Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Duke Cognition Cohort

The overall goal is to identify genetic variants influencing normal variation between humans, with a focus on cognitive and neurosensory traits. Because of the focus of funding agencies on disease, very few studies of the genetics of non-disease traits have been performed. The genetic variation underlying the vast majority of differences between humans therefore remains not only undiscovered, but also unexplored. We have assessed >1,200 healthy volunteers for >70 diverse, non-disease phenotypes, with a focus on cognitive and neurosensory traits that are understudied and seem to have a strong biological basis. Our study includes measurements of face recognition, night vision, cognitive performance, auditory pitch discrimination, contagious yawn susceptibility, time perception, sense of direction, taste preferences, personality, sexual behaviors, sleep habits, acne, headache locations, synesthesia, and teeth sensitivity. This method is very different from the focus of most studies on collecting cohorts of patients with disease and controls with minimal phenotypic information. Because we phenotype the same healthy volunteers for multiple highly variable yet heritable traits, we can perform genetic analyses on a large number of phenotypes by just investing once in sequencing the DNA of these participants. An additional >2,000 participants in our cohort have been measured just for cognitive performance instead of for the more extensive phenotyping. Most of the genetic studies in this cohort have been about cognitive perfromance. The number of participants with genetic data generated who have undergone the more extensive phenotyping is limited. Our studies of the more novel traits like contagious yawning have therefore focused more on correlations between different phenotypes until we have a sufficient sample size to truly attempt to make genetic discoveries. . The dataset also includes two small challenge studies. In one study, the cognitive performance of 150 healthy volunteers was measured before and after an acute dose of the antiepileptic drug topiramate. In the other study, the cognitive performance of 13 healthy volunteers was measured before and after 24 hours of sleep deprivation.

Study phs001406

Exceptional Responders Initiative

The Exceptional Responders Initiative is a pilot study to investigate the underlying molecular factors driving exceptional treatment responses of cancer patients to drug therapies. Study researchers will examine molecular profiles of tumors from patients either enrolled in a clinical trial for an investigational drug(s) and who achieved an exceptional response relative to other trial participants, or who achieved an exceptional response to a non-investigational chemotherapy. An exceptional response is defined as achievement of either a complete response or a partial response for at least 6 months duration in a trial or treatment where the overall response rate is < 10%. The hope is to discover underlying molecular features that can be further investigated and may eventually predict benefit from a given drug or class of drugs for a particular patient. This pilot project will successfully characterize approximately 100 cases of tumor tissue and, when available, case-matched germline DNA. All samples will undergo whole exome sequencing, and cases with sufficient nucleic acids will undergo additional analyses (e.g. whole genome sequencing, mRNA-sequencing, mi RNA sequencing, promoter methylation analysis, SNP etc). Each case will be annotated with demographic and clinical information, along with follow-up information minimally sufficient to correlate molecular profiles with response. Both retrospective and prospective collections will be considered. The project will also accept sequencing data and clinical data from patients who have had sequencing performed outside of this project. All data will be de-identified and placed in a controlled access database so other investigators may use them for additional insights. Clinically annotated tissue specimens meeting the criteria will be provided by groups participating in the Exceptional Cases Initiative to a Biospecimen Core Resource (BCR), which will perform quality control on the tissues, and will use a standard operating procedure to isolate nucleic acids. The nucleic acids will be shipped to a sequencing center to perform whole exome sequencing and analysis. These findings will be made available to the broader cancer research community in a controlled access database.

Study phs001145

Bacterial Vaginosis, Cervical Immune Cells and HIV Susceptibility

This was a cross-sectional study to characterize cervical immune cell composition and activation status in the presence versus absence of bacterial vaginosis (BV) using bulk messenger RNA sequencing (mRNA-Seq). Women enrolled in a longitudinal, open cohort study and engaged in a sex work in Mombasa, Kenya, were eligible. On the day of enrollment, participants self-collected vaginal swabs for generation of Gram-stained slide. The slides were scored from 0-10 using the method of Nugent and Hillier; in this system, women with scores of 0-3 are considered to have normal vaginal flora, those with scores of 4-6 are considered to have intermediate flora, and those with scores of 7-10 are considered to have BV. For this study, only women with normal flora (Nugent scores 0-3) or BV (Nugent scores 7-10) were eligible. Participants underwent speculum-assisted pelvic examination and collection of cervical biopsy specimens using Tischler forceps. Biopsies were placed immediately in ice cold medium and transferred to the laboratory where they were weighed and transferred to freezing medium (10% DMSO + fetal bovine serum) and cooled slowly overnight. Samples were shipped from Kenya to the United States in liquid nitrogen dry shippers, collagenase digested into single cell suspensions, and sorted on a FACS aria to enrich for a population of live, CD45+ cells. Sorted samples (N=17 with BV and N=13 without BV) were immediately lysed and processed using the Takara SMART-Seq v4 Ultra Low Input RNA Kit for sequencing. Library generation was completed using the manufacturer's instructions and sequencing performed on an Illumina NextSeq500 platform using Illumina NextSeq 500/550 High Output v2.5 (150 Cycles). The FASTQ files generated and BV status (N=9 with BV and N=12 without BV that passed quality control) of the donor sample will be available on dbGaP. We identified over 1000 differentially expressed genes between women with versus without BV at an adjusted p-value of <0.05 (listed under "gene names" below).

Study phs002329

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the phase 2 PANDA trial

Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers carry a poor prognosis, and despite recent advancements most patients die of their disease. While immune checkpoint blockade has become part of the standard of care for patients with metastatic G/GEJ cancers, its efficacy and impact on the tumor microenvironment in the early disease setting remain largely unknown. We hypothesized a higher efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in patients with non-metastatic G/GEJ cancer. In the phase 2 PANDA trial, patients with previously untreated resectable G/GEJ tumors (n=21) received neoadjuvant treatment with one cycle of atezolizumab monotherapy followed by 4 cycles of atezolizumab plus docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine. Treatment was well-tolerated, and all patients underwent resection without treatment-related delays, meeting the primary endpoint of safety and feasibility. Tissue was obtained at multiple time points, allowing analysis of the effects of single-agent PD-L1 blockade and the subsequent combination with chemotherapy on the tumor microenvironment. A total of 21 patients were included, of whom 20 patients underwent surgery and were evaluable for the secondary pathologic response and survival endpoints, while 19 were evaluable for exploratory translational analyses. A major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% residual viable tumor) was observed in 14/20 (70%; 95% CI 46-88%) patients, including 9 (45%; 95% CI 23-68%) pathologic complete responses. At a median follow-up of 47 months, 13/14 responders were alive and disease-free, while 5/6 nonresponders had died due to disease recurrence. Notably, baseline PD-1+CD8+ T cell infiltration was significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders, and comparison of the tumor microenvironment alterations following anti-PD-L1 monotherapy versus the subsequent combination with chemotherapy revealed that increased immune activity was achieved upon single-agent PD-1/L1 axis blockade. Based on these data, anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy warrants further exploration in patients with non-metastatic G/GEJ cancer, and these results call for validation in a larger cohort.

Study EGAS50000000168

Kids First: Whole Genome Sequencing in Recessive Structural Brain Defects

Almost 5% of all live births in the US (1:20 births) display an inborn defect, including both structural and functional/metabolic abnormalities. These are among the most common causes of Infant mortality in the developed world and underlie nearly half of hospitalizations in the first 3 years of life. Of the 35 major defects observable at birth from the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance Program (www.icbdsr.org, external link), about half involve the nervous system. Many of these result in lifelong neurodevelopmental disorders. Structural Brain Defects (SBDs) result from errors in development of the central nervous system, including defects in the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. Many SBDs arise as the consequence of a single gene bi-allelic mutation, and for this reason, occur more commonly in populations or communities with elevated consanguinity.Our lab has identified dozens of novel SBD genes using WES/WGS in consanguineous SBD families. Importantly, the genes that we and others have identified in these unique families are then used to advance diagnosis in pediatric SBDs around the world. We have built an enormous cohort of SBD families, including newly recruited families not yet studied genetically, and previous families that were negative for cause following WES analysis. Here we propose to collaborate with the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program (X01) to have sequencing performed in individuals from a total of 200 families with genetically undiagnosed SBDs. The Gleeson Lab team of researchers is dedicated to the field of SBDs, with an outstanding track record of high-impact science, and a collaborative approach to discovery. We have 150 newly recruited families that we propose to study by WES by sequencing blood-derived DNA from two affected patients, or the parents and one affected patient. We also have 50 families in which WES was negative, which we propose to study in a multi-omics approach combining WGS from blood-derived DNA. We anticipate that this study will lead to the identification of many new molecular causes of SBDs, as well as uncover new genotype-phenotype correlations and new disease mechanisms, paving the way for future breakthroughs in detection, treatment and prevention.

Study phs002590

Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program in Pediatric T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

The outcome for patients with relapsed T-ALL is dismal with 3-year event free survival of AALL0434 was a Children's Oncology Group-initiated phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing Capizzi-style escalating methotrexate plus pegaspargase (CMTX) vs. high dose methotrexate (HDMTX), with/without six 5-day courses of nelarabine. Survival on this study was superior to any prior trial for de novo T-ALL, changing the standard of care. Yet, a substantial minority (~15%) of patients had relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease. Through the TARGET initiative, RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), DNA copy number analysis, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) were performed on 264 T-ALL patients treated on AALL0434, demonstrating recurrent alterations could be grouped into 10 different potentially targetable functional pathways. This analysis was not powered to examine associations between genetic lesions with outcome, because too few patients with r/r disease were included. This project is dedicated to testing the hypothesis that comprehensive genomic profiling of the entire AALL0434 cohort will identify recurrent genetic alterations that can be segregated into biologically relevant deregulated pathways that can be combined with MRD to identify patients at risk for poor outcomes before they relapse and provide rationale for treatment with alternative therapies. In addition, a number of small recent studies demonstrated that many of the biologically relevant alterations in T-ALL occur in non-coding regions of the genome, but no large studies have performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) in T-ALL. This project also tests the hypothesis that WGS of a large cohort of patients with T-ALL will identify novel lesions in coding and non-coding regions that will be highly impactful in the understanding of T-ALL pathogenesis.These hypotheses are tested by performing comprehensive genomic profiling (WGS, WES, RNA-Seq, and copy number analysis) of the entire AALL0434 cohort with available samples with the following specific aims: (1) identify recurrent genetic alterations that predict poor outcome in T-ALL; (2) identify novel alterations, including non-coding alterations in T-ALL; and (3) identify germline genetic variants that predispose to T-ALL and to increased toxicity to chemotherapy.

Study phs002276

Psychophysiological Investigation of Myocardial Ischemia (PIMI-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 investigate psychophysiological factors related to both symptomatic and asymptomatic cardiac ischemia.Background: An important hypothesis has been generated from current research in this area: manifestations and expressions of cardiac ischemia are influenced by specified psychophysiological mechanisms.Participants: The study population consisted of 196 participants recruited from four clinical units, all of which were clinical units for the Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP). Participants eligible for PIMI were identified throughout the screening process established for the enrollment of participants in ACIP.Design: The primary goal of PIMI was to test the hypothesis, "Manifestations and expressions of cardiac ischemia are influenced by specific psychophysiological mechanisms." The specific relationships investigated were:Patients who are susceptible to mental stress ischemia (indexed by new left ventricular wall motion abnormalities) would display more ischemia during daily activities and would have ambulatory ischemia at lower heart rate and activity level thresholds than patients who are not susceptible. Cardiovascular and catecholamine reactivity to mental stress would be a predictive of severity of mental stress ischemia and of ambulatory ischemia. Β-edorphin responses to mental stress and to exercise would be predictive of asymptomatic ischemia. Patients with systematic ischemia and those with asymptomatic ischemia would show differences in each of the following at rest and after response to stresses (exercise and/or mental tests). Mental stress would produce different hormonal and perceptual responses than exercise. Asymptomatic ischemia would be associated with a lesser severity of ischemia than symptomatic ischemia. The location of the ischemic myocardium would be inferior in a higher proportion of patients with asymptomatic ischemia than of patients with symptomatic ischemia. The latency internal that would be the onset of ST segment depression and the onset of ischemic pain would be related to somatic sensory perception, autonomic nervous system reflux control of the heart, Β-endorphin responses, and psychosocial characteristics.

Study phs004183

UK10K NEURO IOP COLLIER

In the UK10K project we propose a series of complementary genetic approaches to find new low frequency/rare variants contributing to disease phenotypes. These will be based on obtaining the genome wide sequence of 4000 samples from the TwinsUK and ALSPAC cohorts (at 6x sequence coverage), and the exome sequence (protein coding regions and related conserved sequence) of 6000 samples selected for extreme phenotypes. Our studies will focus primarily on cardiovascular-related quantitative traits, obesity and related metabolic traits, neurodevelopmental disorders and a limited number of extreme clinical phenotypes that will provide proof-of-concept for future familial trait sequencing. We will analyse directly quantitative traits in the cohorts and the selected traits in the extreme samples, and also use imputation down to 0.1% allele frequency to extend the analyses to further sample sets with genome wide genotype data. In each case we will investigate indels and larger structural variants as well as SNPs, and use statistical methods that combine rare variants in a locus or pathway as well as single-variant approaches. The Genetics and Psychosis (GAP) set consists of samples from subjects with schizophrenia, ascertained as a new-onset sample. This set is of UK origin, with data on cognition, brain imaging and other endophenotypes. The Maudsley twin series consists of probands ascertained from the Maudsley Twin Register, defined as patients of multiple birth who had suffered psychotic symptoms. This set is of UK origin, with data on cognition, brain imaging and other endophenotypes, with DNA available from an MZ or DZ affected or unaffected co-twin. The Maudsley family study (MFS) consists of over 250 families who have a history of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder Within the Maudsley Family Study, biological markers of psychosis include neuropsychological tests, Evoked Response Potentials Tests (ERPs), MRI scans, dermatoglyphics and eye tracking. Early risk factors for psychosis and clinical symptoms are also investigated. This set is of UK origin, with DNA available from both affected and unaffected relatives in many of the probands. For further information on this study please contact David Collier (david.collier@kcl.ac.uk).

Study EGAS00001000121

The Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Genes and Environment (GLAUGEN) Study

Background Information: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is an age-related, intraocular pressure (IOP)-dependent progressive optic neuropathy that ultimately leads to irreversible blindness. Vision loss from POAG is a condition of public health significance. Current evidence suggests that POAG is a polygenetic disease modified by environmental influences. Despite the fact that a positive family history of disease is an important risk factor for POAG, conventional linkage and candidate gene approaches have revealed less than 5% of the genetic component of the disease. Furthermore, there is no consensus on environment risk factors for POAG. Elevated IOP is the only modifiable risk factor for POAG; yet, lowering IOP slows, but does not halt the disease process. Study Objectives: The overall goal of our research is to elucidate the pathogenesis of POAG so that cost-effective disease detection and primary prevention strategies can be implemented. The primary aim of the Glaucoma Gene Environment Initiative (GLAUGEN), funded by the Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), is to discover genetic loci associated with POAG. The secondary aim of GLAUGEN, funded by NHGRI and the National Eye Institute, is to discover gene environment interactions in POAG. Methods and study populations: For this study, we have assembled cases and controls from three studies: the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Genetic Etiologies of POAG (GEP) project based at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI). This case-control group includes 1057 unrelated cases and 1272 controls. Members of the NHS and HPFS also have repeated environmental exposure data collected prior to a diagnosis of POAG. NHS - The Nurses Health Study started in 1976 under the direction of Dr. Frank E. Speizer. With funding from the NIH, registered nurses from 11 US states were invited to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding lifestyle and health biennially. Initially, 121,000 women responded to the baseline questionnaire. Currently, Dr. Susan Hankinson serves as the program director for the NHS. HPFS - The Health Professionals Follow-up Study began in 1986 under the direction of Drs. Walter Willett and Meir Stampfer. Under the auspices of the NIH, they enlisted 51,529 male health professionals from throughout the US to complete similarly designed biennial questionnaires. Beginning in 1990, questions regarding ocular health were added to biennial questionaires completed by health professionals participating in the NHS and HPFS. This allowed us to formulate (PI: S. Hankinson; NEI) and maintain (PI: L. Pasquale; NEI) a cohort at risk for POAG derived from the respective general cohorts who were under ophthalmic care. We then developed a definition of POAG that allowed us to identify cases from a population that was geographically dispersed. The centerpiece of this definition is the presence of reproducible visual field loss consistent with nerve fiber layer (NFL) dropout (the NFL contains the axons that comprise the optic nerve) on reliable tests. Reproducible visual field loss occurred in the context of anterior segment findings that did not suggest a secondary cause of elevated IOP and posterior segment findings that did not suggest a secondary cause of visual field loss. We selected controls from the cohort at risk for POAG on the basis of age, gender and time period when cases were identified. GEP - The Genetic Etiologies of POAG was initiated in 1996 with funding from the National Eye Institute under the direction of Dr. Janey Wiggs. The purpose of this work was to discover novel genetic loci associated with POAG. In the GEP, cases were derived predominantly from the Glaucoma Service at MEEI. The majority of cases had an examination by a glaucoma specialist and met the definition for POAG used in NHS and HPFS. Cases with only one reliable visual field consistent with NFL dropout were included if there was a cup-disc ratio of 0.7 or more. The majority of controls were patients who presented to the MEEI comprehensive ophthalmology service for routine eye examination or from spouses of MEEI patients with secondary forms of glaucoma. Other controls were identified from regional glaucoma screenings held throughout Massachusetts. Members of GEP have detailed ocular phenotype data but limited information on environmental exposures. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to primary open-angle glaucoma through large-scale genome-wide association studies of three well-characterized cohorts of cases and controls, some in matched pairs. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization were performed at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

Study phs000308

Programmatic submission based on XML

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

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

12033 results for "safefccoins Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..zl62"

in 58.11 milliseconds.