Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New qualifier for indicating functional/circuit phenotypes in neurons #80

Closed
dosumis opened this issue Oct 31, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@dosumis
Copy link
Collaborator

dosumis commented Oct 31, 2019

It is currently not possible to distinguish between morphological and functional/circuit phenotypes in phenotypic class statements. Being able to do so would be useful to VFB (this was originally discussed early in the current VFB grant cycle - but seems to have never made it into a ticket).

This could potentially be achieved by add qualifiers to PC statements.

e.g. we might have the qualifier circuit phenotype for cases where manipulating that activity of one neuron changes the activity of another.

@Clare72 Clare72 self-assigned this Jan 23, 2020
@Clare72
Copy link
Contributor

Clare72 commented Jan 31, 2020

How about this as a first draft?:
label: 'circuit phenotype'
is_a: 'cell non-autonomous'
def: 'A phenotypic effect that is apparent in a cell that is downstream in a circuit with the cell that is being experimentally manipulated.'
comment: 'This qualifier is usually used for experiments where one type of neuron is conditionally activated and a change in activity is measured in another type that was not directly activated.'

Outstanding questions:

  • do we want to limit this to neurons or neurons and their inputs/outputs (e.g. muscle) or allow any cell types (e.g. hormonal signalling)?
  • do we want to limit this to short-term conditional manipulations (rather than saying messing up development of cell X messes up the downstream cells)?
  • do we want to restrict this to qualifying the 'neurophysiology defective' phenotype?

@gouttegd
Copy link
Contributor

@dosumis Is this still relevant?

@dosumis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dosumis commented Feb 23, 2023

unfortunately not.

@gouttegd gouttegd closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Feb 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants