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

in 19.94 milliseconds.

• Submitter Portal API

  Submitter Portal API 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. For those that want a more flexible and automated approach, we also provide a programmatic approach using the Submitter Portal AP in addition to the user interface of the Submitter Portal. With the help of our API, you can quickly include the submission of metadata into your own workflow for a more effective and individualised experience. Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified, you will have to request a submitter role and sign the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). When the DPA is signed, you must send it to EGA Helpdesk for further validation. Please, note that if you already have an EGA account, or you have 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, 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 the relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Programmatic submission All the calls to the API need to be Authenticated. We use the OpenID Connect protocol. API Usage Flow: Click here to check the API usage flow schema Obtain Access and Refresh Token: The first step to using the API is to obtain an access and refresh token. These tokens are required for authentication and authorisation of API requests. To obtain these tokens, you need to log in using your EGA credentials. Example: curl "https://idp.ega-archive.org/realms/EGA/protocol/openid-connect/token" \ -d "grant_type=password" \ -d "client_id=sp-api" \ -d "username=your-username" \ --data-urlencode "password=your-password" Use Access Token in API Calls: Once you have obtained the access token, you must use it in all the calls to the API. The access token is valid for a limited time period. When it expires, you will need to use the refresh token to obtain a new access token. Create Submission Object: After authentication, you can start creating a submission object. This object will be used to store all the metadata objects and files related to the submission. Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My submission title\", \"description\":\"My submission description\" }" Create EGA Metadata Objects: Within the submission object, you can create other metadata objects required for the submission. These objects may include information about the submitter, study, sample, experiment, and run. Example of study creation: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/submissions/{submisison-id}/studies" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"title\":\"My study title\", \"description\":\"My study description\", \"study_type\":\"Metagenomics\" }" If you would like to reuse already registered objects in new submissions, bear in mind that they must have an accession which you must use to reference them. You cannot reuse objects that have not been finalised and accepted yet.For example, when creating a new run which is reusing a previously submitted experiment, instead of using experiment_provisional_id, you must use experiment_accession_id. Enums There are some fields that only accept specific values, i.e. study_type. The API provides several enumerations to list these values. You can list all the enumerations, or a specific one, for example, study_types. Obtain IDs of files You can list the files available in your inbox and filter by a prefix by adding the prefix param, i.e. &prefix=/my_folder/abc Example: curl "https://submission.ega-archive.org/api/files?status=inbox&prefix=/my_folder/abc" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer your-access-token" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" To improve performance and manageability, we have limited the number of files that the Submitter Portal API can return in a response. If a given call exceeds this limit, user will be asked to narrow down the search by using the query parameters already available in this endpoint. Finalise Submission: Once all the metadata objects are created and linked to the submission, you can finalise the submission. Finalising the submission sends it to the Helpdesk team for review. Please, note that all files linked to the submission must be ingested, and all objects created in a submission must be linked before you can finalise the submission. API Reference: For a full API reference, please check our specification documentation.

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

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? The most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Submitting array based metadata

  Submitting array based metadata For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The submission metadata required for Array-based submission must be submitted using EGA programmatic submission and by completing the Array-based format (AF) template. The guidelines for this workflow are described on this page. Please notice that all files should be encrypted and uploaded prior to the processing of your EGA Array-based-Format (AF) template. You can request a legacy EGA submission account (ega-box-XXXX) by populating this form. Please, allow two business days for our Helpdesk team to contact you after populating this form. Please notice that all files should be encrypted and uploaded prior to the processing of your EGA-Array-based-Format (AF) template. Metadata Model Registering Metadata Use the EGA programmatic submission to register your Study, Samples, Data Access Committee (DAC) and Policy. This online interface enables you to create new and edit existing submissions. Do not use the Submitter Portal to register the metadata objects for array submissions. Please, go to the EGA programmatic submission. Registering Study Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit an study XML Take a note of your study accession number (EGASXXXXXXXXXXX) To use the study accession number in a publication, we suggest the following format: "Sequence data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found on https://ega-archive.org "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research"(https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1059 ). Registering Samples Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a sample XML Save the list of accession numbers. These will be needed for the AF template. Registering Data Access Committee Further information on the role of your DAC. Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a DAC XML Take a note of the DAC accession number (EGACXXXXXXXXXXX) Registering Policy Your Data Access Policy provides the terms and conditions of data use. This is also referred to as the Data Access Agreement (DAA). Completion of a DAA by the applicant/s should form part of the application process to the Data Access Committee (DAA) Go to the EGA programmatic submission Submit a Policy XML Take a note of the Policy accession number (EGAPXXXXXXXXXXX) Complete the Array-based format (AF) spreadsheet Once you have completed the registration of your Study, DAC and Policy using the programmatix submission, you must then complete and return the AF spreadsheet The AF spreadsheet consists on four components: Do not use EGA IDs registered using the Submitter Portal. You can easily identify objects registered in the Submitter Portal by their EGA ID pattern: EGA[A-Z]5{10 more digits} (e.g. for a sample EGAN50000002506). For populating an AF spreadsheet, please exclusively use EGA IDs following this specific pattern: EGA[A-Z]0{10 more digits} (e.g. for a sample EGAN00001691542). Tab1) Webin accessions : Provide the accession numbers for your study, DAC and policy. Please, also add your ega-box number. Tab2) Sample & phenotypes: Please, leave this tab blank. Tab3) Dataset: Describe the dataset to be created Tab4) Data files: Define how your data is going to be organised into datasets and packets for distribution (linkage between samples and files). Should further assistance be required after going through the guide below; please do not hesitate to contact the EGA helpdesk Once the AF spreadsheet is populated, please send it to our EGA helpdesk for further validation. AF spreadsheet Should your submission require multiple DAC's or policies, use ' ; ' to separate the accession numbers. Accessions AF spreadsheet: Samples & phenotypes Samples and phenotypes AF spreadsheet: Datasets We suggest that each dataset consists of a common set of data. The example below consists of two datasets, grouped according to shared data type, technology and by case/control. We also like to capture the number of unique samples that make up the dataset and the Data Access Committee (DAC) responsible for providing the named dataset and their policy (EGAP). Datasets AF spreadsheet: Data files What follows is an example of how to map your samples to the array based files added to your upload account (4th tab). Data Files Please, find below some practical examples on how to register the linkage between samples-files Case 1) 1 sample or list of samples in different datasets: Data Files In case you have a list of samples that belong to different datasets, please, repeat the samples accession number/s in the first column and link the sample to the corresponding dataset each time (each row). Each row is one linkage between sample-file-dataset. Case 2) 1 sample links to several files: Data Files In order to add multiple files to one sample you MUST use “ ; “ between filenames. Example: file1.gpg;file2.gpg;file3.gpg In case that you want to add an extra file to the sample (phenotype or .Rdata), please use “Additional files” column. Important note: You MUST upload the encrypted and unencrypted md5sum values of all files uploaded to your submission account using the filename nomenclature (file.gpg, file.md5,file.md5.gpg). Your submission will not be processed without md5values supplied for all files in the CORRECT format. What happens after the submission of a dataset? All datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitted or DAC contact instructs our EGA helpdesk for the study to be released. Finally, your data is archived within our databases and prepared for encrypted distribution upon the request of permitted EGA account holders. We strongly advise you NOT to delete your data until we confirm that your data has been successfully archived.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/array

• Transdisciplinary Research Into Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) - Exome Plus Targeted Sequencing

  The study was conducted under the auspices of the Transdisciplinary Research In Cancer of the Lung (TRICL) Research Team, which is a part of the Genetic Associations and MEchanisms in ONcology (GAME-ON) consortium, and associated with the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Ethics All participants provided written informed consent. All studies were reviewed and approved by institutional ethics review committees at the involved institutions. Sequencing data are derived from four sub-studies. The sub-studies that contributed include Harvard, Liverpool, Toronto, and IARC. The IARC and Toronto studies are described above. A description of the Harvard and Liverpool studies is provided below. Liverpool Lung Project: The Liverpool Lung Project (LLP)1 is a case control and cohort study, which has over 11,500 individuals, with detailed epidemiological, clinical and outcome data with associated specimens (i.e. tumour tissue, blood, plasma, sputum, bronchial lavage, EBUS and oral brushings). The participants have completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and updated data on clinical outcome and hospital events are collected through the Office of National Statistics, Cancer Registry and from Health Episode Statistics. The project is registered on the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) lung cancer portfolio and has all the required ethical approvals and sponsorship arrangements in place. The LLP has detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) for all aspects of the recruitment, data, specimen collection as well as the data storage. The LLP Cohort study has 8,224 participants with blood and 7,761 with plasma samples. The LLP case-control samples have been incorporated into in a large number of international GWAS and molecular studies 2,3, methylation 4-7, microRNA 8and next generation studies 9-11, resulting in high ranking publications, as well as forming the basis for the LLP risk prediction model 12-14 which has been utilised in the UK lung cancer screening trial (UKLS) 15-17 Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. Harvard Samples. David Christiani at the Harvard University School of Public Health has been directing research studies to investigate etiological factors influencing lung cancer development since 1983 and has amassed a collection of 2000 controls and 5055 lung cancer cases. He has been actively collecting and storing snap frozen tumor samples since 1992. Around 1500 tumor samples have been collected and the average wet tumor yield is about 30 grams of tumor, of which 631 cases have completely annotated clinical and survival information. Pathology confirmation is provided by two pathologists. At the time of surgery, a minimum of 30 grams of wet lung tumor tissue and 30 grams of non-involved tissue from the same lobe is sectioned, flash frozen and sent to Dr. Christiani's lab for logging and storage. A blood sample for DNA and serum is collected. A structured interview by trained research staff is conducted on each case, and clinical outcomes and treatments is extracted and entered into the molecular epidemiology data base at Harvard. Fresh frozen samples have been collected from 1451 lung cancer and are available for study. Samples from this collaborative study have played key roles in major studies, including the initial finding describing EGFR mutations in lung cancer 22. Participants in this study are patients, > 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed histologically confirmed lung cancer. Samples that are included in the analysis have the following histologies: Adenocarcinoma: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3 8560/3; LCC: 8012/3, 8031/3; squamous carcinoma: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; and other NSCLC: 8010/3, 8020/3, 8021/3, 8032/3, 8230/3. The Toronto Study: The Toronto study was conducted in the Great Toronto Area between 1997 and 2014. Cases were recruited at the hospitals in the network of University of Toronto and Lunenfeld- Tanenbaum Research Institute. At the time of recruitment in the clinical setting, provisional diagnoses of lung carcinoma were first assigned based on clinical criteria. Diagnoses for all cases included were histologically confirmed by the reference pathologist who is a specialist in pulmonary pathology, based on review of pathology reports from surgery, biopsy or cytology samples in 100% of cases. Diagnostic classification was done initially according to ICD-9, ICD-10, and ICD for oncology-2, and subsequently converted to ICD-O-3. Tumors were grouped into the major categories included in this analysis according to primary cancer type based on the ICD-3 definitions. Controls were randomly selected from individual visiting family medicine clinics and Ministry of Finance Municipal Tax Tapes. All subjects were interviewed using a standard questionnaire and information on lifestyle risk factors, occupational history, medical and family history was collected. Blood samples were collected from more than 85% of the subjects. IARC: The IARC data are derived from case-control studies conducted in Russia and include samples that have available tissue samples. Patient and control DNAs were derived from EDTA-venous blood samples. The lung cancer patients were classified according to ICD-O-3; SQ: 8070/3, 8071/3, 8072/3, 8074/3; AD: 8140/3, 8250/3, 8260/3, 8310/3, 8480/3, 8560/3, 8251/3, 8490/3, 8570/3, 8574/3; with tumous with overlapping histologies classified as mixed. The Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP sub-studies. To view genotypes, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these sub-studies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the "Sub-studies" section of this top-level study page phs000876 Lung Cancer Transdisciplinary Research Cohort. phs000877 Meta Analysis phs000878 CIDR Lung Cancer phs001681 Affy Axiom Array

  Study phs000876

• GEnomics and Transcriptomics of Human INsulinoma (GETHIN)

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

  Study phs001422

• Prognostic and therapeutic significance of leukemia subtypes and minimal residual disease measurements in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with contemporary risk-directed trial: a cohort study

  Background Genomic analyses to identify leukemia subtypes and refinement of minimal residual disease (MRD) determination are two recent advances that would have substantial impact on the management of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, the combined application of these two approaches to determine the prognostic and therapeutic significance of MRD measurement and full spectrum of leukemia subtypes in the context of contemporary risk-directed therapy has not been studied comprehensively.MethodsBetween October 29, 2007 and March 26, 2017, 598 consecutive children with newly diagnosed ALL were enrolled in a clinical trial at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Patients were provisional classified according to the presenting clinical and laboratory features including immunophenotype and cytogenetics. Patients with ETV6-RUNX1 and high hyperdiploid B-progenitor ALL were provisionally included in the low-risk groups; those with TCF3-PBX1, hypodiploidy and T-cell ALL in the standard (intermediate)-risk group; and patients with BCR-ABL1, KMT2A and early T-cell precursor ALL in the high-risk group. Final risk assignment was based primarily on MRD levels measured by flow cytometry on Day 15 (≥1%) and Day 42 (<0.01% or ≥1%) of remission induction. Using genomic classification based on cytogenetics and genomic analysis (single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis and transcriptome, exome, and genome sequencing), patients were classified into 17 subtypes. The primary aim was to determine the event-free survival, overall survival and cumulative risk of relapse according to specific leukemia subtypes and MRD levels on Days 8, 15 and 42 of remission induction. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549848.FindingsPatients with ETV6-RUNX1, high hyperdiploidy and DUX4-rearranged B-ALL all received low- or standard-risk therapy, and had the highest 5-year event-free survival rates: 98.4% (95% CI, 95.9-100), 95.3% (91.2-99.4), and 95.0% (84.2-100), respectively. All 142 patients with Day 8 MRD<0.01%, except two with KMT2A-rearranged ALL and one with TCF3-PBX1, were in continuous complete remission. The TCF3-PBX1, PAX5alt, T-cell, early T-cell precursor, iAMP21 and hypodiploid ALL had intermediate outcome with 5-year event-free survival rates ranging from 80.0% (39.4-100) to 88.2% (71.7-100). Patients with KMT2A-rearranged, BCR-ABL1, BCR-ABL1-like and ETV6-RUNX1-like ALL had the worst outcomes, with 5-year event-free survival rates between 64.1% (43.9-84.3) and 76.2% (51.9-100), despite most patients receiving standard- or high-risk therapy. Treatment intensification based on MRD and genotype improved outcome. Relapse did not occur in any of the patients with ETV6-RUNX1, DUX4-rearranged, TCF3-PBX1, iAMP21, ZNF384-rearranged, hypodiploid, or BCR-ABL1-like B-ALL who had day 15 MRD≥1% and received standard-risk therapy. However, day 42 MRD<0.01% did not preclude relapse in patients with intermediate-risk or unfavorable subtypes including TCF3-PBX1, PAX5alt, T-cell, iAMP21, BCR-ABL1, BCR-ABL1-like, ETV6-RUNX1-like, KMT2A-rearranged, and MEF2D-rearranged ALL, despite intensified treatment in the standard- or high-risk arms. InterpretationContemporary risk-directed treatment based on genotypes and MRD can cure virtually all patients with ETV6-RUNX1, hyperdiploid>50 and DUX4-rearranged ALL. While intensified treatment improve outcome for patients with high MRD during induction, substantial proportions of patients with intermediate-risk or unfavorable subtypes would still relapse even achieving negative MRD status at the end of induction and require novel therapeutics to improve outcome.

  Study EGAS00001004739

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

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

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

  Study phs000210

• Genetic Basis of Early Onset Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

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

  Study phs003705

• 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 EGAD00001010913