We have just released the latest update to the Open Targets Platform — 26.06.
Key stats
| Metric |
Count |
| Targets |
78,691 |
| Diseases/phenotypes |
47,080 |
| Drugs/Clinical candidates |
22,407 |
| Variants |
7,538,243 |
| Evidence |
42,394,639 |
| Associations |
17,199,165 |
Number of credible sets
| Metric |
Count |
| GWAS |
1,474,648 |
| eQTL |
1,349,418 |
| tuQTL |
384,849 |
| sQTL |
223,500 |
| sceQTL |
52,738 |
| pQTL |
33,718 |
Number of unique studies in GWAS credible sets: 54,495
Number of unique biosampleIDs (number of tissues/cell types) from molQTLs: 98
Evidence metrics for this release
- 3,998,459 genetic evidence from European Variation Archive (EVA)
- 3,044,078 GWAS credible sets from GWAS Catalog, FinnGen through Gentropy
- 5,050 genetic evidence from Gene2Phenotype
- 47,102 genetic evidence from the Genomics England PanelApp
- 4,537 genetic evidence from ClinGen
- 7,461 genetic evidence from Orphanet
- 44,555 genetic evidence from Open Targets’ Gene burden integration
- 21,643 genetic evidence from CRISPRBrain
- 6,692 genetic evidence from UniProt Literature
- 8,858 somatic evidence from European Variation Archive (EVA)
- 4,223 somatic evidence from intOGen
- 91,572 somatic evidence from the Cancer Gene Census
- 36,722 somatic evidence from Uniprot
- 872,619 clinical precedence evidence from the Open Targets Clinical Mining pipeline
- 238,174 expression evidence from Expression Atlas
- 10,752 affected pathway evidence from Reactome
- 1,301 affected pathway evidence from the [Cancer Genome Interpreter] (Cancer Biomarkers) (Cancer Genome Interpreter)
- 517 CRISPR-Cas9 (Cancer Cell Lines) evidence from Pacini et al. (2024)
- 7,758,975 mouse model evidence from IMPC
- 26,191,349 scientific literature evidence from co-occurrence mining in Europe PMC
For more details and numbers, read the 26.06 blog post.
2 Likes
Hi all,
Thanks to all for the 26.06 release, always a highlight of the year!
There is a data quality issue in two OpenTargets parquet datasets where null bytes (\x00) are embedded within disease name strings. This causes problems downstream (eg, when loading the data into PostgreSQL, as PostgreSQL does not allow null bytes (\u0000) in text or jsonb columns, leading to load failures).
The first affected dataset is the clinicalTrial dataset, specifically the file clinical_report.parquet. The issue appears in the diseases column, which contains a list of structs, and more precisely in the diseaseFromSource field. In total, six rows are affected. The corrupted values include examples such as “S\u0000e9zary syndrome” and “s\u0000zary syndrome,” which should both read “Sézary syndrome,” as well as “Sj\u0000f6gren’s syndrome,” which should be “Sjögren’s syndrome.” There is also one extreme case where a single “s” is followed by hundreds of null bytes.
The second affected dataset is evidenceClinicalPrecedence, where the issue occurs in a parquet part file. Here, the problem is in the top-level diseaseFromSource string column. Twelve rows are affected, all containing the corrupted value “s\u0000zary syndrome.”
The root cause appears to be a character encoding issue affecting accented characters such as “é” (U+00E9) and “ö” (U+00F6). These characters are normally encoded in UTF-8 as multi-byte sequences (for example, “é” as 0xC3 0xA9). In the affected data, the leading byte seems to have been lost and replaced with a null byte, resulting in sequences like \x00\xA9. This suggests a faulty charset conversion or improper handling of UTF-8 encoding during data processing.
Perhaps something to fix in the background with some targeted edits.
Best,
F
Hi @flo,
Thank you for reporting this. Another user has also reported the issue, and Irene has posted an answer in that thread: Weird characters in compound synonym - #2 by irene
The issue stems from our LLM extraction input data, and we will prepare a fix for our next release that patches the intended characters from the corrupted escape sequences.
Sorry for the inconvenience!
Thanks for the update folks! I was curious about how an “interaction” is defined between the cis and trans gene when including the trans-pQTL CS to the L2G score of the cis gene?
Edit: I see the documentation here ( Locus-to-Gene (L2G) | Open Targets Platform Documentation ) so I was just wondering what the curated data bases were?