Closed fypoadmin closed 9 years ago
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago Should it also specify monoseptate? It doesn't (by text def, parentage, or xp) because I didn't know whether it was always just one septum back when I added the term.
note to self: also update xp
Original comment by: mah11
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago I took this to mean a single septum .....If it had more than one I would have specified multinucleate.....Antonia?
Original comment by: ValWood
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago Note this doesn't rule out the existiance of multiseptate/mononucleate.....
Original comment by: ValWood
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago hmm, not sure?
Original comment by: Antonialock
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago OK, I just checked, there are only 3 genes annotated to this term (cdc16, far10 and tbf1) Tbf1 is already to a monoseptate child, and the other two are monospetate, see below
cdc16 PMID:762020 type I cells (85% of the population), which complete nuclear division and then form up to five septa between the divided nuclei; and (ii) type II cells (15% of the population), which form an asymmetrically situated septum in the absence of any nuclear division.
far10 PMID:22119525 The presence of uninucleate cells with a septum and binucleate cells with more than one septum suggested
So we'll assume yes and need new terms for any mononucleate multispetate
Original comment by: ValWood
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago Original comment by: mah11
fypoadmin
commented
11 years ago renamed FYPO:0001226 to 'inviable mononucleate vegetative cell with mislocalized septum' adjusted synonyms to match
new ticket if/when you need other terms (e.g. like this but multiseptate)
Original comment by: mah11
Obviously this must be inviable (and this is in the parentage), but can it be included in the def? I just got confused by it....
Original comment by: ValWood