Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

ERBB2/HER2 alterations in ctDNA and metachronous tissues of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer - WGS

Whole genome sequencing data related to the publication "ERBB2/HER2 alterations in ctDNA and metachronous tissues of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer." ERBB2 alterations, usually amplifications or activating mutations, are seen in up to 20% of urothelial carcinoma and can be targeted by monoclonal antibodies, small molecule inhibitors, and most recently, antibody-drug conjugates. Here, we perform targeted and whole-genome sequencing of cell-free DNA and archival FFPE of mUC with and without ERBB2 alterations to identify unique genomic and clinical features of ERBB2-altered cancers, accompanied by IHC, FISH, and detailed clinical outcomes.

Study EGAS50000001082

ERBB2/HER2 alterations in ctDNA and metachronous tissues of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer - Targeted

Targeted sequencing data related to the publication titled "ERBB2/HER2 alterations in ctDNA and metachronous tissues of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer." ERBB2 alterations, usually amplifications or activating mutations, are seen in up to 20% of urothelial carcinoma and can be targeted by monoclonal antibodies, small molecule inhibitors, and most recently, antibody-drug conjugates. Here, we perform targeted and whole-genome sequencing of cell-free DNA and archival FFPE of mUC with and without ERBB2 alterations to identify unique genomic and clinical features of ERBB2-altered cancers, accompanied by IHC, FISH, and detailed clinical outcomes.

Study EGAS50000001081

Clinical utility of combined low-pass whole genome and targeted sequencing in liquid biopsies for diagnosis and monitoring of pediatric solid tumors

We designed a liquid biopsy (LB) platform employing Low-Pass Whole Genome Sequencing (LP-WGS) and targeted sequencing of cell-free (cf) DNA isolated from plasma for detecting genome-wide copy number alterations and targeted gene fusions in pediatric solid tumors. A total of 143 plasma samples were analyzed from 19 controls (patients with non-oncologic diagnoses) and 73 patients, including 44 with bone or soft tissue sarcomas, 12 with renal tumors, 10 with germ cell tumors, 5 with hepatic tumors, and 2 with thyroid tumors.

Study EGAS00001006913

Nanopore sequencing from liquid biopsy: analysis of copy number variations from cell-free DNA of lung cancer patients

Molecular cancer paper (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-021-01327-5): This dataset contain shallow whole-genome sequencing (sWGS) of plasma cell-free DNA from cancer patients and healthy subjects, obtained with both Nanopore and Illumina technology. A total of 6 cancer patients and 5 healthy subjects have been sequenced with Nanopore; 4 of the cancer patients have been also sequenced with Illumina. In addition, genomic DNA from white blood cells of one healthy subjects, genomic and 160bp DNA from HEK cells have been sequenced with Nanopore. Genome Biology paper: 3 additional healthy samples have been sequenced (HU), two different bioinformatic pipeline were applied. 2019: Fastqs from the molecular cancer paper were re-demultiplexed and adapter-trimmed (using guppy for multiplex samples, and porechop for singleplex) preserving 5' ends to allow fragmentomics analysis. HAC: All the samples were basecalled with the same updated High Accuracy model (the latest at the time of the analysis) and post-processed as the 2019 dataset. Raw FAST5 are currently available upon request, but will be uploaded soon.

Dataset EGAD00001006888

Poland Opole Voivodeship WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 10 samples (5 female, 5 male of Opole Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000124

Poland Podlaskie Voivodeship WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 12 samples (6 female, 6 male of Podlaskie Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000125

Poland Lubusz Voivodeship WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 19 samples (8 female, 11 male of Lubusz Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000127

Poland Holy Cross Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 6 samples (6 female of Holy Cross Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000162

Poland Warmian-Mazurian Voivodeship WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 15 samples (8 female, 7 male of Warmian-Mazurian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000128

Poland Lublin Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 24 samples (14 female, 10 male of Lublin Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000155

Poland Lodz Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 41 samples (20 female, 21 male of Lodz Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000165

Poland Lesser Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 32 samples (14 female, 18 male of Lesser Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000166

Poland Mazovia Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 43 samples (16 female, 27 male of Mazovia Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000164

Poland Greater Poland Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 37 samples (19 female, 18 male of Greater Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000161

Poland Subcarpathian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 22 samples (11 female, 11 male of Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000157

Poland Pomeranian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 25 samples (14 female, 11 male of Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000160

Poland Lower Silesian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 30 samples (15 female, 15 male of Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000156

Poland Silesian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 47 samples (23 female, 24 male of Silesian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000163

Poland Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 22 samples (11 female, 11 male of Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000158

Poland West Pomeranian Voivodeship - WGS

This project used NGS (next generation sequencing), using Illumina NOVASEQ 6000 and Illumina DRAGEN aligner. The dataset includes BAM and BAM.BAI files from Whole Genome Sequencing of 17 samples (7 female, 10 male of West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland from POPULOUS collection). Library Construction Protocol: Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Tagmentation. Reference Genome: GRCh37.

Dataset EGAD50000000129

cfMeDIP data for 14 Barrier samples

We analyzed the cell free DNA methylomes using 14 plasma samples from patients with mCRPC in the Barrier cohort. Methylation was profiled using the methylated DNA immunoprecipitation coupled to next generation sequencing (MeDIP) technology.

Dataset EGAD00001008712

Programmatic submission based on XML

Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. 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. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

The African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium Study

The AMBER Consortium Study was formed to pool interview data, questionnaire data, and biological samples from epidemiological studies of breast cancer in African-American women to discover the potential causes of early-onset and aggressive breast cancer in African-American women. AMBER is funded through a Program Project grant from the National Cancer Institute. Genetic data submitted to dbGaP come from participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, Women's Circle of Health Study, and Black Women's Health Study. The P01 consists of four scientific projects; the aims include follow-up on previous GWAS findings for breast cancer susceptibility in AA women as well as investigation of SNPs in candidate genes in biologically plausible pathways. These SNPs were genotyped using DNA from 3130 African-American women with breast cancer and 3700 controls. Descriptions of the original studies that provided the data and samples for this collaborative study are given below. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): a North Carolina population-based case-control study of breast cancer, conducted in three phases. The current study phase, phase 3 (years 2008-2014), includes women residents in 44 counties. CBCS phases 1 and 2 were conducted in 24 counties. Breast cancer cases are identified using Rapid Case Ascertainment in cooperation with the NC Central Cancer Registry. Controls were identified for phases 1 and 2 only (1993-1996 and 1996-2001), using Division of Motor Vehicles lists for women under age 65 and Health Care Financing Administration lists for women 65 and older. Randomized recruitment was used to oversample AA women and women under age 50. In-depth interviews are conducted by study nurses in participants' homes to obtain information on potential risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples have been obtained from most participants. Overall response rates for Phases 1 and 2 were 74% for AA cases and 54% for AA controls. Phase 3, conducted in 44 counties from 2008-2014, includes cases only. The response rate for AA cases in Phase 3 was 70.5%. The Women's Circle of Health Study (WCHS): a multi-site case-control study in New York City (NYC) and New Jersey (NJ) aimed at evaluating risk factors for early and aggressive breast cancer in women of AA and EA ancestry. Recruitment in NYC took place between January 2002 and December 2008 and involved hospital-based ascertainment of cases, while controls were identified through random digit dialing (RDD). Recruitment at the NJ site started in March 2006 and is ongoing. Phase I of the study ended in April 2012 and covered seven counties in NJ. WCHS2 includes two additional counties. Cases in NJ were identified from 2006 to 2012 by the NJ State Cancer Registry using rapid case ascertainment. Controls were initially recruited though RDD (2006 to 2010) and later through community-based efforts (2009-2012). In-person interviews ascertained data on established and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. DNA samples were obtained. Among eligible AA women, 75% in NY and 54% in NJ completed an interview and provided a biologic specimen. Black Women's Health Study (BWHS): an ongoing prospective cohort study of health and illness among U.S. black women, with a focus on cancer. The study began in 1995 when 59,000 AA women 21-69 years of age from across the United States completed a 14-page postal health questionnaire. The median age at entry was 38, and participants were residents of 17 states in mainland U.S.: Northeast, 28%; South, 30%; Midwest, 23%; West, 19%. The baseline questionnaire elicited information on a wide range of variables, including demographic factors, use of medical care, family history of breast cancer, reproductive and medical history, cigarette and alcohol use, weight, height, waist and hip circumference, medication use, diet, and exercise. Biennial follow-up questionnaires ascertain new cases of breast cancer and other illnesses and update covariate information. Medical record and cancer registry data are sought for all participants who report a diagnosis of breast cancer. As of 2014, approximately 80% of the baseline cohort have completed follow-up. DNA samples were obtained from about 50% of participants. BWHS data for the AMBER consortium were prepared as a nested case-control study, with controls frequency-matched to cases on year of birth, geographic region, and most recent questionnaire completed prior to the end of the at-risk period.

Study phs000669

Angelman, Rett, Prader-Willi Syndrome Consortium (ARP) Rett Syndrome Natural History Protocol

This observational study will involve the comprehensive assessment of the clinical features of Rett syndrome with this Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network. A clinical database of 1350 individuals with Rett syndrome including MECP2 mutation status for the purpose of elaborating phenotype-genotype correlations will be established. Eligible participants will be enrolled in the natural history study for 11 years from the 4 clinic sites currently involved with Rett syndrome (BCM, GGC, and UAB, CHB) as well as from the several thousand registrants in the International Rett Syndrome Foundation registry who will be invited to the nearest consortium site involved in Rett syndrome. Potential participants are expected to have had determination of their MECP2 mutation status, but will not be excluded should no mutation be present. All individuals who meet criteria and are currently receiving care from study sites will be invited to participate (N>600). Additional participants will be invited through the assistance of the International Rett Syndrome Foundation (IRSF). All individuals with RS registered with IRSF will be invited to participate in this study via the IRSF website and the IRSF newsletter. Potential participants will be apprised of the participating study sites and invited to contact one of the sites based on feasibility of travel. Inasmuch as the enrollment goal of 1350 participants is 40% of the current IRSF registry, we believe this will be a representative sampling. Bias can certainly occur based on travel requirements, level of interest, and other factors. However, inclusion of such a large sample should minimize sampling bias. No travel expenses will be covered, so it is likely that participants will be those with geographic proximity to Houston, Greenwood, Birmingham, or Boston. From the sample pool described above, the aim is to conduct the observational longitudinal (natural history) study on up to 1350 participants with classic Rett syndrome and variant forms of Rett syndrome, that is, participants who fully meet the established clinical criteria for Rett syndrome and those who meet some but not all of these criteria. All participants expressing MECP2 mutations irrespective of phenotype will be eligible for enrollment. For each of the eight common genetic mutations as well as those with large scale deletions, the prevalence of the following RS characteristics will be estimated for each age category and overall: seizure presence and frequency, ambulation status, scoliosis, ECG abnormality, breathing irregularities while awake, feeding difficulties, growth as measured in percentiles from NCHS standards curves, the presence of osteopenia as evidenced by bone fracture, and the presence of gallbladder disease. Both incidence and prevalence estimates will be made using a combination of data obtained at the regularly scheduled clinical visits and that obtained from the medical history. Incidence estimates will be calculated using time-to-event analyses (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival curves) with appropriate calculations of standard errors and 95% confidence intervals. Cox proportional hazard regression models will be used to allow control for other factors, and t-tests will be calculated on the coefficients themselves. Appropriate transformations on explanatory variables will be used as deemed necessary in Cox models. Prevalence estimates will be calculated from estimates of proportions with exact confidence intervals. For a sample size of 275, the standard error of the estimate will not exceed 0.03 (3%) and for a sample size of 60, the standard error of the estimate will not exceed 0.06 (6%).

Study phs000574

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Version 3 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3-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. Available Data The ROC Cardiac Epistry version 3 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015. This is separate from versions 1 and 2 because of the major changes in how and which data were collected. Version 3 represents the following major changes to the structure and data collection: separate ED Arrival and Hospital Admits forms, mandatory ED and Hospital elements and a revamped CPR Process form. For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest; to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes. Background Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes. Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants There were 120,306 participants. Design ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

Study phs003726

6696 results for "get free fc 26 coins Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..P1Ah"

in 19.92 milliseconds.