of the NIH NeuroBioBank. Samples were collected under protocols approved by the NIH CNS Institutional Review Board (IRB) (NCT03092687), with informed consent from next-of-kin (NOK). Collection was coordinated through the Offices of the Chief Medical Examiners (MEOs) in Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, and Central Virginia. Clinical metadata and documentation are publicly available via the NIMH Data Archive (NDA) (Collection #3151) https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3151 Eligibility Criteria No clinical diagnosis of major neuropsychiatric or neurodegenerative diseaseNo diagnosis of cognitive impairment during life All individuals were confirmed to be neurologically normal at time of deathDemographics Initial cohort size: 155 individuals Ancestry: All individuals self-identified as African or African-admixed Mean age at death: 44.2 years (range: 18&#8211;85 years) Sex distribution: 36.4% femaleSample Processing: Frozen frontal cortex tissue was dissected and processed according to the public protocol: https://www.protocols.io/view/processing-human-frontal-cortex-brain-tissue-for-p-kxygxzmmov8j/v2. High-molecular-weight DNA was extracted and libraries were prepared using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) LSK-114 kit. Sequencing was performed using ONT PromethION flow cells (R10.4.1 chemistry) Data Processing and Quality Control: Basecalling: Conducted using Guppy v6.38 Read Alignment: Reads were aligned to the GRCh38 reference genome using minimap2 Sample Identity Verification: Sample identity was validated by comparing ONT-derived SNP calls with matched short-read WGS genotypes to ensure concordance and prevent sample swaps Variant Calling and Phasing: Reads were base-called with Guppy v6.38. Reads were aligned to GRCh38 using minimap2. We verified sample identity by cross-checking ONT SNV calls with the existing short-read WGS genotypes, confirming no sample switches. The napu pipeline (https://github.com/nanoporegenomics/napu_wf) produced; haplotype-resolved assemblies, joint small-variant (SNV/indel) calls, and multi-caller structural-variant sets, all reported on GRCh38 and phased where possible. Raw signal data were basecalled to obtain 5-methyl-cytosine (5mC) status; methylation tags were added to the phased BAM files. Genome-wide methylation summaries are provided in BED format.Dataset Filtering and Exclusions: All 155 samples underwent sequencing and SNP-based ancestry inference 8 samples were excluded due to ancestry inconsistent with African or African-admixed background 1 sample was excluded due to insufficient sequencing quality Final Sample Set: 146 high-quality samples from individuals of African or African-admixed ancestry were retained for downstream analyses See PMID: 39764002 for further analysis detailsDiagnosis#SamplesControl155Table: Diagnostic Summary.Note: The data derived from HBCC resources were removed from dbGAP and are now available in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). They include genotypes, short read whole genome sequencing (WGS), epigenetics (DNA methylation, ChIP-seq for histones), RNA expression (qPCR, microarray, RNA-seq, single nucleus RNA-seq) of various brain regions in cases with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, substance use disorders and normative controls. Please access our NDA collection (https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3151) for further detail.

  Study phs000979

• ELLIPSE Prostate Cancer Meta-Analysis and Genotyping

  The ELLIPSE Consortium is an international effort to discover risk loci for prostate cancer. It includes the meta-analysis of existing GWAS data as well as novel GWAS, exome, and iCOGS genotyping. The GWAS meta-analysis includes the following cases and controls from studies of European ancestry: UK GWAS stage 1 (Illumina Infinium HumanHap 550 Array: 1854 cases and 1894 controls), UK GWAS stage 2 (Illumina iSELECT: 3706 cases and 3884 controls), CAPS1 (Affymetrix GeneChip 500K: 474 cases and 482 controls), CAPS2 (Affymetrix GeneChip 5.0K: 1458 cases and 512 controls), BPC3 (Illumina Human610 Illumina: 2068 cases and 3011 controls), PEGASUS (HumanOmni2.5: 4600 cases and 2941 controls). The OMNI 2.5M genotyping was conducted for 977 prostate cancer cases from UKGPCS. The Exome SNP array genotyping was conducted for 4741 subjects from UKGPCS. The iCOGs genotyping was conducted for 10366 subjects which includes the Multiethnic Cohort (n=1648) and UKGPCS (n=8718). Below is a description of each study that contributed to the meta-analysis of men of European ancestry. Information about the studies that contributed to the multiethnic meta-analysis can be found on the associated study page and also in Conti et al (Nature Genetics, PMID:33398198).&nbsp;&nbsp; UK GWAS Stage 1 (UK1) and Stage 2 (UK2): The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS) was first established in 1993 and is the largest prostate cancer study of its kind in the UK, involving nearly 189 hospitals. We are based at The Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton, Surrey, and collaborate with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Our aim is to find genetic changes which are associated with prostate cancer risk. Our target is to recruit 26,000 gentlemen into the UKGPCS by 2017. Men are eligible to take part if they fit into at least one of the following groups: They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer at 60 years of age or under (up to their 61st birthday). They have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and a first, second or third degree relative where at least one of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 65 years of age or under. They are affected and have 3 or more cases of prostate cancer on one side of their family. They are a prostate cancer patient at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We have to date recruited around 16,000 men on whom we have germline DNA and clinical data at diagnosis. The UK GWAS is based on genotyping of 541,129 SNPs in 1,854 individuals with clinically detected (non-PSA-screened) prostate cancer (cases) and 1,894 controls. 43,671 SNPs showing strong evidence of association in stage 1 were followed up by genotyping a further 3,268 cases and 3,366 controls from UK and Melbourne in stage2. CAPS1 and CAPS2: The CAPS (Cancer of the Prostate in Sweden) study represents a large Swedish population-based cancer study, comprising 3,161 cases and 2,149 controls, recruited between 2001 and 2003. Biopsy confirmed prostate cancer cases were identified and recruited from four out of six regional cancer registries in Sweden, diagnosed between July 2001 and October 2003. Clinical data including TNM stage, Gleason grade and PSA levels at time for diagnosis were retrieved through record linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Registry. Control subjects, who were recruited concurrently with case subjects, were randomly selected from the Swedish Population Registry and matched according to the expected age distribution of cases (groups of 5-year intervals) and geographic region. Whole blood was collected from all individuals for extraction of genomic DNA. A GWAS was conducted in two parts. In the first phase (CAPS1) 498 cases and 502 controls were genotyped, in the second phase 1,483 cases and 519 controls were genotyped. Genotyping was performed using the GeneChip Human Mapping 500K (CAPS1) and 5.0K (CAPS2) Array Set from Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA). The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, BPC3: BPC3 was a consortium of prospective cohort studies investigating genetic and gene-environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer. Each study selected cases and controls for this study as described below. The clinical criteria defining advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) were either obtained from medical records or cancer registries. The Gleason score source was either surgical specimens (radical prostatectomy or autopsy) or the diagnostic biopsy (needle biopsy or TURP). When multiple Gleason scores were available the surgical value was used. PLCO was removed from the analysis as the samples were included in the Pegasus GWAS described below. In total 2,473 advanced prostate cancer cases and 3,534 controls were included in the analysis following QC. ATBC, Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study: ATBC was a randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial to investigate whether &#945;-tocopherol or &#223;-carotene supplementation reduced the incidence of lung or other cancers in male smokers. Between 1985 and 1988, 29,133 men ages 50 to 69 years were enrolled in the trial from Finland and randomized to supplementation (50 mg &#945;-tocopherol, 20mg &#223;-carotene, or both) or placebo. Men with a prior history of cancer, other than non-melanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ, were excluded from participating. Incident cancer cases are identified through linkage with the Finnish Cancer Registry, which has ~100% ascertainment of cancer cases nationwide. Cases included 249 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage C/D) from 1985 to 2003 with DNA available. Controls were 1,271 men selected previously for a GWAS of lung cancer in ATBC without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. CPSII, Cancer Prevention Study II: CPSII is a cohort study started in 1982 to investigate the relationship between dietary, lifestyle and other etiologic factors and cancer mortality. Approximately 1.2 million men and women enrolled in the study from 50 states in the U.S. In 1992, a subset of these participants (n= ~184,000) were enrolled in the CPSII Nutrition Cohort to examine the relationship between dietary and other exposures and cancer incidence. Blood samples were drawn from approximately 39,376 members of the Nutritional Cohort from 1998 to 2001, and buccal cells were collected from 69,467 members from 2001 to 2002. Cancer cases are identified by self-report through follow-up questionnaires followed by verification through medical records and/or linkage to state cancer registries as well as death certificates. A total of 660 advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) with a source of DNA were identified for this study. Controls were 660 men matched on ethnicity, date of birth, sample collection date and DNA type. EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition: EPIC is a prospective study designed to investigate both genetic and non-genetic risk factors for different forms of cancer. Study participants were almost all white Europeans. Approximately 500,000 individuals (150,000 men) in EPIC were recruited between 1992 and 2000, from 23 centers in 10 European countries. Overall approximately 400,000 subjects also provided a blood sample at recruitment. The methods of recruitment and details of the study design are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, study participants completed an extensive questionnaire on both dietary and nondietary data at recruitment. The present study includes subjects from advanced prostate cancer cases (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) matched to controls based on study center, length of follow-up, age at enrollment (&#177; 6 months), fasting and time of day of blood collection (&#177; 1 hour). The advanced prostate cancer subjects were from 8 of the 10 participating countries: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). France and Norway were not included in the current study because these cohorts only included female subjects. All participants gave written consent for the research and approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board from all local institutions in the regions where participants had been recruited for the EPIC study. HPFS, Health Professionals Follow-up Study: HPFS began in 1986 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study of 51,529 United States male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians 40 to 75 years of age. The baseline questionnaire provided information on age, marital status, height and weight, ancestry, medications, smoking history, disease history, physical activity, and diet. At baseline the cohort was 97% white, 2% Asian American, and 1% African American. The median follow-up through 2005 was 10.5 years (range 2-19 years). Self-reported prostate cancer diagnoses were confirmed by obtaining medical and/or pathology records. Prostate cancer deaths are either reported by family members in response to follow-up questionnaires, discovered by the postal system, or the National Death Index. Questionnaires are sent every two years to surviving men to update exposure and medical history. In 1993 and 1994, a blood specimen was collected from 18,018 men without a prior diagnosis of cancer. Prostate cancer cases are matched to controls on birth year (+/-1) and ethnicity. Controls are selected from those who are cancer-free at the time of the case&#8217;s diagnosis, and had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of blood draw.&nbsp;&nbsp; MEC, Multiethnic Cohort: The Multiethnic Cohort Study is a population-based prospective cohort study that was initiated between 1993 and 1996 and includes subjects from various ethnic groups - African Americans and Latinos primarily from Californian (great Los Angeles area) and Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, and European Americans primarily from Hawaii. State drivers&#8217; license files were the primary sources used to identify study subjects in Hawaii and California. Additionally, in Hawaii, state voter&#8217;s registration files were used, and, in California, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) files were used to identify additional African American men. All participants (n=215,251) returned a 26-page self-administered baseline questionnaire that obtained general demographic, medical and risk factor information. In the cohort, incident cancer cases are identified annually through cohort linkage to population-based cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in Hawaii and Los Angeles County as well as to the California State cancer registry. Information on stage and grade of disease are also obtained through the SEER registries. Blood sample collection in the MEC began in 1994 and targeted incident prostate cancer cases and a random sample of study participants to serve as controls for genetic analyses. PHS, Physicians Health Study:PHS was a randomized trial of aspirin and &#223; carotene for cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 U.S. male physicians ages 40-84 years at randomization; none had a cancer diagnosis at baseline. The original trial ended, but the men are followed. From 1982 to 1984, blood samples were collected from 14,916 physicians before randomization. Participants are sent yearly questionnaires to ascertain endpoints. Whenever a physician reports cancer, we request permission to obtain the medical records, and cancers are confirmed by pathology report. We obtain death certificates and pertinent medical records for all deaths. Follow-up for nonfatal outcomes in PHS is over 97% complete, and for mortality, over 99%. PLCO, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial:PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 754 men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (Gleason = 8 or stage III/IV) from either arm of the trial. Of these cases, 317 were genotyped previously as part of Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS), a GWAS for prostate cancer. Controls included 1,491 men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer from the screening arm of the PLCO trial. All subjects provided informed consent to participate in genetic etiology studies of cancer and other traits. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the ten centers and the National Cancer Institute. PLCO was removed from the meta-analysis of the BPC3 studies as a consequence of PEGASUS below. PEGASUS, Prostate cancer Genome-wide Association Study of Uncommon Susceptibility loci: Pegasus is a genome-wide association nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO is a multicenter, randomized trial to evaluate screening methods for the early detection of prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Between 1993 and 2001, over 150,000 men and women ages 55-74 years were recruited from ten centers in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Honolulu, HI; Marshfield, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; St. Louis, MO; and Washington, D.C.). Men randomized to the screening arm underwent prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen annually for six years and digital rectal exam annually for four years. Blood specimens were collected from participants randomized to the screening arm of the trial, and buccal cell specimens were obtained from participants randomized to the control arm. Cases included 4,598 men of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer from either arm of the trial and controls included 2,941 men of European ancestry without a diagnosis of cancer from the screening arm, matched on age and year of randomization. All subjects provided informed consent, and the study approved by the institutional review board at the National Cancer Institute. Funding:This work was supported by the GAME-ON U19 initiative for prostate cancer (ELLIPSE): U19 CA148537. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233, U01-CA98710, U01-CA98216, and U01-CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). The ATBC study and PEGASUS was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004 and HHSN261201000006C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. CAPS: The Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant: K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant: 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the S&#246;derberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linn&#233;r&#8217;s Minne, Karlsson&#8217;s Fund for urological and surgical research. We thank and acknowledge all of the participants in the Stockholm-1 study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Bj&#246;rkman and Ami R&#246;nnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skillful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. Hans Wallinder at Aleris Medilab and Sven Gustafsson at Karolinska University Laboratory are thanked for their good cooperation in providing historical laboratory results. UKGPCS would like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses and Consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. We thank all the patients who took part in this study. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (grants: C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We would also like to thank the following for funding support: Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Cancer UK), The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758.&nbsp;

  Study phs001120