Stroma of mammary gland #1151

Closed
nursatranscriptomine opened this Issue Sep 23, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@nursatranscriptomine

Looking for an Uberon identifier for stroma of the mammary gland - I see stroma listed for many other organs but not that one....thanks

@cmungall

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cmungall

cmungall Sep 23, 2015

Member

we have this:

UBERON:0003584 ! mammary gland connective tissue

"The fibrous supportive tissue of the mammary gland."

should we add a synonym? Or can we distinguish the concepts (as in FMA?)

Member

cmungall commented Sep 23, 2015

we have this:

UBERON:0003584 ! mammary gland connective tissue

"The fibrous supportive tissue of the mammary gland."

should we add a synonym? Or can we distinguish the concepts (as in FMA?)

@nursatranscriptomine

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nursatranscriptomine

nursatranscriptomine Sep 23, 2015

I think there's an argument for discriminating between the concepts - connective tissue implies a more passive role in mammary gland biology than the stroma actually has - there's a fair amount of evidence documenting stromal-epithelial interactions, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941044/

I think there's an argument for discriminating between the concepts - connective tissue implies a more passive role in mammary gland biology than the stroma actually has - there's a fair amount of evidence documenting stromal-epithelial interactions, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941044/

@cmungall

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cmungall

cmungall Sep 23, 2015

Member

Do we need to discriminate between the concepts at the level of the mammary gland? It sounds like we should stick with the existing ID, possibly relabel it, and make it clear in the definition that it is non-passive?

As far as discriminating the generic stroma class from connective tissue - interesting that you indicate stroma indicates a more active role. Our current def: "Connective, non-functional supportive framework of a biological cell, tissue, or organ. Contrast with parenchyma."

Member

cmungall commented Sep 23, 2015

Do we need to discriminate between the concepts at the level of the mammary gland? It sounds like we should stick with the existing ID, possibly relabel it, and make it clear in the definition that it is non-passive?

As far as discriminating the generic stroma class from connective tissue - interesting that you indicate stroma indicates a more active role. Our current def: "Connective, non-functional supportive framework of a biological cell, tissue, or organ. Contrast with parenchyma."

@nursatranscriptomine

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nursatranscriptomine

nursatranscriptomine Sep 23, 2015

Thanks.

My comments were intended to apply to the mammary stroma only, I am less familiar with the literature relating to other organs.

Thanks.

My comments were intended to apply to the mammary stroma only, I am less familiar with the literature relating to other organs.

@cmungall

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cmungall

cmungall Sep 23, 2015

Member

so are you ok with rolling mammary stroma and mammary connective tissue into one?

Member

cmungall commented Sep 23, 2015

so are you ok with rolling mammary stroma and mammary connective tissue into one?

@nursatranscriptomine

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nursatranscriptomine

nursatranscriptomine Sep 23, 2015

Yes that makes sense

Sent from Outlookhttp://taps.io/outlookmobile

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM -0700, "Chris Mungall" <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

so are you ok with rolling mammary stroma and mammary connective tissue into one?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/issues/1151#issuecomment-142734797.

Yes that makes sense

Sent from Outlookhttp://taps.io/outlookmobile

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM -0700, "Chris Mungall" <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

so are you ok with rolling mammary stroma and mammary connective tissue into one?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/issues/1151#issuecomment-142734797.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment