455 results for "igvault fc 26 Besuche die Website Buyfc26coins.com. Super Service..KWav"

in 30.35 milliseconds.

• Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA)

  The Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) Cohort was created by a RC2 "Grand Opportunity" grant that was awarded to the Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics (AG036607; Schaefer/Risch, PIs). The RC2 project enabled genome-wide SNP genotyping (GWAS) to be conducted on a cohort of over 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its RPGEH. The purpose of the RPGEH is to facilitate research on the genetic and environmental factors that affect health and disease by linking together clinical data from electronic health records, survey data on demographic and behavioral factors, and environmental data from various sources, with genetic data derived from biospecimens collected from participants. At the time of the award of the RC2 project in late 2009, the RPGEH had established a cohort of about 140,000 individuals who had answered a detailed survey, provided saliva samples for extraction of DNA, and given broad consent for the use of their data in studies of health and disease. To maximize the diversity of the resulting sample, the GERA cohort was formed by including all racial and ethnic minority participants with saliva samples (N = 20,925; 19%); the remaining participants were drawn sequentially and randomly from white non-Hispanic participants (89,341; 81%). A total of 110,266 participant samples were included to ensure that at least 100,000 were successfully assayed. The resulting GERA cohort is 42% male, 58% female, and ranges in age from 18 to over 100 years old with an average age of 63 years at the time of the RPGEH survey (2007). The sample is ethnically diverse, generally well-educated with above average income. Approximately 69% of the participants are married or living with a partner. Length of membership in KPNC averages 23.5 years. UCSF and RPGEH investigators worked with the genomics company Affymetrix to design four custom microarrays for genotyping each of the four major race-ethnicity groups included in the GERA Cohort, described in detail in Hoffmann et al., 2011a and 2011b. Following genotyping and quality control procedures, and after removal of invalid, discordant, or withdrawn samples, about 103,000 participants were successfully genotyped. The resulting genotypic data were linked to survey data and data abstracted from the electronic medical records. As described below, all RPGEH participants were mailed new consent forms with explicit discussion of the placement of data in the NIH-maintained dbGaP. About 77% of participants returned completed consent forms, resulting in a final sample size of 78,486 participants in the GERA Cohort with data for deposit into dbGaP. Origins of the RPGEH GERA Cohort The goal in creating the RPGEH GERA cohort was to create a large, multiethnic, and comprehensive population-based resource for research into the genetic and environmental basis of common age-related diseases and their treatment, and factors influencing healthy aging and longevity. The GERA Cohort consists of a diverse cohort of more than 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health (RPGEH). KPNC is an integrated health care delivery system with a population of about 3.3 million people in northern California. The membership of KPNC is representative of the general population in the 14 county area in which facilities are located, although the membership is underrepresented for the extremes of income at both ends of the spectrum. The RPGEH utilizes the longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) of KPNC to obtain clinical, laboratory, imaging and pharmacy information on all cohort members, to which personal demographic, behavioral and health characteristics have been added through member surveys. The GERA Cohort comprises a subsample of the RPGEH participant cohort, and was created through the RC2 award from the NIA, NIMH, and NIH Common Fund as described above. GERA Study Design The GERA Cohort is a subsample, as described above, of the longitudinal cohort enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente RPGEH. The RPGEH cohort includes about 400,000 survey participants of whom about 200,000 have provided broad consent and a sample of saliva or blood for use in studies of genetic and environmental factors in health and disease. The GERA Cohort was developed from a mailed survey sent to all adult members of KPNC who had been members for two years or more in 2007. All survey respondents were contacted and asked to complete a consent form; those who completed consent forms were asked to provide a saliva sample. Additional male participants were added to the RPGEH through inclusion of the Northern California sample of the California Men's Health Study (CMHS) cohort of about 40,000 men from KPNC, ages 45-69 years old at the time of the CMHS survey in 2002-2003. The CMHS participants contributed about 15,400 saliva samples to the RPGEH and were eligible for inclusion in the GERA Cohort. CMHS participants were included according to the same sampling design as for the RPGEH cohort as a whole. Specifically, all minority participants were selected for inclusion in order to maximize representation of minorities in the GERA Cohort, and Non-Hispanic White participants were selected at random to complete the sample of 110,266 GERA Cohort participants. GERA Genotypic Data High-density genotyping was conducted at UCSF using custom designed Affymetrix Axiom arrays, as described in Hoffmann et al. (2011a; 2011b). To maximize genome-wide coverage of common and less common variants, four specific arrays were designed for individuals of Non-Hispanic White (EUR), East Asian (EAS), African-American (AFR), and Latino (LAT) race/ethnicity. There was broad overlap among the SNPs on the arrays, which were designed using a hybrid greedy imputation algorithm (Hoffmann et al., 2011b) applied to genotype information validated by Affymetrix from the 1000 Genomes Project. However, in order to capture low frequency variants specific to particular race-ethnicity groups, SNP content varies between arrays. A more detailed description of the process of genotyping and results is included in Genotyping of DNA Samples. Description of the analyses of population structure and development of principal components for adjustment of population structure is included in Population Structure Analysis. GERA Phenotypic Data RPGEH and CMHS Survey Data. The sources of data on demographic and behavioral factors deposited in dbGaP for the GERA Cohort are the RPGEH and CMHS surveys. Data on common demographic factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education and on behavioral factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index, have been cleaned, edited, reconciled between the two surveys, and compiled into summary indices, where appropriate, for deposition into dbGaP. A more complete description of the survey variables is included in Survey Variables Documentation. Please note that the terms of use of the GERA Cohort Data, as specified in the Data Use Certification (DUC), prohibit the use of survey variables as outcomes in analyses. For example, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of education or smoking is not permitted as specified by the DUC. Only health conditions can be used as outcome variables in analyses. Health Conditions derived from Kaiser Permanente Electronic Medical Records. Data on the occurrence of health conditions in participants in the GERA Cohort have been derived from summarizing ICD-9 coded diagnoses in Kaiser Permanente's electronic medical records. An algorithm that aggregates specific ICD-9 codes into appropriate diagnostic groups for selected conditions is applied to outpatient and inpatient databases; see Disease and Conditions Definitions Documentation for details. The criterion for including a condition as "present" for a participant is the occurrence of two or more diagnoses within a diagnostic category occurring on separate days. Two or more is used as the criterion in order to reduce false positives due to mistakes or rule-out diagnoses. When compared with validated disease registries, the criterion of 2+ diagnoses yields high specificity and good sensitivity. ICD-9 codes in the electronic records are specified in several ways. For outpatient visits occurring during the period 1995 to 2006, diagnoses were assigned by the treating physician who endorsed specific diagnoses on an optically scanned list that varied by specialty. Beginning in 2006 with the advent of an integrated, fully electronic medical record, outpatient diagnoses are made by physicians/ providers using a pull down menu. Discharge diagnoses from inpatient stays are specified by physicians and coded by specially trained coders. Databases of ICD-9 codes for diagnoses assigned at outpatient visits, or as one of the discharge diagnoses following inpatient stays, are complete and available for all KPNC members dating back to 1995. Although the average length of KPNC membership among GERA cohort members is 23.5 years in 2007, not all have been members since 1995, so the history for some conditions, such as those that are not chronic or recurrent, may not be complete for all cohort members. The year of first membership in KPNC is included as a variable in the list of survey variables, enabling investigators to estimate the number of years of observation of each Cohort member. RPGEH Access and Collaborations Website and Procedures The RPGEH maintains a web portal for inquiries and applications for collaboration and access to data. The url is: https://rpgehportal.kaiser.org/. RPGEH has an application process and an Access Review Committee that reviews applications for collaboration and use. For more details, please contact RPGEH through the website.

  Study phs000674

• Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study

  The Women's Health Initiative (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. Extension Studies: The original protocol allowed for follow-up until March 2005, after which participants were invited to enroll in the first WHI Extension Study for follow-up through 2010. Participants were invited again to participate in the second WHI Extension Study with continued follow up from 2010 to at least 2015. As of March 31, 2011 there were 93,122 women enrolled in the second extension. In Extension Study 2, the overall WHI study population was divided into two new subsamples, the Medical Records Cohort (MRC) and the Self-Report Cohort (SRC). The MRC consists of all former hormone trial participants and all African American and Hispanic participants from all study components. The SRC consists of the remaining participants. The extent of outcome information collected differs between the two cohorts, with more extensive outcomes information collection on the MRC. As part of Extension Study 2, selected older WHI participants were invited to participate in an In Person Visit (a.k.a., Long Life Study) at their homes during which additional blood samples were collected and various measurements were taken (such as blood pressure, height, weight, waist circumference, grip strength, etc.). In October 2015, Extension Study 2 was renewed with continued follow-up planned through October 2020, pending annual contract review and renewal. Additional Information: The WHI website, https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/About%20WHI.aspx has much more information about the study. For WHI data collection forms used over the years, please see https://www.whi.org/researchers/studydoc/SitePages/Forms.aspx. For additional dataset documentation, see https://www.whi.org/researchers/data/Pages/Available%20Data.aspx. For data preparation and use, please refer to 'WHI dbGaP Cohort Data Release Data Preparation Guide May 2018' for additional details about the WHI data. The WHI Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs000200 WHI Cohort. phs000386 WHI SHARe phs000281 GO-ESP WHISP phs000315 WHI GARNET phs000503 WHISE phs000227 PAGE WHI phs000675 WHIMS+ phs000746 WHI Harmonized and Imputed GWAS phs001334 WHI Metabolomics of CHD phs001335 WHI BA23 phs001614 WHI LLS Phase III GWAS

  Study phs000200

• Health and Retirement Study (HRS)

  Introduction to V2: This data release comprises data from the V1 release combined with approximately 3,000 additional samples, collected during the HRS 2010 field period. The 2010 data include samples from a random half of the new cohort enrolled in 2010 along with a significant expansion of the minority sample. Description: The University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is a longitudinal panel study that surveys a representative sample of approximately 20,000 people in America over the age of 50 every two years. Supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740) and the Social Security Administration, the HRS explores the changes in labor force participation and the health transitions that individuals undergo toward the end of their work lives and in the years that follow. The study collects information about income, work, assets, pension plans, health insurance, disability, physical health and functioning, cognitive functioning, and health care expenditures. Through its unique and in-depth interviews, the HRS provides an invaluable and growing body of multidisciplinary data that researchers can use to address important questions about the challenges and opportunities of aging. Because of its innovation and importance, the HRS has become the model and hub for a growing network of harmonized longitudinal aging studies around the world. Origins of the HRS. As the population ages it is increasingly important to obtain reliable data about aging and topics that are relevant to a range of policy issues in aging. To address this need, the National Institutes on Aging (NIA) established a cooperative agreement with the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research to collect such data. The HRS launched data collection in 1992 and has re-interviewed the original sample of respondents every two years since then. By adding new cohorts and refreshing the sample, the HRS has grown to become the largest, most representative longitudinal panel study of Americans 50 years and older. HRS Study Design. The target population for the original HRS cohort includes all adults in the contiguous United States born during the years 1931-1941 who reside in households, with a 2:1 oversample of African-American and Hispanic populations. The original sample is refreshed with new birth cohorts (51-56 years of age) every six years. The sample has been expanded over the years to include a broader range of birth cohorts as well. The target population for the AHEAD survey consists of United States household residents who were born in 1923 or earlier. Children of the Depression (CODA) recruits households born 1924-1930, War Babies 1942-47, Early Boomers 1948-53, and Mid-Boomers 1954-59. Data collection includes a mixed mode design combining in-person, telephone, mail, and Internet. For consenting respondents, HRS data are linked at the individual level to administrative records from Social Security and Medicare claims. Genetic Research in the HRS. The HRS has genotyped 2.5 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on respondents using Illumina's Human Omni2.5-Quad (Omni2.5) BeadChip. The genotyping was performed by the NIH Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Saliva was collected on half of the HRS sample each wave starting in 2006. In 2006, saliva was collected using a mouthwash collection method. From 2008 onward, the data collection method switched to the Oragene kit. Saliva completion rates were 83% in 2006, 84% in 2008, and 80% in 2010 among new cohort enrollees. HRS Phenotypic data. Phenotypic data are available on a variety of dimensions. Health measures include physical/psychological self-report, various health conditions, disabilities, cognitive performance, health behaviors (smoking, drinking, exercise), physical performance and anthropomorphic measures, and biomarkers (HbA1c, Total Cholesterol, HDL, CRP, Cystatin-C). Data are also available on health services including utilization, insurance and out-of-pocket spending with linkage to Medicare records. Economic measures include employment status/history, earnings, disability, retirement, type of work, income by source, wealth by asset type, capital gains/debt, consumption, linkage to pensions, Social Security earnings/benefit histories. There is also extensive information on family structure, proximity, transfers to/from of money, time, social and psychological characteristics, as well as a wide range of demographics. Performance on a cognitive test combining immediate and delayed word recall was selected as an example trait for the dbGaP data release. In the immediate word recall task the interviewer reads a list of 10 nouns to the respondent and asks the respondent to recall as many words as possible from the list in any order. After approximately five minutes of asking other survey questions, the respondent is asked to recall the nouns previously presented as part of the immediate recall task. The total recall score is the sum of the correct answers to these two tasks, with a range of 0 to 20. Researchers who wish to link to other HRS measures not in dbGaP will be able to apply for access from HRS. A separate Data Use Agreement (DUA) will be required for linkage to the HRS data. See the HRS website (http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu/gwas) for details.

  Study phs000428

• A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study of Sodium Phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl) and Low-Dose Arginine (100 mg/kg/day) Compared to High-Dose Arginine (500 mg/kg/day) Alone on Liver Function, Ureagenesis and Subsequent Nitric Oxide Production in Patients with Argininosuccinic Aciduria (ASA)

  Individuals with Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) cannot remove ammonia, a waste product, from the blood. At present there is little information on the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in children with argininosuccinic aciduria (ASA). It is hoped that this drug may help lower ammonia and argininosuccinic acid levels in patients with ASA. Through this study we hope to learn whether the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in patients with ASA, in addition to diet and arginine therapy, will decrease liver damage and the number of periods during which ammonia levels are high. The primary study objective is to determine if the treatment of ASA patients with sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in conjunction with lowered doses of arginine improves liver function as measured by short-term assessment of synthetic activity and the use of stable isotope tracers to assess ureagenesis and nitric oxide production. Twelve patients with ASA will be studied using a randomized, cross-over design. Medical records will be reviewed to confirm the diagnosis prior to enrollment. Patients will be on the each arm of the study for one week each preceded by a three day washout period. Patients will come to the Baylor College of Medicine General Clinical Research Center in Texas Children's Hospital for an inpatient hospitalization. This hospitalization is for diet control, clinical evaluation, and stable isotope infusions for measurement of in vivo rates of ureagenesis and nitric oxide production. During the washout periods Buphenyl™ or other alternative route medications, e.g., benzoate, will be discontinued and arginine will be administered at the standard therapeutic dose of 500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2. Following randomization, subjects will be maintained on either high-dose arginine (500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2) alone, or the alternative of low-dose arginine (100 mg/kg/d or 2 grams/m2) along with sodium phenylbutyrate (500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2). For the second week they will be crossed over to the other arm of the study preceded by another three day washout. Previous medications and dietary protein intake (0.6 g/kg/day or current metabolic diet) will be continued during both arms of the study. The two arms may be performed as separate ten-day admissions. The decision to design the study with two arms, high-dose arginine and low-dose arginine/Buphenyl™, was reached after weighing several considerations. First, the current accepted practice for treatment of ASA is high-dose arginine. Based on metabolic flux studies, we have quantified the effects of this dose of arginine as compared to standard doses of Buphenyl™/phenylacetate on ureagenesis. Since the study is not designed or intended to address the independent effects of Buphenyl™ as compared to arginine alone, Buphenyl™ was added for safety reasons to accommodate loss of clearance of nitrogen by decreasing the arginine dose. Moreover, based on our experience with recruiting for previous versions of this study, most ASA patients with liver dysfunction are on an alternative route ammonia scavenger medication in addition to arginine. We found that this has in fact become an accepted practice. Hence, when considering study design from both a safety and recruitment perspective, it was most reasonable to design the study to investigate specifically the hypothesis that the production and presence of argininosuccinic acid leads to liver dysfunction. Since both low-dose arginine with Buphenyl™ and high-dose arginine alone lead to a decreased production of argininosuccinic acid, and both are currently accepted therapies in ASA and UCDs in general, the need to address their effects distinctly is not being investigated at this time. Sodium phenylbutyrate dosage will be 500 mg/kg/day in patients weighing less than 20kg and 10 g/m2/day in larger patients. Daily dosage will be given in equally divided doses 4 times per day. In order to ensure that the study remains double-blind to investigators, study staff and subjects, the Investigational Pharmacy Service at Texas Children's Hospital will dispense both the Buphenyl™ and arginine in powder form which is compounded into capsules or will be mixed with syrpalta (up to 5 grams will dissolve in 10cc liquid) and administered orally or through nasogastric or gastrostomy tube. No nasogastric tube should be placed or gastrostomy performed solely for the purpose of inclusion in this study. Because the reported adverse effects of sodium phenylbutyrate include gastritis, participants will be started on a standard dose of ranitidine (Zantac™), or comparable drug, during both arms of the study.

  Study phs001305

• Better Outcomes for Children: GWAS from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) - eMERGE Phase II data - (dbGaP Deposit 1)

  This submission includes genotyping data from 6 separate cohorts (named A-E here), each is described in separate paragraphs below. Cohort A) Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1.5 million people in the United States, at an estimated lifetime cost of $4 million. It is part of Pervasive Developmental Disorder characterized by impairments in communication, language and reciprocal social interaction, and by unusual patterns of restricted and repetitive interests or behaviors. Autism, or autistic disorder, is the most severe form of the disease which has a wide range of symptom severity encompassed by the more inclusive term, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The prevalence of Autistic Disorder is currently estimated to be 4 per 1000, affecting 4 times more boys than girls. Susceptibility to autism is clearly attributable to genetic factors but the extensive clinical and genetic heterogeneity within the disorder have hindered efforts at genetic dissection. Identifying the genetic variants that contribute to this highly heritable disease is crucial to advancing research on autism. Reported concordance rates among monozygotic twins range from 60% − 90% and heritability of autism has been estimated to be 90% or greater. Identifying genetic variants that contribute to this highly heritable disease is crucial to advancing research on autism. Cohort B) The long-term objective of this research is to determine the molecular genetic basis of Cardiovascular (CV) disease in the young; this study seeks to identify gene mutations that cause "structural heart defects". Every year in the USA, 32,000 individuals are born with CV malformations; approximately 20% die during the first year of life. Another 30,000 young people develop a disturbance of cardiac rhythm or conduction. In addition, the life expectancy of another 40,000 young people is shortened by other forms of CV disease. It is becoming more apparent that in spite of the success in diagnosis and treatment, very little is known about the causes of CV disease in the young; understanding the causes will permit insight into the pathophysiologic basis of disease and allow definition of disease risk - two critical elements for disease prevention. Disease prevention and/or risk modification promises to be the new frontier in the management of CV disease in the young. Cohort C) Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EE) is one of the manifestations of eosinophilic gastrointestinal inflammation which have profound effects on a patient's health and development. Results of epidemiologic studies performed through our center demonstrate that eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disease is not an uncommon entity. While the epidemiology of eosinophilic esophagitis has not been thoroughly studied until recently, there appears to be a significant increase in the diagnosis of EE in the last decade. Based on our research, this mainly reflects increased disease recognition, but there is also a bona-fide increase in disease incidence which coincides with the increasing incidence of asthma and allergic diseases in the industrialized world. In addition, many patients with intractable symptoms thought in the past to represent atypical GERD or other disorders are now being recognized as having EE. Diagnosis of EE requires endoscopy and biopsies to document the characteristic histologic findings of esophageal eosinophilia. In general, this study proposed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying eosinophil growth, survival, migration, and function, and to investigate and further characterize the pathophysiology of, clinical manifestations of, and spectrum of disease severity of eosinophilic esophagitis in humans. Cohort D) Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a debilitating complex genetic disorder characterized by inflammation of the joints and other tissues and shares histopathological features with other autoimmune diseases. It is considered a complex genetic disorder. There are more than 50,000 children with JIA in the USA, approximately 1 per 1000 births, which is about the same incidence as juvenile diabetes. It is believed that genes in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) play a role in defining genetic risk, and it can be hypothesized that loci in other chromosomal regions are involved in conferring risk in JIA. These candidate chromosomal regions can be identified using genome wide association analyses. The long-term goal is a comprehensive understanding of the genetic basis of these disabling arthropathies for which the molecular basis is not presently understood. The results of recent GWAS for Caucasian JIA were recently published in Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Feb 21 (Published online, PMID=22354554). Cohort E) Childhood Absence Epilepsy (CAE) is characterized by very frequent (several to many per day) absence seizures in an otherwise normal child with an EEG usually demonstrating 3 Hz bilateral, synchronous, symmetrical spikewaves pattern with normal background activity. CAE occurs in 10% to 15% of all children with epilepsy with an annual incidence of 6.3 to 8/100,000 in children <15 years of age. Females are more affected than males. Epilepsy onset is typically between the ages of 4 to 8 years with a peak incidence of 6 to 7 years. CAE does not start after age 13 years. The primary objective of this study is: To identify the optimal anticonvulsant (i.e. the antiepileptic drug (AED) with highest rate of seizure control and lowest incidence of treatment limiting toxicity) used for the initial treatment of children with Childhood Absence Epilepsy (CAE). The secondary objectives are: To determine the pharmacogenetic and other non-heritable factors underlying the interindividual variation in anticonvulsant response efficacy and toxicity. To define and contrast the effects of ethosuximide, lamotrigine, and valproic acid monotherapy on cognition (attention), behavior and quality of life in children with Childhood Absence Epilepsy. Cohort F) Cincinnati Controls. These are local healthy children selected to be representative of the population of Cincinnati with respect to gender and ancestry. Cohort G) Cytogenetics cases are ascertained by the clinical request to obtain cytogenetic analysis. The platform used included genotyping data which are then available for genome wide association analysis

  Study phs000494

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API! This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• Genes and Blood Clotting Study (GABC)

  Objectives: Use genome-wide approaches to identify genetic variants that influence common thrombosis and hemostasis factors, as well as selected common human traits. Design/Methods: The GABC study was a prospective sibling cohort design. Siblings were recruited by targeted email to the undergraduate and graduate student email lists at the University of Michigan. Healthy persons between 14 and 35 years old who had healthy siblings within the same age restriction were able to participate. Study participants agreed to an online informed consent and subsequently completed a 52-question online survey describing their specific bleeding traits as well as many common human traits. Fifty milliliters of blood was collected into a citrate-dextrose solution (ACD) from each participant. An aliquot of whole blood was used for an automated complete blood count analysis and the remainder was processed into platelet poor plasma and buffy coat portions. Plasma and buffy coat aliquots were snap frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen for future studies. 1189 individuals representing 507 sibships were collected between 06/26/2006 and 01/30/2009. Phenotyping Survey Details: To characterize individual bruising and bleeding history, the online survey recorded answers to questions based on a modified von Willebrand Disease (VWD) screening questionnaire. To characterize a collection of participant's common human traits, the survey recorded answers to questions about height, weight, presence of skin tags, history of acne, eye color, hair color, hair line characteristics, skin sunburn sensitivity, skin tanning ability, natural skin color, freckling, cheek dimpling, earlobe shape, shoe size, foot arch characteristics, hand fifth digit morphology, history of dyslexia, history of migraine headaches, history of seasonal allergies, history of apthous ulcers, tendency to sneeze while walking into a bright sunny place, history of dental caries, need for corrective eye lenses, handedness and like or dislike of strongly flavored foods. Biochemical phenotyping: Assays for plasma Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) antigen were performed using ELISA and "Alphalisa" techniques. Automated complete blood count analysis was performed on a Bayer Advia 120 on all participants (including WBC differential, RBC indices, and platelet count.) For the dbGaP v2 update, new biochemical phenotypes have been submitted and include von Willebrand Factor, von Willebrand Factor propeptide, plasminogen, gamma prime fibrinogen, ADAMTS 13, antithrombin III, protein C, and protein S. All new phenotypes were obtained using "Alphalisa" techniques. Genotyping Details: SNP genotyping was performed using genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood at the Broad Institute, (MIT/Harvard). Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Omni-1 quad chip at the Broad Institute. For the dbGaP v2 update, genotyping data from the Illumina Human Exome was deposited. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to blood clotting through large-scale genome-wide association studies of siblings. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization was performed by the primary investigators at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington. This study serves as a resource for investigators who are interested in the genetic determinants of specific plasma proteins in a healthy population. The sibling cohort design allows for linkage analysis in addition to association studies. Analysis of thrombosis and hemostasis related traits should help elucidate specific biochemical and genetic networks that maintain hemostasis. We hope to identify specific genetic determinants of VWF levels in order to better understand the factors that influence the development of VWD.

  Study phs000304

• Data Use Ontology (DUO)

  Data Use Ontology Data Use Ontology at EGA The EGA is committed to its involvement in the work of GA4GH. In an effort to enhance data discoverability and streamline data access, EGA have implemented the use of the Data Use Ontology (DUO), based on consent codes as described in Dyke et al. 2017. The Data Use Ontology codes will be displayed on the live dataset page of your submission to advise any would be requestor on how the data can be used and also to enhance data discoverability as users will be able to search on these codes to find applicable datasets. DUO can be browsed online via the Ontology Lookup Service Learn more reading the Data Use Ontology publication and the GA4GH Machine-Readable Consent Guidance! Check our DAC Portal Take The Tour and learn how to add DUO codes to your policy! Term Shorthand Label Description DUO:0000004 NRES no restriction This data use permission indicates there is no restriction on use. DUO:0000042 GRU general research use This data use permission indicates that use is allowed for general research use for any research purpose. DUO:0000006 HMB health or medical or biomedical research This data use permission indicates that use is allowed for health/medical/biomedical purposes; does not include the study of population origins or ancestry. DUO:0000007 DS disease specific research This data use permission indicates that use is allowed provided it is related to the specified disease. DUO:0000011 POA population origins or ancestry research only This data use permission indicates that use of the data is limited to the study of population origins or ancestry. DUO:0000012 RS research specific restrictions This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to studies of a certain research type. DUO:0000015 NMDS no general methods research This data use modifier indicates that use does not allow methods development research (e.g., development of software or algorithms). DUO:0000016 GSO genetic studies only This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to genetic studies only (i.e., studies that include genotype research alone or both genotype and phenotype research, but not phenotype research exclusively) DUO:0000018 NPUNCU not for profit, non commercial use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit organizations and not-for-profit use, non-commercial use. DUO:0000019 PUB publication required This data use modifier indicates that requestor agrees to make results of studies using the data available to the larger scientific community. DUO:0000020 COL collaboration required This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must agree to collaboration with the primary study investigator(s). DUO:0000021 IRB ethics approval required This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must provide documentation of local IRB/ERB approval. DUO:0000022 GS geographical restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to within a specific geographic region. DUO:0000024 MOR publication moratorium This data use modifier indicates that requestor agrees not to publish results of studies until a specific date. DUO:0000025 TS time limit on use This data use modifier indicates that use is approved for a specific number of months. DUO:0000026 US user specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use by approved users. DUO:0000027 PS project specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use within an approved project. DUO:0000028 IS institution specific restriction This data use modifier indicates that use is limited to use within an approved institution. DUO:0000029 RTN return to database or resource This data use modifier indicates that the requestor must return derived/enriched data to the database/resource. DUO:0000043 CC clinical care use This data use modifier indicates that use is allowed for clinical use and care. DUO:0000044 NPOA population origins or ancestry research prohibited This data use modifier indicates use for purposes of population, origin, or ancestry research is prohibited. DUO:0000045 NPU not for profit organisation use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit organisations. DUO:0000046 NCU non-commercial use only This data use modifier indicates that use of the data is limited to not-for-profit use. Point to Notice: For the consent code DUO:0000007 where data is restricted to use on a specific disease, please accompany it with an appropriate ontology from MONDO e.g., If the data is restricted to the use of research into juvenile idiopathic arthritis the code should be displayed as DUO:0000007; MONDO:0011429.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/data-use-ontology

• 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

• How to request data

  Request Data Access If you're looking to access data from the EGA for your research, you are in the right documentation page! In this page you will find a step by step guide on how to request data archived at the EGA, as well as some frequently asked questions you might find useful. When requesting data, you'll need to provide information about your research project and intended use of the data. Keep in mind that your data access request may require additional approvals or agreements depending on the datasets and data providers involved. Step by step guide Register yourself as an EGA user. Validate your account. A validation link will be sent to your email to activate your EGA user account. Log into the EGA page. Search the dataset of interest from the dataset catalogue or search bar. Click on “Request access” Add a comment requesting these files and send your request Your request is successfully registered, and the DAC will receive a notification about your request In addition to submitting your request, you should also contact the DAC directly via e-mail. You can access the DAC's contact information from the relevant dataset page. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Which is the role of the EGA in the data access process? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) facilitates the secure distribution under controlled access of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data. Data Access Committee (DAC) is a body of one or more individuals who are responsible for data release to external requestors, based on participant consent and/or National Research Ethics terms. How do I request access to multiple datasets? To request access for multiple datasets managed by the same Data Access Committee (DAC), please start by visiting the DAC catalogue to locate the DAC of your choice. Once you've found the relevant DAC, proceed to its dedicated page where you'll find a "Request access" button. After logging in to the EGA website, you'll be presented with a comprehensive list of datasets under the chosen DAC. Select the datasets you're interested in, and then compose a message indicating your access request. Click the "Send" button to submit your request, which will include the chosen datasets. Please be sure to review the data usage policies for the requested datasets, as policies can vary among datasets managed by the same DAC. I am a co-applicant. Will I be given a joint access account? Each applicant needs to create an EGA account themselves, with unique login details. User log-in details are for individual use only and should never be shared, under any circumstances. EGA services are only provided to EGA account holders. Therefore, the co-applicant will send a formal request to the DAC. What happens if a co-applicant leaves or a new member needs to be added to an existing DAC application? The appropriate Data Access Committee (DAC) should be contacted and informed about the required changes so that the application can be updated. I have changed my place of work since my EGA account was created. Can I still have access to data? You must contact the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC did not reply to my data access request. How should I proceed? There is no estimated time for DAC response. Please allow up to four weeks for a response. In the meantime, please send them a weekly reminder of the status of your request by emailing them directly.If the DAC becomes unresponsive, meaning that they fail to communicate with a requestor within the specified time frame, please contact the EGA Helpdesk team. I have an account with the EGA and would like access to further datasets. How should I proceed? You need to reapply to the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). Once the DAC has approved your application your account will be updated and an email will be sent to notify you of a change made to your account. How do I download files of the datasets I have been granted access to? The preferred method for data download and decryption is the EGA Secure Download Client. Please carefully review the provided documentation. How do I download metadata? Metadata is retrieved from the EGA webpage; you will not need to use any download client. Be informed that you will only be able to download metadata of your approved datasets. For such download, you should first log in the EGA webpage with your credentials. Then browse the metadata's dataset you have gained access and you will find a metadata download button. You may also want to have a look our metadata schema. I have forgotten or misplaced my user account password; how do I get a new one? Click on “Log in”, located in the top right corner of the EGA homepage. Then click “Forgot password”, type in your registered institutional email address, and instructions for resetting your password will be sent to you. Please check both regular and junk/spam folders. I was sent a link to set a password for my download account, but it seems like the link has expired. What should I do? The procedure is the same as the one for a forgotten password, explained in the previous question.

  Documentation access/request-data/how-to-request-data

• GEnomics and Transcriptomics of Human INsulinoma (GETHIN)

  The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) The common forms of diabetes - Types 1 and 2 - ultimately result from a deficiency of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma (GETHIN) study was performed in order to identify novel approaches to inducing human pancreatic beta cells to replicate and regenerate. As a corollary, developing drugs that are able to expand human beta cell mass in people with diabetes should reverse diabetes. Unfortunately, identifying druggable pathways that can enhance human beta cell replication has been a major challenge. In 2017, there is only one class of drugs - the harmine analogues - that can induce human beta cells to replicate, and in this case, higher replication rates are desirable. Thus, identifying additional drugs and druggable pathways is a priority in diabetes research. Insulinomas are rare, benign adenomas of the pancreatic beta cell that cause excess insulin production and hypoglycemia: exactly the opposite of Types 1 and 2 diabetes. Beta cell proliferation rates in insulinomas are abnormally high. Thus, the premise for The Genomics and Transcriptomics of Human Insulinoma study is that benign human insulinomas hold the genomic and transcriptomic "recipe", and the repertoire of druggable pathways, that can be exploited to induce regeneration or replication of human beta cells in diabetes. Because, insulinomas are so rare, are almost always benign (non-malignant), and are easily resected by laparoscopic surgery, little attention has been paid to understanding the genomics or transcriptomics of insulinoma. There are at present only three published studies employing next-gen sequencing in insulinoma (PMID:24326773; PMID:25787250; and PMID:25763608). These studies contained 10, 7 and 8 insulinomas, respectively, and highlighted likely mutations in YY1 and MEN1. Our goal was to markedly expand the database and to add RNAseq to these earlier studies. The GETHIN study reports next-gen sequencing on 38 insulinomas, by far the largest series of human insulinomas subjected to next-gen sequencing (see the Selected publications section for reference). This includes paired (genomic plus tumor) whole exome sequencing on 26 human insulinomas (22 sequenced at Mount Sinai, 4 downloaded from Cao et al, PMID:24326773), and 25 sets of RNAseq from insulinomas, some of which also had paired whole exome sequencing, and some of which did not. The insulinoma RNAseq was compared to RNAseq from 22 sets of FACS-sorted normal human beta cells. Since insulinomas are so rare, the 38 insulinomas were collected by several investigators at several institutions over several decades, but most (22 whole exome sets, and all RNAseq) were sequenced at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. The current dataset contains whole exome sequencing and RNAseq on the 11 insulinomas harvested at Mount Sinai. The four from Cao et al can be retrieved from Cao et al PMID:24326773. Fastq files from the remaining 23 insulinomas will be added as the local IRBs and Institutional Certifications are acquired. Complete patient data are provided in our Nature Communications report. Going forward, our intention is to expand this series, with the goal of sequencing 100 human insulinomas. These will be added to dbGaP as they accrue. Paired-end whole exome sequencing (mean usable sequencing depth 79X and 105X for blood and insulinoma, respectively) was performed using an Illumina HiSeq 2500. Insulinoma and sorted normal beta cell RNAseq was performed on Ribozero and polyA paired end libraries using the Illumina HiSeq 2500. Complete sequencing and bioinformatic details are provided in our Nature Communications report. The principal findings from the study are that although each insulinoma has a different set of presumptive driver mutations, the majority converge on genes that are members of the Polycomb Complex, Trithorax Complex and other epigenetic modifying enzymes. In addition, 20% of insulinomas have copy number loss or loss of heterozygosity of all or most of chromosome 11, and the majority display abnormalities in CpG methylation and imprinting control on the imprinted Chr 11 p15.5-15.4 region that contains INS, IGF2, CDKN1C, KCNQ1, and other genes involved in beta cell specification and proliferation.

  Study phs001422

• TRanscriptomic ANalySis of left ventriCulaR gene Expression (TRANSCRibE)

  Myocardial ischemia occurs when there is a mismatch between coronary oxygen delivery and metabolic requirements of the myocardium, which may be clinically manifested during angina, coronary angioplasty or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Myocardial ischemia may lead to a spectrum of myocardial stunning, hibernating myocardium, and ultimately cell death if the ischemic insult is severe. In the human heart, irreversible damage begins after approximately 20 to 40 minutes of oxygen deprivation. Observed molecular and cellular changes of myocardial ischemia are characteristic of an inflammatory response, but the exact mechanisms that underlie this pathological process are unclear and may not be full emulated by animal models of ischemia or infarction. Thus, we felt it valuable to investigate a human ischemia model. During cardiac surgery, CPB with aortic cross-clamping (AoXC) and cardioplegic arrest is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and suitable operative conditions. However, despite the use of cardioprotective strategies, AoXc during CPB is accompanied by a variable, yet obligate ischemic period lasting 1 to 3 hours, resulting in hypoxia, metabolic substrate depletion, reperfusion injury, apoptosis, and necrosis. Cardiac specific biomarkers of ischemia and infarction, including troponin, are elevated even after routine coronary artery bypass graft surgery and correlate with the duration of ischemia from AoXc.This process of CPB provides us with the ability to examine the transcriptional profile before and after an expected, consistent, and reproducible human ischemic event, albeit induced by cold cardioplegic arrest and not coronary occlusion. In addition, the absence of reperfusion in this time period allows us to examine the transcriptomic response to intermittent ischemia, without having to account for the perturbations of reperfusion injury. Although various animal models have been used to examine the effects of ischemia on cardiac function, no human data exist which examine the early transcriptomic response to a left ventricular (LV) ischemic insult. We therefore characterized the effect of cold cardioplegia induced acute ischemia on the transcriptional profile of the LV by performing whole transcriptome next-generation RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery by sampling human LV tissue prior to, and after, the obligate ischemia during AoXC. We hypothesized that the cold cardioplegia induced ischemic injury will dramatically alter transcription in the human myocardium, and that we would identify genes and pathways, which will identify interventional targets for pharmacological therapy. Methods:We have collected left ventricle tissue samples and blood sample from patients undergoing heart surgery. We obtained punch biopsies (~3-5μg total RNA content) from the site of a routinely placed surgical vent in the anterolateral apical left ventricular wall of patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. After an average of 79 minutes of aortic cross-clamping with intermittent cold blood cardioplegia for myocardial protection every 20 minutes, a second biopsy was obtained in the same manner. Tissue samples were immediately placed in RNAlater® (Ambion, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), and after 48 hours at +4°C were stored at -80°C until RNA extraction. Total RNA was isolated with Trizol and RNA quality was assessed using the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). Libraries were prepared by poly(A) mRNA isolation and reverse transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), then sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq2000 or HiSeq2500 (Illumina, San Diego, CA). As samples were analyzed at different times, different read lengths were employed, initially using single-end reads (n=20) and then transitioning to paired end reads (n=216), ranging from 36 - 100 base pairs. Raw sequencing files were processed using Sickle, Skewer, and STAR software, and aligned to GrCh37 or UCSC Hg19. DNA was isolated from whole blood using standard methods. SNP genotyping was performed using the Illumina Omni2.5Exome-8 BeadChip array with additional exome content (Illumina, San Diego, CA) chip, version 1.1. We first phased and imputed 93 subjects using a phasing tool called SHAPEIT and an imputation tool called MINIMAC, with 1000 Genomes phase 1 version 3 for the reference panel. We then phased and imputed 26 more subjects using SHAPEIT, an imputation tool called IMPUTE2, and 1000 Genomes phase 3 version 5.

  Study phs001679

• Genetic Basis of Early Onset Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

  The study protocol was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (HSC-MS-11-0185). Study recruitment began on July 1, 2017, and concluded on March 30, 2022. After written informed consent, we enrolled probands with early onset BAV disease (EBAV), which we defined as individuals with BAV who were under the age of 30 at the time of first clinical event. Clinical events were defined as aortic replacement, aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, moderate or severe aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, large aneurysm (Z > 4.5), or intervention for BAV-related conditions. Those with hypoplastic left heart, known genetic mutations, genetic syndromes, or complex congenital heart disease were excluded. Samples were collected and genotyped as previously reported. For comparison, we analyzed a cohort of older individuals of European ancestry with sporadic BAV disease selected from the International BAV Consortium (BAVGWAS). Phenotypes were derived from record review with confirmation of image data whenever possible [25-26]. The computational pipeline for CNV analysis of Illumina single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data included three independent CNV detection algorithms.GenomeStudio was used to exclude samples with indeterminate sex or more than 5% missing genotypes, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with GenTrain = 0. Principal component analysis was used to remove outliers that did not cluster with European ancestry. Prior to CNV analysis, each dataset was trimmed by selecting a common set of 650,000 SNPs that were genotyped on each of the microarrays used in this study.Three independent algorithms (PennCNV, cnvPartition, and QuantiSNP) were used to generate CNV calls and sample-level quality statistics from SNP intensity data. PennCNV and QuantiSNP were run on Unix clusters and cnvPartition data were exported from GenomeStudio. The analysis was run using default configurations. PennCNV was used to generate QC data and remove CNV calls that intersect with polymorphic genomic regions. Samples that met any of the following criteria were excluded, standard deviation of the LogR ratio (obtained from PennCNV) > 0.35 or number of CNVs > 2 standard deviations above the mean for each data set. CNV calls less than 20 Kilobases in length and/or spanned by fewer than 6 probes were excluded. The overlap function for rare CNVs in PLINK was used to construct CNV regions (CNVRs) after adjacent regions were merged using PennCNV. LogR ratio (LRR) and B allele frequency (BAF) data at CNVRs and calls of interest were visualized in GenomeStudio for validation. For segregation analysis, GenomeStudio was used to determine the presence of CNVs in relatives.A total of 22,014 unselected control Illumina Genotypes obtained from the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes were analyzed using identical methods (S1 Table). The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) includes data on a cohort of 10,300 individuals who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) includes data on 37,000 individuals aged 50 above from 23,000 households across the United States. Principal component analysis was used to select European ancestry genotypes from these datasets for analysis. Datasets were paired for case-control analysis based on the concordance of log-transformed sample-level quality control statistics (number of CNV calls and standard deviation of logR ratios). Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests were used to compare CNV frequencies in cases and controls.Rare CNV functions in PLINK (v1.7) were used to perform permutation-based burden tests or gene set-based enrichment tests. Case control burden tests were restricted to CNVs that were longer than 110 Kb and less than 0.1% in frequency. CNV overlap functions in PLINK were used to identify rare CNVs that intersect between datasets or involve specific BAV or CHD genes . The list of candidate genes included 190 CHD genes that have strong cumulative evidence to cause BAV or related congenital malformations from human or animal model data. Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37 was used for CNV annotation [34].

  Study phs003705

• Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP)

  NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE SEQUENCING PROJECT (ADSP) GENETIC AND PHENOTYPIC DATA: ADSP whole exome and whole genome sequence data that are shared through dbGaP were mapped to the Genome Reference Consortium human genome GRCh37 (build 37). These data are from the Discovery Phase of the project (described below) and will continue to be available at this site. Please see the ADSP Design page for the complete study description. All data that are mapped to GRCh38 (hg38) are being shared through the NIA Genetics of Alzheimer's Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) Data Sharing Service (DSS). For instructions on how access the ADSP Build 38 data that are shared through NIAGADS DSS, visit the Application Instructions page. STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR dbGaP BUILD 37 ADSP DATA: The overarching goals of the Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) are to: (1) identify new genomic variants contributing to increased risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease (AD), (2) identify new genomic variants contributing to protection against developing AD, and (3) provide insight as to why individuals with known risk factor variants escape from developing AD. These factors will be studied in multi-ethnic populations in order to identify new pathways for disease prevention. Such a study of human genomic variation and its relationship to health and disease requires examination of a large number of study participants and needs to capture information about common and rare variants (both single nucleotide and copy number) in well phenotyped individuals. Using existing samples from NIH funded and other studies, three NHGRI funded Large Scale Sequencing and Analysis Centers (LSAC) - Broad, Baylor, and Washington University - produced the DNA sequence data. Variant call data are being made available to the scientific community through NIH-approved data repositories. Statistical analysis of the sequence data is anticipated to identify new genetic risk and protective factors. The ADSP will conduct and facilitate analysis of sequence data to extend previous discoveries that may ultimately result in new directions for AD therapeutics. Analysis of ADSP data will be done in two phases. The Discovery Phase analysis (2014-2018) is funded under PAR-12-183. The entire Discovery dataset contains whole-genome sequencing data on 584 subjects from 113 families, and pedigree data for > 4000 subjects; whole exome sequencing data on 5096 cases 4965 controls; and whole exome sequence data on an additional 853 (682 Cases [510 Non-Hispanic, 172 Hispanic]), and 171 Hispanic Control subjects from families that are multiply affected with AD. The Replication Phase (2016-2021) analysis will be funded under RFA-AG-16-001 and RFA-AG-16-002 and is expected to include a combination of genotyping and sequencing approaches on at least 30,000 subjects. Targeted sequencing will be done by the LSACs. GRCh37 Data Releases The first ADSP data release occurred on November 25, 2013. It included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format on 410 individuals. The second ADSP data release occurred on March 31, 2014, and included the whole-genome sequencing data in BAM file format for an additional 168 individuals. The third ADSP data release occurred on November 03, 2014 and included whole-exome sequencing data in BAM file format for 10,939 individuals. The fourth ADSP data release occurred on February 13, 2015 and included revised ethnic data for subjects with whole-exome sequencing data. The fifth ADSP data release occurred on July 13, 2015 and included whole-genome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to pedigree structures and sample IDs. The sixth ADSP data release occurred on December 8, 2015, and included whole-exome genotypes and updated phenotypes as well as changes to subject IDs. This seventh ADSP data release on April 12, 2016 includes: (1) WES and WGS SNV VCF files (2) WES and WGS Indel PLINK files ADSP Data Available through dbGaP: ADSP - Whole Genome Sequencing ADSP - Whole Exome Sequencing Comments DNA-Seq (BAM) n=578 n=10913 Sequence data available (plus n=38 replications w/out genotype data) Concordant SNV Genotypes (PLINK format) N/A n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas (Baylor's) and GATK (Broad's) calling pipelines (a subset of the consensus genotype set) Consensus Genotypes (PLINK and VCF format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between Atlas and GATK pipelines as well as those that that were called uniquely by Atlas or GATK Concordant Indel Genotypes (PLINK format) n=578 n=10913 QC'ed genotypes that are concordant between the Atlas and GATK calling pipelines Phenotype Data n=4735 n=10913 Data of n=53 phenotype variables available (plus administrative data), including APOE genotype. WGS phenotypes include data of connecting family members. Please use the release notes provided by dbGaP to obtain detailed information about study release updates. The ADSP data portal provides a customized interface for users to quickly identify and retrieve files by covariates, phenotypes, and data properties such as sequencing facility or coverage. For more information about the ADSP study and the data portal, please visit https://www.niagads.org/adsp/.

  Study phs000572

• From research to data sharing: exploring EGA user's experiences

  The Cell Plasticity and Regeneration Group at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL focuses on the process of recruitment of macrophages that takes place in the small intestine during injury and healing. They recently published a paper titled “Mucosal Macrophages Govern Intestinal Regeneration in Response to Injury" in Gastroenterology Journal. As part of the research, some experiments were conducted using human intestinal organoid lines. These cells were processed for RNA sequencing, and the sequencing data were deposited at the EGA to be made available to the scientific community. When dealing with human genomic information, repositories must ensure the availability of the datasets while ensuring data protection. In this context, the European Genome-phenome Archive stands as a service for secure archiving and sharing of genetic, phenotypic and clinical data resulting from biomedical research. Following the recent publication of their paper, we took the opportunity to talk to Ilias Moraitis, first author, and Jordi Guiu, group leader, to find out about their experience with data sharing. Could you explain the focus of your research? In the lab, we study intestinal regeneration and how immune cells participate in this process. We use several techniques: engineered mouse models, image tracing, as well as mouse and human cells intestinal organoids. What challenges do you face regarding data management? We didn’t have a lot of problems. Always the informatic part, the data analysis, can give problems. But everything was smooth and working. We think it’s very important to deposit the data in repositories. For the mouse data it is very straightforward, but for us it was the first time depositing human data, which is sensitive because it comes from patients, and this is legally regulated. That’s why we thought about the EGA, and it was our first time. Why do you think it is important to submit data to repositories such as EGA? Because we think data is important for the science. Nowadays, we are sequencing a lot everywhere worldwide and having these resources shared with the scientific community it’s not only good for science, but it is also saving money and reducing costs. And there is so much data in there that can be used for other projects and for other questions. And it saves time! How was the process of submitting the data to the EGA? The communication worked very well but it was slower than we would like. But I think this is something we learn on the way. People usually wait until the last minute to do this before publication but if you know it in advance, you can start the process earlier. If you had to repeat the process, would you do anything differently? It’s like everything, isn’t it? For the first time you don’t know, you aren’t sure, but for the second time you know the steps, you know what to do and it’s faster. Of course, we would to do it earlier. Also, there were some things related to the control access that we didn’t know how to manage, but it was something more internal to us. Who is going to receive the communications and when, is our ethical committee going to evaluate this? All these technicalities that we didn’t know before starting this process, so we had to think about all these things. Next time it will be faster on our side. Do you have any suggestions for us to improve the submission process? Maybe we’ll need to ask our bioinformatician who did it! He was in charge of this part. Besides that, we think if the process were faster, it would be better for everyone. Also, in science a lot of times you have to do a lot of things at the very last minute, because of the nature of the experiments, or the need to accomplish for submitting a paper. Being faster in the process would be a plus. On your side, we went through the process and were able to find some information, but there were aspects we weren't aware of and weren't sure how to handle. I'm not sure if other institutes have different protocols for managing data requests or how they handle these internally. We believe the main issue lies in how the forms are filled out. Do you have any recommendations for other submitters? The main advice is to do this with enough time. Submit the data when you have the sequences, and don’t wait until the last minute. And then it can be under embargo, so you don’t need to make it public at that moment. As soon as you sequence, upload it and then it will be there for whenever you need to publish. How do you think we could encourage other researchers to submit their data? There are different layers here. One is that it is mandatory. You have to do this. The other is that we belong to a research community, to the same community and sharing this is making our research community stronger and more efficient. And then, also because this gives you visibility. The data is there, other people can analyse your data, and this also will bring citations to your papers. It has many advantages.

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing

• Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort) - 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. Related Studies Other Framingham data available include: Imaging studies (Framingham Heart Study-Cohort (FHS-Cohort)-Imaging, phs003593), Genetics and genomics (Framingham Cohort, phs000007), Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R): (Framingham Heart Study, phs002911), and as a component of the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS-BioLINCC, phs003637). Available Data Original cohort: data now include examination data from the first 32 clinical exams, selected ancillary data, and event follow-up through 2018. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: Data available include Framingham Offspring examination data from the first 9 clinical exams and selected ancillary data and event follow-up through 2019. Also included are the first 4 exams from the OMNI 1 cohort. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: Data available include Framingham Generation 3 examination data from the first 3 clinical exams, selected ancillary data and event follow-up through 2019. Also included are the OMNI 2 and New Offspring (NOS) cohorts. A genetic pedigree is not provided for the Framingham phenotype only data. Objectives The objectives of the Framingham Study are to study the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors, trends in CVD incidence and its risk factors over time, and familial patterns of CVD and risk factors. Other important objectives include the estimation of incidence rates of disease and description of the natural history of cardiovascular disease, including the sequence of clinical signs and systems that precede the clinically recognizable syndrome and the consequences and course of clinically manifest disease. Background Original cohort: The original cohort of the Framingham Study began in 1948 under the U.S. Public Health Service and was transferred under the direct operations of the new National Heart Institute, NIH, in 1949. Participants were sampled from Framingham, Massachusetts, including both men and women. This was the first prospective study of cardiovascular disease and identified the concept of risk factors and their joint effects. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: With the aging of the Framingham cohort and with interest in familiar aggregation and heritability, a new cohort consisting of the offspring of the original cohort was sampled. Spouses of offspring were also included. This new sample, began enrollment in 1971 and constituted a second generation of participants, permitting new assessment of risk factors and outcomes, and provided a resource for the genetic analyses which were yet to come. The Offspring participants have had repeated examinations, though at typically longer intervals than the original cohort. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: Thirty-one years after enrollment began for the second generation of the Framingham Heart Study (Framingham Offspring Study), Framingham investigators began enrolling adults with at least one parent enrolled in the Offspring study into the Framingham Generation 3 cohort. The addition of the third generation was expected to facilitate investigation of secular trends in risk factors and indicators of health and disease within families, to enhance statistical power to detect genetic and environmental determinants of complex diseases, and to clarify how subclinical cardiovascular disease predicts occurrence of overt clinical events. Participants Original cohort: At entry to the study in 1948-1952, the study recruited 5,209 men and women, ages 28-62 years, living in Framingham, MA. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: 5,124 men and women, ages 5-70 years at entry consisting of offspring of the original Framingham cohort (and spouses of the offspring). In 1994, the Omni Cohort 1 enrolled 507 men and women of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Pacific Islander and Native American origins, who at the time of enrollment were residents of Framingham and the surrounding towns. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: 4095 men and women, almost all who self reported their ethnicity as white, ages 19+ years at entry, with at least one parent in the Framingham Offspring study, participated in the Gen III cohort. The New Offspring Cohort enrolled spouses of Offspring participants that were not otherwise enrolled and had at least two biological children participating in Gen III. 103 New Offspring Spouses (47 men and 56 women) participated. The OMNI 2 cohort enrolled additional ethnically diverse participants, including many individuals related to the participants of Omni Cohort 1 and also individuals unrelated to Omni Cohort 1 members for a total of 410 new participants. Design The cardiovascular disease conditions under investigation include coronary heart disease (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, coronary insufficiency and sudden and non-sudden death), stroke, hypertension, peripheral arterial disease and congestive heart failure. Original cohort: The Framingham Study is a longitudinal investigation of constitutional and environmental factors influencing the development of CVD in men and women. Examination of participants has taken place every two years and the cohort has been followed for morbidity and mortality over that time period. Offspring/Omni1 cohort: By 1975, a sample of 5,124 men and women, consisting of offspring of the original Framingham cohort (and spouses of the offspring) had participated in the study. Additional studies of these subjects have continued under research contracts. Third Generation/Omni2/New Offspring Cohort: The children of Offspring Cohort participants were initially identified who would be 20 years of age or older by the end of the enrollment period. A higher priority for recruitment was assigned to individuals who belonged to large extended families, in order to complement phenotypic and genotypic information already obtained from prior generations. The baseline examination was begun in 2002 and completed in 2005.

  Study phs003594

• 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

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD - Imaging)

  Available DataAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Imaging), provides access to ECG signals data from the ACCORD clinical trial. The clinical phenotyping and outcomes data from the trial are associated with ACCORD-BioLINCC, phs003551.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients.Lipid Therapy Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease.Blood Pressure Trial:Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy:Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients.MIND Substudy:Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain.Subjects10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy:A subgroup of 2856 patients was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Patients who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded.MIND Substudy:A subgroup of 2977 patients was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded patients aged DesignPatients were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy:EYE Substudy patients were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy.MIND Substudy:The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses.ConclusionsGlycemia Trial:As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (NEJM. 2008; 358(24): 2545-59).Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial:Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Lancet. 2010; 376(9739): 419-30)Lipid Therapy Trial:The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (NEJM. 2010; 362(17): 1563&#8211;1574).Blood Pressure Trial:In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (NEJM. 2010; 362: 1575-1585).EYE Substudy:Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (NEJM. 2010; 363: 233-244).MIND Substudy:Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Lancet Neurol. 2011; 10(11): 969&#8211;977).

  Study phs003562

• Providing access to COVID-19 data: one year later

  response efforts On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic. Four months later, the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) released its first COVID-19 dataset. This dataset – single cell RNA and VDJ sequencing of B cells from 60 COVID-19 patients – showed that neutralizing antibodies could be identified by high-throughput sequencing in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. That was one year ago. Today, the EGA provides access to fifteen COVID-19 datasets from researchers across seven countries in Asia, Europe, and North America. These studies represent almost 17,000 individuals and have resulted in at least sixteen publications and preprints. Researchers deposit controlled access COVID-19 data at EGA The global research community has come together rapidly to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and better understand the related disease, COVID-19. These research efforts generate valuable genetic and phenotypic data from patients and research participants that can be shared with approved researchers. The EGA enables sharing of this research data by providing a service for archiving and controlled distribution of sensitive data. Over the past year, the EGA has worked with researchers to archive and distribute COVID-19 data from high-throughput sequencing experiments, genotyping studies, and phenotypic information. These datasets investigate the immune system, blood, and cells and tissues of the lung, which are relevant for studying a contagious respiratory illness caused by a viral infection. *Study Spotlight. In January 2021, Ancestry.com demonstrated the utility of deep phenotyping based on self-reported outcomes from a large population of mild and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. They identified genetic associations with eight COVID-19 phenotypes and showed distinct patterns of association, most notably related to the chr3/SLC6A20/LZTFL1 and chr9/ABO regions. The supporting data is available at the EGA to approved researchers and includes both genotype and phenotype data for 15,000 individuals. EGA collaborates with global COVID-19 community Since the coronavirus outbreak, the EGA has collaborated with other life science resources to support discovery and access to COVID-19 datasets. COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative. With the NHGRI’s Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space (AnVIL) platform, the EGA enables sharing of individual-level genetic and phenotypic data from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (HGI). This initiative aims to generate, share, and analyze data from COVID-19 host genetics research projects to better understand the genetic determinants of COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, and outcomes. In response to COVID-19, the EGA actively supports COVID-19 data submissions and integration of data access and flow into the COVID-19-HGI analysis platform. *Study Spotlight. The COVID-19 HGI has combined individual-level data for 13,868 COVID-19 positive patients (N=7,167 hospitalized) from 17 cohorts in nine countries. The data were used to assess the association of the major common COVID-19 genetic risk factor (chromosome 3 locus tagged by rs10490770) with mortality, COVID-19-related complications, and laboratory values. The genotype and phenotype data for 10 of these cohorts is available at the EGA to approved researchers under accession EGAS00001005304. Fig 1: EGA COVID-19 studies are searchable in the European COVID-19 Data Portal alongside other COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 public datasets. European COVID-19 Data Portal. EGA-archived COVID-19 data are discoverable via the European COVID-19 Data Portal (Fig. 1), which brings together public and controlled access data to accelerate coronavirus research for the international community. By indexing all COVID-19-related data in one place, researchers can more easily discover relevant datasets of interest, thus increasing the “FAIRness” (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) of this valuable data. Fig 2: SARS-CoV-2 viral sequences are imported from ENA and analysed in Galaxy to detect variants. Results are accessible to researchers through the COVID-19 Viral Beacon. COVID-19 Viral Beacon. The COVID-19 Viral Beacon tool was developed in collaboration with the European Nucleotide Archive and Galaxy to enable near real-time browsing of SARS-CoV-2 variability at genomic, amino acid, and motif levels (Fig. 2). The COVID-19 Viral Beacon allows researchers to (i) perform detailed searches about genomic variants, (ii) filter queries and find unique cases, (iii) filter data based on strain-specific variants, and (iv) explore associated metadata. It uses the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) Beacon standard including new Beacon v2 features. With this tool, researchers can study intra-host mutations on genomic regions of interest, or trace any variant frequency over time using raw read data. More than 200,000 SARS-CoV-2 analysed genomic data files are now available to researchers for further exploration. Ongoing COVID-19 efforts at EGA Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is a global effort. Federated resources are necessary to support transnational deposition, access, and analysis of sensitive COVID-19 host genetics and other related data. At the same time, many countries now have emerging personalized medicine programmes which are generating data from national or regional healthcare initiatives. These data are subject to more stringent information governance than research data and often must comply with national data protection legislation. To address this need, the Federated EGA was established to serve as the primary global resource for discovery and access of sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use. The Federated EGA will comprise a network of national human data repositories and will implement community standards and common interfaces. Launching Federated EGA promises to accelerate not only global research efforts to understand, diagnose, and treat COVID-19, but also to foster data reuse, enable reproducibility, and accelerate biomedical and disease research to ultimately improve human health.

  Blog providing-access-to-covid-19

• Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

  Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.

  Study phs001327

• The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation

  In this study, we will apply a multi-staged approach to reveal genes harboring rare variants that are associated with aggressive PCa. Whole-exome sequencing (Aim 1a) of 2,774 aggressive cases and 2,776 non-aggressive cases of European ancestry will be conducted followed by rare variant analysis of single sites and gene burden testing to identify novel susceptibility loci/genes for aggressive disease. We will validate the most significantly associated genes (~500) through targeted sequencing in an additional 6,415 aggressive and 5,586 non-aggressive cases and 1,890 controls (Aim 1b). Next, we will investigate the clinical predictive utility of the genes/variants identified in 2,291 cases in the STHM3 trial who are undergoing biopsy based on PSA and genetic risk score stratification (Aim 2). Through this tiered approach we expect to significantly advance knowledge of aggressive PCa etiology and health disparities as well as guide the development of early detection and prognostic strategies for the subset of men who are most susceptible to this fatal form of disease. In this case-case study of aggressive vs non aggressive prostate cancer, aggressive cases are defined as prostate cancer as cause of death, (T4 disease or T3 disease) and Gleason 8+. Non-aggressive cases are men with T1/2 disease and Gleason ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and CONTRIBUTING SITES CAPS, PROCAP, STHM1, STHM2: Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2016/818), Swedish Research Council (2014/2269).STHM3: Stockholm County Council (Stockholms L&#228;ns Landsting).MEC: Funding provided by the National Cancer Institute: Understanding Ethnic Differences in Cancer, 2U01CA164973 and The Genetic Basis of Aggressive Prostate Cancer, The Role of Rare Variation, 5R01CA196931-02.ATBC: The ATBC Study is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and by U.S. Public Health Service contract HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services.COSM: The Swedish Research Council/National Research Infrastructure Grant (VR 2014/6397; VR 2015/5997) The Swedish Cancer Foundation (CAN 2013/456; CAN 2016/727)CPSII: The authors express sincere appreciation to all Cancer Prevention Study II participants and to each member of the study and biospecimen management group. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study-II cohort.MCCS/APCS/PCFS: The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria and further supported by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants 209057 and 396414. The Aggressive Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (APCS) was funded by NHMRC grant 623204. The Prostate Cancer Family Study (PCFS) was fully funded by Cancer Council Victoria. Cancer Council Victoria funds the continuing maintenance and updating of the MCCS, APCS and PCFS. Cases and their vital status are ascertained and followed up through the Victorian Cancer Registry and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database.PLCO: The Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and also by the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London which has additional infrastructure support provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The national cohorts are supported by: Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Ge&#769;ne&#769;rale de l'Education Nationale, Institut National de la Sante&#769; et de la Recherche Me&#769;dicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam- Rehbruecke (DIfE), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy, Compagnia di SanPaolo and National Research Council (Italy); 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), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS) - Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Regional Governments of Andaluci&#769;a, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, and the Catalan Institute of Oncology - ICO (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Ska&#778;ne and Va&#776;sterbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C8221/A19170 and C8221/A29017 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk; MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford). (United Kingdom). DFCI: Linda and Arthur Gelb and Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky. HPFS and PHS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by U01 167552 and P01 CA228696 from the National Cancer Institute, and with support from the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490 and HL34595.Northwestern: P50CA180995 (Catalona) 08/01/15 &#8211; 07/31/20 NIH/NCI SPORE in Prostate Cancer; The Urological Research FoundationPROMPT: MRC UK - Project reference G0500966, Cambridge BRC infrastructure funding, Cambridge Biomedical Research Campus (BRC-1215-20014), CRUK Cambridge Cancer Centre infrastructure funding (they are requesting this statement is written in blue for publications).ICR: This work was supported by the NIH R01 grant 5R01CA196931-02. The samples from the UK were from UKGPCS and PrompT. The UKGPCS study was supported by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A5260, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and C16913/A6835). We 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. We also acknowledge The Institute of Cancer Research, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK for their ongoing support. 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.Funding:CIDR grant X01HG008336

  Study phs001524

• Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-BioLINCC)

  Related StudiesWhole genome and whole exome data is available on a subset of participants with phs001411. ECG signal data is available with phs003562.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine if intensive glycemic control, multiple lipid management and intensive blood pressure control could prevent major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Secondary hypotheses included treatment differences in other cardiovascular outcomes, total mortality, microvascular outcomes, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. BackgroundGlycemia Trial:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at rates two to four times higher than non-diabetic populations of similar demographic characteristics. They also experience increased rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. With the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States, CVD associated with type 2 diabetes is expected to become an even greater public health challenge in the coming decades than it is now. Expected increases in event rates will be associated with a concomitant rise in suffering and resource utilization.The ACCORD study investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors when compared to standard therapy (HbA1c between 7.0% and 7.9%). A separate analysis investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in these patients. Lipid Therapy Trial: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease attributable, in part, to associated risk factors such as dyslipidemia. This is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The ACCORD Lipid Therapy trial was designed to test the effect of a therapeutic strategy that uses a fibrate to raise HDL-C and lower triglyceride levels and uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C reduce the rate of CVD events compared to a strategy that only uses a statin for treatment of LDL-C on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes that were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood Pressure Trial: Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cardiovascular disease at every level of systolic blood pressure. Because cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes is graded and continuous across the entire range of levels of systolic blood pressure, even at prehypertensive levels, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended beginning drug treatment in patients with diabetes who have systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or higher, with a treatment goal of reducing systolic blood pressure to below 130 mm Hg. There is, however, a paucity of evidence from randomized clinical trials to support these recommendations. The ACCORD Blood Pressure trial tested the effect of a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg on major cardiovascular events among high-risk persons with type 2 diabetes compared to a strategy that targeted a SBP of EYE Substudy: Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. The ACCORD EYE Substudy evaluated the effects of the ACCORD medical strategies on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in a subgroup of trial patients. MIND Substudy: Studies suggest that older persons with type 2 diabetes have at least twice the likelihood of developing late-life cognitive impairment or dementia compared to those without. The mechanisms underlying these cognitive disorders are increasingly thought to reflect a mixed pathology pattern with contributions from vascular, neurodegenerative and neurovascular processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms that have been described include inflammation, oxidative stress, energy imbalance, protein misfolding, glucocorticoid-mediated effects and differences in genetic susceptibilities. The ACCORD MIND substudy took as a premise that early intervention with the ACCORD therapeutic strategies to improve glycemic control could mitigate the adverse effects of type 2 diabetes on the brain. Participants10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7.5% or more participated in the trial. Of these patients, 5518 were assigned to the lipid therapy arm and 4733 to the blood pressure arm. EYE Substudy: A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Participants who, at baseline, had a history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy that had been treated with laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy were excluded. MIND Substudy: A subgroup of 2977 participants was evaluated for cognitive function and brain volume. The ACCORD MIND substudy excluded participants aged Design Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glycemic control (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level EYE Substudy: EYE Substudy participants were evaluated at two standardized and comprehensive eye examinations for the effects of the ACCORD interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. MIND Substudy: The cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, was assessed at baseline, 20 and 40 months. Total brain volume (TBV), the primary brain structure outcome, was assessed with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a sub-set of 632 patients. All patients with follow-up data were included in the primary analyses. Conclusions Glycemia Trial: As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, et al.,2008, PMID:18539917). Microvascular Outcomes of the Glycemia Trial: Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the risk of increased total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia. (Ismail-Beigi et al., 2010, PMID: 20594588) Lipid Therapy Trial: The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228404). Blood Pressure Trial: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20228401). EYE Substudy: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy (ACCORD Study Group, et al., 2010, PMID: 20587587). MIND Substudy: Although significant differences in TBV favored the intensive therapy, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the unfavorable effects on other ACCORD outcomes, MIND findings do not support using intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients similar to MIND patients (Launer et al., 2011, PMID: 21958949).

  Study phs003551

• A Genome-Wide Association Study in Patients Experiencing Musculoskeletal Adverse Events on NCIC CTG Trial MA.27 Evaluating Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer. A Collaboration Between the NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network and the RIKEN Yokohama Institute Center for Genomic Medicine.

  Source of Patients The source of the patients for this genome-wide case control study was MA.27, which was conducted as a multi-cooperative group effort under the auspices of the NCI Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. The NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG) serves as the coordinating group, with participation by the NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). MA.27 involved postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected invasive breast cancer with surgical margins clear of invasive carcinoma and DCIS in the following TMN categories (AJCC Version 6): pT1, pT2, pT3; pNx, pN0, pN1, pN2, pN3 (only when the sole basis is presence of 10 or more involved axillary nodes); MO. The primary tumor must have been ER and/or progesterone receptor positive. Patients were stratified by lymph node status at diagnosis, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and trastuzumab use and were randomized to 5 years of adjuvant therapy with anastrozole or exemestane. The trial was activated on May 26, 2003, and reached its accrual objectives on July 31, 2008, after the randomization of 6827 North American patients, with the majority (79%) providing DNA and consent for genetic testing. Non-North American patients were also entered by the International Breast Cancer Study Group but they did not contribute DNA. From 2003 to December 21, 2004, patients also underwent a second randomization to celecoxib 400 mg twice daily or placebo but, after the entry of 1,622 patients, this treatment was discontinued because of reports of increased cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib. Case Definition for Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Cases were defined to have had at least one of the following six MSAE): 1. pain - joint, 2. pain - muscle, 3. pain - bone, 4. arthritis, 5. joint - function, 6. musculoskeletal - other. Cases were required to have at least grade 3 toxicity, according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, or go off treatment for any grade of the six MSAEs; and were required to have had an MSAE within the first two years (i.e., a MSAE occurring after 2 years was not be considered a case). Subjects were excluded from the case group who met the case definition while on celecoxib or in the three months after stopping celecoxib but subjects were allowed to be cases if they developed their first MSAE more than three months after stopping celecoxib. Study Design The design was a nested matched case-control study with two controls selected for each case. Random matching from the potential control group (i.e., risk-set sampling such that controls had at least the same length of followup as the timing of the case event) was done by matching the case on the following factors: 1. treatment arm (exemestane vs. anastrozole, blinded), 2. prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), 3. age at start of treatment (+/- 5 years), 4. Celecoxib allocation (yes vs. no). Attempts were made to exactly match each case with two controls according to the above criteria. If, however, controls could not be exactly matched, "close" matching was used to define a distance between each case and all potential controls in an optimal matching algorithm. Race is a potential confounding factor, and 94% of the MA.27 population is Caucasian, 3% are Black, 1% Asian, 1% American Indian, and 1% are of unknown race. Because there are so few non-Caucasian participants, was restricted to only Caucasians. Following identification of cases and controls, the list was sent to the CALGB Pathology Coordinating Office (PCO) at Ohio State University Medical Center for plating of the samples. Other patient factors that might influence the association of SNP genotypes with a MSAE, either as confounding factors or as effect modifiers, were included as investigational covariates. These include 1. body mass index (BMI), 2. bisphosphonate use, 3. fractures in past 10 years, 4. baseline ECOG performance status, 5. prior hormone replacement therapy, 6. prior adjuvant radiotherapy, and 7. prior taxane treatment. An Honest Broker Process was utilized to ensure patient confidentiality. Genotype Assays and Quality Control A GWAS was performed with the Illumina Human610-Quad at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine. The DNA for all of the samples were adjusted to a concentration of 50 to 100 ng/&#181;L in a final volume of 50 &#181;L. The 96-well plates were designed to have a unique distribution pattern with x duplicates per plate to evaluate genotype concordance. Samples with &lt;98% call rate were removed from analyses. SNPs with ambiguous call will be excluded using the following criteria: 1. low signal intensity of each allele, 2. low cluster separation score, 3. SNP call rate &lt;0.98, 4. SNPs with Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium p-value &lt;0.001 were excluded. X-chromosome SNPs were used to validate female sex and quality control measures were examined across the different submitting centers. For all pairs of subjects, the percentage of matching genotypes were computed to screen for unexpected duplicate samples. All SNPs found to be associated with MSAE were subjected to visual inspection of the cluster plots to verify that the genotype clustering was adequate.

  Study phs000210

• How to encrypt files with EGACryptor

  File preparation Due to the processes used at the EGA for file archival the use of non-alphanumeric characters in a filename will cause issues in archival. By convention whitespaces in filenames are to be avoided and should be replaced with the underscore character (_). Before encrypting your files please make sure that any files that will be uploaded to EGA do not use special characters such as # ? ( ) [ ] / \ = + < > : ; " ' , * ^ | &  Crypt4gh EGACryptor Files encrypted with EGACryptor must be uploaded via FTP EGACryptor The EGACryptor v.2.0.0 is a JAVA-based application which enables submitters to produce EGA compliant encrypted files along with files for the encrypted and unencrypted md5sum for each file to be submitted. The application will generate an output folder that will by default mirror the directory structure containing the original files. This output folder can subsequently be uploaded to the EGA FTP staging area via an FTP or Aspera client. Download EgaCryptor Download EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Using the EgaCryptor Encrypting single file Encrypting multiple files Encrypting all files in folder Points to note Troubleshooting Troubleshooting Download EGACryptor The required jar files can be obtained by downloading EgaCrytptor jar file After the file has been downloaded, extraction of the zipped archive is required. The EGACryptor has been built to work with Java Runtime Environments from version 6 and above and with the OpenJDK Environment. Please refer to the relevant resources for installation guidance. Installing the latest version of the OpenJDK will include the JCE files. If your installation of Java JRE is less than 1.8.0_151 will require the manual installation of the JCE Policy Files. You can verify the version of the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) installed by using the command: $ java -version If you need to install the JCE please follow the instructions below: Installing the JCE policy files (due to licensing terms and conditions the required policy files must be downloaded direct from the ORACLE website) : Download the unlimited strength JCE policy files (JRE 6 / JRE 7/ JRE 8) Uncompress and extract the downloaded file. This will create a subdirectory called JCE. This directory contains the following files: README.txt, COPYRIGHT.html, local_policy.jar and US_export_policy.jar Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your java home directory. Install the two policy JAR files by replacing the existing ones in your directory. The standard place for JCE jurisdiction policy JAR files is: /lib/security [Unix] or \lib\security [Win32] Notes: refers to the directory where the Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE) was installed. Additional performance enhancements that have been included in the EGACryptor V2.0.0: The ability to parallelise the processing of datasets through the use of the resources on a system. Multicore systems will allow the user to specify n-1 cores for an n-core system. The use of this feature on clusters may speed up the processing of datasets that have large file numbers but consult your local cluster guide to ensure that there are not monopolising resources that are needed by other system users. The default for this process remains single threaded. 3 levels of system usage can be specified. Full usage within the limits detailed above. A limited mode that will ensure that 50% of the system resources are available for other tasks. Maximum mode is limited to 75% of system resources, this allows encryption to be prioritised but allows for the system to be usable for light alternate tasks. Finally there is a throttling mode that allows you to specify the exact number of computational threads to be used. the EGACryptor is able to ingest a structured directory and will output a directory with the same structure containing the encrypted files along with the md5checksums for the plain and encrypted files. The entire output directory can then be uploaded to the EGA for archival. as with the input path, it is now possible to specify the output path. the options have been updated inline with the upgraded functionality. The tool can only be used via the command line. The EGACryptor is designed to perform a single task, encrypting your data, for upload of these files please refer to our uploading guide Using the EgaCryptor Below are the three ways on how the EGACryptor tool can be used: Encrypting a single file : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i example1.bam Encrypting multiple files : java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i "example1.bam,example2.bam" Encrypting all the files within a folder java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i path/to/target/directory By default the EGACryptor v2 will create a new output directory containing all encrypted files and the relevant checksums within the target directory. If a specific directory is desired this can be specified by using the -o flag. This can be achieved in a similar manner to the following example: java -jar ../EGA-Cryptor_2_0_0.jar -i /path/to/target/directory -o /path/to/output/directory The tool will output three files per input file: file.gpg ( encrypted file ) file.md5( file md5 sum value file ) file.gpg.md5 ( encrypted file md5 sum value file ) All output files must then be uploaded to your submission account using Aspera or FTP. Further documentation on how to upload files: FTP and Aspera. Points to note Remember to provide the path to EgaCryptor.jar and run the command from within the directory the file/s are located. ECryptor writes files to the source directory of your local file system, as a result you must have write-access permissions for the source directory. Troubleshooting If in doubt about the function of the EGACryptor it is recommended to first consult the built-in documentation. This can be accessessed by using the -h flag as stated in the following table. Built-in Commands Table: list of the command line options built into EGA-Cryptor v2.0.0. Command line Option Action --------------------- ----------- -f Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads to utilise full capacity of cores/processors available on machine -h Use this option to view the bult-in help menu * -i File(s) to encrypt. Provide file/folder path or comma separated file path if multiple files in double quotes -l Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 50% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -m Set this option to allow application to create maximum threads equals to 75% capacity of cores/processors available on machine -o Path of the output file. This is optional. If not provided then output files will be generated in the same path as that of source file (default: output- files) -t Set this option if user wants to control application to create maximum threads as specified. Application will calculate no. of cores/processors available on machine & will create threads accordingly Encryption Errors UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively (Native Method) The error is thrown by UNIX ("UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)"). It appears that the user does not have write-access to the file system where the file to be uploaded is located. EGACryptor always writes MD5 checksums into files before uploading them to the server, and these files are created in the same location where the uploaded file itself resides.Solution: address your directory permission issue and re-run the command. Install JCE Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy files The JCE policy unlimited strength jurisdiction files should be installed according to your current java version If you are still facing difficulty with the EGACryptor v.2 after having consulted the documentation please contact the EGA Helpdesk.

  Documentation submission/data/file-preparation/egacryptor

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! 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! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal