Closed gouttegd closed 7 months ago
I think I would go with the first option - definitions and labels are not specific to somatic muscle (saying there is one founder for each somatic muscle does not preclude the existence of founders for visceral muscles), so just need to change the logical axioms.
Agree. San Martin et al. (2001) explicitly state that the founder cells of visceral muscles might not actually be any different from those of somatic muscles (apart from their slightly different locations in the mesoderm), so we might not need two distinct terms.
Found when working on scRNAseq data from Mendoza-Garcia et al. (2021; FBrf0251121):
FBbt currently describes
muscle founder cell
(FBbt:00005084) as a precursor specific to somatic muscles:part_of
somesomatic muscle primordium
.Likewise,
fusion competent cell
(FBbt:00005085) is alsopart_of
somesomatic muscle primordium
.However it seems that visceral muscles (both circular and longitudinal) also originate from the fusion of a “founder cell” and several “fusion competent cells”, as first reported by San Martin et al., (2001; FBrf0138374).
So we might need to either
muscle founder cell
andfusion competent cell
neutral wrt to the somatic/visceral distinction, or