WormBase-Caltech Weekly Calls

From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Years

2009 Meetings

2011 Meetings

2012 Meetings

2013 Meetings

2014 Meetings

2015 Meetings

2016 Meetings

2017 Meetings

2018 Meetings

2019 Meetings

2020 Meetings

2021 Meetings

2022 Meetings

January

January 13th, 2022

tm variation - gene associations

  • Update on progress and some questions for the Caltech curators
  • Background: not all variations were being associated with genes in the OA table because some of those associations are in WS but not in geneace, so weren't coming through in the nightly geneace dump. Some variation-gene associations are made as part of the VEP pipeline during the build.
  • Wen now downloads several full ACeDB classes from the latest WS release in the form of .ace files so we can also have whatever information is in WS. Raymond wrote a script to sync those files to tazendra for further processing/use.
  • A few questions that we want to confirm before going forward:
    • In the WS variations file, there are 2,130,801 variations while in postgres there are currently 106,080. (20x increase in WS).
      • Currently, some variations with a given Method, e.g. Million_mutation, are NOT included. We would continue this filtering.
      • Do we want other filters?
        • For example, only include variations with Status = Live (some variations have been merged, but there's no status tag, e.g. WBVar00561118).
    • For genes, the ace file contains ALL the gene objects in WB regardless of species.
      • We've recently had an author request, via the Acknowledge pipeline, to associate genes of other, less well studied Caenorhabditis species, e.g. C. inopinata, to their paper.
      • Do we want all Caenorhabditis (and other nematode) species genes in our various gene tables, e.g. obo, paper? Any other species?
      • The effect on the autocomplete, if we include all, probably won't be a problem.
      • Some of the gene ids from other species don't have 'WBGene' prefixes, e.g. Sp34_10109610. Should we keep this in a separate table from genes with 'WBGene' prefixes?