Closed buniello closed 7 months ago
Conclusions from the first review:
You will need to review the phenotypes of the assays. For instance a screen on a normal cell for phagocytosis is relevant to disease if phagocytosis is a process that is decreased or increased in disease. Similarly if there is a FACS marker - if that marker protein is up- or down-regulated in disease you can use the normal cell screen as a disease relevant assay.
@iandunham thank's it's a good point. So the mapping seems to be a quite complicated process. Should the relevant tissue also be considered: if the phenotype is phagocytosis, can we extrapolate to all diseases with increased/decreased phagocytosis where the implicated tissue is not brain?
There are a lot of ways this could go, but perhaps the most straight forward way to resolve this is to ask our neuro scientists what disease they think each assay is relevant for. If we can get the trait/phenotype/assay that is done for each screen we could then run it past Andrew Bassett, Lewis Evans and Panos' team as to how they would map the assay
Oh, great, I can easily assemble a table with these details and we can circulate.
I have created a Google sheet with all the screens + phenotypes (with all other relevant metadata). I think this should be enough details to make the link with the disease.
This task is pulled back from release 23.02. However keep process going, hopefully by the April release we will make enough progress.
As discussed in the Data meeting on 28/11/22, we intend to investigate whether data and metadata from the publicly available Brain CRISPR resource conform to our schema for integration into the Platform.