Welcome to the LOVD 2.0 bug tracking system. Please note that this bug tracking system is not for LOVD 3.0!
If you have any issues, please read the documentation and Frequently Asked Questions.
Please note that you need to register before you can submit bugs or feature requests.
If you have any issues, please read the documentation and Frequently Asked Questions.
Please note that you need to register before you can submit bugs or feature requests.
| By default, all closed tasks are hidden from view. Click here to see all tasks. |
FS#41 - Variant colums for dbSNP amd OMIM
Attached to Project:
LOVD 2.0
Opened by Raymond Dalgleish (rwmd) - Friday, 17 April 2009, 16:12 GMT+2
Last edited by Ivo F.A.C. Fokkema (ifokkema) - Tuesday, 05 February 2013, 12:22 GMT+2
Opened by Raymond Dalgleish (rwmd) - Friday, 17 April 2009, 16:12 GMT+2
Last edited by Ivo F.A.C. Fokkema (ifokkema) - Tuesday, 05 February 2013, 12:22 GMT+2
|
DetailsLOVD provides the ability to create links to dbSNP and OMIM and, by default, these two links are active in the Patient/Reference column. However, dBSNP and OMIM entries are properties of the variant rather than the patient. All patients who harbour the same variant should be linked to dbSNP, but by way of the variant that they share in common, not individually through the Reference column.
It would be useful to have decicated dbSNP and OMIM columns associated with Variants. The input fields would only require appropriate DBSNP or OMIM numbers to be inserted; nothing else. I guess that I could create custom Variant columns myself and then make the dbSNP and OMIM links active in these columns. However, that\'s an untidy solution that perhaps might have unwanted consequences for data exchange. A field containg only a dbSNP rs number is easier to exchange that one that contains code for a link. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Ivo F.A.C. Fokkema (ifokkema)
Tuesday, 05 February 2013, 12:22 GMT+2
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Since no further comments have been made, I assume we agree the implementation in LOVD 3.0 is sufficient.
Tuesday, 05 February 2013, 12:22 GMT+2
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Since no further comments have been made, I assume we agree the implementation in LOVD 3.0 is sufficient.
Regards,
M. Minter
Service informatique
Would this be sufficient for you?