You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello!
This discussion is to propose the free_annotation terms to the Cell Ontology so that future researchers may use your specific terms rather than the generic ones that you had to use. Below are your free_annotation terms and what I (@olgabot) thought the relationship was to the existing cell ontology term, whether it was brand new term and cell type, in which case I used is_a, or it was merely a synonym for a term that already existed in the cell ontology, in which case I used synonym.
Please comment below with what is the correct relationship between terms, or correct the term itself and I'll deal with the submission to the Cell Ontology group.
Thank you for your help!
Warmest,
Olga
For the annotations below, here is the format:
free annotation relationship cell ontology class
Relationships could be either:
is_a - means that the free annotation label is a new "cell type" to add to the cell ontology
synonym - means that the free annotation label is not a new cell type, but another term for the same thing that already exists in the cell ontology
I wasn't always sure which relationship to use so please comment below and I will correct it.
Dntt+ late pro-B cell is_a late pro-B cell
Dntt- late pro-B cell is_a late pro-B cell
The above two would be totally fine.
Marrow | precursor B cell | pre-B cell (Philadelphia nomenclature) | 517
This nomenclature already exists: CL_0000817. It is the first in the search results on ontobbe: http://www.ontobee.org/search?ontology=&keywords=precursor+B+cell&submit=Search+terms
This is not a free annotation.
Cd3e+ Klrb1+ B cell is_a B cell
We actually do not know what those are-- they have marker signature of B, T, and NK cells. Can we rule out cross-contamination here?
Thank you @transcriptomics!
Okay if we're not certain that the "Cd3e+ Klrb1+ B cell" group is certainly a new term, let's not do it. We can propose just the Dntt{+/-} terms. Could you give a few citations describing the Dntt+/- cells?
Thank you!
Warmest,
Olga
Hello!
This discussion is to propose the
free_annotation
terms to the Cell Ontology so that future researchers may use your specific terms rather than the generic ones that you had to use. Below are yourfree_annotation
terms and what I (@olgabot) thought the relationship was to the existing cell ontology term, whether it was brand new term and cell type, in which case I usedis_a
, or it was merely a synonym for a term that already existed in the cell ontology, in which case I usedsynonym
.Please comment below with what is the correct relationship between terms, or correct the term itself and I'll deal with the submission to the Cell Ontology group.
Thank you for your help!
Warmest,
Olga
For the annotations below, here is the format:
relationship
cell ontology classRelationships could be either:
is_a
- means that the free annotation label is a new "cell type" to add to the cell ontologysynonym
- means that the free annotation label is not a new cell type, but another term for the same thing that already exists in the cell ontologyI wasn't always sure which relationship to use so please comment below and I will correct it.
Examples:
is_a
neuronsynonym
type II pneumocyteFACS and droplet free annotation tables in the "Details" below.
FACS free annotation table
Droplet free annotation table
Proposed annotations
@transcriptomics
FACS
Cd3e+ Klrb1+ B cellis_a
B cellis_a
late pro-B cellis_a
late pro-B cellThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: