6704 results for "get free fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..P1Ah"

in 11.50 milliseconds.

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

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

  Study phs000211

• A Scalable, GMP-Compatible, Autologous Organotypic Cell Therapy for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa

  Gene editing in induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells has been hailed for enabling new cell therapies for various monogenetic diseases including dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB). However, manufacturing, efficacy, and safety roadblocks have limited the development of genetically corrected, autologous iPS cell-based therapies. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Cell Therapy (DEBCT), is a new generation, Good Manufacturing Practice-compatible (cGMP), reproducible, and scalable platform to produce autologous clinical-grade iPS cell-derived organotypic induced skin composite (iSC) grafts to treat incurable wounds of patients lacking type VII collagen (C7). DEBCT uses a single step, combined, high-efficiency reprogramming, and CRISPR-based genetic correction to generate genome scar-free, COL7A1 corrected clonal iPS cells from primary patient fibroblasts. Validated iPS cells are converted into epidermal, dermal, and melanocyte progenitors with a novel 2D organoid differentiation protocol, followed by CD49f enrichment and expansion to minimize maturation heterogeneity. iSC product characterization by single cell transcriptomics was followed by mouse xenografting for disease correcting activity at 1 month and toxicology analysis at 1-6 months. Culture-acquired mutations, potential CRISPR-off target effects, and cancer-driver variants were evaluated by targeted and whole genome sequencing. iPS cell-derived iSC grafts were reproducibly generated from four recessive DEB patients with different pathogenic mutations. Organotypic iSC grafts onto immune-compromised mice developed into stable stratified skin with functional C7 restoration. Single cell transcriptomic characterization of iSCs revealed prominent holoclone stem cell signatures in keratinocytes and the recently described Gibbin-dependent signature in dermal fibroblasts. The latter correlated with enhanced graftability. Multiple orthogonal sequencing and subsequent computational approaches identified random and non-oncogenic mutations introduced by the manufacturing process. Toxicology revealed no detectable tumors after 3-6 months in DEBCT-treated mice. In conclusion, DEBCT successfully overcomes previous roadblocks and establishes a robust, scalable, and safe cGMP manufacturing platform for the production of a CRISPR-corrected autologous organotypic skin graft to heal DEB patient wounds.

  Study phs003271

• Precision High Intensity Training Through Epigenetics (PHITE)

  Exercising regularly promotes health, but these benefits are complicated by acute inflammation induced by exercise. A potential source of exercise-induced inflammation is cell-free DNA (cfDNA), yet the cellular origins, molecular causes, and immune system interactions of exercise-induced cfDNA are unclear. To study these, 10 healthy individuals were randomized to a 12-week exercise program of either high-intensity tactical training (HITT) or traditional moderate-intensity training (TRAD). Blood plasma was collected pre- and post exercise at weeks 0 and 12 and after 4 week of detraining upon program completion. Whole-genome enzymatic methylation sequencing (EM-seq) with cell-type proportion deconvolution was applied to cfDNA obtained from the 50 plasma samples and paired to concentration measurements for 90 circulating cytokines. Acute exercise increased the release of cfDNA from neutrophils, dendritic cells (DCs), and macrophages proportional to exercise intensity (HITT > TRAD). Exercise training reduced cfDNA released in HITT participants but not TRAD and from DCs and macrophages but not neutrophils. For most participants, training lowered mitochondrial cfDNA at rest, even after detraining. Using a sequencing analysis approach we developed, we concluded that rapid extracellular traps (ETosis) was the likely source of cfDNA, demonstrated by enrichment of nuclear DNA. Further, several cytokines were induced by acute exercise, such as IL-6, IL-10, and IL-16, and training attenuated the induction of only IL-6 and IL-17F. Cytokine levels were not associated with cfDNA induction, suggesting that these cytokines are not the main cause of exercise-induced cfDNA. Overall, exercise intensity and training modulated cfDNA release and cytokine responses, contributing to the anti-inflammatory effects of regular exercise. One additional subject was also used in the methyl-seq data as a control for comparing bisulfite-sequencing to enzymatic methyl sequencing. DNA methylation for MPO gene was found to be significantly different as well, in line with interpretation that neutrophils are primarily undergoing ETosis.

  Study phs003873

• GDAP___Genome_Diversity_in_Africa_Project

  The Genomic Diversity in Africa Project (GDAP) started with the plan to develop a genomic resource from African populations, characterise genomic diversity and population history, and facilitate clinical studies in Africa. Currently, 25 individuals from 24 ethnolinguistic groups have been whole-genome sequenced at high depth totalling 585 individuals. An additional 41 individuals have been sequenced with 10X Genomics libraries. At this stage, the initial curation of this dataset has been finished and we are performing the analysis in coordination with our collaborators. The current state of the GDAP represents a very diverse panel of African populations that maximizes geographical and ethnic variation and represents a great starting point to achieve the aforementioned goals. However, southern sub-Saharan countries, Bantu speakers and hunter gatherer groups are currently underrepresented, despite being crucial to understand the evolutionary history of the continent. After extensive effort to collate studies documentation, we finally have the opportunity to sequence 600 new individuals from these groups, including countries as Gabon, Rwanda and Zambia, and address these deficiencies. We aim to proceed with the same strategy: to sequence at high depth 25 individuals with standard PCR free libraries, with 2 additional individuals with 10X Genomics Chromium libraries per ethnolinguistic group. The former allows a good representation of variants down to low frequency in any given population, and the latter allows accurate phasing and the analysis of structural variation. By including these new populations, we want to investigate three crucial questions in African history in addition to the initial objectives: the Bantu expansion, the evolutionary history of hunter gatherers and the transatlantic slave trade. Additionally, the expanded dataset will help us better discover the genetic variation present in Africa and characterize the African pangenome. This data is part of a pre-publication release. For information on the proper use of pre-publication data shared by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (including details of any publication moratoria), please see http://www.sanger.ac.uk/datasharing/

  Study EGAS00001003602

• 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

• TRACERx NSCLC, multiregion sequencing of the first 100 tumors

  BACKGROUND TRACERx (TRAcking Cancer Evolution through therapy (Rx)) is a prospective cohort study designed to investigate intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) in relation to clinical outcome, and to determine the clonal nature of driver events and evolutionary processes in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Multiregion high-depth whole-exome sequencing (M-seq) was performed on 100 early stage NSCLC tumors resected prior to systemic therapy. A total of 327 tumor regions were sequenced and analyzed to define evolutionary histories, obtain a census of clonal and subclonal events, and assess the relationship between ITH and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS Widespread ITH was observed for both somatic copy number alterations (median 48% [0.03-88%]) and mutations (median 30% [0.5-93%]). Driver mutations in EGFR, MET, BRAF and TP53 were almost always clonal. However, heterogeneous driver alterations occurring later in evolution were found in over 75% of tumors and were common in PIK3CA, NF1 and genes involved in chromatin modification and DNA response and repair. Genome doubling and ongoing dynamic chromosomal instability (CIN), illustrated by mirrored subclonal allelic imbalance, were identified as causes of ITH resulting in parallel evolution of driver copy number events, including amplifications of CDK4, FOXA1, and BCL11A. Elevated copy number heterogeneity was associated with shorter RFS (HR=4.9, P=0.00044), which remained significant in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS ITH mediated through CIN, rather than point mutational heterogeneity, was associated with increased risk of relapse, supporting its value as a prognostic predictor, and the need to target this high-risk phenotype.

  Dataset EGAD00001003206

• ENOC WGS for the study Genomic consequences of aberrant DNA repair mechanisms stratify ovarian cancer histotypes

  For ENOC cohorts, OvCaRe cases were reviewed, including frozen material, by at least two expert gynecopathologists prior to inclusion in the sequencing cohort who provided the confirmation on final selected cohort. Frozen H&E from Tokyo were also used for evaluation along with representative H&E photos and review done at the Jikei School of Medicine. For ENOC, DAH985 and DG1288 are recurrent and both were treated with chemotherapy after their first surgery. DAH123 is a untreated sample, metastasis from an primary endometrial tumour. All HGSC, GCT, CCOC and the rest ENOC tumours are primary tumour samples. Library construction and sequencing Frozen specimens with >50% tumour cellularity (based on initial slide review) were used for cryosectioning and subsequent nucleic acid extraction. Patient tumour and normal blood samples derived from primary, untreated fresh frozen tumour specimens harvested at diagnosis during standard of care debulking surgery. Germline DNA was provided from peripheral blood buffy coat on all specimens except 13 from Tokyo, where non-cancer frozen tissue was used as a germline source. DNA extraction from both matched normal (blood) and tumour samples (frozen tissue) were performed using the QIAamp Blood and Tissue DNA kit (Qiagen) and quantified using a Qbit fluorometer and reagents (high-sensitivity assay). Three lanes of Illumina HiSeq 2500 v4 chemistry for normal samples and five lanes for tumour samples were obtained. The PCR-free protocol was adopted to eliminate the PCR-induced bias and improve coverage across the genome.

  Dataset EGAD00001003266

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network (ARDSNet) Study 04 Assessment of Low Tidal Volume and Elevated End-Expiratory Volume to Obviate Lung Injury (ALVEOLI-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. BiospecimensAccess to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-ALVEOLI include Plasma and DNA. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data Outcome data regarding organ failure free days are not available. Objectives The ARDS Network is a consortium of clinical centers and a coordinating center to design and test novel therapies for the treatment of Acute Lung Injury (ALI) and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The ARDS Network 01/03 trials included an investigation of the efficacy and safety of Ketoconazole and Respiratory Management in the treatment of ALI and ARDS (KARMA). The Ketoconazole arm of the KARMA study was later stopped due to an inability to show efficacy. Participants continued to be randomized to the respiratory management arms of the study (ARMA), which compared two ventilator strategies: a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg versus 12 mL/kg. The LARMA phase of the study investigated the efficacy of Lisofylline and Respiratory Management. The objective of the ALVEOLI study was to compare clinical outcomes of participants with ALI and ARDS treated with a higher end-expiratory lung volume/lower FiO2 versus a lower end-expiratory lung volume/higher FiO2 ventilation strategy. The ALVEOLI study tested the hypothesis that mortality from ALI and ARDS would be reduced with a mechanical ventilation strategy designed to prevent lung injury from repeated collapse of bronchioles and alveoli at end-expiration. Background Most participants requiring mechanical ventilation for ALI and ARDS receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 to 12 cm of water. Higher PEEP levels may improve oxygenation and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury but may also cause circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistention. PEEP levels higher than traditional levels may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury by decreasing the proportion of nonaerated lung and higher PEEP levels may allow arterial-oxygenation goals to be met at a lower level of inspired oxygen (FiO2). Participants A total of 550 participants were randomized to receive mechanical ventilation with either lower or higher PEEP levels, which were set according to different tables of predetermined combinations of PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen. Conclusions Participants with acute lung injury and ARDS who receive mechanical ventilation with a tidal-volume goal of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an end-inspiratory plateau-pressure limit of 30 cm of water, clinical outcomes were statistically similar whether lower or higher PEEP levels are used. (Brower, et al., 1004; PMID: 15269312).

  Study phs003714

• Comprehensive Omics Analysis of Pediatric Solid Tumors and Establishment of a Repository for Related Biologic Studies (10C0086)

  This study (10-C-0086) collected and analyzed tumor and circulating tumor omics of pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma who were co-enrolled in and receiving treatment on the interventional study 17-C-0049. We sought to describe the summary genomic findings of tumors, and report on the detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in serial samples. Tumor tissue and blood were collected and analyzed. Tumor samples were subjected to whole exome and/or whole genome sequencing paired with RNA-Seq. Cell free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from serially collected blood samples and sequenced. Fusion status, mutations, and IGF1R and YES1 expression from tumor samples revealed the presence of a PAX3 fusion in most samples, a number of common mutations, and universal but heterogeneous expression of IGF-1R and YES1. ctDNA was detected above the 3% threshold in a majority of patients and analysis of cfDNA demonstrated an ability to monitor tumor clonal evolution.

  Study phs003243

• Gene Expression between PMD and Control LCLs at Baseline, E2, and E2 Withdrawal

  In this study, lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) derived from women with past perimenopausal depression (PMD) (n = 8) and asymptomatic controls (n = 9) were compared via poly(A)-selected transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq). LCLs were cultured in three experimental conditions: at vehicle baseline (ovarian steroid-free), during estradiol (E2) treatment, and following E2-withdrawal. Transcriptomic analysis revealed significant differences in transcript expression in PMD LCLs compared to controls in all experimental conditions, and significant overlap in genes that were changed in PMD regardless of experimental condition. Among these, chemokine CXCL10 was upregulated in women with PMD, but most so after E2-WD and CYP7B1, an enzyme intrinsic to DHEA metabolism, was upregulated in PMD across experimental conditions. Finally, this in vitro model identified gene networks dysregulated in PMD which included inflammatory response, early/late E2-response, and cholesterol homeostasis. Data available will include the normalized counts for each subject in the study.

  Study phs003003