-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
Last Batch of Potential Modeling Issues in Uberon #1277
Comments
How are you visualizing uberon? All the relationships here are currently correct and complete AFAICT: |
Sorry, not following, but this could be an artefact of how you are visualizing the ontology |
This is a more subtle issue but again I think this comes down to the tool being used. This is a hidden GCI pattern, which is a powerful axiom construct for inference. But most users should not need to worry about it, if the tool only shows the existential graph, the seemingly weaker axiom will not be there. We clearly need to provide better guidelines for developers of portals and GUIs! I recommend OLS unfortunately it does not show develops-from in the hierarchical view, but it cleanly separates the Equivalence axiom up top from the some-values-from relationships
We already have this path from eye primordium |
Good catch. In fact there is a deeper problem here. This was part of a batch of terms transferred when we merged in the teleost anatomy ontology. The neuro terms here have not been vetted in a multi-species context. In this particular case, the string "lateral forebrain bundle" is a very generic name for what the structure represents - a zebrafish structure. The way this is indicated is not clear. The term has an annotation that says: This class was sourced from an external ontology (teleost_anatomy). Its definitions, naming conventions and relationships may need to be checked for compatibility with uberon The same label is used in other species, and work will need to be done unpicking homology vs synonymy There is also a lateral/basal forebrain bundle in reptiles and birds http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/centraldirectory.aspx?ID=2465 There is also a structure with this name in lungfish in xenopus (XAO:0004559) as well as in mammals! This one is so interesting I made a new dedicated issue: #1280 |
and
This relation is declared symmetric, and is intended to be used in either direction for any case where a fiber connected to X overlaps with Y. But point taken, the def must be clearer, and we should be using the more precise relations defined by @dosumis in Osumi-Sutherland, et al (2012). A strategy for building neuroanatomy ontologies. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts113 |
I agree, this is now fixed in the editors version. Thanks! |
good. I removed the link to VT. The inferred link to VTF will disappear as a consequence |
I agree. It looks like this came from an early effort align with the FMA (which has it as is_a fornix of neuraxis, part-of fornix of forebrain) This is now fixed, along with pre-commisural. Thanks! |
we have the (inferred) part-of to telencephalon already can you clarify the rhinencephalon part? In uberon we use UBERON:0013201 ! olfactory pathway is is just 2a specifically that links here, or the piriform cortex more generally? |
Many thanks for these. I would like to give credit for this - this can happen in different ways - if you comment on this ticket then the credit will flow to the relevant terms in the ontology automatically, linked to your github (so you will get credit @ChrisOchs but I'd also like to extend this to the domain specialist that prepared these) Alternatively, if you give me a name or ORCID I will add manually. It's also clear we need a good way of browsing the ontology that doesn't give confusing redundancies. I recommend OLS as the best web tool for browsing uberon. |
Chris, Thanks. I only posted these, our MD domain expert actually did all of the reviewing. So a acknowledgement to the Structural Analysis of Biomedical Ontologies Center at NJIT would be fine :) Did you get a chance to look at #1243? That's the bigger list of changes we first reported. I've forwarded these remarks to our domain expert for his feedback. |
Re: anterodorsal nucleus of medial geniculate body We have the same display as your figure. Our domain expert believes that the relationships that he mentioned were incorrect are incorrect.
In regards to: piriform cortex layer 2a
Was this changed in a more recent version? We don't see the inferred part of in Protege or our tool in the Jan 2016 Uberon release. |
sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying:
|
Sorry for the ambiguity. Option 1. The domain expert believes that the relationships are incorrect. |
which of the two relationships are incorrect? |
For the concept: anterodorsal nucleus of medial geniculate body
|
Please see my comments here, and the graph visualization: You are either looking at a very old version of the ontology, or there is an issue with how you are visualizing the relationships. |
> Brodmann (1909) area 33 UBERON:0006476 > > Missing restriction: Part of restriction with a range of cingulate cortex Fixed, thanks. > distal tarsal bone pre-cartilage condensation UBERON:0015101 > > There appear to be missing subclasses. I'm surprised there are no associated descendants such as distal tarsal bone 4 pre-cartilage condensation (this can also be stated as the missing subclasses are missing this class as a superclass). Thank you. This can be traced back to UBERON:0015111 'distal tarsal bone 4 endochondral element', which was lacking specific parentage to UBERON:0015099 ! distal tarsal endochondral element. This has been fixed. The reasoner will now give the correct inferences for all members of this design pattern. > femur endochondral element UBERON:0015052 > > Incorrect superclass: Limb endochoindral element is theoretically a redundant superclass and should be the superclass of hindlimb endochondral element, but it is not. The redundancy was caused by a incorrect logical definition of 'hindlimb endochondral element', this has been fixed. > hypothenar muscle UBERON:0014377 > > The three individual muscles involved are not in Uberon and not children of this concept. (Only) Extensor digiti minimi exists. Thank you. These have been added, as well as palmaris brevis, which FMA considers hypothenar > lamina VII of gray matter of spinal cord UBERON:0016578 > > Missing part of restriction with range ventral horn of spinal cord. See UBERON:0016579 for similarity. Fixed, thank you. > lamina VIII of gray matter of spinal cord UBERON:0016579 > > Missing part of restriction with range ventral commissural nucleus of spinal cord. Fixed, thank you. > muscularis mucosa UBERON:0006676 > > Incorrect restrictions: remove part_of digestive tract and part_of mucosa and replace with part_of gastrointestinal system mucosa Replaced mucosa with GI system mucosa. There is still work to do here. Formally, DT is more specific than GI system. However, I don't believe MM lines as part of the GI system that is not part of the DT? There is also the issue of this class: [UBERON:0006912](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0006912) ! urinary bladder muscularis mucosa
WARNING: This issue has been automatically closed because it has not been updated in more than 3 years. Please re-open it if you still need this to be addressed addressed addressed – we are now getting some resources to deal with such issues. |
This is the last set of modeling inconsistencies/potential errors our domain expert identified in a random sample of Uberon concepts.
anterodorsal nucleus of medial geniculate body
Remove restriction: The inherited value part_of dorsal plus ventral thalamus is misleading. This is related only to the dorsal thalamus.
Change restriction: The value of part_of brain gray matter should be refined with gray matter of diencephalon
anterodorsal nucleus of medial geniculate body
It is interesting as many of the different parts of the brain and CNS are not part_of each other. For example, why isn't the diencephalon which is_a regional part of brain but not is_a part of brain. Could have eliminated a lot of redundancy?
decussation of trochlear nerve
Remove restriction: The decussation is just anatomic fact that each trochlear nerve crosses from one side to the other, therefore I'm not sure that it is correct to apply extends_fibers_into
immature eye
Remove restriction: The target eye primordium is used both for develops_from and has_development_contribution_from which is redundant. One should be removed or one of the values should be replaced. For example develops_from ecto-epithelium?
lateral forebrain bundle:
Change restriction: Refine part_of with forebrain instead of CNS
postganglionic sympathetic fiber
Change restriction: Might be my misunderstanding but this is post galglionic so it extends_fibers_from and not extends_fibers_to. See definition.
presumptive paraxial mesoderm
To be consistent with presumptive endoderm this should be part_of blastula and not mesoderm. Or vice versa.
subthalamic fasciculus
The subthalamic fasciculus runs from the subthalamic nucleus to the globus pallidus so I'm not sure it is part_of ventral thalamus or is_a ventral thalamic fasciculus.
postcommissural fornix of brain
Remove superclass: I think it is more correct to say that this is part_of the fornix than is_a and therefor the parent should be removed and added as a part_of relationship with the fornix of brain as the target.
piriform cortex layer 2a
Add restriction: add/refine part_of with rhinencephalon and/or telencephalon
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: