latissimus dorsi process #1192

Open
alex-dececchi opened this Issue Jan 26, 2016 · 8 comments

Projects

None yet

4 participants

@alex-dececchi
Member

The latissimus dorsi process is an anatomical projection that denotes the attachement of the latissimus dorsi muscle onto the humerus. As such it needs to have a a part_of relationship added to connect it to the humerus.
Thank you

@cmungall cmungall added the ext label Jan 26, 2016
@cmungall
Member

I'm assigning you to anything in ext but let me know if you can't manage this

@cmungall
Member

should be part-of UBERON:0003822 forelimb stylopod,

attaches to the muscle and humerus

UPDATE just realized this is a skeletal process, @wdahdul's edits below are correct

@wdahdul
Member
wdahdul commented Jan 26, 2016

I added part_of humerus to 'latissimus dorsi process'.
@cmungall 'latissimus dorsi muscle' is in core. Can I edit this term to add has_muscle_insertion 'latissimu dorsi process'?

@cmungall
Member

The edits have to be made in the source file. I'll do this, but thanks for suggesting this, more precise, yes.

@cmungall
Member

wikipedia says it inserts into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicipital_groove

is the process in the groove, or does the insertion vary?

@RDruzinsky

In humans it inserts along a roughened line deep in the groove. In other
mammals (most, I believe) it is an actual projection.

Robert E. Druzinsky, Ph.D.
Clinical Associate Professor
Dept. of Oral Biology
College of Dentistry
University of Illinois at Chicago
801 S. Paulina
Chicago, IL 60612
druzinsk@uic.edu

Office: 312-996-0406
Lab: 312-996-0629
Website: www.peerj.com/RobertDruzinsky

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Chris Mungall notifications@github.com
wrote:

wikipedia says it inserts into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicipital_groove

is the process in the groove, or does the insertion vary?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1192 (comment)
.

@cmungall
Member

In that case we either have to make use of the taxon specific GCI pattern and say

(LDM and part_of some (mammal and not primate and not ...) ) attaches_to some LDP

I believe it should be fine to make an all-some for the reciprocal: e.g. every instance of LDP attaches to an LDM

@RDruzinsky

That's fine. I don't know what the distribution is across mammals.

It does bother me that the definitions are circular. E.g., the latissimus
dorsi process is the attachment site of the latissimus dorsi muscle, etc.

Robert E. Druzinsky, Ph.D.
Clinical Associate Professor
Dept. of Oral Biology
College of Dentistry
University of Illinois at Chicago
801 S. Paulina
Chicago, IL 60612
druzinsk@uic.edu

Office: 312-996-0406
Lab: 312-996-0629
Website: www.peerj.com/RobertDruzinsky

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Chris Mungall notifications@github.com
wrote:

In that case we either have to make use of the taxon specific GCI
https://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/wiki/Evolutionary-variability-GCIs
pattern and say

(LDM and part_of some (mammal and not primate and not ...) ) attaches_to some LDP

I believe it should be fine to make an all-some for the reciprocal: e.g.
every instance of LDP attaches to an LDM


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1192 (comment)
.

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