Provide a run id for NGS measurement metadata

[oquendoM]

What are you missing?

Add the upload date to the downloaded metadata.

Why do you need a solution?

Sometimes users want to know which measurements were sequenced together (= uploaded together). This information is already depicted on the browser, but is not visible if you download the measurement metadata.

Ideas

Ideally the column would show only the date and exclude the time (ex. show 2024-07-24, instead of 2024-07-24 09:56). This makes filtering in excel possible.

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[sven1103]

Dear @oquendoM ,

Sometimes users want to know which measurements were sequenced together (= uploaded together).

I think this assumption cannot be done based on the registration date of the measurement. I would also argue, that the date of the measurement itself (the real run in the lab) is not sufficient.

Why is this of relevance to the user, can you explain?

I imagine to provide another metadata property, that is explicit.

[oquendoM]

Hi,

The information is used to download only samples from a specific sequencing batch, which often correspond to the upload date from the lab. It is also important to know which samples are in which batch to look for sequencing batch effect during the analysis.

Best, Morgana

[sven1103]

Hi @oquendoM ,

since we have the batch information, would it not make sense to have that information annotated upon measurement metadata export? We already provide the sample id and sample name, would just be another property.

What do you think?

Best, Sven

[oquendoM]

Unfortunately sequencing batch and delivered batch (this one normally matches the metadata submission by the user) does not always match. The upload date would still be more informative in my opinion. But the complain of the impossibility to easily match sample metadata to the "raw data" metadata is a complain I heard already from the qPortal. This is normally relevant for big projects (>100 samples).

[sven1103]

hm, but then I doubt the use of the batch property at all. We might need to differentiate between submission batch and measurement batch.

This can e.g. be realised, by providing an additional property for measurements. Like Measurement Run or sth alike?

[oquendoM]

Yes something like a run ID. Would this need to be added to the measurement metadata manually?

[sven1103]

Would this need to be added to the measurement metadata manually?

yes, we would introduce a property for measurements :)

[sven1103]

I take this into planning, let's name the property run ID for now. Only NGS atm, I have not yet received any requirement for proteomics.