11076 results for "monedas ultimate team FC 26 Visité Buyfc26coins.com. Servicio premium a un precio estándar. Increíble..XLis"

in 26.83 milliseconds.

• Clonal selection after gene therapy in sickle cell disease

  While gene therapy (GT) provides a potentially curative treatment option for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), the occurrence of myeloid malignancies in clinical trials has prompted concern. To interrogate potential mechanisms underlying increased cancer risk, we used hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) clonal tracking by whole genome sequencing (WGS) to map the somatic mutation and clonal landscape of 2,592 gene modified as well as unmodified single stem and progenitor cells from six SCD patients undergoing gene therapy (7-26 years old, average 12.7× depth). Pre-GT phylogenetic trees in SCD were highly polyclonal and mutation burdens per cell were elevated in some, but not all, patients. Post-GT, no clonal expansions were identified. However, an increased frequency of driver mutations associated with myeloid neoplasms or clonal hematopoiesis (DNMT3A- and EZH2-mutated clones in particular) were seen in both genetically modified and unmodified cells suggested positive selection of mutant clones during gene therapy. This work sheds light on the mutation landscape and HSC clonal dynamics in gene therapy for SCD and highlights enhanced fitness of some HSCs harboring pre-existing driver mutations following gene therapy. Future studies should define the long-term fate of mutant clones including any contribution to expansions associated with myeloid neoplasms.

  Dataset EGAD00001010914

• eIMPACT Trial: Modernized Collaborative Care to Reduce the Excess CVD Risk of Older Depressed Patients

  Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the #1 killer of American men and women, and its economic burden is substantial and on the rise. Adults with depression are at elevated risk of CVD events and poor CVD prognosis. Unfortunately, past clinical trials of depression treatments have not observed the anticipated cardiovascular benefits. A novel explanation for these null results is that the depression interventions in these trials, which all involved patients with preexisting CVD, were delivered too late in the natural history of CVD. Accordingly, the objective of this single-center, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was to determine whether successful depression treatment before, versus after, the onset of clinical CVD reduces CVD risk in depression. Primary care patients with depression and elevated CVD risk from a safety net healthcare system (N = 216, Mage = 59 years, 78% female, 50% Black, 46% with income <$10,000/year) were randomized 1:1 to 12 months of the eIMPACT intervention (a modernized collaborative stepped care program involving internet cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], telephonic CBT, and/or select antidepressants) or usual primary care for depression (primary care providers supported by embedded behavioral health clinicians and psychiatrists). The primary outcome was endothelial dysfunction (brachial flow-mediated dilation) at 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were self-reported depressive symptoms (Hopkins Symptom Checklist-20), autonomic dysfunction (high-frequency heart rate variability), systemic inflammation (interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein), and platelet activation (β-thromboglobulin and platelet factor 4) at 12 months. The central hypothesis was that the eIMPACT intervention would improve endothelial dysfunction in depressed adults by decreasing depressive symptoms, autonomic dysfunction, systemic inflammation, and platelet activation. Primary results are posted to ClinicalTrials.gov at NCT02458690. The de-identified limited dataset available on BDC consists of only the individual phenotypic data needed to confirm this trial’s primary results – i.e., randomization status, primary and secondary outcome variables, and participant characteristics utilized in the hypothesis-testing models (age, sex, race, education, income, and systolic blood pressure). We also provide the SAS code to replicate the results of the hypothesis-testing models reported in Table 4 and Supplemental Tables 1-3 in the main outcomes paper (#2 in Selected Publications). Of note, the user will need to specify the file path for the dataset to run the SAS code. Instructions for requesting individual-level data are available on BDC at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/data/. Apply for data access in dbGaP. Upon approval, users may begin accessing requested data in BDC. For questions about availability, you may contact the BDC team at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/contact.

  Study phs003283

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination Social Network Diffusion for Diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities

  This RADx-UP Phase II proposal, "Social network diffusion of COVID-19 prevention for diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities", will implement a situation appropriate COVID-19 testing and vaccination social network diffusion intervention - C3 - building upon RADx-UP Phase I lessons and successful social network prevention interventions developed previously by the research team. C3 Criminal Legal Involved (CLI) populations encompass those non-incarcerated who have experienced recent arrest, incarceration, probation, parole or diversion programs such as drug courts. While increases in COVID-19 testing have been observed among this group, there remain members with limited testing history as well as individuals who are vaccine hesitant. COVID-19 prevention messaging can no longer be simplified to "everyone test and/or everyone vaccinate" as testing and vaccination decisions among community members are sensitive to personal histories (i.e., prior infection), local infection rates (i.e., low rates) and testing/vaccination availability. As COVID-19 prevention efforts have become more complicated (i.e., test if exposed), people tend to focus on the messenger, and particularly those that are close to them. Personal connections and communications within existing personal network structures, such as families, friends and other trusted acquaintances represent the cornerstone to increase situation appropriate testing and overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. C3 builds upon RADx-UP I, by using a network diffusion approach facilitated through motivational interviewing purposefully geared to mobilize one's own organic social network to increase context appropriate testing and vaccine uptake. Through this process we will maximize the primary benefit and impact of this type of intervention which also has the intended effect of increasing likelihood that the messenger themselves will undergo the same behavior change that they have been trained to promote. We will leverage infrastructure developed in RADx-UP Phase I, which includes 4 high-impact sites across the Central US from Phase I: Baton Rouge LA, Little Rock AR, Indianapolis IN, and Chicago IL. We will utilize established engagement efforts already in place and continue to fully integrate communities in the strategic application of the intervention. We will use the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to guide implementation. C3 aims to: Aim 1a. Test the efficacy (3-month situation appropriate testing or vaccination) of a network diffusion intervention (C3) versus an existing COVID-19 testing and vaccine linkage to care intervention among: 1) primary study participants (primary outcome); and 2) secondary study participants connected to primary participants (secondary outcome) using a RCT design. Aim 1b. Explore the mechanisms for differential intervention effects at the individual and network-level that may increase situation appropriate testing and/or vaccination uptake. Aim 2. Examine key RE-AIM components in real time tied to the implementation of the network diffusion intervention (C3).

  Study phs003234

• NHLBI TOPMed - NHGRI CCDG: The BioMe Biobank at Mount Sinai

  The IPM BioMe Biobank, founded in September 2007, is an ongoing, broadly-consented electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical care biobank that enrolls participants non-selectively from the Mount Sinai Medical Center patient population. BioMe currently comprises >42,000 participants from diverse ancestries, characterized by a broad spectrum of longitudinal biomedical traits. Participants are enrolled through an opt-in process and consent to be followed throughout their clinical care (past, present, and future) in real-time, allowing us to integrate their genomic information with their EHRs for discovery research and clinical care implementation. BioMe participants consent for recall, based on their genotype and/or phenotype, permitting in-depth follow-up and functional studies for selected participants at any time. Phenotypic and genomic data are stored in a secure database and made available to investigators, contingent on approval by the BioMe Governing Board. BioMe uses a "data-broker" system to protect confidentiality. Ancestral diversity - BioMe participants represent a broad racial, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity with a distinct and population-specific disease burden. Specifically, BioMe participants are of African (AA), Hispanic/Latino (HL), European (EA) and other/mixed ancestry. BioMe participants are predominantly of African (AA, 24%), Hispanic/Latino (HL, 35%), European (EA, 32%), and other ancestry (OA, 10%). Participants who self-identify as Hispanic/Latino further report to be of Puerto Rican (39%), Dominican (23%), Central/South American (17%), Mexican (5%) or other Hispanic (16%) ancestry. More than 40% of European ancestry participants are genetically determined to be of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. With this broad ancestral diversity, BioMe is uniquely positioned to examine the impact of demographic and evolutionary forces that have shaped common disease risk. Phenotypes available in BioMe - BioMe has a high-quality and validated set of fully implemented clinical phenotype data that has been culled by a multi-disciplinary team of experienced investigators, clinicians, information technologists, data-managers, and programmers who apply advanced medical informatics and data mining tools to extract and harmonize EHRs. BioMe, as a cohort, offers a great versatility for designing nested case-control sample-sets, particularly for studying longitudinal traits and co-morbidity in disease burden. Biomedical and clinical outcomes: The BioMe Biobank is linked to Mount Sinai's system-wide Epic EHR, which captures a full spectrum of biomedical phenotypes, including clinical outcomes, covariate and exposure data from past, present and future health care encounters. As such, the BioMe Biobank has a longitudinal design as participants consent to make all of their EHR data from past (dating back as far as 2003), present and future inpatient or outpatient encounters available for research, without restriction. The median number of outpatient encounters is 21 per participant, reflecting predominant enrollment of participants with common chronic conditions from primary care facilities. Environmental data: The clinical and EHR information is complemented by detailed demographic and lifestyle information, including ancestry, residence history, country of origin, personal and familial medical history, education, socio-economic status, physical activity, smoking, dietary habits, alcohol intake, and body weight history, which is collected in a systematic manner by interview-based questionnaire at time of enrollment. The IPM BioMe Biobank contributed ~10,600 DNA samples for whole genome sequencing to the TOPMed program. Samples were selected for the Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) and the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) working groups. Using a Case-Definition-Algorithm (CDA), we identified ~4,100 individuals with CAD (~50% women) and ~3,000 individuals as controls (65% women). In addition, we identified ~800 individuals with COPD (62% women) and 1800 individuals as controls (72% women). Another 600 BioMe participants with Atrial Fibrillation, all of African ancestry, were included.

  Study phs001644

• Paired-WGS Sequencing of Primary lymphomas of the central nervous system (PCNSL)

  26 Tumor/Control pairs of WGS data of PCNSL tumors, sequenced on either Illumina HiSeq2000/2500 instruments or HiSeq X Ten. The controls are blood or buffy coat samples in most cases.

  Dataset EGAD00001007806

• After the completion of CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare. What's next?

  CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare were part of the EUCAN Cluster, made up of six projects that received funding under the same Horizon 2020 call. All EUCAN projects (CINECA, EUCANCan, EUCAN-Connect, euCanSHare, Receptor Plus, and ReCoDID) were aimed at facilitating data reuse and knowledge discovery by enhancing data exchange and long-term collaboration in the health field. Here are some highlights about EGA’s contribution to these projects. CINECA: advances in Federated discovery and infrastructure for cohorts CINECA (Common Infrastructure for National Cohorts in Europe, Canada, and Africa) developed a federated cloud-based infrastructure for making genomic and biomolecular data accessible. The project has assembled a virtual cohort of 1.4 million individuals from sources such as the EGA, CanDIG and H3Africa. The EGA–CRG co-leaded a work package Work Package 1 on Federated Data Discovery and Querying. Beacon v2, championed by Jordi Rambla and Lauren Fromont, has been one of the central elements for the discovery of human genetic and phenotypic data. The EGA-CRG contributed to the development of a model for cohort discovery inside the Beacon v2 model. The team also delivered a Discovery Portal was implemented to explore cohorts and individuals of synthetic data. It is a UI that gathers a network of Beacons, a service for query expansion, and a visualisation tool. Have a look at the Discovery Portal UI, gathering a network of Beacons. You will find entities such as the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), BioData.pt and the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI), among others. euCanSHare: facilitation of data access management This joint EU-Canada project aimed to build a European and Canadian FAIR platform for cardiovascular data sharing and analysis. The EGA’s tasks contributed to the development of the data management plan and data flows, main web-portal and interoperability protocols. An important part of the EuCanShare platform is the data access manager, a tool for the data owners to control the access to their sensitive datasets. We built a user-friendly interface for data access committees (data owners) to easily manage their data requests and access credentials. The data access portal facilitates the creation and internal organization of the data access committees as well as the linkage of data usage conditions to specific datasets. The interface includes filters for browsing requests and page to visualize the request history helping with the handling of data access requests. EUCANCan: toward a federation of clinical institutions in oncology The EUropean-CAnadian CANcer Network worked towards building a federated network to advance personalized medicine in oncology, by promoting the standard analysis, management and sharing of harmonized genomic and phenotypic data. The EGA led tasks on defining data flows and preparing an adapted infrastructure for long-term data storage and sharing. One of the key contributions was the conception of the EGA communities, offering standard and interoperable solutions for data discovery, processing, and sharing to projects and institutions that would like to manage and share data in the context of the EGA ecosystem. What's Next? The participation in projects such as CINECA, EUCANCan, and euCanSHare provide us with experience for future projects. We are happy to enhance data sharing and reuse, vital for advancing clinical and genomic research. The Discovery Portal is a wonderful proof of concept for the Beacon network. Next, we will finalise both the network and the user interface, and make sure it can be applied to more clinically-centred settings like hospitals. Most data hosted at the EGA are about cancer research. Currently, we contribute to building tools and infrastructure to empower oncology research in several European projects such as EUCAIM, EUCANIMAGE and EOSC4Cancer. We also do not lose sight of initiatives in the field such as the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) with the project ARGO, whose data model was adopted in EUCanCan.

  Blog cineca-eucancan-and-eucanshare-were-concluded-in-june

• Single cell RNAseq of stenotic, inflamed and non-inflamed transmural lesions from patients with Crohn's disease

  This dataset contains a gene-cell matrix derived from single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data of ileal tissue from Crohn's disease (CD) patients and colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. It includes: Crohn's Disease Patients: A trio of transmural lesions (stenotic, inflamed, and non-inflamed) from each patient. Colorectal Cancer Patients: Unaffected ileal tissue used as external non-inflamed control. Cell Level Metadata: The dataset includes relevant cell-level metadata such as cell type annotations used in the study. Experimental Details: Platform: 10x Genomics Chromium Single Cell 3' GEX Sequencing: Illumina NovaSeq Processing: Data processed with Cell Ranger software. Resulting count matrices were merged for downstream analysis, including integration and dimensionality reduction. Dataset Composition: Crohn's Disease Patients: 10 patients with 3 samples each (non-inflamed, inflamed, stenotic), totaling 30 samples. Colorectal Cancer Patients: 5 patients with 1 sample each of unaffected tissue, totaling 5 samples. Data Provided: Merged Raw Count Matrix: The final merged raw count matrix used for downstream analysis. Cell Metadata File: Contains details of sample, tissue, and patient for each cell in the count matrix. Barcodes File: Indicate each cell barcode which also encodes the sample, tissue, and patient details for each cell. CD.S_Inf: Stenotic Corhn's disease inflamed samples CD.S_Sten: Stenotic CD patient stenosis sample CD.S_Prox: Stenotic CD Patient - proximal non-inflamed sample CC.C_Prox: CRC Patient proximal unaffected sample eg: A barcode 'CC.C_1_Prox_AAGTCGTAGACCCTTA' indicates CRC Patient unaffected proximal sampe from CRC Patient no.1 and the nucleic acid sequence indicate a unique cell from this sample. Total Samples: Crohn's Disease (CD) Patients: 30 samples Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients: 5 samples Patient_no Sample Sample_type 1 CC.C_1 CC.C_1_Prox CC.C_Prox 2 CD.S_1 CD.S_1_Prox CD.S_Prox 3 CD.S_1 CD.S_1_Infl CD.S_Infl 4 CD.S_1 CD.S_1_Sten CD.S_Sten 5 CC.C_2 CC.C_2_Prox CC.C_Prox 6 CD.S_2 CD.S_2_Prox CD.S_Prox 7 CD.S_2 CD.S_2_Infl CD.S_Infl 8 CD.S_2 CD.S_2_Sten CD.S_Sten 9 CC.C_3 CC.C_3_Prox CC.C_Prox 10 CC.C_4 CC.C_4_Prox CC.C_Prox 11 CD.S_3 CD.S_3_Prox CD.S_Prox 12 CD.S_3 CD.S_3_Infl CD.S_Infl 13 CD.S_3 CD.S_3_Sten CD.S_Sten 14 CD.S_4 CD.S_4_Prox CD.S_Prox 15 CD.S_4 CD.S_4_Infl CD.S_Infl 16 CD.S_4 CD.S_4_Sten CD.S_Sten 17 CC.C_5 CC.C_5_Prox CC.C_Prox 18 CD.S_5 CD.S_5_Prox CD.S_Prox 19 CD.S_5 CD.S_5_Infl CD.S_Infl 20 CD.S_5 CD.S_5_Sten CD.S_Sten 21 CD.S_6 CD.S_6_Prox CD.S_Prox 22 CD.S_6 CD.S_6_Infl CD.S_Infl 23 CD.S_6 CD.S_6_Sten CD.S_Sten 24 CD.S_7 CD.S_7_Prox CD.S_Prox 25 CD.S_7 CD.S_7_Infl CD.S_Infl 26 CD.S_7 CD.S_7_Sten CD.S_Sten 27 CD.S_8 CD.S_8_Prox CD.S_Prox 28 CD.S_8 CD.S_8_Infl CD.S_Infl 29 CD.S_8 CD.S_8_Sten CD.S_Sten 30 CD.S_9 CD.S_9_Prox CD.S_Prox 31 CD.S_9 CD.S_9_Infl CD.S_Infl 32 CD.S_9 CD.S_9_Sten CD.S_Sten 33 CD.S_10 CD.S_10_Prox CD.S_Prox 34 CD.S_10 CD.S_10_Infl CD.S_Infl 35 CD.S_10 CD.S_10_Sten CD.S_Sten

  Dataset EGAD50000000559

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (CCDG): Genetics of Orofacial Clefts and Related Phenotypes

  The purpose of this study is to investigate the genetics of orofacial clefts (OFCs) in a large study population, and importantly, to incorporate subclinical phenotypic features into these studies. Orofacial clefts (OFCs) comprise a significant fraction of human birth defects (about 1/700 live births (Rahimov et al. 2012) and represent a major public health challenge, as individuals with these anomalies require surgical, nutritional, dental, speech, medical and behavioral interventions, thus imposing a substantial economic and personal burden (Berk and Marazita 2002*). The most common forms include OFCs of the lip alone (CL, Figure 1A), CL plus cleft palate (CL+CP, Figure 1B) or of the palate only (CP, Figure 1C). Individuals born with OFC may have their first surgical repair at age 3 months, but this initial surgery is just the beginning of a lifetime of health burdens. An individual born with an OFC has a hospital use rate increased for most ages (up to 233% increase for children ages 0-10 years and 16% for middle aged adults (Wehby et al. 2012). Healthcare costs for children with OFCs are estimated to be 800% greater compared with their unaffected peers (Boulet et al. 2009). Data from Denmark show that people born with CL with or without CP (CL/P) have an increased mortality up to age 55, which may be attributed to an increased risk of suicide and/or certain cancers (Christensen et al. 2004). The focus of most OFC genetic research has been CL and/or CP. Furthermore, the majority of OFC, i.e. about 70% of CL/P and 50% of CP is considered "nonsyndromic" (Jones 1988), i.e. isolated anomalies with no other apparent cognitive or structural abnormalities. Figure 1 Sample OFC Types A: Bilateral Cleft Lip; B:Cleft Lip plus Cleft Palate; C:Cleft Palate Alone The factors leading to the majority of nonsyndromic OFCs are still unclear, particularly at an individual family level. As is true for many complex traits, substantial progress in gene identification has occurred in the OFC field in the last two years (Dixon et al. 2011; Marazita 2012). Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and sequencing studies to date by our research team and others have focused on genetic risk factors for overt CL/P and CPO-and have been very successful. A major finding from this work is that OFCs exhibit significant genetic heterogeneity, i.e., multiple genetic regions have been implicated (Beaty et al. 2010; Ludwig et al. 2012). Thus, approaches are needed to understand this genetic heterogeneity. Are there GxG interactions at work? Are there subsets of families, each due to a different gene? Our research group has shown that a promising approach to dissect the etiology of OFC is to focus on subclinical phenotypic features within entire cleft families (not just in affected cases, but also in their non-cleft relatives). These subtle features are believed to represent mild manifestations of the same underlying genetic susceptibility responsible for OFCs; as such, their inclusion in case-control and family-based genetic studies can help to clarify and refine the relationship between genotype and phenotype. The study population comprises a large number of families and individuals (~12,000 individuals) from multiple populations worldwide (Caucasians from the US and Europe, Asians from China and the Philippines, Mixed Native American/Caucasians from South America, and Africans from Nigeria and Ethiopia). There are cases, case families (nuclear families and extended kindreds), as well as controls with no history of OFC nor other developmental defects. *Berk NW, Marazita ML (2002) Costs of Cleft lip and Palate: Personal and Societal Implications. In: Wyszynski DF (ed) Cleft Lip and Palate: From Origin to Treatment. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp 458-467.

  Study phs000774

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) (PETAL CLOVERS-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. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL CLOVERS include plasma, and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Objectives: To compare the effects of a restrictive fluid strategy (with early use of vasopressors) to a liberal fluid strategy in participants with sepsis-induced hypotension.Background: Intravenous fluid resuscitation is a common therapy used in the initial treatment of participants with septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension. The goal of initial fluid therapy is to increase depleted or functionally reduced intravascular volume that occurs in sepsis due to a vasodilated vascular network. However, intravenous fluid resuscitation can create dilutional coagulopathy, fluid overload, and pathogenic edema in the lungs and other organs. Vasopressor agents are also commonly used to treat hypoperfusion by inducing constriction of arterioles and venules and increasing cardiac contractility. Vasopressor therapy also comes with risks that include vasoconstriction resulting in tissue ischemia, increased cardiac workload, and arrhythmias. Clinicians have used these strategies, typically in combination, to provide supportive care for participants with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, at the time of the CLOVERS study, there was limited data to guide specific use of these therapies, including fluid volumes, in the early care of participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. The CLOVERS study hypothesized that a restrictive fluid strategy used during the first 24-hours of resuscitation for sepsis-induced hypotension would lead to lower mortality before discharge home by day 90 than a liberal fluid strategy.Participants: A total of 1,563 participants, from 60 medical centers, of the planned 2,230 participants were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Enrollment in the trial was ended after the second interim analysis due to a lack of significant difference observed between the two 24-hour strategies.Design: This study was a multi-center, prospective, phase 3 randomized non-blinded interventional trial of fluid treatment strategies in the first 24 hours for participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a restrictive fluid strategy (with early vasopressor use) or a liberal fluid strategy. In each group, the assigned protocol was followed for a period of 24 hours. The restrictive fluid protocol prioritized vasopressors as the primary treatment for sepsis-induced hypotension, with 'rescue fluids' being permitted for prespecified indications that suggested severe intravascular volume depletion. The liberal fluid protocol consisted of a recommended initial 2000-ml intravenous infusion of isotonic crystalloid, followed by fluid boluses administered on the basis of clinical triggers (e.g., tachycardia) with 'rescue vasopressors' permitted for prespecified indications. A protocol amendment implemented in October, 2019, allowed for limiting the initial infusion to 1,000 ml if the participant's blood pressure and heart rate had stabilized and the clinical assessment was that the participant was unlikely to benefit from additional intravenous fluid administration. The clinical team could override the protocol-specified care instructions at any time if it was judged to be in the best interest of the participant.The primary outcome was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. Secondary outcomes included 28-day measures of the number of days free from ventilator use, days free from renal-replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, days out of the ICU, and days out of the hospital. Conclusions: Among participants with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality, or other measures of recovery such as length of hospital stay, before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy.

  Study phs004080

• AML Proteogenomic Landscape Whole-transcriptome RNA-Sequencing

  Whole transcriptome RNA-sequencing of purified bone marrow blasts of 136 de novo, treatment naive AML patients. For further details, we refer to the manuscript "The Proteogenomic Landscape of AML" by Jayavelu, Wolf, Buettner et al. mRNA extraction and whole transcriptome sequencing For transcriptome analysis the TruSeq Total Stranded RNA kit was used, starting with 250ng of total RNA, to generate RNA libraries following the manufacturer’s recommendations (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). 100bp paired-end reads were sequenced on the NovaSeq 6000 (Illumina) with a median of 57 mio. reads per sample. RNA Data Analysis Data quality control was performed with FastQC v0.11.9. Reads were aligned to the human reference genome (Ensembl GRCh38 release 82) using STAR v2.6.1. Gene count tables were generated while mapping, using Gencode v31 annotations. All downstream analyses were carried out using R v4.0 and BioConductor v3.12 (Huber et al., 2015; R Core Team, 2020). Size-factor based normalization was performed using DESeq2 v1.28.1(Love et al., 2014).

  Dataset EGAD00001008484

• Dataset for liposarcoma-RNA

  Rare cancer sequencing data of 40 runs in tumor/control pairs, which were uploaded to umbrella studies. The sequencing was always paired

  Dataset EGAD00001008854

• Best Practices for DACs

  Best Practices Data access committees (DACs) are institutional safeguards responsible for ensuring a balance between data protection and accessibility. However, there are no procedural standards that apply across DACs, which can lead to inconsistencies in their reviews and compromise their quality and effectiveness. Standardising DAC processes can foster trust and mutual recognition, paving the way for greater coordination, collaboration, and delegation between DACs and other oversight bodies to improve the efficiency of data access without sacrificing protection. To provide guidance, the following are suggestions for actions a DAC might take upon receiving a data access request: Aim to respond to all initial requests in less than 2 weeks. Failure to do so may result in follow-up emails from the EGA, journals, and ultimately dataset withdrawal. First, check that the data/EGAD number is consistent with your data submission. In other words, ensure that the requester has contacted the correct DAC. Verify that the user will be using the data within the terms of consent by asking them to sign up to the terms within the DAA. Ensure that data users who are granted access to the data comply with the terms of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and to use the data only in approved ways. Look for an institutional email address for the requester. Search for evidence that the requester is "appropriately qualified/bona fide" for using the data, for example on PubMed, Research Gate, LinkedIn, etc. Confirm that the affiliated organisation is real and that the requester still works there. Inquire with the requester about who should have accounts created at the EGA under the terms of the agreement. If a negative decision is made, promptly communicate it to the requester and support it with the terms of the Data Access Policy that the requester has not met or cannot meet. Keep the information in the DAC up to date. If you leave your institution and are unable to manage data access requests on their behalf, you should add your replacement as a new contact in the DAC. Assist with data access requests for any further questions related to your data. The EGA can only check information that has been deposited in the repository. If the user has a specific question that the EGA cannot answer, we will redirect the user to the DAC. All the EGA studies and datasets referenced in a publication under your DAC must be publicly searchable on the EGA website before the paper is released. If possible, describe the permitted purposes for subsequent research projects, including associated limits and conditions, for all resources hosted in a repository using a common ontology, such as the GA4GH Data Use Ontology (DUO). It is considered best practice to try and release data only to those with an institutional email address. This gives reassurance to the EGA, research participants, and the general public that an appropriate individual is accessing and using the data. 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.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/best-practices

• Circumventing intratumoral heterogeneity to identify potential therapeutic targets in hepatocellular carcinoma. Details please contact lifuqiang@genomics and zhaoxin@genomics.cn.

  Background and aims: Intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) challenges identifying mutations with target therapy potential whereas circulating cell-free DNAs (cfDNAs) could reflect nearly the entire mutation spectrum in given tumors. We investigated how to minimize the limit of ITH for profiling hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods: Thirty-two multi-regional HCC samples from five patients were subjected to whole exome sequencing (WES) and targeted deep sequencing (TDS). ITH extent was measured by the average percentage of non-ubiquitous mutations (present in parts of tumor regions). Matched cfDNAs were also analyzed by WES and TDS. Profiling efficiencies of single tumor specimen and cfDNA were compared and the one better depicted mutational landscape was selected to screen therapeutic targets.Results: We found variable extents of ITH in HCCs and observed branched and parallel evolution patterns. ITH level decreased at higher sequencing depth of TDS than that measured by WES (28.1% vs 34.9%, P < 0.01) but it remained unchanged upon additional samples analyzed. TDS of single tumor specimen detected an average of 70% the total mutations in HCC. Although more mutations were detected in cfDNA under TDS than WES, an average of 47.2% total HCC mutations uncovered by cfDNA suggested tissue outperform cfDNA and the latter may serve as alternative in profiling HCC genome. Consequently, TDS of single tumor tissue in 66 patients and cfDNAs in four unresectable HCCs identified 38.6% (26/66 and 1/4) patients bearing therapeutic targets.Conclusions: TDS of single tumor specimen could largely circumvent ITH to uncover mutations indicative of target therapy in HCC.

  Study EGAS00001002207

• 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

• Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC)

  In 2016 we established the Sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC) funded by the Ice Bucket Challenge Grant administered by the Motor Neurone Disease Research Institute of Australia. The goals of the SALSA-SGC are to collect biological samples from clinics across Australia with matched in depth clinical and self-report phenotypes and to generate multiple levels of genetic and genomic data. In this first data generation exercise of the SALSA-SGC the majority of the samples were collected prior to the formal establishment of SALSA-SGC from clinics across Australia.Briefly, the cohort includes the University of Sydney’s Australian Motor Neuron Disease DNA Bank (MND Bank) cohort recruited April 2000 to June 2011), with study protocol approved by the Sydney South West Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Cases were recruited from around Australia via state-based MND associations with diagnosis verified by a neurologist. The remainder of the cases were recruited from clinics across Australia between 2015 and 2017 under HREC approvals from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Macquarie University Multidisciplinary Motor Neurone Disease Clinic,  Calvary Health Care Bethlehem in Melbourne , Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, and from 2016 under HREC approvals at each site for the sporadic ALS Australia Systems Genomics Consortium (SALSA-SGC). The ALS cases were diagnosed with definite or probable ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria. Some controls were recruited as either partners or friends of patients, healthy individuals free of neuromuscular diseases. We are providing GWAS and MWAS data in this dataset. Individual level GWAS data were generated using Illumina Infinium CoreExome-24 version 1.1 chips for N= 846 cases and N=665 controls. Individual MWAS data was generated using the Illumina Human methylation 450K array for N=782 cases and N=613 controls. There 1315 individuals where GWAS and MWAS data has been generated and is available. Further information on these data sets can be found: Paper 1: Restuadi, R, Garton, FC, Benyamin, B, Lin, T, et al. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Correlation with Cognitive Performance, educational attainment and schizophrenia: evidence from polygenic risk score analysis. (submitted) Paper 2: Nabais, MF, Lin, T, Benyamin, B et al. Significant out-of-sample classification from methylation profile scoring for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2020. NPJ genomic medicine. 5(10). Files provided in this submission include: GWAS: This folder contains QCed genotype for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. Contains PLINK files for genotyping data (not imputed yet). The individuals selected here have: good consistency on phenotype data ethics approval registered as part of sporadic ALS studies unrelated by GRM cut-off 0.05 No ancestry QC yet MWAS: This folder contains the IDAT and post-QC normalized DNAm (beta) for the Australian ALS case-control cohort. 2019_AUS_ALS_PCTG_DNAm.tar.gz - IDATS for 1315 individuals analyzed in the MWAS study normalized_beta_values - Binary files (created with the OSCA software) containing information on the individuals, probes and the DNAm (beta) values obtained after QC phenotype_file - contains all the covariates analysed in the MWAS including: case-control status, coded 0 = Control and 1 = ALS, predicted age, predicted cell-type proportions, predicted smoking scores, slide and chip position and sex Important Notes: The DNAm data were normalized together with samples that were not part of this ALS case/control study and thus, the normalization procedure may not be 100% reproducible using only the IDAT files uploaded here. Summary data has been made publicly available and can be accessed directly: Data collection and sample processing were performed at several clinics across Australia. Genotyping and DNA methylation arrays were performed by the Human Studies Unit, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland). Quality control of the genotypic, phenotypic and DNA methylation data was done by the Program of Complex Traits Genomics, at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience (University of Queensland).

  Study phs002068

• The EGA at the International Congress of Human Genetics

  Today is the start of the International Congress of Human Genetics (ICHG). This event, hosted by the African Society of Human Genetics (AfSHG) and the Southern African Society for Human Genetics (SASHG), will reunite international experts to highlight how genomic technologies are being managed to address challenges generated by the current status of Human Health and Genomics. The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) will be at the Congress participating in workshops, meetings and talks where topics such as data access and discovery as well as the Federated EGA will be present. Data access and discovery In the context of the “Federated data analysis workshop“ that will be held the 26ᵗʰ, managed in the context of the CINECA project, a hands-on-session on Beacon v2 Discovery will be led by Mauricio Moldes. Another session on authorisation and data access will be presented by Mallory Freeberg and Coline Thomas, with and introduction by Thomas Keane. During the workshop, an end-to-end federated data analysis use case will be presented. Data access and discovery In the context of the “ Federated data analysis workshop“ that will be held the 26ᵗʰ, managed in the context of the CINECA project, a hands-on-session on Beacon v2 Discovery will be led by Mauricio Moldes. Another session on authorisation and data access will be presented by Mallory Freeberg and Coline Thomas, with and introduction by Thomas Keane. During the workshop, an end-to-end federated data analysis use case will be presented. During the last four years, CINECA has been identifying gaps in data sharing between Africa, Canada and Europe in order to build a federated solution for data access. Thomas Keane will present the project within the sessions happening the 24ᵗʰ. The Federated EGA at the ICHG A Federated EGA poster will be shown during the Poster Session 1 that will take place the 23ʳᵈ. The objective is to bring awareness of the European Genome-phenome Archive as a resource for permanent archive and secure data sharing. In this context, the network generated by the Federated EGA is key for cases where research data cannot be shared outside local jurisdictions. The Federated EGA was officially launched on 2022 with research institutes from five countries becoming the first nodes of this network. Nowadays, with more than 20 nodes preparing to join, it aims to become the largest human omics data sharing initiative towards understanding human health and disease. The H3Africa Initiative and the African research represented in the EGA 1.1% of the EGA studies include samples from African populations. Countries such as South Africa, Kenya, Uganda or Egypt, among others, are present in the 72.577 samples from African individuals archived at the EGA. 23 EGA datasets are managed by the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa). This Initiative will celebrate its Consortium Meeting the 27ᵗʰ and 28ᵗʰ, back-to-back with the ICHG. H3ABioNet, the Pan African Bioinformatics Network for the H3Africa consortium, will also take this context to celebrate its 10-Year Symposium during the Congress. Members of the EGA team will attend both of them, as the H3ABioNet works in conjunction with H3Africa projects, to submit data to the European Genome-Phenome Archive.

  Blog the-ega-at-the-international-congress-of-human-genetics

• FIGHT-207: Anonymized Genomic Alterations and Clinical Responses

  Background: FIGHT-207 was a phase 2 study of the FGFR1-FGFR3 inhibitor pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic or unresectable solid tumor malignancies harboring activating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene alterations. Population information: 107 patients were divided into 3 cohorts: FGFR1–FGFR3 fusions/rearrangements; n=49 Activating FGFR1–FGFR3 non-kinase domain single nucleotide variants (SNVs); n=32 FGFR1–FGFR3 kinase domain mutations or variants of unknown significance (VUS) with potential pathogenicity; n=26 Participants on study had tumors that were grouped into the following histologies based on ≥ 5 patients: Cholangiocarcinoma, gynecologic cancers (cervical, endometrial, uterine), central nervous system (glioblastoma, low-grade pediatric glioma, astrocytoma), pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, urothelial tract/bladder cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other (adrenal cancer, anal cancer, cancer of unknown primary origin, colorectal cancer, gastric/gastroesophageal cancer, gallbladder cancer, giant cell bone tumor, head and neck cancer, lung neuroendocrine cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell cancer, sarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor). Among the efficacy-evaluable participants, 99 had both independent review committee (IRC) central best overall response (BOR) and tissue NGS- data; 2 additional patients had Not Evaluable (NE) as central BOR Baseline tissue targeted NGS data (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) of genomic alterations are reported for N=101 participants Baseline plasma targeted NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of genomic data are reported for N=83 participants; data at disease-progression are reported for N=78 participants. Principal Findings: The FIGHT-207 study provided evidence of clinical benefit of pemigatinib in multiple histologies, explored the clinical actionability of various FGFR1-FGFR3 gene alterations, and leveraged the depth of translational data from targeted NGS analysis of baseline samples and plasma samples obtained at baseline and end of treatment to provide key insights into the biology of FGFR inhibition and the clinical utility of FGFR inhibitors. The FIGHT-207 article (pending in Nat.Med. NMED-A128973B) reports evidence suggesting clinical acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition via secondary FGFR mutations as well as emerging co-mutations in other oncogenic and tumor suppressor pathways. This study also provides evidence of acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in multiple histologies beyond cholangiocarcinoma and urothelial cancers in a systemic correlative analysis of post-progression ctDNA in a trial. Data available through dbGaP: Anonymized information for 101 participants with both IRC central BOR evaluation (including 2 patients with NE as BOR) and tissue NGS data, including tumor histology, enrollable FGFR alteration, and outcome. Genomic alterations determined by baseline tissue NGS (F1CDx, Foundation Medicine Inc.) Genomic alterations determined by plasma NGS analysis (PredicineCare, Predicine Inc.) of ctDNA analysis at baseline (n=83) and at end of treatment/ disease progression (n=78) including genomic alterations that were not assessed to be Germline SNPs.

  Study phs003590

• The NCAA-DoD Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium

  Study Description: Established in 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) funded the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium to inform science, clinical care and public policy related to concussion and repetitive head impact exposure (HIE) in U.S. Military Service Academy (MSA) cadets and collegiate student-athletes. The primary aims of the initial study were to: (1) establish a multisite research consortium to characterize the effects of concussion and repetitive head impact exposure on brain health, (2) characterize the clinical sequelae and natural history of concussion, (3) characterize the effect of concussion and repetitive head impacts on brain structure and brain function. The 30 member institutions of the CARE Consortium (26 civilian universities/colleges and 4 military service academies) agreed to invite all varsity athletes to undergo multimodal clinical assessments at preseason baseline, and at 5 additional timepoints after concussion diagnosis. At the service academies, non-varsity athlete cadets/midshipmen were also studied. Assessment Categories At Each Time Point Baseline: • Demographics • Personal and Family History • Neurocognitive Assessment • Neurological Status • Postural Stability • Symptoms ACUTE POST-INJURY FOLLOW-UP (CARE 1.0) (24 hrs; 48hrs; Asymptomatic; Unrestricted Return to Play (RTP); 6 mos) • Neurocognitive Assessment • Neurological Status • Postural Stability • Symptoms CUMULATIVE & PERSISTENT EFFECTS. (CARE 2.0) In-Person Exit Visit; Post-grad Online • Demographics • Personal and Family History • Neurocognitive Assessment • Neurological Status • Postural Stability • Symptoms • PROs • MROs (at academies only) LONG-TERM EFFECTS (CARE/SALTOS Integrated (CSI))Annual Online Assessment (at MSAs only); In-Person Research Visits • Demographics • Symptoms • Psychological health • PROs • MROs (at academies only)A subset of athletes at 6 of the CARE institutions underwent additional assessments including multimodal MRI, proteomic and genomic biomarker characterization, and head impact quantification (helmet-based sensors). Assessment time points for the ARC/pARC Neurocognitive and Behavioral Testing was done at Baseline, <48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), Unrestricted Return to Play, 7 days following Return to Play, and at >60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career.Blood biomarker collection was done at Baseline, <48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), 7 days following Return to Play, and at >60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career. Multi-modal MRI studies were done at Baseline, <48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), 7 days following Return to Play, and at >60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career. However, please note that only athletes from one study performance site completed a multi-modal MRI study at baseline.

  Study phs002175

• Molecularly matched targeted therapies plus radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation (N2M2/NOA-20 phase I/IIa umbrella trial)

  Background: Patients with glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation are unlikely to benefit from temozolomide (TMZ). Trials aiming at replacing TMZ with targeted agents in not molecularly selected patient populations have failed. Methods: This phase I/IIa umbrella trial aimed at showing safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of targeted compounds in addition to standard radiotherapy initiated within 42 days postoperatively. Molecular diagnostics and bioinformatic evaluation are performed within 28 days after surgery. Stratification for treatment takes place in five subtrials, including alectinib, idasanutlin, palbociclib, vismogedib and temsirolimus, according to the best matching molecular alteration. Patients without matching alterations are randomized between subtrials without strong biomarkers using atezolizumab and asunercept and TMZ as standard of care. Primary objective of the phase I parts of the trial was dose finding or dose validation. In the phase IIa trials, centrally determined progression-free survival at six months (PFS-6) is used as endpoint for efficacy with interim analyses for futility (H0: p=0.231). Results: From May 2018 through July 2022, 301 patients were enrolled and 228 treated in 13 German NOA sites. The alectinib and vismodegib subtrials were closed since no molecularly matching patients were accrued; the idasanutlin subtrial was closed prior to the optimal dose at nine patients at discretion of the company providing the drug. The TMZ subtrial showed a PFS-6 of 18.52% (10/54 patients) (p=0.831) and a median overall survival (OS) of 12.1 months. Asunercept: PFS-6 of 15.4% (4/26) (p=0.8825) and OS of 12.8 months. Atezolizumab: PFS-6 of 21.4% (9/42) (p=0.660) and OS of 11.7 months. Palbociclib with patients demonstrating CDK4 amplification or CDKN2A/B codeletion: PFS-6 of 24.4% (10/41) (p=0.4823) and OS of 12.6 months. Temsirolimus with patients demonstrating mTOR activation: PFS-6 of 39.1% (18/46) (p=0.0109) and OS of 15.4 months. The regimen-limiting toxicity (RLT)-rate is 34.8%, which is insignificantly above the predefined unacceptable rate for RLTs of 30%. Most RLTs had severity grade 3, one RLT had severity grade 4. No RLTs resulted in death. Conclusions: N2M2 allows for elaborate molecular testing being integrated into the treatment decision and efficient determination of treatment activity for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. There is clinical activity of temsirolimus in patients with tumors harboring an activated mTOR pathway although this is not positively prognostic without mTOR inhibition; there is no clinical activity for asunercept and atezolizumab in not molecularly selected patients and also palbociclib in molecularly selected patients.

  Study EGAS00001008033

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submissions. To start a new submission, click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase, you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only”, “Read & Write” or “Full Access”). Please note that to add a collaborator, they must also have a submitter role. When adding a collaborator, please enter the user’s full email address in the search field and select the user. For security reasons, the portal does not display partial matches, so the full email address must be entered.The collaborator option is available while the submission is open. In the event that the submission is closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you only need to make a small modification in any objects within the submission, for example, copy and paste a title or description of the submission. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on Add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv, and the sample will be created.Add a single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols, and machines. Experiments generate the connection between the samples and the study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments, and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batches by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample file linkage. Upload the run.csv, and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh.Add single run: select the file format, sample, and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded to your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF, and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA-specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). If you would like your dataset to be added to the cBioPortal instance, please review the cBioPortal documentation.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested, please delete them from your SFTP INBOX after finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more files to a closed submission, you will need to reopen the submission where the dataset is registered.Please note that you can only modify datasets that begin with the ID EGAD5XXXXXXX.  Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission ID (EGA0XXX). Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, simply register new metadata, such as runs or analyses, and the submission will automatically reopen and appear on the main page. You can also do a small edition, such as copying and pasting a title or description. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guide of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial, we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal

• 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

• 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

• Programmatic submission based on XML

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

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

• 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

• Whole Genome Scan for Pancreatic Cancer Risk in the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanScan)

  Within the framework of the NCI-sponsored Cohort Consortium, investigators from 12 prospective epidemiologic cohorts formed the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium in 2006. This study, also known as "PanScan", is funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and involves conducting a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of common genetic variants to identify markers of susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. In 2007, the study was expanded to include 8 case-control studies. The study team includes scientists from the cohorts comprising the Consortium, the NCI and the Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4). PanScan I and II were conducted in 12 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies, leading to the discovery of four novel regions in the genome associated with risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The third phase of PanScan (PanScan III) was conducted using recently identified incident pancreatic cancer cases drawn from fourteen cohorts from the cohort consortium, including nine prospective cohorts who participated in PanScan I, and five newly joined cohorts. The nine cohort studies that participated in PanScan I and had new genotyping of cases in PanScan III include ATBC, CPS-II, EPIC, HPFS, NHS, PHS, PLCO, SMWHS, and WHI; the five newly joined cohort studies include the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC), the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS), the Vitamins and Lifestyle Study (VITAL), and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). In addition to the cases from cohorts, we also included cases from the Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Study (DFCI-GCC); from the University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany, which is part of a larger European clinical case-control study (PANDoRA); and from clinic-based cases from eastern Spain (PANKRAS-II). The dbGaP datasets available include all subjects previously made available from PanScan I and II, plus 1,582 new incident pancreatic cancer cases of European descent from prospective cohorts, case-control studies or case series (genotyped as part of PanScan III). Also included are 61 pancreatic cancer cases and 67 control subjects from PanScan I as well as 173 pancreatic cancer cases from PanScan III of Asian ancestry from the Shanghai Men's and Women's Health Study (Supplemental Table 10, Wolpin et al. (Nat Genet, 2014)). The control population used in the analysis for the Wolpin et al. manuscript included cancer-free individuals from the prospective cohorts that contributed pancreatic cancer cases to PanScan III and controls from the Spanish Bladder Cancer SBC/EPICURO study that were previously genotyped using the OmniExpress, Omni 1M or Omni 2.5M SNP arrays. The data from these control subjects were posted to dbGaP under the GWAS in which they were initially genotyped and will not be made available in duplicate under this dbGaP study.The summary statistics for PanScan I-III were generated as detailed in Wolpin BM. et al., Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Genetics 2014; 46(9):994-1000 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3052), and Klein, A. et al., Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies five new susceptibility loci for pancreatic cancer, Nature Communications, 2018;9(1):556 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02942-5). The dataset includes results from an association study of 5,117 individuals diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and 8,845 control individuals, or a total of 13,962 subjects of European ancestry (as compared to the genotype and phenotype information under this project that includes 9,437 individuals (PanScan I and II PDAC case and control individuals and PanScan III PDAC cases only). This is due to the fact that PanScan III &#8220;borrowed&#8221; GWAS data from control individuals genotyped separately from the PanScan GWAS project and are therefore not included as raw genotypes in phs000206.v5.p3. Association analysis was performed separately for PanScan I-II and PanScan III, followed by a meta-analysis of the two datasets. Results were filtered based on a minor allele frequency (MAF) &lt; 0.01, an imputation INFO score &lt; 0.3 and a heterogeneity P-value &lt; 1x10-10 leaving a total of 9,758,390 variants. Columns in the summary statistics dataset are as follows: ID: variant rsIDChr: chromosome numberPosition: position in the chromosome, genome build GRCh37/hg19MarkerName: variant identifierAllele1: reference alleleAllele2: alternative alleleFreq1: allele frequency for allele2FreqSE: standard error of the allele frequencyMinFreq: the minimal allele frequency across studiesMaxFreq: the max allele frequency across studiesEffect: effect size for allele2StdErr: standard errorP-value: meta-analysis p-valueDirection: summary of effect direction for each studyHetISq: I^2 statistic which measures heterogeneity on scale of 0-100%HetChiSq: chi-squared statistic in simple test of heterogeneityHetDf: degrees of freedom for heterogeneity statisticHetPVal: P-value for heterogeneity statistic

  Study phs000206