Thursday, October 18, 2012

Genomics contest underscores challenges of personalized medicine


Journal name:
Nature Medicine Volume:18, Page: 326 Year published: (2012)
doi:10.1038/nm0312-326
Published online

Genomics contest underscores challenges of personalized medicine

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n3/full/nm0312-326.html?WT.ec_id=NM-201203

On a clear, cold afternoon in December 2010, a crowd of industry and academic leaders gathered in the Countway Library of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School in Boston to discuss one of the most pressing concerns in medicine: how to tame the expected deluge of 'whole genome' sequence data into clinically useful information. For personalized medicine to become commonplace, the field needed a series of tools and standards for genomic analysis and interpretation, everyone agreed. But these didn't exist yet. “Researchers were going about it one way, and clinicians were going about it another,” says Alan Beggs, director of the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research at the Children's Hospital Boston who helped organize the event.
istockphoto
No kidding: Genomes ares tough to interpret.
The result of the meeting was the creation of the CLARITY Challenge, a competition launched this past January by Beggs and his Children's Hospital colleagues. Short for 'Children's Leadership Award for the Reliable Interpretation and appropriate Transmission of Your genomic information', the $25,000 contest aims to encourage academic and commercial groups to develop the best methods—including databases, software and clinical reports—to discover the unknown genetic basis of inherited pediatric disorders and then communicate that information in a way that can be understood by general practitioners and affected families. The winning prize will go to the team that can successfully analyze the genome sequences of three children with mysterious hereditary illnesses and produce the most clinically useful reports. The contest will kick off next month with up to 20 teams, and the winner will be announced in October.
Beggs acknowledges that the prize money isn't enough to fund the actual research, but he hopes that it adds an incentive to the challenge. “It's more the prestige and hopefully the publicity” of winning that will attract researchers to apply, he says.
Investigators in the field welcome the initiative. “Digesting all of the findings in a genome and presenting them back to the clinician and patient in an orderly and understandable fashion—that, in my mind, is the holy grail,” says Howard Levy, a clinical geneticist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “I love the idea that rather than just pounding the drum and saying, 'Someone needs to do this,' they're stepping forward and incentivizing it.”
For contestants, the sequencing of a genome is the easy part. The rest of the process—sifting through 3 billion base pairs for 'actionable' genetic variants and then making that information digestible for doctors—is the challenge. “The biggest bottleneck is that we're spending so much money discovering [genetic variants] and not enough money actually testing their clinical utility,” says Jonathan Berg, a medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.
Once clinically relevant genes are identified, researchers and physicians then need fast and easy ways to share and store the massive amounts of genetic information, says Daniel Masys, who studies biomedical and health informatics at the University of Washington in Seattle. To that end, Masys advocates tossing out the bulk of people's DNA data and recording only the differences between individual genomes and a national reference sequence. In a study published online in December, Masys and his colleagues found that implementing such a strategy would mean that researchers could store just 1% of all the data without sacrificing any useful information (J. Biomed. Inform. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.12.005, 2011). “If the genomic data [for each person] is 96–99% the same, then why store it all?” he asks.
Finally, scientists have to find ways of communicating the relevant findings to physicians and their patients. “We don't want to end up sending an Excel spreadsheet to a clinician,” says Shashikant Kulkarni, medical director of genomics and pathology services at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Bin there, done that

Even before the competition launched, scientists had begun offering solutions to this problem. Last year, for instance, Berg and his colleagues proposed a 'binning' technique for classifying genetic variants according to their clinical usefulness. Under Berg's scheme, researchers would place variants into one of three bins: those that are immediately actionable, those associated with a condition but for which there are no current treatments and those with unknown clinical significance (Genet. Med. 13, 499504, 2011). Doctors would probably then be obligated to share the information in the first category, but patients could decide whether they wanted to know about other kinds of variants. The bins would be regularly updated as new scientific data are generated.
“This is a practical attempt to carve up the genome in a way that makes it manageable and tractable,” Berg says. His team has recently begun conducting a four-year study to see how the binning model works in actual clinical practice.
Even once all the tools are in place, primary-care doctors will still need some sort of genetics reference guide to understand genomic results. A 2008 study by Levy and his colleagues tested nine online resources for nongeneticists using basic questions about five common genetic conditions, and found that the websites had complete descriptions about the conditions only a third of the time and contained no information at all another third of the time (Genet. Med. 10, 659667, 2008). In response, Levy's group, together with the US National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics, recently launched a website, GeneFacts.org, to provide quick but accurate descriptions of genetic conditions for point-of-care, decision support.
No matter what approach is taken, contestants in the CLARITY Challenge have their work cut out for them. And although it will certainly take more than one contest to bring genomics to the clinic, experts agree that it's only a matter of time. “There's no question that we're going to get there,” says Jeffrey Saffitz, chair of the pathology department at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But between now and then, it's probably going to be kind of messy.”

CLARITY: Thirty teams compete to interpret three families’ genomes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, 07 August 2012, 9:00am

CONTACT:
Keri Stedman
Boston Children’s Hospital
617-919-3110

Thirty teams compete to interpret three families’ genomes
International contestants vie to bring “CLARITY” to DNA sequencing information

DNA sequencing is rapidly getting faster and cheaper, but it’s still unclear how physicians and patients will be able to use this information. In a contest led by Boston Children’s Hospital, 30 teams from around the world are vying to interpret the DNA sequences of three children with rare conditions whose cause remains a mystery—with the goal of establishing "best practices" for interpreting genomic data.

Participants in the competition, known as the CLARITY challenge, range from small biotech startups to the National Institutes of Health (see list below), representing the United States, Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden.

Results of the challenge will be announced in November at the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting in San Francisco (Nov. 6-10) by the contest’s organizers—David Margulies, MD, executive director of The Gene Partnership at Boston Children’s, Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, director of the hospital’s Informatics Program, and Alan Beggs, PhD, director of the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research at the hospital.

The goals of CLARITY (Children’s Leadership Award for the Reliable Interpretation and Transmission of Your genomic information) are to address technical and bioinformatics questions in analyzing DNA sequence results, bring standardization to the analysis of genetic variants and generate a comprehensive, actionable report that can guide decision-making by doctors, genetic counselors and patients. Contestants have a deadline of September 30 to submit their findings and reports.

"The last major barrier to widespread clinical use of DNA sequencing is the creation of accurate, understandable interpretations of sequence findings for doctors and patients,” says Margulies, also affiliated with the Center for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School. "The goal of this contest is to define norms, standards and models for reporting findings from exomes and genomes. We are excited about the number and quality of participants, and we look forward to seeing their entries."

All contestants have been given raw DNA sequence data (both whole-genome and whole-exome sequences) and de-identified clinical data from three children and their immediate relatives identified by The Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research at Boston Children’s.

Of the three children, two have a neuromuscular disorder and the third a cardiovascular disorder. While all three are believed to have a genetic cause for their disorder, they have come up negative on all known genetic tests.

"Traditional genetic tests examine our genes one by one, requiring doctors to have a good idea ahead of time which of our roughly 20,000 genes is the likely cause,” says Beggs, also a professor of Pediatrics at HMS. “The beauty of whole-genome sequencing is that it provides results for virtually all of our genes at once. The challenge for our contestants is to pick out that one disease-causing mutation from the vast numbers of genetic differences that make each of us unique.”

Contest sponsors Life Technologies Corporation and Complete Genomics generated the genome sequences being used in the Challenge. Boston Children’s will award a prize of $25,000 to the winning research team, which will be selected by a panel of judges according to pre-specified criteria.

“We wanted researchers at small institutions and startups, anywhere in the world, to be able to compete with the ‘big boys’ of genomics and in so doing find better solutions,” says Kohane, who co-directs the Center for Biomedical Informatics at HMS. “This contest gives everyone a level playing field on which to innovate.”

Challenge contestants:

1.      Beijing Genomics Institute (Shenzhen, China)
2.      Brigham & Women's Hospital, Division of Genetics (Boston)
3.      British Columbia Cancer Agency (Vancouver)
4.      Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa)
5.      Clinical Institute of Medical Genetics (Ljubljana, Slovenia)
6.      Genedata AG (Basel, Switzerland)
7.      Genomatix Software GmbH (Munich, Germany)
8.      Genome Institute of Singapore  Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) (Biopolis, Singapore)
9.      HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology (Huntsville, Alabama)
10.  Institute for Systems Biology (Seattle)
11.  IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza (San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy)
12.  National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland)
13.  NextBio (Santa Clara, California)
14.  Omicia, Inc. (Emeryville, California)
15.  Pearlgen (Chapel Hill, North Carolina)
16.  Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (Nijmegan, Netherlands)
17.  Sanofi  (Cambridge, Massachusetts)
18.  Science For Life Laboratory (SciLifeLab), Karolinska Institute (Solna, Sweden)
19.  Scripps Genomic Medicine (San Diego)
20.  Seven Bridges Genomics (Cambridge, Massachusetts)
21.  SimulConsult / Geisinger (Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts / Danville, Pennsylvania)
22.  SNPedia (wiki)
23.  Strand Life Sciences (Bangalore, India)
24.  Tel Aviv University (Israel)
25.  The Medical College of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
26.  The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital (Columbus, Ohio)
27.  The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, The Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine
28.  Universidad de Cantabria (Santander, Spain)
29.  University of Iowa (Iowa City)
30.  Yale School of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics (New Haven, Connecticut)

Full information about the Challenge is available online at www.childrenshospital.org/CLARITY. For further background on CLARITY and genome sequencing, see these recent posts on our science and innovation blog, Vector:


Boston Children’s Hospital is home to the world’s largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults since 1869. More than 1,100 scientists, including nine members of the National Academy of Sciences, 11 members of the Institute of Medicine and nine members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Boston Children’s research community. Founded as a 20-bed hospital for children, Boston Children’s today is a 395 bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. Boston Children’s also is the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about research and clinical innovation at Boston Children’s, visit: http://vectorblog.org.

- ### -



Children’s Hospital Launches CLARITY Challenge for Clinical Genome Interpretation

By Kevin Davies  
http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/01/23/12/Childrens-Hospital-launches-CLARITY-challenge-clinical-genome-interpretation.html

January 23, 2012 | Researchers at Children’s Hospital in Boston have launched the CLARITY Challenge -- a $25,000 competition intended to set and advance standards for clinical genomic analysis and interpretation.   
CLARITY stands for Children’s Leadership Award for the Reliable Interpretation and appropriate Transmission of Your genomic information. While the much publicized Archon X PRIZE presented by Medco will offer $10 million in prize money for essentially reaching the $1,000 genome early next year, the CLARITY contest focuses squarely on best practices in clinical genome interpretation and data delivery. The winning team will receive a $25,000 prize underwritten by Children's Hospital 
The competition is open to academic and commercial researchers worldwide, with applications due no later than March 1, 2012. For logistical reasons, a maximum of 20 teams will be selected to participate in the competition. The winner of the competition, chosen by a panel of seven judges, will be announced in October 2012.  
Industry partners include Life Technologies, which raised the prospect of a $1,000 genome in 2013 with the unveiling of its Ion Proton sequencer last week, and Complete Genomics. 
“With the swift decline in the cost of sequencing, the time is rapidly approaching when genomic information will leap from the research bench to the doctor’s office and become a part of everyday care,” said Isaac Kohane, director of Children’s Hospital Boston’s informatics program and one of three competition co-organizers.  
“Paramount among the obstacles to true genomic medicine are interpretation and communication. How do we deliver the information encoded in the genome in an understandable way to physicians or patients to help guide better healthcare? Right now, there are no broadly accepted standards for doing so.” 
Coming Together  
Kohane told Bio-IT World that the idea for launching the contest emerged from the success his group enjoyed in running challenges for i2b2 (informatics for integrating biology & the bedside), focused on making data widely available. “The competitive aspect was nice, adds some spice, but [more importantly] it catalyzes teams coming together. I think that there’s a certain social process around these competitions, creating teams for a purpose that otherwise didn’t exist.” 
In addition to helping the patients and their families, Kohane hopes to identify and bring together the best elements of competing pipelines, as he expects that there will be stronger and weaker components for each pipeline. “There’ll be one overall winner, but separate and transparent grading of different components of the pipelines.” 
"Clearly, we’re going to need teams” to tackle the challenges of clinical genome interpretation, he says. “One of my favorite publications in 2011 was a paper in Nature Biotechnology from Mike Snyder and colleagues, in which they compared Complete Genomics sequence data to Illumina. They found that there was [only a] 93% concordance for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is terrible! And on copy number variants (CNVs), only 24% concordance. That tells me that every point in the pipeline -- from measurement to assembly to annotation, interpretation and generation of reports – all those points are, to be kind, open for improvement.” 
he best way to stimulate “a public and transparent improvement of that pipeline” is to compare them side by side, he says, not only for the Consumer Reports-style value but also “to promote best practices in different pipelines, so they can be adopted and shared.” 
Three pediatric patients at the Manton Center have been selected, including two with neuromuscular disorders. In each case, doctors strongly suspect a genetic basis for the childrens’ conditions, but “despite the best efforts of clinical geneticists at several sites, the genetic lesion has yet to be identified,” says Kohane.  
Manton Center director Alan Beggs recruited the three families taking part. “Their response ranged from enthusiastic and very excited to cautiously optimistic,” says Kohane. Getting IRB approval from Children’s Hospital was tough, he says, in part because of the data sharing requirements.  
Each patient and their parents will be sequenced. Life Technologies will sequence the exomes of each volunteer, while Complete Genomics will do whole genome sequencing.  
“The project underscores Complete Genomics’ commitment to, and the industry’s path towards, using high quality, accurate genomic information from whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to improve patient care,” said Complete Genomics CEO Clifford Reid. “Through this CLARITY Challenge, we anticipate the discovery of the genetic basis of the children’s unknown disorders and also the creation of best practices for interpreting and presenting actionable results to physicians, patients and their families.” 
Judge and Jury 
The seven judges were chosen for their expertise in different parts of the pipeline. They are: Russ Altman (Stanford), Elaine Lyon (ARUP Labs), Joseph Majzoub (Children’s Hospital), David McCallie Jr (Cerner Medical Informatics Institute), Peter Neupert (Microsoft Health Solutions Group), Peter Szolovits (MIT) and Hunt Willard (Duke University).  
Among the questions they will be asking: Is the assembly done well? Are the annotations credible? Does the report look readable? Does it make clinical sense? “Not inconsequentially, for a medical director, can they understand the link between the report and the original data? For example, the details of a CNV algorithm are not always transparent to the clinical end user,” says Kohane. 
Kohane and colleagues held a couple of workshops in Boston over the past 18 months gauging the interest of community experts in holding a competition. “There have been other contests for various pieces of the pipelines, but we wanted to see if it made sense to bring it together in a true clinical application,” says Kohane. “Did anybody buy the idea that there must be a community of collaborators?”  
Kohane praises the progress made by a handful of genomics groups in annotating medical genomes, including the work of the team at the Medical College of Wisconsin. “They all did a terrific job, heroic efforts – from the publications, it seems evident they’ve used lots of computation and inspiration and knowledge of the disease(s). What’s not clear is that the effort could be generalized, across a large number of diseases. We’ve seen panels of experts working hard to help one patient using everything they had, where much of it is in their head.” 
“This has to be reduced to clinical practice -- I order a test, and get back a report that a clinician finds intelligible. I don’t need a number of world-leading scientists scratching their head.” 
Children’s Hospital staff says it is the first time that a healthcare institution has issued a broad call for the development of clear, consistent ways of applying genomic insights to patient care. But they note there are numerous pitfalls to be overcome by the contesting teams, including: 
  • Inconsistent or non-specific sequencing results and non-interoperable processes 
  • Conflicting gene variant annotations and classification 
  • A hodge-podge of non-standardized databases 
  • Lack of standards concerning individual privacy and data access 
  • Resulting reports that are not clear or useful to doctors, genetic counselors and patients 
Full information about the CLARITY Challenge, including application form, is available online at: http://www.childrenshospital.org/CLARITY

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

CLARITY news release: Three families, three mysteries: Results soon to come from genomic challenge

Three families, three mysteries: Results soon to come from genomic challenge

by Nancy Fliesler on October 16, 2012

 
Liam Burns died 12 days after birth from an unexplained set of heart defects. His parents hope the CLARITY challenge will provide a meaningful explanation.
One extended family has a range of unexplained heart defects—sometimes a hole in the heart, sometimes an arrhythmia. One child, Liam Burns, died days after birth from an underdeveloped heart, a narrowed artery to the lungs and an electrical block. Yet other family members have little more than a heart murmur. All of the defects are on the right side of the heart.
Another family’s son, 11-year-old Adam Foye, has unexplained muscle weakness and fatigue. He can walk only short distances and needs a ventilator at night to support his breathing.
These families—and a third that chose to remain anonymous—decided to submit their DNA to a challenge sponsored by Boston Children’s Hospital called CLARITY. Not only have their complete genomes been sequenced, but 30 teams all over the world—from biotech startups to the National Institutes of Health—were given access to the sequences and set loose to come up with “best practices” for interpreting the results. Two dozen turned in submissions, now being evaluated by a panel of judges.
Children, siblings and parents in each family had already been tested for every gene known to cause a disease that looks like theirs. In the case of Liam’s family, it was a short list. “There are only four known genes for right-sided heart defects,” says Stephanie Burns, Liam’s mother. “They were all negative.”
That left the family on tenterhooks when Stephanie found herself pregnant with her second child. “It was terrifying, like flipping a coin,” she recalls. “If you know the gene, you can know earlier if there’s a defect, or you can conceive differently—there are just more options.” Fortunately, they lucked out this time—their daughter’s heart is healthy.
Adam and Sarah Foye
Adam has tested negative for 13 known genes; as each new one was discovered (some of them at Boston Children’s), Adam was tested for it. “Once you have a diagnosis, you can have a feel for what medical risks are associated with the disease,” says his mother Sarah Foye. “You’re not just treating as symptoms arise. You can begin to understand the mechanism of the disease and look at viable treatment possibilities.”
Skipping the gene-by-gene approach, the CLARITY contestants were given complete DNA sequence data from each family, generated from their blood samples by contest sponsors Life Technologies Corporation and Complete Genomics.
“The beauty of whole-genome sequencing is that it provides results for virtually all of our roughly 20,000 genes at once,” says Alan Beggs, PhD, director of the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research at Boston Children’s, a co-sponsor of CLARITY. “It’s a completely unbiased approach.”
Thanks to technological advances, genome sequencing is now approaching a fairly reasonable $1,000 per person. It seems like it’s being offered everywhere—and often direct-to-consumer. But here’s why Boston Children’s started CLARITY: When it comes to interpreting the DNA data in a way that’s meaningful for a patient, there’s a distinct lack of clarity.
Should every unusual or “abnormal” finding be reported? What’s a real finding, and what’s background noise? What if there’s an incidental finding (say, a risk for cancer) that has nothing to do with the disease in question? How can the information be shared responsibly? What about privacy?
“The last major barrier to widespread clinical use of DNA sequencing is the creation of accurate, understandable interpretations of sequence findings for doctors and patients,” says co-organizer David Margulies, MD, executive director of The Gene Partnership at Boston Children’s. “The goal of this contest is to define norms, standards and models.”
The winning team will receive $25,000. The challenge results will be shared at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting in San Francisco in November—and will be used to guide the use of genomic sequencing done for patients at Boston Children’s—and, indeed, around the world. Establishing “best practices” through CLARITY is first step in taming the Wild West—sequencing DNA thoughtfully and responsibly.
Read coverage of the CLARITY contest in Nature Medicine, Bio-IT World and the Wall Street Journal.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Babraham Bioinformatics site


http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/download.html#fastqc

Download Babraham Bioinformatics Projects

All Babraham Bioinformatics code is released under the GNU General public license. You should be aware that some of the downloads on this page include code from other projects which is available under different license terms.
All Babraham Bioinformatics projects are distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
If you have any problems with any of the software you downloaded from here then please report them to us and we'll do our best to get them sorted out.
If you want to stay up to date with changes to our existing projects, or with new software we have released then you can follow us on twitter You can also see demonstrations of our software on our YouTube channel

ASAP Performing allele-specific alignments in Next-Gen Sequencing samples with mixed genetic background

Bareback A tool to shuffle low complexity sequence to the end of Illumina sequencing runs

Bismark A bisulfite read mapper and methylation caller

ChIPMonk ChIP-on-Chip analysis tool

Difference Tracker A particle tracker for faint moving particles

FastQC A quality control application for high throughput sequence data

FastQ Screen A screening application for high througput sequence data

FocalPoint Image Viewer

FRETSaw FRET Image Viewer

HiCUP Pipeline for analysing Hi-C data

mzViewer mzData Viewer

Realyser Real Time PCR Normalisation tool

SeqMonk Mapped Sequence Analysis Tool

Sherman bisulfite-treated Read FastQ Simulator

Sierra A simple LIMS for sequencing facilities

SparkSpotter ImageJ plugin to identify 'Spark' events

StackMeasure ImageJ Plugin to identify and measure feautres in images

Trim Galore! Consistent quality and adapter trimming for RRBS or standard FastQ files

Sunday, October 7, 2012

how to rebuild and optimize linux kernel

The Linux Kernel (Part 1) 

The Linux Kernel (Part 2)

The Linux Kernel (Part 3) 

 

How to rebuild and optimize linux kernel specifically for your machine:

(1)prepare the tools you will need

>sudo apt-get install build-essential kernel-package libncurses5-dev bzip2 fakeroot

>sudo apt-get install ia32-libs

add this line to your repos (ubuntu synaptic->repos->other software):
ppa:brian-rogers/ppa

(2)optimize the kernel specifically for your machine:
>make menuconfig

(3)generate a debian package:
>fakeroot make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version=-wzy-cheeta-2012 kernel_image kernel_headers

these two debian packages will be placed in /homezhengyuan directory.

(4)install the kernel as a debian package
dpkg --install linux-image-xxx.deb

dpkg --install linux-headers-xxx.deb 

(5)Optional:

install gdeb from software center, so you can graphically manage the kernel that is to be used at start up

reboot your system and enjoy!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

OOP interview questions

OOP concepts :- 

What is the difference between Abstraction and Encapsulation?

What is delegation of methods

The Clean Code Talks -- Inheritance, Polymorphism, & Testing

 

 SQL Server database:-

What is the difference between unique key and primary key? 

Inner join,Left join,Right join and full outer join 

Clustered or Non Clustered Index

 SQL Performance Optimization 

Lecture - 14 Query Processing and Optimization

How to Find Slow SQL Server Queries

SQL server 2012 DBA/TSQL training

database normalization 1 of 2 

The Process of Normailisation in a Relational Database

SQL Normalization - The Basics - 1st, 2nd, 3rd Normal Form Software Engineering Tutorial 

Normalization example

SQL: stored procedures 

Creating a Stored Procedure in SQL  \

What is OLAP?

Learn How to Create and Host Web Services in Introduction to Programming in Java 5 Part 2

RestFul Web Services

Introduction to REST and the Restlet 

Java WebServices tutorial, soapui, webservices vid

Workshop Java Webservices

  SQL Best Practices in less than 20 minutes (A)

  SQL Best Practices in less than 20 minutes (B)

 

Linux kernel: how to rebuild a linux kernel specifically for your hardware

The Linux Kernel (Part 1) 

The Linux Kernel (Part 2)

The Linux Kernel (Part 3)

Write and Submit your first Linux kernel Patch

 

 

questpond.com

A list of interview questions and answers (.NET, SQL Server, Design Pattern, UML and others):
questpond.com 

Design Pattern Training / Interview Questions and Answers
  • Introduction
  • Factory Design Pattern
  • Abstract Factory Design Pattern
  • Builder Design Pattern
  • Prototype Design Pattern
  • Singleton Design Pattern
  • Adapter Design Pattern
  • Bridge Design Pattern
  • Composite Design Pattern
  • Decorator Design Pattern
  • Facade Design Pattern
  • Flyweight Design Pattern
  • Proxy Design Pattern
  • Mediator Design Pattern
  • Memento Design Pattern
  • Interpreter Design Pattern
  • Iterator Design Pattern
  • COR Design Pattern
  • Command Design Pattren
  • State Design Pattern
  • Strategy Design Pattern
  • Observer Design Pattern
  • Template Design Pattern
  • Visitor Design Pattern
  • Dependency IOC Design pattern
  • MVC , MVP , DI IOC and MVVM Training / Interview Questions and Answers


UML Training / Interview Questions and Answers
  • Introduction
  • Use Case Diagrams
  • Class Digrams
  • Object Diagrams
  • Sequence Digrams
  • Collaboration Diagrams
  • Activity Diagram
  • State chart Diagrams
  • Component Diagrams
  • Deployment Diagrams
  • Stereo Types Diagrams
  • Package Diagram and UML Project Flow.
  •