17842 results for "the best way to get coins in fc 26 Navštivte Buyfc26coins.com Společnost známá transparentními transakcemi..CQ2q"

in 38.54 milliseconds.

• Drug development for pediatric cancers: the importance of patient' s genomic data re-use

  Cancer in children is uncommon and the overall prognosis for most pediatric cancers is good. However, while the combined survival rates have improved over the last decades, certain childhood malignancies, such as high-grade gliomas or metastatic sarcomas, still remain incurable in most patients. New strategies for targeting those devastating diseases are imperative, and patient genomic data can become a key asset in the process [1]. The Pediatric Cancer Genome Project’s datasets At EGA, we store over 500 datasets with sequencing data from pediatric cancer patients. A remarkable case is the datasets belonging to the Pediatric Cancer Genome Project (PCGP) from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital–Washington University (Table 1 - EGAS list). PCGP is an ambitious effort to identify the mutations that drive childhood cancer and find new cures. Those datasets include 600 patients with complete tumor and normal genomes from 15 different tumor types. PCGP datasets have been an important resource for various studies that pooled genomic data from different public and in-house datasets to perform extensive genomic characterizations and publish comprehensive pan-cancer pediatric studies [2],[3]. Other interesting pediatric cancer datasets are from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, Sickkids or ICGC PedBrain project. How data reuse impacts drug development for pediatric cancers Recently, in October 2024, Nature Communications published a work led by the University of Michigan where authors used data from EGA (PCGP) check the table below as part of their strategy to pursue the identification of new tumor vulnerabilities susceptible to becoming novel therapeutic targets in diffuse midline glioma. Diffuse midline gliomas (DMG) are treatment-resistant and uniformly fatal pediatric brain tumors. The prognosis of this brainstem tumor is dismal with a median overall survival of 9–12 months from diagnosis. In this study, the authors first developed a lab model of the disease and reanalyzed data from the EGA to identify genes potentially linked to tumor severity. This approach revealed involvement of specific metabolic pathways, suggesting new possibilities for therapeutic intervention. In mice, the study shows that the use of statins can improve survival. For a brief overview of the underlying science, diffuse midline gliomas present intratumor heterogeneity with subpopulations of less-differentiated oligodendrocyte precursors and more differentiated astrocytes. Authors established in vitro models to recapitulate both phenotypes and identify metabolic programs in both subpopulations. To determine the clinical relevance, the authors re-used gene expression data from 76 DMG patients identifying a gene signature predicting decreased overall survival. After extensive metabolic characterization of subpopulations, authors defined strategies to target specific metabolic vulnerabilities. Pre-clinical experiments in mice using OXPHOS inhibitors and statins showed a reduction in tumor burden and increased overall survival [4]. In this scenario, the re-use of high-quality patient’s sequencing data appeared as an advantageous strategy to support the clinical relevance of in-vitro and pre-clinical findings. On the other hand, in rare conditions such as childhood cancer, the availability of public datasets and the possibility of pooling data from different sources can be the only way to obtain impactful results that lead to improvements for patients. References Davidoff, A. M. Pediatric Oncology. Seminars in pediatric surgery 19, 225–233 (2010). Gröbner, S. N. et al. The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature 555, 321–327 (2018). Venu Thatikonda et al. Comprehensive analysis of mutational signatures reveals distinct patterns and molecular processes across 27 pediatric cancers. Nature Cancer 4, 276–289 (2023). Mbah, N. E. et al. Therapeutic targeting of differentiation-state dependent metabolic vulnerabilities in diffuse midline glioma. Nature Communications 15, (2024). Datasets and Studies ID Title Access Policy Year EGAD00001000134 Driver mutations in histone H3.3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma McGill-DKFZ Pediatric Brain Tumour Consortium 2016 EGAS0000100192 Somatic Histone H3 Mutations in Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Gliomas and Non-Brainstem Paediatric Glioblastomas St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - Washington University Pediatric Cancer Genome Project 2017 EGAS00001000575 Whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing of DIPG tumors and matched normal tissue The hospital for sick children ("SickKids") 2016 EGAD00001000792 Exome sequencing reads of paediatric glioblastoma McGill-DKFZ Pediatric Brain Tumour Consortium 2016 EGAD00001002006 Whole genome sequencing of paediatric glioblastoma in the ICGC PedBrain project ICGC PedBrain project 2016

  Blog drug-development-for-pediatric-cancers

• CNS Embryonal tumors

  The dataset represents a total of 58 DNA samples from 16 male and 12 female pediatric patients affected with embryonal central nervous system tumors. The samples were subject to whole genome sequencing, WGS, [48 samples, (representing 12 male and 11 female individuals)] and whole exome sequencing, WES, [10 samples, (representing 4 male and 1 female individuals)]. One tumor tissue sample and one peripheral blood sample were analyzed from each of 26 patients, whereas two tumor tissue samples and one peripheral blood sample were analyzed from two patients. The WGS samples were sequenced 2x150 bp paired-end on an Illumina HiSeqX v2.5 instrument, and the WES samples were sequenced 2x100 bp paired-end on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 instrument. The FASTQ files generated were aligned to the human reference genome sequence GRCh38/hg38 using bwa-mem, with the ALT-aware option turned on. Sorting of reads and marking of PCR duplicates was performed with GATK. Base quality score recalibration and joint realignment of reads around insertions and deletions (indels) were conducted using GATK tools. The dataset consists of 58 files in the CRAM format (lossless compression) with a total file size of ~8,8 TB. All CRAM files but one, are derived from one sequence run and one sample. P4551_227N_P4552_112N is a CRAM file where 2 sequence runs (P4551_227N and P4552_112N) from peripheral blood samples from the same individual, P019, were aligned into one single CRAM file. Additional genomic and molecular data (FASTQ, BAM, IDAT, and VCF files) and limited clinical data can be requested by ethically approved projects conducting research in the field of pediatric cancer.

  Dataset EGAD50000000298

• H3Africa H3AChipDesign Phenotype

  Basic phenotypic data (country, ethnicity and sex) for 348 samples of the H3Africa Chip Design Study. Divided into 8 datasets of 41 samples from Zambia, 24 samples from Cameroon, 50 samples from Mali, 26 samples from Cameroon, 49 samples from Nigeria, 48 samples from Botswana, 50 samples from Benin, 60 samples from Burkina Faso and Ghana.

  Dataset EGAD00001005310

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

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

  Study Description: Established in 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) funded the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium to inform science, clinical care and public policy related to concussion and repetitive head impact exposure (HIE) in U.S. Military Service Academy (MSA) cadets and collegiate student-athletes. The primary aims of the initial study were to: (1) establish a multisite research consortium to characterize the effects of concussion and repetitive head impact exposure on brain health, (2) characterize the clinical sequelae and natural history of concussion, (3) characterize the effect of concussion and repetitive head impacts on brain structure and brain function. The 30 member institutions of the CARE Consortium (26 civilian universities/colleges and 4 military service academies) agreed to invite all varsity athletes to undergo multimodal clinical assessments at preseason baseline, and at 5 additional timepoints after concussion diagnosis. At the service academies, non-varsity athlete cadets/midshipmen were also studied. Assessment Categories At Each Time Point Baseline: &#8226; Demographics &#8226; Personal and Family History &#8226; Neurocognitive Assessment &#8226; Neurological Status &#8226; Postural Stability &#8226; Symptoms ACUTE POST-INJURY FOLLOW-UP (CARE 1.0) (24 hrs; 48hrs; Asymptomatic; Unrestricted Return to Play (RTP); 6 mos) &#8226; Neurocognitive Assessment &#8226; Neurological Status &#8226; Postural Stability &#8226; Symptoms CUMULATIVE &amp; PERSISTENT EFFECTS. (CARE 2.0) In-Person Exit Visit; Post-grad Online &#8226; Demographics &#8226; Personal and Family History &#8226; Neurocognitive Assessment &#8226; Neurological Status &#8226; Postural Stability &#8226; Symptoms &#8226; PROs &#8226; MROs (at academies only) LONG-TERM EFFECTS (CARE/SALTOS Integrated (CSI))Annual Online Assessment (at MSAs only); In-Person Research Visits &#8226; Demographics &#8226; Symptoms &#8226; Psychological health &#8226; PROs &#8226; MROs (at academies only)A subset of athletes at 6 of the CARE institutions underwent additional assessments including multimodal MRI, proteomic and genomic biomarker characterization, and head impact quantification (helmet-based sensors). Assessment time points for the ARC/pARC Neurocognitive and Behavioral Testing was done at Baseline, &lt;48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), Unrestricted Return to Play, 7 days following Return to Play, and at &gt;60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career.Blood biomarker collection was done at Baseline, &lt;48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), 7 days following Return to Play, and at &gt;60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career. Multi-modal MRI studies were done at Baseline, &lt;48hrs Post-Injury, Cleared for Return to Play Progression (Asymptomatic), 7 days following Return to Play, and at &gt;60 days after final game of junior year until end of collegiate career. However, please note that only athletes from one study performance site completed a multi-modal MRI study at baseline.

  Study phs002175

• Everything you need to know about Federated EGA Affiliates: Q&A

  Addressing common questions about Federated EGA (FEGA) Affiliates and providing answers. FEGA Affiliates have recently been defined as the third tier within the newly approved “Federated EGA Structure and Organisation” document, alongside Central EGA (CEGA) and the FEGA Nodes. In this blog post, we aim to answer the questions that may arise on this topic. For more general information about FEGA Affiliates, you can refer to this blog post. Let's now start with the questions and answers! What is the difference between a FEGA Affiliate and a FEGA Node? FEGA Nodes A FEGA Node is a national-level service that accepts submissions and provides archiving and access services within a single country's jurisdiction. Nodes provide end-to-end services for submitters in that jurisdiction, including submission support, processing, permissions management, and distribution. FEGA Affiliates A FEGA Affiliate is not a national submission service. Instead, it archives data from its own legal entity and/or selected partner institutions (for example, consortium partners). Affiliates are designed for organisations and consortia that need to keep data stewardship and access decisions within their own governance model, while still enabling discovery through the broader FEGA ecosystem. What do Affiliates commit to? Here is a practical checklist of the core expectations for a FEGA Affiliate. FEGA Affiliate checklist Discovery and metadata Submit non-personal metadata to CEGA to obtain EGA accessions and enable discovery (with metadata validation handled by the CEGA Helpdesk). Operations and resilience Maintain a data storage system and a defined backup/recovery approach. Ensure operational capacity (personnel and infrastructure) to deliver Affiliate services. Maintain systems and practices that support local data security and align with EGA best-practices. Access and user support Provide data distribution or access (e.g in a trusted research environment) to authorised users to datasets hosted at the Affiliate. Provide permissions management for datasets archived by the Affiliate (the CEGA DAC (Data Access Committee) Portal is always at your disposal to use). Provide a minimal helpdesk with sufficient capacity to support relevant DACs and approved users. Membership term Commit to a minimum membership term of four years. Governance and participation (lightweight by design) Affiliates integrate into the FEGA network operationally, but without the committee obligations associated with Nodes. When is becoming an Affiliate the right fit? Consider the Affiliate tier if: You host (or plan to host) controlled-access datasets that must be managed under your organisation’s or consortium’s governance, you want studies to be discoverable through EGA, but need access control and/or distribution to remain local, and you are not aiming to operate a national submission service tier.. What if a FEGA Node already exists in my jurisdiction? We encourage any potential Affiliate to reach out to their national FEGA Node to explore collaboration at the national level. Why? Federated models within a country already exist in FEGA, where a national Node operates like a Central EGA for their country. FEGA Nodes can also represent the interests of any Affiliates within their jurisdiction at the FEGA Committees. FEGA Nodes have experience and can support you on your FEGA journey. Ready to join as a FEGA Affiliate? We’re excited to open this formally defined pathway for organisations and consortia to participate in the federation. If you think the FEGA Affiliate tier fits your needs, start by assessing: Your scope (organisation/consortium-held data rather than public external submissions), Your ability to provide the core services (permissions, distribution/access, helpdesk, monitoring), and Your readiness to submit non-personal metadata to CEGA for accessioning and discovery. To express interest, please contact us here, and we'll help you understand the onboarding steps and how Affiliates integrate into the FEGA network.

  Blog fega-affiliates-q&a

• Upcycling and merging data to challenge the dogma and identify new therapeutic targets for Glioblastoma

  Glioblastoma is the most common brain tumour. Characterised by a poor prognosis and its recurrence after multimodal treatments, the search for preventable risk factors has been mainly inconclusive up to date. Recently, the data merge from datasetsdeposited at the EGA allowed Aaron Diaz’s team to discover that the glioblastoma cells shift toward a mesenchymal phenotype when the tumour is recurring. Challenges in glioblastoma research As for virtually all cancer types, many efforts have been made to unveil the molecular features responsible of the disease, and several cellular pathways have indeed been identified as being frequently mutated in glioblastoma. Nonetheless, targeted therapies based on identified genes have so far failed to improve outcome, thus survival mostly relies on a standard treatment unchanged since 2005. This is a frustrating situation for both the scientific and medical communities, and above all for the patients, still facing a dreadful path. Some researchers hypothesised that this may be due to the inability to efficiently target cancer stem cells, the originators of the other cell types, thus inducing cancer relapse. In 2019 Charles P. Couturier and colleagues sequenced RNA from single cells of freshly excised glioblastomas of 16 patients, and demonstrated that glioblastoma cells replicate normal brain cell development with a conserved neural cancer cell hierarchy centered around glial progenitor-like cells. In this way, they helped identify the possible target cells to improve efficacy and durability of treatment. Data upcycling at the EGA: the glioblastoma case study Single cell RNA sequencing is generated with a laborious and expensive protocol. The quality of the starting material is crucial (cells sample freshly extracted from the patients) and often several attempts are needed before producing reliable quality sequencing results. Collecting big numbers of patients is also challenging. The sequencing data produced by Kevin Petrecca’s group in Montreal, Canada and deposited at the EGA (EGAS00001004422) was recently upcycled by Lin Wang in San Francisco, California and pooled with their freshly produced ones, and then deposited at the EGA as Dataset EGAS00001004909 The data merge allowed Aaron Diaz’s team to discover that the glioblastoma cells shift toward a mesenchymal phenotype when the tumour is recurring. They profiled 86 primary-recurrent patient-matched paired glioblastoma samples with single-nucleus RNA, among other techniques. These very comprehensive results lead the team to challenge the findings from several other cancer fields where chemotherapy standard chemo-radiation therapy selection pressure at the level of genomic alterations; this is indeed not the case for glioblastoma, where the pressure results in phenotypic transition between cellular states. Several technical controls were made to ensure that the merge of the data was not introducing a bias in the results, and an Inter-table analysis demonstrated nearly equal contribution to overall variance from each of the studies included, indicating that the findings were not due to inter-laboratory technical effect. A novel principal-component analysis showed that the largest contribution to variation in primary glioblastoma neoplastic cells was an axis between MES (mesenchymal) and proneural expression programs. In summary, treating glioblastoma often makes a MES, as commented by Lucy Stead about this remarkable work. Check Aaron Diaz’s team Nature Cancer paper, with strong technical tools, state of the art analysis and data from different sources converging to the same outcomes that made possible a significant step toward a better handling of a frightful cancer. References Couturier, C.P., Ayyadhury, S., Le, P.U. et al. Single-cell RNA-seq reveals that glioblastoma recapitulates a normal neurodevelopmental hierarchy. Nat Commun 11, 3406 (2020). Stead, L.F. Treating glioblastoma often makes a MES. Nat Cancer 3, 1446–1448 (2022). Wang, L., Jung, J., Babikir, H. et al. A single-cell atlas of glioblastoma evolution under therapy reveals cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic therapeutic targets. Nat Cancer 3, 1534–1552 (2022). Related links: Kevin Petrecca’s group dataset deposited at the EGA: EGAS00001004422 Lin Wang dataset deposited at the EGA: EGAS00001004909

  Blog upcycling-and-merging-data-to-challenge-glioblastoma

• single cell RNA-seq of peripheral blood from analysis in infants with MLL-rearranged Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

  This dataset contains two experiments. 1) Single cell RNA-seq of peripheral blood diagnostic samples from patients with MLL-rearranged infant ALL that underwent relapse or not (samples ending in R relapsed, samples ending in N did not), sequenced with SORT-seq (see cell systems, 2016, doi:10.1016/j.cels.2016.09.002). For some of the patients, multiple indipendent plates were produced (each plate is a sample). Barcode-well correspondence can be found here: https://bitbucket.org/princessmaximacenter/sharq/src/master/data/celseq2_bc384-v4.csv . 2) Single cell RNA-seq of peripheral blood diagnostic samples from patients with MLL-rearranged infant ALL that underwent relapse or not (samples ending in R relapsed, samples ending in N did not), sequenced with10x Genomics Version 2.

  Dataset EGAD00001007752

• Virginia PrIMeD Study

  The goal of this study was to determine whether screening children (2-16 yrs) in pediatric waiting rooms for genetic risk of type 1 diabetes (T1D) could be applied to diverse (by geography, genetic ancestry) communities, and for those at "high genetic risk," if barriers prevent subsequent screening for presence of islet autoantibodies. A total of 3,818 children were recruited from eight general pediatric and specialty clinics across Virginia. Clinical Research Coordinators were stationed at each clinic and obtained informed consent/assent, a brief medical history, and a saliva sample for DNA extraction and determination of their genetic risk using a T1D Genetic Risk Score (T1D GRS). Children were present in the clinic for a "healthy" visit, although children with and without a history of T1D were recruited into the study. Age, sex, self-reported ancestry/race, T1D history, and other medical history information was obtained. DNA was extracted from the saliva samples and genotyping with a T1D-focused array using 74 SNPs (including 26 SNPs in the HLA region) provided data to generate a T1D GRS for each individual. Of the 3,818 children recruited, there was a slight excess of males (1,959, 51.3%), a majority of white and Hispanic/Latino ancestry (82.8%), and 91 (2.4%) with prevalent T1D. A total of 542 (14.2%) had "high T1D genetic risk" (T1D GRS > 5). Although the T1D GRS included non-HLA genetic variants, 80% of those with "high genetic risk" would have been classified using only those SNPs in the HLA region alone. Of children with "high genetic risk" and without pre-existing T1D (n=494), 7.0% (34/494) consented for islet autoantibody screening. Among children with pre-existing T1D (n=91), 52% (n=48) also had a "high genetic risk." The HLA-focused T1D GRS was not significantly associated with age at onset of T1D. Of those at high genetic risk that consented for autoantibody testing (n=34) and completed the blood collection (n=28), two (2/28, 7.1%) tested positive for multiple autoantibodies and were at significant risk of developing T1D. Follow up of 55% of parents/guardians identified 2 (of 2,096, 0.095%) participants who developed T1D, one at "high genetic risk" and one with a first-degree relative with T1D. A major factor in obtaining islet autoantibody testing was concern over SARS-Cov-2 exposure and an independent non-scheduled blood collection.Individual-level data at each SNP (genotyped and imputed) for T1D genetic risk and affiliated data are provided in dbGaP.

  Study phs003609

• 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

• alopecia areata

  exome sequencing files from 25 alopecia areata samples from spain.

  Dataset EGAD00001006370

• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Analysis

  The Biospecimen Pre-analytical Variables (BPV) Program is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study to systematically assess the effects of pre-analytical factors on the molecular profile of biospecimens. A robust biospecimen collection infrastructure was established to prospectively collect biospecimens using rigorous standard operating procedures to control for most variables while introducing experimental conditions to study specific biospecimen handling issues, including the cold ischemic time (delay to formalin fixation), time in formalin, freezing methods, and storage temperatures and durations. RNA and DNA from biospecimens collected under these conditions was analyzed on multiple molecular platforms. The potential effects of these pre-analytical conditions on protein integrity and detection of metabolites were also examined. Data from this study will be used to develop evidence-based biospecimen standard operating procedures and best practices for fit-for-purpose collection, processing, and storage of biospecimens. The BPV Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. To view genotypes, analysis, expression data, other molecular data, and derived variables collected in these substudies, please click on the following sub-studies below or in the &#34;Substudies&#34; box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 BPV Cohort. The substudy links will be active once they are released by dbGaP. Preanalytical Impacts on Global Metabolite Profiling - plasma (MassSpec by Metabolon) This study was to evaluate the impact of the storage temperature (s) (-80&#176;C and LN2 vapor) and the length of storage on human plasma quality using LC-MS/MS (liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry) based global metabolite profiling. The study includes 240 plasma samples collected from 40 donors. Investigate the effect of the delay to fixation on the proteome and phosphoproteome -FFPE (MassSpec by Caprion). The study is to do proteome and phosphoproteome analysis on Delay to fixation was carried out using FFPE tumor samples from colon and ovarian cancer patients comparing 2, 3, and 12hr delay to fixation to the 1hr time point. The study includes 100 samples 20 donors. Investigate the effect of storage conditions of tumor specimens on the proteome and phosphoproteome profiling- Frozen tissue and plasma (MassSpec by Caprion). The study was to evaluate the effects of storage conditions on tumor specimens. Plasma samples from 40 cancer patients stored at two different temperatures (-80&#176;C and LN2) for a given period (0-2, 6-8, and 12-14 months) were evaluated. Frozen kidney tumor samples from 20 patients were compared for effects of different snap frozen (dry ice vs. LN2) and storage temperatures (-80&#176;C and LN2). The study includes 100 tissue and 240 plasma samples from 60 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Genomic Sequencing by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology (mRNA/miRNA and WES by Expression Analysis). The goal of the study is to determine the effects of cold ischemic delay-to-fixation (4 time points) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on the nature and quality of genomic profiles using the matched freshly frozen sample as the gold standard, which including WES, RNAseq. The study includes 395 samples from 37 donors. Preanalytical Impacts on Copy Number Variation (CNV) Detection by aCGH technology (aCGH by Georgetown University). This study was to use aCGH to evaluate the effect of variation in cold ischemia time and time in formalin fixation on CNV in DNA extracted from kidney cancer specimens. The study includes 235 samples from 40 donors. Evaluation of frozen conditions on mRNA profiling by TaqMan assay (mRNA expression by Georgetown University). This study was to utilize gene expression profiling, using custom TaqMan arrays, to compare the molecular profiles of RNA from frozen tumor samples collected using two freezing methods (dry ice or LN2), two storage temperatures (-80&#176;C or LN2 vapor), as well as Optimal Cutting Temperature (OCT) compound and non-OCT embedded. The study includes 100 samples from 20 donors. mRNA signature for stratification by cold ischemia time (mRNA expression by IBBL). The study was to determine the effects of cold ischemic time (delay-to-fixation) and formalin preservation (FFPE) on mRNA detection by Taqman assay using tumor tissue specimens from kidney, colon and ovarian cancer patients. There are160 samples from 40 donors. The Biospecimen PV cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP individual studies. To view molecular data, and derived variables collected in these individual studies, please click on the following individual studies below or in the "Sub-studies" box located on the right hand side of this top-level study page phs001304 Biospecimen PV cohort. phs001634 CIT mRNA phs001635 CNV aCGH phs001636 Fixation Delay phs001637 Global Metabolite Profiling phs001638 mRNA TaqMan phs001639 NGS phs001640 Tumor Storage

  Study phs001304

• Whole Exome Sequencing of paired gDNAs and PPGL tumor DNA from patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease

  Fastq files from Whole Exome Sequencing of 12 paired germline DNA (from blood/saliva) and 14 PPGL tumor DNA (from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks from surgery) from patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease (CCHD) and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). Sequencing was performed using the Illumina HiSeq4000.

  Dataset EGAD50000001201

• Whole Genome Sequencing of Therapy-Related Myeloid Neoplasms

  The dataset consists of: 51 paired tumor/normal WGS samples (26 tumors and 25 normals), and 13 normal targeted samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001010026

• Detection of Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility Loci Using Genome-Wide Sequencing

  The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) is a collaborative effort comprised of a coordinating center and scientific researchers from well-characterized cohort and case-control studies. This international consortium aims to accelerate the discovery of common and rare genetic risk variants for colorectal cancer by conducting large-scale meta-analyses of existing and newly generated genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, whole genome sequencing, replicating and fine-mapping of genetic discoveries, and investigating how genetic risk variants are modified by environmental risk factors. To expand these efforts, we assembled case-control sets or nested case-control sets from 6 different North American or European studies. Summary descriptions and study participant inclusions/exclusion criteria for each of these studies are detailed below. Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II): The CPS II Nutrition cohort is a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, established in 1992 and described in detail elsewhere (Calle et al., 2002 PMID:12015775; Campbell et al., 2014 PMID:25472679). At enrollment, participants completed a mailed self-administered questionnaire including information on demographic, medical, diet, and lifestyle factors. Follow-up questionnaires to update exposure information and to ascertain newly diagnosed cancers were sent biennially starting in 1997. Reported cancers were verified through medical records, state cancer registry linkage, or death certificates. The Emory University Institutional Review Board approves all aspects of the CPS II Nutrition Cohort. We restricted to samples that had blood DNA source. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1 on reference year and sex. Darmkrebs: Chancen der Verh&#252;tung durch Screening (DACHS): This German study was initiated as a large population-based case-control study in 2003 in the Rhine-Neckar-Odenwald region (southwest region of Germany) to assess the potential of endoscopic screening for reduction of colorectal cancer risk and to investigate etiologic determinants of disease, particularly lifestyle/environmental factors and genetic factors. Cases with a first diagnosis of invasive colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 10 codes C18-C20) who were at least 30 years of age (no upper age limit), German speaking, a resident in the study region, and mentally and physically able to participate in a one-hour interview, were recruited by their treating physicians either in the hospital a few days after surgery, or by mail after discharge from the hospital. Cases were confirmed based on histologic reports and hospital discharge letters following diagnosis of colorectal cancer. All hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients in the study region participated. Based on estimates from population-based cancer registries, more than 50% of all potentially eligible patients with incident colorectal cancer in the study region were included. Community-based controls were randomly selected from population registries, employing frequency matching with respect to age (5-year groups), sex, and county of residence. Controls with a history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Controls were contacted by mail and follow-up calls. The participation rate was 51%. During an in-person interview, data were collected on demographics, medical history, family history of CRC, and various life-style factors, as were blood and mouthwash samples. Routine formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from the patients enrolled were requested from the pathology institutes and used for tumor tissue analyses. This analysis includes participants with blood source DNA that were recruited up to 2010 in this ongoing study. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS): A parallel prospective study to the NHS (Nurses' Health Study). The HPFS cohort comprised 51,529 men aged 40-75 who, in 1986, responded to a mailed questionnaire (Rimm et al., 1990 PMID:2090285). Participants provided information on health related exposures, including current and past smoking history, age, weight, height, diet, physical activity, aspirin use, and family history of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and were followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided the blood sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study but before the subject provided the blood sample. Follow-up evaluation has been excellent, with 94% of the men responding to date. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through January 1, 2008. In 1993-1995, 18,825 men in the HPFS mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 13,956 men in the HPFS who had not provided a blood sample previously mailed in a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1986, but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. Control participants were required to be free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Nurses Health Study (NHS): The NHS cohort began in 1976 when 121,700 married female registered nurses age 30-55 years returned the initial questionnaire that ascertained a variety of important health-related exposures (Belanger et al., 1978 PMID:248266). Since 1976, follow-up questionnaires have been mailed every 2 years. Colorectal cancer and other outcomes were reported by participants or next-of-kin and followed up through review of the medical and pathology record by physicians. Overall, more than 97% of self-reported colorectal cancers were confirmed by medical-record review. Information was abstracted on histology and primary location. The rate of follow-up evaluation has been high: as a proportion of the total possible follow-up time, follow-up evaluation has been more than 92%. Colorectal cancer cases were ascertained through June 1, 2008. In 1989-1990, 32,826 women in NHS I mailed blood samples by overnight courier, which were aliquoted into buffy coat and stored in liquid nitrogen. In 2001-2004, 29,684 women in NHS I who did not previously provide a blood sample mailed a swish-and-spit sample of buccal cells. Incident cases were defined as those occurring after the subject provided a blood or buccal sample. Prevalent cases were defined as those occurring after enrollment in the study in 1976 but before the subject provided either a blood or buccal sample. Participants with histories of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), ulcerative colitis, or familial polyposis, case-control sets were excluded. For this study, only European ancestry participants with blood source DNA and incident colorectal cancer cases were eligible for selection. Since enrollment year and sex matched exactly, controls were randomly selected in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trail (PLCO): PLCO enrolled 154,934 participants (men and women, aged between 55 and 74 years) at ten centers into a large, randomized, two-arm trial to determine the effectiveness of screening to reduce cancer mortality. Sequential blood samples were collected from participants assigned to the screening arm. Participation was 93% at the baseline blood draw. White colorectal cancer cases with a family history of colorectal cancer (no history of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease, diverticulitis, Gardner's syndrome, Familial Polyposis) and successful genotyping from previous Peters GWAS were selected for this project. Controls were matched to cases on reference age and sex in a case/control ratio of 2:1. Women's Health Initiative (WHI): WHI is a long-term national health study that has focused on strategies for preventing heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The original WHI study included 161,808 postmenopausal women enrolled between 1993 and 1998. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA serves as the WHI Clinical Coordinating Center for data collection, management, and analysis of the WHI. The WHI has two major parts: a partial factorial randomized Clinical Trial (CT) and an Observational Study (OS); both were conducted at 40 Clinical Centers nationwide. The CT enrolled 68,132 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50-79 into trials testing three prevention strategies. If eligible, women could choose to enroll in one, two, or all three of the trial components. The components are: Hormone Therapy Trials (HT): This double-blind component examined the effects of combined hormones or estrogen alone on the prevention of coronary heart disease and osteoporotic fractures, and associated risk for breast cancer. Women participating in this component with an intact uterus were randomized to estrogen plus progestin (conjugated equine estrogens [CEE], 0.625 mg/d plus medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA] 2.5 mg/d) or a matching placebo. Women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo. Both trials were stopped early, in July 2002 and March 2004, respectively, based on adverse effects. All HT participants continued to be followed without intervention until close-out. Dietary Modification Trial (DM): The Dietary Modification component evaluated the effect of a low-fat and high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease. Study participants were randomized to either their usual eating pattern or a low-fat dietary pattern. Calcium/Vitamin D Trial (CaD): This double-blind component began 1 to 2 years after a woman joined one or both of the other clinical trial components. It evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of osteoporotic fractures and colorectal cancer. Women in this component were randomized to calcium (1000 mg/d) and vitamin D (400 IU/d) supplements or a matching placebo. The Observational Study (OS) examines the relationship between lifestyle, environmental, medical and molecular risk factors and specific measures of health or disease outcomes. This component involves tracking the medical history and health habits of 93,676 women not participating in the CT. Recruitment for the observational study was completed in 1998 and participants were followed annually for 8 to 12 years. All centrally confirmed White cases of invasive colorectal cancer, or death from colorectal cancer were selected as potential cases from the March, 2011 database. Case priory lists are: 1) have positive family history of colorectal cancer; 2) randomly select cases until we get a total of n=800 cases. Control participants were required to be White, free of invasive colorectal cancer and non-invasive (stage 0 in situ) colorectal cancer. Centrally denied cases of colorectal cancer were not allowed into the control pool. Case and control participants were subject to the following exclusion criteria: (1) had prior history of colorectal cancer at baseline; (2) had no available DNA (DNA searching as Nov 15, 2012); (3) cannot be deposited to dbGaP; (4) lost to follow-up after enrollment; (5) selected for WHI study M26 Phase II. Controls were matched to cases in a case/control ratio of 2:1. In order to get 2 cases with 1 control, cases were grouped by enrollment year (a total of 5 groups). For each year group, around 50% cases were selected to match controls. In total, 401 cases were selected to match controls. Matching was done on enrollment year, which was matched exactly. For additional information, see dbGaP: phs000200 and ClinicalTrials: NCT00000611.

  Study phs001554

• DIPG WES and RNA-Seq

  We characterised H3K27M-mutant diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG, n=21) and RNA-Seq (n=26 DIPG, 12 normal brain)

  Dataset EGAD00001006450

• DNA methylation database for gynecological cancer detection, classification and assay development

  MeD-seq data (fastq files) from gynecological cancers and associated healthy tissues. In total 292 fastq files generated by MeD-seq are deposited consisting of: healthy tissues (vulva n=11, cervix n=15, endometrium n=13, fallopian tube n=18 and ovary n=13), precursor lesions of cancer (vulva n=23 and cervix n=46) and cancer (vulva n=21, cervix n=45, endometrium n=26, fallopian tube n=8 and ovary n=33)

  Dataset EGAD50000000611

• 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 (&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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&gt;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

• RNA-seq and scRNA/TCR-seq data for publication: "Pharmacological inhibition of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay enhances anti-tumour immunity"

  PDFs RNA-seq and scRNA/TCR-seq data for Pharmacologic inhibition of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay enhances anti-tumour immunity

  Dataset EGAD50000001720

• WGS

  Whole Genome Sequencing

  Dataset EGAD00001001120

• 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

• National Eye Institute (NEI) Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS)

  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) was initially designed as a long-term multi-center, prospective study of the clinical course of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and age-related cataract. In addition to collecting natural history data, AREDS included a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements for AMD and a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin supplements for cataract. AREDS participants were 55 to 80 years of age at enrollment and had to be free of any illness or condition that would make long-term follow-up or compliance with study medications unlikely or difficult. On the basis of fundus photographs graded by a central reading center, best-corrected visual acuity and ophthalmologic evaluations, 4,757 participants were enrolled in one of several AMD categories, including persons with no AMD. The clinical trials for AMD and cataract were conducted concurrently. AREDS participants were followed on the clinical trials for a median time of 6.5 years. Subsequent to the conclusion of the clinical trials, participants were followed for an additional 5 years and natural history data were collected. The AREDS research design is detailed in AREDS Report 1. AREDS Report 8 contains the mainline results from the AMD trial; AREDS Report 9 contains the results of the cataract trial. Blood samples were also collected from 3,700+ AREDS participants for genetic research. Genetic samples from 600 AREDS participants (200 controls, 200 Neovascular AMD cases, and 200 Geographic Atrophy cases) were selected using data available in March 2005 and then were evaluated with a genome-wide scan. These data, as well as selected phenotypic data, were made available in the dbGaP. DNA from AREDS participants, which is currently being stored in the AREDS Genetic Repository, is available for research purposes. However, not all of the 3,700+ AREDS participants who submitted a blood sample currently have DNA available. In addition to including the data from the genome-wide scan on the 600 original samples, this second version of the AREDS dbGaP database provides a comprehensive set of data tables with extensive clinical information collected for the 4,757 participants who participated in AREDS. The tables include information collected at enrollment/baseline, during study follow-up, fundus and lens pathology, nutritional estimates, quality of life measures and measures of morbidity and mortality. In November 2010, over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants (of the original 600 selected for the genome-wide scan) were made available in the AREDS dbGaP. In addition to the genome-wide scan data, the fundus and lens grading data for these participants are also available through the AREDS dbGaP. Details about the ocular photographs that are available may be found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs". In January 2012, a measure of daily sunlight exposure was added in a separate &#34;sunlight&#34; table. Furthermore, the &#34;followup&#34; table has been revised. The visual acuity for the right eye was inadvertently missing at odd-numbered visits (01, 03, 05, etc.). This data is now part of the table. In February 2014 over 134,500 high-quality fundus photographs (macular field F2) of 4613 AREDS participants were added to the existing AREDS dbGaP resource. The AREDS dbGaP image archive already contains over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants for whom dbGaP-accessible genotype data exist. Information about the available ocular photographs found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs" has been updated with an addendum. It is hoped that this resource will better help researchers understand two important diseases that affect an aging population. These data may be applied to examination and inference on genetic and genetic-environmental bases for age-related diseases of public health significance and may also help elucidate the clinical course of both conditions, generate hypotheses, and aid in the design of clinical trials of preventive interventions. Definitions of Final AMD Phenotype Categories Please see phd001138.1 for a detailed description of how AREDS participants&#39; final AMD phenotype was categorized. User&#39;s Guide for AREDS Phenotype Data A detailed User&#39;s Guide for the AREDS phenotype data is available. This User&#39;s Guide is meant to be a comprehensive document which explains the complexities of the AREDS data. It is recommended that all researchers using AREDS phenotype data make use of this User&#39;s Guide.

  Study phs000001

• Genetic characterization of B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia: a hierarchical prognostic model involving MYC and TP53 abnormalities - WXS

  B-PLL is a rare disease, whose molecular pathology is largely unknown. We report here the cytogenetic and molecular findings in a large series of 34 B-PLL. Karyotype (K) was complex (≥3 abnormalities) in 73%, and highly complex (HCK≥5) in 45%. The most frequent chromosomal aberrations were: translocation targeting the MYC gene [t(MYC)] (62%), 17p deletion including TP53 gene (38%), trisomy 18/18q (30%), 13q14 deletion (29%), trisomy 3 (24%), trisomy 12 (24%) and 8p deletion (23%). Whole-Exome Sequencing performed in 16 patients revealed recurrent mutations in TP53 (6/16, 38%), MYD88 (n=4), BCOR (n=4), MYC (n=3), SF3B1 (n=3), FAT1 (n=3), SETD2 (n=2), CHD2 (n=2), CXCR4 (n=2) and BCLAF1 (n=2). The main group of patients (21/34, 62%) had a t(MYC) associated with a higher percentage of prolymphocytes (p=0.03), CD38 expression (p&lt;0.001), lower K complexity (p=0.0004), mutations in MYC and in genes involved in RNA metabolism and chromatin remodeling. Principal component analysis of gene expression data showed that patients with t(MYC) clustered together. A second group with MYC gain (5/34, 15%), was associated with HCK≥5 (p=0,01) and trisomy 3 (p=0,008). Altogether, 26/34 patients (76%) had a MYC activation, translocation or gain, that were mutually exclusive. We identified 3 distinct cytogenetic prognostic groups (p=0.0006): lower risk: absence of MYC activation (median not reached); intermediate risk: MYC activation without del17p (125 months); high risk: MYC activation + del17p (11 months). Our results show that cytogenetic analysis is a useful diagnostic tool in B-PLL that improves prognostic stratification.

  Study EGAS00001003275

• Genetic characterization of B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia: a hierarchical prognostic model involving MYC and TP53 abnormalities - RNA-seq

  B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (B-PLL) is a rare disease, whose molecular pathology is largely unknown. We report here the cytogenetic and molecular findings in a large series of 34 B-PLL. Karyotype (K) was complex (≥3 abnormalities) in 73%, and highly complex (HCK≥5) in 45%. The most frequent chromosomal aberrations were: translocation targeting the MYC gene [t(MYC)] (62%), 17p deletion including TP53 gene (38%), trisomy 18/18q (30%), 13q14 deletion (29%), trisomy 3 (24%), trisomy 12 (24%) and 8p deletion (23%). Whole-Exome Sequencing performed in 16 patients revealed recurrent mutations in TP53 (6/16, 38%), MYD88 (n=4), BCOR (n=4), MYC (n=3), SF3B1 (n=3), FAT1 (n=3), SETD2 (n=2), CHD2 (n=2), CXCR4 (n=2) and BCLAF1 (n=2). The main group of patients (21/34, 62%) had a t(MYC) associated with a higher percentage of prolymphocytes (p=0.03), CD38 expression (p&lt;0.001), lower K complexity (p=0.0004), mutations in MYC and in genes involved in RNA metabolism and chromatin remodeling. Principal component analysis of gene expression data showed that patients with t(MYC) clustered together. A second group with MYC gain (5/34, 15%), was associated with HCK≥5 (p=0,01) and trisomy 3 (p=0,008). Altogether, 26/34 patients (76%) had a MYC activation, translocation or gain, that were mutually exclusive. We identified 3 distinct cytogenetic prognostic groups (p=0.0006): lower risk: absence of MYC activation (median not reached); intermediate risk: MYC activation without del17p (125 months); high risk: MYC activation + del17p (11 months). Our results show that cytogenetic analysis is a useful diagnostic tool in B-PLL that improves prognostic stratification.

  Study EGAS00001003274

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

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

  Blog from-research-to-data-sharing