Skip to content

fix(datamodel): restructured genomic variants and interpretations tables #5088

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 28 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

davidruvolo51
Copy link
Contributor

@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 commented May 28, 2025

What are the main changes you did

This PR is part of molgenis/GCC#1084.

How to test

  • In the preview, create a new schema using the PATIENT_REGISTRY template and load the demo data
  • View the following tables: Variant interpretations, Interpretation consensus, Variant interpretation analyses

Checklist

  • updated docs in case of new feature
  • added/updated tests
  • added/updated testplan to include a test for this fix, including ref to bug using # notation

@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 self-assigned this May 28, 2025
@davidruvolo51
Copy link
Contributor Author

davidruvolo51 commented Jun 3, 2025

Wait for #5095 before merging

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jun 3, 2025

@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 changed the title fix: added ontologies to genomic variants fix: added columns to genomic variants Jun 4, 2025
@mswertz mswertz changed the title fix: added columns to genomic variants fix(datamodel): added columns to genomic variants Jun 6, 2025
@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2025 12:29
Copy link
Contributor

@willemijn-oudijk willemijn-oudijk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!

Copy link

Copy link
Contributor

@willemijn-oudijk willemijn-oudijk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, I just added one comment.

@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 marked this pull request as draft July 17, 2025 09:43
@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 changed the title fix(datamodel): added columns to genomic variants fix(datamodel): restructuring of genomic variants and interpretations Jul 18, 2025
@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 changed the title fix(datamodel): restructuring of genomic variants and interpretations fix(datamodel): restructured genomic variants and interpretations tables Jul 18, 2025
@davidruvolo51 davidruvolo51 marked this pull request as ready for review July 18, 2025 13:29
Genomic variants,,,,,,,,,,,http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCIT_C17248,Beacon v2 GenomicVariation see also https://www.ga4gh.org/product/categorical-variation-catvar/,Patient registry
Genomic variants,,id,string,1,TRUE,,,,,,"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCIT_C164813,bc2:variantInternalId",A unique identifier maintained by an authoritative database that represents a genetic variation. E.g. 20:2447955..2447958c>g,Patient registry
Genomic variants,,alternative ids,string_array,,,,,,,,http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCIT_C90353,A backup sequence of characters used to identify an entity,Patient registry
Genomic variants,,variant status,ontology,,,CatalogueOntologies,Status,,,,http://semanticscience.org/resource/SIO_000033,"An characterisation of the variant that indicates the state or progress (e.g., confirmed, to be verified, etc.)",Patient registry
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comment above. Still not sure if this is genius or strange. Maybe we should go with genius, but then we need some evidence linked from either inside (a variant interpretation refback) or external (e.g. a URI to clinvar)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants