1072 results for "vender mis monedas FC 26 Visité Buyfc26coins.com. Calidad y rapidez. No hay otro sitio como este..fCAW"

in 24.20 milliseconds.

• Characterization_of_individual_foci_of_multicentric_multifocal_breast_cancer_using_targeted_next_generation_sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the “quadrants” of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients’ survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Study EGAS00001000407

• Privacy Notice for Data Access Committee Account

  Privacy Notice for EGA Data Access Committee Account This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by Mallory Freeberg, by: email at mfreeberg@ebi.ac.uk , orpost at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@embl.org, orpost at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, orpost at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eupost at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from you: NameEmail addressTitle/PositionOrganisationOrganisational affiliationBusiness addressTelephone numberIP addressesDate and time of a visit to the service websiteOperating systemAmount of data transmittedBrowserUsernamePassword The data controller will use your personal data for the following purposes: To provide DAC user account and authenticated access to the service,To publicly publish some information to facilitate scientific research,To better understand the needs of the data subjects and guide future improvements of the service,To create anonymous usage statistics (from number of DACs, datasets per DAC). 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions (for all user account data),The general public via Internet will get access to your name, email address, business address, telephone number and organisation you belong to. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? Data categories ‘name`, `email address`, `telephone number`, `business address`; `organisation’ of the DAC user are published on the Internet. They thus become accessible to recipients in countries outside the European Economic Area. Insofar as the second joint controller may be subject to GDPR, data transfer to and from the first joint controller (EMBL-EBI), is necessary for important reasons of public interest embedded in the aims of EMBL and justified in the Article 9(4) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 49(1)(d) of GDPR) read in conjunction with EMBL`s 1973 establishing agreement and Article 179(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 6. How long do we keep your personal data? Any personal data directly obtained from you will be retained as long as the service is live. Such duration serves the purpose of enabling scientific research and ensures legal compliance and facilitates internal and external audits if they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration.Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period.Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

  Documentation data-protection/privacy-notice/ega-dac

• Characterization of individual foci of multicentric/multifocal breast cancer using targeted next generation sequencing

  Multifocality or multicentricity in breast cancer may be defined as the presence of two or more tumor foci within a single quadrant of the breast or within different quadrants of the same breast, respectively. This original classification of the breast cancer as multicentric or multifocal was based on the assumption that cancers arising in the same quadrant were more likely to arise from the same ductal structures than those occurring in separate areas of the breast. The problem with these definitions is that the ?quadrants? of the breast are arbitrary external designations, as no internal boundaries do exist. This project will therefore focus both on synchronous multifocal and multicentric tumors. The incidence of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers was reported to be between 13 and 75% depending on the definition used, the extent of the pathologic sampling of the breast and whether in situ disease is considered evidence of multicentricity (1). Although this incidence is variable, those figures show that it is a frequent phenomenon. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic management of the cancer. Multifocality or multicentricity has been associated with a number of more aggressive features including an increased rate of regional lymph node metastases and adverse patient outcome when compared with unifocal tumors (2-3), and a possible increased risk of local recurrence following breast conserving surgery (4). For the moment, the literature is divided on whether there is a corresponding impact on survival outcomes. Today, the current convention to stage and to treat multifocal and multicentric tumors is the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging guidelines with which tumor size is assessed by the largest tumor focus without taking other foci of disease into consideration. If some papers, as the recent one from Lynch and colleagues, support the current staging convention (3), others, however, as Boyages et al. suggested that aggregate size and not the size of the largest lesion should be considered in order to refine the prognostic assessment of those tumors (5). On the top of that, the question whether multifocal/multicentric carcinomas are due to the spread of a single carcinoma throughout the breast or is due to multiple carcinomas arising simultaneously has been a matter of debate. Some studies suggested that multifocal breast cancer may result from either intramammary spread from a single primary tumor or multiple synchronous primary tumors; whereas others suggest that multiple breast carcinomas always arise from the same clone (6-8). Recently, Pietri and colleagues analyzed the biological characterization of a series of 113 multifocal/multicentric breast cancers (8) which were diagnosed over a 5-year period. The expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, Ki-67 proliferative index, expression of HER2 and tumor grading were prospectively determined in each tumor focus, and mismatches among foci were recorded. Mismatches in ER status were present in 5 (4.4%) cases and PgR in 18 (15.9%) cases. Mismatches in tumor grading were present in 21 cases (18.6%), proliferative index (Ki-67) in 17 (15%) cases and HER2 status in 11 (9.7%) cases. Interestingly, this heterogeneity among foci has led to 14 (12.4%) patients receiving different adjuvant treatments compared with what would have been indicated if we had only taken into account the biologic status of the primary tumor. This study therefore showed that differences in biological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric lesions play a crucial role in the adjuvant treatment decision making process. In this study, we will concentrate on a larger series of patients with multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer lesions. We aim at: 1. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality according to the different breast cancer molecular subtypes (ER-/HER2-, HER2+, ER+/HER2-). 2. Evaluating the incidence of multifocality in patients with hereditary breast cancer disease (presence of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). Moreover, we would like to investigate if multifocal lesions with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibit a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions as demonstrated recently by Nik-Zainal and colleagues (9). 3. Correlating multifocality with clinical information in order to define its influence on patients? survival (DFS and OS). 4. Carrying high coverage targeted gene sequencing of driver cancer genes and genes whose mutation is of therapeutic importance in order to compare clinically-relevant genetic differences between several multifocal breast cancer lesions. 5. Evaluating the impact of the distance between the different lesions on the clinical outcome but also on the genetic differences. 6. Comparing gene expression patterns between several multifocal breast cancer lesions and correlate them with the results of the targeted genes screen. 7. Characterizing the genomic and transcriptomic status of cancer related genes in metastatic lesions (local recurrence, positive lymph node or distant metastatic sites) from the same multifocal invasive ductal breast cancer patients in order to evaluate the consequence of genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity of multifocal lesions on metastatic lesions. Multiple (multifocal/multicentric) breast carcinomas, especially when occurring in the same breast, represent a real challenge for both pathologists and clinicians in terms of identifying the cellular origin and the best therapeutic choice. This project has the potential to identify genetic/transcriptomic differences existing between several lesions constituting multifocal breast cancers, which in the routine clinical practice are usually considered to be homogeneous among them. We foresee validating significant results in a larger series of patients and this, in turn, could have a remarkable impact on the treatment and clinical management of multifocal breast cancers. Indeed, we hope to provide some evidence whether or not each focus matters in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to define the adequate therapeutic approach, especially in the context of targeted therapies. The work to be done at Sanger will be target gene screen pooling of 1400 samples.

  Dataset EGAD00001000624

• eMERGE Network Phase III Clinical Sequencing: eMERGEseq Panel

  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-organized and funded consortium of U.S. medical research institutions. The primary goal of the eMERGE Network is to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches to research that combine biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic discovery and genomic medicine implementation research. eMERGE was announced in September 2007 and began its third phase in September 2015. eMERGE III consists of nine study sites, two central sequencing and genotyping facilities, and a coordinating center. eMERGE Phase III aims to: 1) sequence and assess the phenotypic implication of rare variants in a custom designed eMERGEseq panel consisting of 109 genes (including 56 ACMG actionable finding list genes and the top 6 genes from each site relevant to their specific aims), as well as approximately 1400 SNPs; 2) assess the phenotypic implications of these variants by developing, validating and implementing new phenotype algorithms, 3) integrate genetic variants into EMRs to inform clinical care; and 4) create community resources. Included in this study are: ~24,000 eMERGE participants from 10 eMERGE III study sites. Corresponding demographics, body mass index measurements. Top PheWAS codes generated from a collated list of ICD codes from all study sites. Study sites and participants include: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is a not-for-profit hospital and research center pioneering breakthrough treatments, providing outstanding family-centered patient care and training healthcare professionals for the future, and dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. We bring a comprehensive electronic health record (EPIC), a deidentified i2b2 data warehouse of 680K patient records, a biobank with >261,000 consents that allow return of results to >84,000 patients and guardians who have provided DNA samples, and hundreds of faculty and senior staff who make genomics or informatics an active focus of their research. CCHMC will help the eMERGE III Steering Committee identify genes for the eMERGE III targeted sequencing panel, provide 3,000 DNA samples from CCHMC patients to be sequenced, review targeted gene panels from clinical care at CCHMC for somatic mosaicism and reinterpretation, and further develop and disseminate a software workflow suite for sequence analysis. We will also extend our work generating phenotype algorithms using heuristic and machine learning methods to many new childhood diseases. We will develop tools to evaluate adolescent return of results preferences, examine the ethical and legal obligations and potential to reanalyze results, and develop clinical decision support for phenotyping, test ordering, and returning sequencing results. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) is a specialized Center of Emphasis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and one of the world's largest genetics research programs, with to state-of-the-art high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technology. Our primary goal is to translate basic research findings to medical innovations. We aim to develop new and better ways to diagnose and treat children affected by rare and complex medical disorders, including asthma, autism, epilepsy, pediatric cancer, learning disabilities, and a range of rare diseases. Ultimately, our objective is to generate new diagnostic tests and to guide physicians to the most appropriate therapies. Participants were recruited from the CAG biorepository (n>450,000), specifically from >100,000 CHOP pediatric patients and family members, which is enriched for rare-diseases (n>12,000). Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia We gratefully thank all the children and their families who enrolled in this study, and all individuals who donated blood samples for research purposes. Genotyping for this project was performed at the Center for Applied Genomics and supported by an Institutional Development Award from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sequencing was supported by the National Institutes of Health through an award from the National Human Genome Research Institute's Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) program (U01HG008684). Columbia University: The goal of the Columbia eMERGE III project is to develop methods for integrating genomic data in EHRs and to study the impact of such genomic informatics interventions on the health of a diverse, underserved urban adult English- and Spanish-speaking patient population in Northern Manhattan served by Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital system. The study group is 2500 patients recruited from diverse clinics and community outreach centers of self-reported White (~61%), Asian (~11%), African-American (~11%), American Indian/Alaska Native (<1%) racial and Hispanic (~33%) ethnic backgrounds. There are two subgroups in the study cohort - a retrospective group (N=1052) that includes patients from oncology and nephrology clinics, and a prospective one (N=1448) that includes healthy individuals as well as participants with diverse medical conditions. Confirmed pathogenic variants in 70 selected genes will be returned to participants and their healthcare providers through the EHR integration. Participants are able to choose the results they receive and will have the freedom to meet with a genetic counselor and a geneticist to review results. The impact of genetic testing on clinical care is determined by periodic monitoring of EHRs. Geisinger: Samples and phenotype data in this study were provided by the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative. Participants are recruited across the Geisinger System via online consents or in-person consents at a hospital or clinic visit. Enrollment is ongoing with over 100,000 individuals currently consented. Partners Healthcare (Harvard University): The Partners HealthCare Biobank is a large research program designed to help researchers understand how people's health is affected by their genes, lifestyle, and environment. This large research data and sample repository provides access to high-quality, consented blood samples to help foster research, advance our understanding of the causes of common diseases, and advance the practice of medicine. For the Partners research community (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital), the Biobank provides: Banked samples (plasma, serum, and DNA) collected from consented patients Blood samples that were discarded after clinical testing in the Crimson Cores maintained in the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital Pathology Departments Sample handling and preparation services Link to the biobank data to the Partners Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) a research instance of our electronic clinical chart Data access through our research portal. To date, over 70,000 Partners patients have given their consent to enroll, give a blood sample, receive research results and agreed to be re-contacted for additional research studies. The Biobank has enabled Partners investigators to compete for nationally recognized grants in personalized medicine such as a clinical electronic Medical Records and Genomics network (eMERGE) site and the national All of US program. The Biobank currently supports over 120 Partners investigators and over 130 million dollars in NIH research. Kaiser Permanente Washington/ (KPWA) / University of Washington (UW): KPWA participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,500.) NWIGM is based at the University of Washington and co-managed by the University of Washington and KPWA. The purpose of the NWIGM biorepository is to build infrastructure and resources to carry out a broad range of future genetic research. KPWA members enrolled in the biorepository are asked to provide informed consent to providing a DNA sample for storage in the NWIGM biorepository. The consent is purposefully broad to serve the dual purpose of reducing the burden on researchers who wish to use this biorepository and the IRB committees who will be responsible for reviewing these requests in the future. Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in KPWA's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at KPWA. 1) Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry. The KPWA eMERGE cohort includes N=1,245 members of Asian ancestry. 2) Participants were also selected for a history of colorectal cancer (N=1,255), in order to allow us to enrich germline pathogenic variants. Mayo Clinic: The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. We recruited 2537 participants from Mayo Clinic biobanks in Rochester, MN, who had hypercholesterolemia or colon polyps, thereby enriching for Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and monogenic causes of colorectal cancer (CRC). Additional eligibility criteria were: 1) residents of Southeast MN who were alive and aged 18-70 years; 2) LDL-C level >155 or >120 mg/dl while on lipid-lowering therapy; 3) no known cause of secondary hyperlipidemia; and 4) no cognitive impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent. Based on these criteria, we identified 5270 eligible patients and obtained informed consent from 3030 participants. Recruitment was conducted in waves and utilized mailed recruitment packets consisting of a study brochure, a written informed consent form, a baseline psychosocial questionnaire, and a return postage-paid envelope. DNA of 2537 participants was sent for CLIA-certified targeted sequencing of 109 genes including genes associated with FH and CRC. Targeted sequencing and genotyping was performed in a Central Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Northwestern University: Samples and data used in this study were obtained from patients from Northwestern Medicine, an integrated healthcare system, formed through a partnership of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Participants include a retrospective cohort from the Northwestern Pharmacogenomics Study, funded through the eMERGE II project, NHGRI (3U01HG006388-02S1) and a prospective cohort from the Genetic Testing and Your Health Study, funded through the eMERGE III project, NHGRI (U01HG008673). Patients were eligible to participate if they were18 years or older and see a physician at Northwestern Medicine. Patients consented to genetic testing and to allow their results to be placed in their electronic medical record. Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) participants were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Vanderbilt Genome-Electronic Records (VGER) project. Patients were provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N=2,700). Participants were eligible if aged 21 or over, had a healthcare provider at VUMC, and visited the provider at least 3 times in the past 3 years. Meharry Medical College: Inclusion of ethnic groups in genomic research is critical to identify possible reasons for health disparities. African-Americans are being enrolled in various outpatient clinics of Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, an inner city hospital primary serving a poorer patient group. A total of 500 African Americans with four cancer types demonstrating health disparities in this population - prostate, colon, breast, lung are identified and approached by clinical research coordinators. The purpose of the study is to determine if any genetic information can be identified from these patients who have or are at high risk of one of these disparate cancers. All participants provide written informed consent and HIPAA authorization to provide blood samples for broad research use and permission to access data in their hospital electronic medical record for research now and in the future. An extensive demographic profile is obtained and entered into a REDCap database. Blood samples are obtained for a panel of alleles from extracted DNA at Baylor. In addition, de-identified coded samples are processed and stored in a central biorepository for further DNA, RNA and proteomic analyses. The survey and phlebotomy are performed at the time of the initial contact and agreement to participate. Nearly all patients approached willingly agree to participate for potential benefit to themselves, family members, or humankind. Little concern is voiced of providing samples for genetic analysis. Study investigators will share results with the participants and providers if testing does not indicate high risk. Results indicating increased risk or actionable alleles for the patient and/or family will be returned by a genetic counselor. Monitoring of the patients' health in this cohort will continue to be followed in the EMR to identify any future associations that might explain health disparities in African Americans. Proposals will be reviewed from investigators to study the genetic or proteomic samples as well as the clinical and demographic information in the repository. Please note that this version of the dataset has a handful of mismatches between genotyped and provided sex. Data with the following IDs should be removed prior to analysis: 420252874213744142412243424569384245694642672223

  Study phs001616

• Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics: Study of Dental Caries and Cleft Lip/Palate in Guatemala

  This study provides an opportunity to investigate the genetics of both dental caries and orofacial clefts (OFCs) in one set of families ascertained in Guatemala. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). Furthermore this study brings together multiple research priorities of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics (www.ccdg.pitt.edu). A genome-wide panel of 610,000 SNPs was genotyped at the Broad Institute to be comparable to our other pertinent GENEVA studies that are also part of dbGaP (dbGaP accession number phs000095, "Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies" and dbGaP accession number phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). The goal of this study is to investigate genetic determinants to dental caries and to OFCs in a novel study population. To date, most genetic studies of dental caries have been conducted in Caucasians, and of OFCs in Caucasians and Asians. The Guatemalan population under study is rural and ethnically mixed with a high proportion of Native-South-Americans. Thirty-six Guatemalans from this dataset were also part of the recent GWAS studies of cleft lip and cleft palate (Beaty et al., 2010 and 2011, dbGaP Study Accession: phs000094, "International Consortium to Identify Genes and Interactions Controlling Oral Clefts"). In addition to the families ascertained in Guatemala, some subjects were genotyped with this cohort to augment the data in the parent GENEVA study (Dental Caries: Whole Genome Association and Gene x Environment Studies, dbGaP accession number phs000095), in particular individuals from the IOWA and PITT GENEVA study sites. Their data are available with the parent study. Dental caries (also known as tooth decay) remains the most common chronic disease of childhood, five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than environmental allergies, with more than 40% of children exhibiting caries when they enter kindergarten. In 2005, it was estimated that dental health care costs were approximately $84 billion, of which 60% or about $50 billion were related to treatment of dental caries. The etiology of dental caries has been studied for many years. Multiple factors contribute to a person's risk for caries, including: 1) environmental factors such as diet, oral hygiene, fluoride exposure and the level of colonization of cariogenic bacteria and 2) host factors such as salivary flow, salivary buffering capacity, position of teeth relative to each other, surface characteristics of tooth enamel and depth of occlusal fissures on posterior teeth. In spite of all that is known about this disease, there are still individuals who appear to be more susceptible to caries and those who are extremely resistant, regardless of the environmental risk factors to which they are exposed, implying that genetic factors also play an important role in caries etiology. This conclusion is supported by studies in both humans and animals, with the most compelling evidence coming from studies of twins reared apart in which investigators found significant resemblance within monozygotic (MZ) but not dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs for percentage of teeth and surfaces restored or carious and estimated the genetic contribution to caries as 40%. Other recent studies of twins reared together estimated the heritability for caries, adjusted for age and gender, as ranging from 45-64%. In our study populations of families, we also estimated caries heritability as approximately 54%-70% of variation in primary dentition caries scores and 35%-55% in the permanent dentition (Wang et al., 2010). Orofacial clefts (OFCs), particularly cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) and isolated cleft palate (CP) are a major public health problem, affecting one in every 500-1000 births worldwide thus representing the most common facial birth defect and one of the most common of all congenital anomalies. CL/P is a major structural birth defect that is notable for significant lifelong morbidity and complex etiology. The extensive psychological, surgical, speech and dental involvement emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying causes of CL/P. Therefore, many research groups have attempted to elucidate the etiology of CL/P, with some recent success by our research group and others (see Beaty et al., 2010, 2011; Dixon et al., 2011). It is clear that CL/P can occur as part of Mendelian syndromes, that certain chromosomal abnormalities include CL/P in the phenotype, and that certain teratogens can increase the risk of having an offspring with CL/P. However, phenotypes of known etiology comprise only a small portion of all individuals with a CL/P or CP, and the major focus of research into OFCs is to develop an understanding of the etiology of nonsyndromic (NS) forms of clefting. A major focus of the University of Pittsburgh CCDG has been to study additional phenotypes within nonsyndromic OFC families in order to identify sub-clinical expressions of OFC risk genes or risk variants, e.g. SNPs (see Weinberg et al., 2006). A detailed oral exam is conducted as part of these extended phenotypic studies, including a dental caries exam. Note that although there are some reports in the literature of higher caries experience in individuals with clefts, the most recent meta-analysis of those literature reports concluded that individuals born with these defects do not have a higher frequency of caries (Hasslöf and Twetman, 2007). Notably, we investigated the association of CL/P and caries in three of our study populations (including part of the Guatemalan population in this GWAS study) and also found no increase in caries rates of CL/P cases versus controls (Jindal et al., 2011). This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org), which was developed through the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to dental caries and oral clefts through large-scale genome-wide association studies of well-characterized Guatemalan families and individuals. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR, U01-DE018903). Data cleaning and harmonization were done at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000440

• Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS)

  Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.

  Study phs001327

• Genome-Wide Association Study of Leprosy and Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome (DHS) in Chinese population

  Leprosy GWAS (1) Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae (M. leprae). Due to M. leprae's narrow host range and an inability to be cultured in vitro, the biological investigation of this disease has been difficult. Host genetic factors have been suggested to play an important role in disease development, but few have been identified. In this study, we attempted to identify the host genetic factors by performing a two-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) in Chinese population. The initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 706 patients and 1225 controls using the Illumina HumanHap610 BeadChip, and the follow-up study was performed by genotyping 93 SNPs in three independent samples consisting of 3254 cases and 5955 controls. We identified significant association (P < 10-10) within six genes CCDC122 (13q14), C13orf31 (13q14), NOD2(16q12), TNFSF15 (9q32), HLA-DR (6p21) and RIPK2 (8q21), and suggestive association (P = 5.68x10-6) within LRRK2 (12q12). We also revealed suggestive evidence for C13orf31, LRRK2, NOD2 and RIPK2 to show stronger association in the multibacillary form than the paucibacillary form of leprosy. Our findings highlight the importance of the innate immune response, particularly NOD2-mediated signaling, in leprosy and suggests a new therapeutic target for leprosy. DHS GWAS Dapsone (DDS), as both an antibiotic and an anti-inflammatory agent, has been widely used for preventing and treating pathogen-caused infectious diseases and chronic inflammatory diseases. Currently, about 0.5-3.6% of individuals treated with DDS develop severe dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome (DHS) and the mortality rate is up to about 11-13%. However, until now, no tests are available to predict the risk of DHS. To identify the genetic risk factors of DHS, we performed a two-stage GWAS in Chinese population. In this study, the initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 39 DHS cases and 833 controls using Illumina Human 660W-Quad Beadchips and imputed human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. Validation was performed by genotyping 24 SNPs using the Sequenom MassARRAY platform in additional 31 DHS cases and 1,089 controls through genotyping and 32 four-digit HLA-B alleles in an independent series of 37 DHS cases and 201 controls through Roche 454 sequencing. We identified significant association (OR =6.18, P = 3.84x10-13) with SNP rs2844573, which located between the HLA-B and MICA loci. HLA-B*13:01 was confirmed to be a strong risk factor for DHS (OR = 20.53, P = 6.84x10-25) and responsible for the association at rs2844573. The presence of HLA-B*13:01 had a sensitivity of 85.5% and specificity of 85.7% as a predictor for DHS, and its absence can reduce the risk by 7 fold (from 1.4% to 0.2%). HLA-B*13:01 is strongly associated with the development of DHS and can be used as a risk predictor of DHS in the individuals of Chinese and other Asian populations. Leprosy GWAS (2) This is a three-stage GWAS of leprosy in the Chinese population. The genome-wide discovery analysis involved two independent data sets: the new unpublished data set by genotyping 842 leprosy patients and 925 controls from northern and southern China using the Human660w-quad beadchips and a previously published GWAS data set of 706 leprosy cases, 1,225 healthy controls and 4,362 individuals with immune-related diseases as population controls from northern China of Chinese Han descent. Further validation studies were performed in two stages in a total of 6,765 cases and 9,505 controls from Chinese Han and minority descent in multiple areas of China, similar to the discovery stage. From this study, we discovered six new susceptibility loci with a combined P-value from discovery and validation stage surpassing genome-wide significance, including BATF3 at 1q32.3, CDH18 at 5p14.3, DEC1 at 9q32, EGR2 at 10q21.3, CCDC88B at 11q13.1 and CIITA at 16p13.13. Our current study has advanced the genetic understanding of leprosy by substantially increasing the number of confirmed genetic susceptibility loci. Leprosy GWAS (3) To discover additional leprosy susceptibility loci, we carried out a large-scale three-stage GWAS analysis of leprosy in Chinese population. The genome-wide discovery analysis (Stage 1) involved a new GWAS data set of 1,197 leprosy cases and 1,426 controls from northern and southern China conducted by using Illumina Omni Zhonghua chips with 900,015 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), two published GWAS dataset (GWAS2 data set including 706 leprosy cases, 1,225 healthy controls genotyped by Illumina HumanHap610 beadchips, GWAS3 data set including 842 leprosy patients and 925 controls from northern and southern China genotyped by the Human660w-quad beadchips). Further validation studies were performed in two stages in a total of 5,413 cases and 9,771 controls from Chinese Han descent in multiple areas of China. In this study, we identified four novel associations at genome-wide significance (P < 5 x 10-8), all of which can indicate candidate genes within the susceptibility loci, SYN2 (3p25.2), BBS9 (7p14.3), CTSB (8p23.1) and MED30 (8q24.11), through a differential gene expression and eQTL analysis. Altogether, these findings have provided new insight and significantly expanded our understanding of the genetic basis of leprosy. Leprosy GWAS (4) In this study, we attempted to systematically investigate the contribution of protein-coding variants to leprosy susceptibility by performing a three-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) of protein-coding variants in Chinese population. The initial genome-wide scan was done by genotyping 1,670 persons affected by leprosy and 2,321 controls using the Illumina Infinium Human Exome Beadchips (v1.0).The validation study was performed by genotyping 39 SNPs in an additional 3,169 leprosy patients and 9,814 healthy controls from the northern region of China, and the replication study was performed by genotyping eight SNPs in three independent samples from the southern regions of China consisting of 2,231 cases and 2,266 controls. We identified significant association (P < 1.23 x 10-6) within seven genes FLG (Gene ID: 2312), IL23R (Gene ID: 149233), CARD9 (Gene ID: 64170), NCKIPSD (Gene ID: 51517), TYK2 (Gene ID: 7297), SLC29A3 (Gene ID: 55315), IL27 (Gene ID: 246778). Our findings discover novel involvement of skin barrier and endocytosis/phagocytosis/autophagy, besides known innate and adaptive immunity, in the pathogenesis of leprosy, highlight the merits of protein coding variant studies for complex diseases. Here, the summary statistics from the five genome-wide association analyses were published.

  Study phs000217

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  Study Overview The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study is a longitudinal study that investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational events, childhood infections, dietary exposures, and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). A consortium of six clinical centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of the study to identify environmental triggers for the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. Beginning in 2004, the TEDDY study screened over 400,000 newborns for high-risk HLA-DR, DQ genotypes from both the general population and families already affected by T1D. The TEDDY study enrolled around 8,676 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) in the 15-year prospective follow-up. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody (IA) measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive participants continue to be followed at three month intervals and autoantibody negative participants are followed at six-month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection are performed at each visit. Parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. Additional information on the TEDDY study is available in the following articles: Rewers et al., 2008, PMID: 19120261 and Hagopian et al., 2006, PMID: 17130573. Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in Hagopian et al., 2011, PMID: 21564455. TEDDY data currently available in dbGaP include: gene expression, SNPs, exome, microbiome (gut, nasal, and plasma), RNA sequencing, and whole genome sequencing. For more information on TEDDY Study version history please refer to TEDDY Study dbGaP README File. ImmunoChip SNP DNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for SNP genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP array, which contains around 196,000 SNPs from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (Hadley et al., 2015, PMID: 26010309). Data cleaning and validation included the removal of subjects with a low call rate (< 5% SNPs missing) and differences in reported sex and prior genotyping at the TEDDY HLA laboratory. Additionally, SNPs with a low call rate or Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value < 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements, were removed from the final dataset (Törn et al., 2015, PMID: 25422107).TEDDY-T1DExome ArrayDNA from whole blood samples on study participants and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) was obtained and used for genotyping. Genotyping was performed by the University of Virginia using the Illumina TEDDY-T1DExome array. The TEDDY-T1DExome array is a custom chip that contains 550,601 markers from the Infinium CoreExome-24 v1.1 BeadChip and an additional 90,214 tagSNPs specifically selected by the TEDDY investigators based on their associations with nutrients, vitamins, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune diseases, body-mass index, or other exposures and phenotypes measured by TEDDY study.The Illumina GenTrain2 algorithm was used for genotype calling. Sample quality control metrics included sample call rate, heterozygosity rate and concordance of gender between the information reported and genotyped. Gene Expression The TEDDY study collected peripheral blood for the extraction of total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA (200 ng) was further used for cRNA amplification and labeling with biotin using Target Amp cDNA synthesis kit (Epicenter catalog no. TAB1R6924). Labeled cRNA was hybridized to the Illumina HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChips based on the manufacturer's instructions. The HumanHT-12 Expression BeadChip provides coverage for more than 47,000 transcripts and known splice variants across the human transcriptome. Microbiome The TEDDY microbiome study aimed to characterize the longitudinal development of the microbiome, including bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms in the gut, plasma, and nasal cavity of prediabetic and diabetic subjects compared to autoantibody negative non-diabetic subjects. Stool samples used were collected monthly from 3 to 48 months, after which stool samples were collected every 3 months. Nasal swab samples were collected every 3 months starting at 9 months of age until 48 months, after which nasal swabs were collected every 6 months. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months starting at 3 months of age until 48 months, after which plasma samples were collected every 6 months. If the subject was autoantibody positive at 48 months then they remained on the 3 month collection interval for nasal swab and plasma samples. Samples underwent 16s rRNA gene sequencing, DNA and viral RNA metagenomics shotgun sequencing, and sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. Additional information on the TEDDY microbiome data is available in the following articles: Vatanen et al., 2018, PMID: 30356183, Stewart et al., 2018, PMID: 30356187, and Vehik et al., 2020, PMID: 31792456. RNA Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to characterize the transcriptome in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched control subjects. Peripheral blood was collected to extract total RNA from enrolled children starting at 3 months of age, and then at 3 month intervals up to 48 months and then biannually. Total RNA was extracted using a high throughput (96-well format) extraction protocol using magnetic (MagMax) beads technology at the TEDDY RNA Laboratory, Jinfiniti Biosciences in Augusta, GA. Purified RNA was then sent to the Broad Institute for the generation of the TEDDY RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data. The RNA samples were prepped using Superscript III reverse transcriptase and Illumina's TruSeq Stranded mRNA Sample Prep Kit. The TruSeq libraries were run on the Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. Whole Genome Sequencing The TEDDY study aimed to conduct deep whole genome sequencing and examine the genomic variations in subjects with islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes compared to matched autoantibody negative and non-diabetic children. DNA from whole blood was obtained from TEDDY children for whole genome sequencing. The WGS data were generated on the Illumina HiSeq X Ten system.

  Study phs001442

• California Pacific Medical Center Research Breast Health Cohort

  Description of Cohort: The California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Breast Health Cohort is a cohort study based at CPMC and is linked to the San Francisco Mammography Registry, one of the sites of the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). CPMC is a community hospital in San Francisco, which has one of the highest volumes for mammography in San Francisco. Between September 2004 and June 2007, >90,000 mammograms were performed at CPMC. The CPMC breast health cohort collects demographic and risk factor data on women receiving mammography through participation in the San Francisco Mammography Registry, as part of the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). The SFMR database collects information from all sources, including a questionnaire on demographic and risk factor information, the clinical results of the breast examination, the measures of breast density by Dr. John Shepherd and the women who agreed to donate a blood sample. By merging these various sources of information we have very efficiently developed a large sample of women who have donated blood and have had a measure of mamographic density. Blood Collection: Dr. Steve Cummings is leading an effort to collect and archive blood samples from women who are receiving mammography screening. All women who are sent for a screening mammogram at CPMC are considered eligible. Since the cohort began collecting blood samples in July 2004 until June 2007, samples have been collected from over 11,000 women. Measurement of Breast Density: Dr. John Shepherd is currently measuring breast density in a large fraction of the cohort using an automated approach with single X-ray absorptiometry. Dr. Shepherd has established a link with the CPMC mammography center that allows him to collect routine digital mammography information. Using the data from the mammogram, Dr. Shepherd and his group have developed the single X-ray absorptiometry (SXA) technique for measuring density which is described in more detail below. The table demonstrates the distribution of demographic variables and some breast cancer risk factors of women who donated blood and had a breast density measurement in the CPMC breast health cohort. Nearly 80% of the participants are Caucasian and most of the women are post-menopausal with a median age of ~52. Since it will be difficult to accrue a large enough sample from each ethnic group, our study will focus only on Caucasian women. Table: Demographic variables, reproductive history and family history of breast cancer among 2962 women participating in the CPMC cohort study who contributed blood samples between 1994-1997. Variable Median/Percentage Age (Median/IQR) 52 (46-59) Ethnicity Caucasian/White 0.76 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.141 Hispanic 0.029 Mixed Race/Ethnicity 0.039 African American/Black 0.022 American Indian 0.001 Other 0.009 First degree relative with breast cancer 0.17 Age at first birth Nulliparous 0.39 Age<20 0.043 Age>40 0.032 Age<30, ≥20 0.251 Age>30, ≤40 0.282 Measurement of Breast Density in Cohort: Measurement of breast density is accomplished using an automated technique for all mammograms obtained by Dr. Shepherd using Single X-Ray absorptiometry (SXA). SXA measurement of breast density is done on approximately 30% of all screening mammograms. Below we describe the method for measurement of breast density by SXA by Dr. Shepherd's group and its validation and association with breast cancer. As we demonstrate below, breast density, as measured by SXA, is an automated, highly reproducible measure of the density of breast tissue and is associated with breast cancer risk. SXA for Quantifying Breast Density: Single x-ray absorptiometry (SXA) was initially developed for measuring bone density. SXA can determine the fraction of each of two densities simultaneously using the fact the sample is a constant thickness, the thickness in known, and the total attenuation is known. In applying this technique to breast density, we assume a two compartment model: fat and non-fatty (fibroglandular tissue). We use a reference material composed of various concentrations of two materials: one which is the same density as fat and another which is the same density as fibroglandular tissue. The reference material (phantom) is placed in the X-ray field with each mammogram. We have been able to implement this in a way that is unintrusive to the patient and technologist at CPMC. Assuming this two-compartment model and a constant known breast thickness, we can then calculate the percent density at any region of the breast based on the assumption that % pixel grey-scale is proportion to the mass fractions of breast fat and lean tissue. If reference materials (a phantom) of fat and fibroglandular tissue are imaged with the patient's breast and the reference materials have the same thickness as the patient's breast, then the breast's grey-scale values can be converted to fat/fibroglandular mass fractions by interpolating between those two references. The total percent density is found by averaging the volume fraction over all breast pixels. The phantom being used for breast density assessment at CPMC began to be used in September 2004. The phantom does not have to be manipulated by the technologist and stays attached on the mammography device during standard craniocaudal (CC) views. Thus it creates minimal to no interference with the clinical mammogram. Reproducibility of breast density measures: Traditional measures of mammographic density require some human interpretation. A human reader outlines the area perceived to be dense and a computer then calculates the percent area outlined as a percent of the entire image. Thus, while traditional mammographic density is associated with breast cancer risk, it has some limitations. In a study by Drs. Shepherd, Kerlikowske, et al., the correlation coefficient (Pearson's R) between different readers was 0.8-0.9. In contrast to the traditional mammographic density measurement, the SXA measurement is fully automated and, therefore, the reproducibility of the measurement is higher. Dr. Shepherd and colleagues have performed a replication study of SXA as a measurement of breast density. They have estimated the correlation coefficient of the SXA measurement of breast density to be >0.98. Thus, as expected for an automated measure, SXA is a highly reproducible measure of mammographic breast density. Drs. Shepherd and Kerlikowske have recently analyzed the association between breast cancer risk and breast density as measured by SXA (Shepherd et al., Cancer Epi Biomarkers and Prev, 2011, PMID: 21610220). They found that women in the highest quintile of % volumetric density had an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% CI: 2.3 - 7.2) for breast cancer risk compared to women in the lowest quintile of volumetric density. Thus volumetric density appears to be a highly reproducible, automated measure of breast cancer.

  Study phs000395

• 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