Y24-177 - Modify Aggregation submission

[KatyTaylor]

Background
We decided in a meeting with Abby & Liz H to make the Library Prep submission 'generic': the template name is:

Limber-Htp - scRNA Core Library Prep

rather than

Limber-Htp - scRNA Core GEM-X 5p Library Prep

This mirrors the equivalent submission template for the Bespoke Chromium pipelines, which is:

Limber-Bespoke - Chromium

The downside is that there could be user error when making a submission, in that they could include a GEM-X 5p purpose, but use a GEM-X 3p library type, for instance (when other variants of the pipeline come in).

The upside is that we won't have proliferation of submission templates when other variants come in.

This story
I suggest we do the same for the aggregation step - make it more generic - for the same reasons discussed above, and to make it consistent with the library prep submission.

Who are the primary contacts for this story
Katy, Andrew, Abby, Liz H

Who is the nominated tester for UAT
Abby (R&D), Liz H (SSR)

Acceptance criteria
To be considered successful the solution must allow:

• Aggregation submission template is called Limber-Htp - scRNA Core Aggregation (I removed the word 'Chromium' as well as it seems redundant with 'scRNA Core')
• Request type is changed accordingly
• Documentation is updated to include this submission, including submission template name, appropriate plate purposes to use and any other information you think is useful.

[yoldas]

"The downside is that there could be user error when making a submission, in that they could include a GEM-X 5p purpose, but use a GEM-X 3p library type, for instance (when other variants of the pipeline come in)."

Update of Confluence documentation could be added to the acceptance criteria. If the documentation is advertised more and made visible, it may help. scRNA Pipeline Documentation

[andrewsparkes]

The TenStamp labware creator used in the aggregation steps might need a validation added to prevent mixtures of source plates being combined. (It might already have this but we should confirm).

Would the Aggregation purpose created here still be specifically named after the sources e.g. with GEM-X 5p in the name? Because on the second stage of aggregation where you are combining the aggregate plates (also using the TenStamp labware creator) you'd again have to prevent combinations of a mixture of aggregate plates (made from different source types).

[KatyTaylor]

Good ideas, thanks both.

The TenStamp labware creator used in the aggregation steps might need a validation

We could run this by Abby. We've got a lot of potential enhancements in the backlog to avoid user error, so this could be prioritised against them. Agreed need to test if it already does it first though! I might find time for that today.

Would the Aggregation purpose created here still be specifically named after the sources e.g. with GEM-X 5p in the name?

Current config is:

LRC GEM-X 5p cDNA Input: LRC GEM-X 5p Aggregate
LRC GEM-X 5p cDNA PCR XP: LRC GEM-X 5p Aggregate
LRC GEM-X 5p Aggregate: LRC GEM-X 5p Cherrypick

I think that's fine? The purposes are v specific all the way down the pipeline so ties in with that.

[KatyTaylor]

Update on the above:

The 'ten stamp' page used for the aggregation pipeline doesn't restrict plate type. In the below screenshot, the first plate was a 'LRC GEM-X 5p cDNA Input plate' (appropriate), and the second was a 'Stock' plate (inappropriate). It let me create the plate.