GMOD

Notes on simplified nd schema and Use Cases

Contents

SQL

https://gmod.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gmod/schema/branches/integrate_natdiv/chado/modules/natural_diversity/natural_diversity.sql

Schema Drawing

http://gmod.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%253AChado_Natural_Diversity_Module_Working_Group#April_2010

Notes on the tables

stock

http://gmod.org/wiki/Stock_Relationship_Ontology

nd_assay

nd_assay_phenotype

- [Naama] From my understanding every time you measure a phenotype you store it it the phenotype table with the relevant attributes. I don’t think you are supposed to ‘reuse’ these records, even if you get a similar measurement.

nd_assay_genotype

-[Naama] I would say for individuals you store the heterozygous genotype (200/230) and for an allele entry you store the actual allele genotype. If your individual is in the stock table, I guess you could link it to the allele and retrieve the genotype from there.

nd_assayprop

-[Naama] experimenter_id should be in a contact table (contact_id) .
-[Sook] Then can we add assay_contact table?

nd_assay_project

nd_assay_stock

nd_assay_stockprop

nd_protocol

nd_protocolprop

nd_assay_protocol

nd_reagent

nd_reagentprop

nd_reagent_relationship

nd_protocol_reagent

nd_geolocation

nd_geolocationprop

Use Cases

tree fruit breeding data (tfGDR)

Cross Experiment

Data:

Chado:

Phenotype Assay

Data:

Chado:

Comments:

mosquito field collections

Field Collections + karyotyping

Collection
Karyotyping

Questions:

No obvious way to link a project to either a contact (i.e. experimenter) or a publication. project_pub / project_contact experiments needed?

mosquito phenotype data

RNAi knockdown experiments

Is a problem with this approach that the phenotype looks like it is attached to the lab strain? It also convolves the two operations (knockdown and phenotype assay) into one ‘nd_assay’, although they could be described by two separate ‘nd_protocol’s. An alternative approach is to create a new stock entity to represent the (temporarily) genetically altered organisms.

Sethnr 11:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC) even if described by two protocols we would then have to distinguish which genotype/phenotype/assay_prop values arose from which protocol. Simple in this case, but perhaps not in others. I suspect adding the second assay will be less of a headache

Sethnr 11:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC) it is arguable we could get away without a separate control stock. Whilst the knockdown is genotypically (-ish) different than the G3 line, and as such needs a separate entry in the stock table, the GFP knockdown is bred to be a direct representation of the G3 line. As long as it’s use as a control is clearly marked (e.g. stock_assay.type = “control” + stock_assayprop = “dsGFP knockdown”) I don’t see a problem with linking the g3 stock directly to the control assay.

stocks selected for phenotype

stock selection
genotyping performed

see diagram on VB wiki

Insecticide Resistance Assay

Category:

Documentation

Community

Tools