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
ABA inconsistencies #58
Comments
Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
Appreciate having this looked into and will definitely evaluate this further. Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
Note the treatment of brainstem is very different in ABA from other AOs. MA is consistent with FMA, NIF, ZFA, Mesh, wikipedia,... in having the structure: brain However, ABA has: basic cell groups and regions Original comment by: cmungall |
RE: MA:0002742-cerebellar peduncle MA:0000169-brainstem MA:0000198-cerebellum Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
RE: As suggested, I will remove the edge between "trigeminal V nucleus" and "pons" I will also further investigate appropriate part_of parents for: Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
trigeminal nucleus notes Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
Original comment by: tfhayamizu |
Using spatial disjointness axioms derived from Allen Brain, the following classes are part of two disjoint regions:
MA:0002742-cerebellar peduncle MA:0000169-brainstem MA:0000198-cerebellum
MA:0001057-trigeminal V mesencephalic nucleus MA:0000195-hindbrain MA:0000207-midbrain
MA:0001053-trigeminal V spinal sensory nucleus MA:0000204-pons MA:0000206-medulla oblongata
(3 out of the whole ontology ain't bad!)
This is assuming the following ABA terms have the obvious equivalents in MA
ABA:BS brainstem
ABA:CB cerebellum
ABA:P Pons
ABA:MY medulla oblongata
NIF had a similar issue with the peduncles. This is what Maryann had to say:
"Although I see that some nomenclatures, e.g., Hof via BAMS, do list the peduncles as part of the cerebellar white matter. But I think we should take it out because volumetrically, as Chris points out, it doesn't fit with cerebellum"
I haven't checked with experts on the others, but some guesses:
I suspect making the trigeminal nucleus part_of pons is too strong (though supported by FMA). NIF has this under Composite part spanning multiple base regional parts of brain which sounds awkward but is a good way of thinking about these structures. The links to pons could be moved down to the principal nucleus and motor nucleus. You'd then have individual structures spatially classified with the generic structure spanning all these.
Original comment by: cmungall
Original Ticket: obo/mouse-anatomy-requests/44
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: