10984 results for "monedas ultimate team FC 26 Visité Buyfc26coins.com. Servicio premium a un precio estándar. Increíble..XLis"

in 13.94 milliseconds.

• 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

• Heart Failure Network: Entresto(TM) in Advanced Heart Failure (HFN-LIFE-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.Objectives: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone in patients with advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms.Background: Treatment with evidence-based medical therapies improves survival, reduces heart failure hospitalizations, and improves quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, evidence supporting the use of medical therapies among patients with advanced heart failure is limited. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure are not often enrolled in clinical trials.A previous trial reported that, compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, reduced the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations by 20% in ambulatory patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Although patients with NYHA class IV heart failure were eligible to enroll, this population was underrepresented. The HFN-LIFE trial was initiated to provide additional information about the tolerability, safety, and potential efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure.Participants: Of the eligible patients that enrolled, a total of 335 patients tolerated the run-in phase and were randomized to a treatment group. 167 patients were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan and 168 patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan alone.Design: The HFN-LIFE trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 4 clinical trial. Trial enrollment was suspended early, due to the high risk for adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection.Eligible patients were enrolled and began an unblinded run-in period of 3 to 7 days with sacubitril/valsartan, 24/26 mg (50-mg fixed dose), administered orally twice daily. Participants tolerating the run-in phase were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The initial doses were selected based on guidelines with dose adjustments being made every 2 weeks.The primary efficacy outcome was the area under the curve of NT-proBNP levels at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks compared with the level of NT-proBNP at randomization. The secondary efficacy end point was the number of days the patient was alive, out of the hospital, and free from any of the following outcomes: listing for cardiac transplant, cardiac transplant, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, receipt of continuous inotropic therapy for 7 or more days, or hospitalization for heart failure on 2 or more occasions other than the index admission.Conclusions: In patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan alone with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels.

  Study phs004171

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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 submission. 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” or “Read & Write”). If you want to invite all the collaborators from a previous submission, you can add them by selecting said submission.In the event that the submission has been closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you will need to modify one of the objects in the submission, for example, copy and paste the title. 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 batch 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 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 samples and 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 batch 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 in 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). Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested please delete them from your SFTP INBOX before 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 file to a closed submission, you will need to re-open the submission where the dataset was registered. 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, you must edit any object within the submission. For example, you can copy and paste the title. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guidance 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

• 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