Closed gocentral closed 6 years ago
Diff:
--- old
+++ new
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
I'm trying to figure out the difference between these two:
- **assigned_to**: David Osumi-Sutherland
Original comment by: dosumis
There are receptors in the inner ear that sense balance and acceleration. They don't sense auditory stimuli. I think that probably was the distinction between these terms.
Original comment by: ukemi
GO:0042491 auditory receptor cell differentiation Definition The process in which a relatively unspecialized cell acquires specialized features of an auditory hair cell. Comments Note that this term refers to the mechanosensory hair cells of the inner ear.
so action is rename to
INNER EAR auditory receptor cell differentiation to clarify
REFINE/CLARIFY TEXT DEF The process in which a relatively unspecialized inner ear cell acquires specialized features of an auditory hair cell.
GO is otherwise correct GO:0042491 is a part GO:0060113
Could then remove the comment as would be superflous
@hdrabkin @sabrinatoro You guys have the most annotations to these terms.
Thanks, Pascale
I'm not an expert but from just looking, It looks like "inner ear receptor cell differentiation" might imply that there are different types of inner ear receptor cells, of which "auditory receptor cell differentiation" is one type. This one is defined in the comment as meaning the mechanosensory hair cells of the inner ear"; But if there are other types of inner ear receptors, then inner ear receptor cell diff cannot (always) be a GO:0042490 ! mechanoreceptor differentiation.
Is the proposal to update to "inner ear receptor cell fate specification" or to "inner ear AUDITORY receptor cell fate specification"? It is not clear.
There are 2 types of mechanoreceptor in the inner ear: the auditory receptors, and the vestibular receptors. Both type of receptors are hair cells. Often (at least in zebrafish), authors do not make the difference between the auditory and the vestibular receptors, so a curator would probably use "inner ear receptor cell fate specification" when curating. In other species, I think researchers might have be able to distinguish between both. Also, to my knowledge, there is not "auditory" receptor cells outside the inner ear. (the neuromast hair cells are close to it, but they are not called 'auditory')
SO: I would be ok with Val's proposal to update the term name "auditory receptor cell fate specification" to: inner ear auditory receptor cell fate specification. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to call it "inner ear receptor cell fate specification" (without the auditory)
to my knowledge, there is not "auditory" receptor cells outside the inner ear. (the neuromast hair cells are close to it, but they are not called 'auditory')
Insects don't have ears, but do have auditory receptor cells.
This should really be co-ordinated with CL.
Seems like CL should have
auditory receptor cell (functional definition) . auditory receptor hair cell of inner ear mechanosensory hair cell (functional + ) . mechanosensory hair cell of inner ear . . auditory receptor hair cell of inner ear . . .... {perhaps term here for inner ear cells involved in perception of balance}
Don't know what granularity you want for GO, but developmental mechanisms likely to be very different for arthropods -> vertebrates so should at least be able to keep these separate.
Hi @sabrinatoro What I have done is change the name OLD: auditory receptor cell differentiation NEW: inner ear auditory receptor cell differentiation
and the definition OLD: "The process in which a relatively unspecialized cell acquires specialized features of an auditory hair cell." [CL:0000201, GOC:jl] NEW: "The process in which a relatively unspecialized inner cell acquires specialized features of an auditory hair cell." [CL:0000201, GOC:jl]
Does that work ?
Whatever we need from CL should be requested to CL ;)
Thanks, Pascale
@pgaudet Yes, it works for me! Thank you!
I'm trying to figure out the difference between these two:
The ARCD label sounds like it could be referring to any kind of hearing cell... but the comment forces it to be inner ear.
the GO def for ARCD has a def-xref to CL:0000201. This is an old ID, merged into:
Note the highlighted **\ exact synonym (derived from GO....)
So it seems at one point one ontology merged the concepts or split the concepts....
if inner ear receptor cells can be for things other than sound (eg balance) then the CL class needs unmerged or a new one created
Reported by: cmungall
Original Ticket: geneontology/ontology-requests/10955