skeletal muscle cells & insects

[GoogleCodeExporter]

We're getting an unsat for insect muscle cells. See the image of the protege 
explanation here here:

https://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/issues/324

I think there are probably a few debatable axioms in the chain. Some may be in 
uberon (see above), but I think the main ones are in CL

We have a lineage (df relations):

 * CL:0000355 ! muscle stem cell
  * CL:0000056 ! myoblast
   * CL:0000187 ! muscle cell *** 

then we have:

'muscle stem cell' EquivalentTo
'multi fate stem cell'
 and (part_of some 'skeletal muscle tissue')

which is consistent with:

definition "A multifate stem cell found in skeletal muscle than can 
differentiate into many different cell types. Distinct cell type from satellite 
cell." [PMID:18282570]

But is this correct? Are there not non-skeletal muscle stem cells? Seems 
certainly problematic when "muscle stem cell" is applied to insects (as it is 
automatically, from the above lineage).

The actual unsat arises further downstream when we have skeletal muscle tissue 
arising from myotomes (see uberon tracker item) - we can make this a taxon GCI 
for verts in uberon, but this is not required if we don't conflate vertebrate 
skeletal muscle for insect somatic muscle. However, this is already done in GO 
and GO annotations:

http://amigo2.geneontology.org/cgi-bin/amigo2/amigo/term/GO:0007519

(open taxon filter, exclude chordata)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by cmung...@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:49

Attachments:

• muscle.png

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Multiple problems here.  Adding notes on them for further reference:

1. General term 'muscle stem cell' should surely not be so specific.  Should 
almost certainly give this a more general and add a more specific term for 
skeletal muscle stem cell.
2. Do we know that other stem cells do not reside in skeletal muscle?
3. Wouldn't it make sense to define stem cells in terms of what they develop 
into?
 ('muscle stem cell' EquivalentTo 'stem cell' that develops_into some 'muscle cell' ?
4. Df chain looks dodgy to me. If all muscles develop from a myoblast that 
develops from a muscle stem cell that is part_of some skeletal muscle tissue 
then where does the first skeletal muscle tissue come from?

Original comment by dosu...@gmail.com on 2 Sep 2013 at 4:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agree with all the above

re: 1: looks like "muscle stem cell" was renamed "skeletal muscle stem cell", 
which helped somewhat. However, the xref to "FMA:86767 ! Muscle stem cell" 
remains there, and we have no "muscle stem cell", and the existing axioms look 
even dodgier.

Are we sure about:

 (a) myoblast develops_from some skeletal muscle stem cell
 (b) skeletal muscle stem cell part_of some skeletal muscle tissue

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This issue was updated by revision r329.

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:10