Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Connectivity of Ardell-Armour neuron 6 path doesn't match model #25

Open
dbrnz opened this issue Sep 17, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Connectivity of Ardell-Armour neuron 6 path doesn't match model #25

dbrnz opened this issue Sep 17, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@dbrnz
Copy link

dbrnz commented Sep 17, 2022

Path 6 is shown as having branches originating in both the left and right atria and passing via the atrial ICG towards the spinal cord, and other branches originating in both the left and right ventricles and passing via the ventricular ICG towards the spinal cord. However connectivity obtained from SCKAN for the path:

  1. does not show branches passing through the cardiac ICGs.
  2. does not have the left atrium (UBERON:0002079) in the result set obtained from the neru-6 query.

Screen Shot 2022-09-17 at 12 25 34 PM


Screen Shot 2022-09-17 at 12 24 46 PM


@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor

tgbugs commented Sep 17, 2022

Point 1 is expected and is a matter of the overspecification of aacar-6 as discussed in 19d6f32. The drawing in the diagram is consistent with multiple different possible paths, the one we represent is the simplest one that is consistent with all connections and axon locations.

Will investigate Point 2.

@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor

tgbugs commented Oct 13, 2022

For point 2 it seems that that chain is missing from the source sheet so will add it.

@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor

tgbugs commented Nov 10, 2022

the problem was the for ac-sn-la2_6
an-sn-la1_6 the identifier was A76 which was redundant for right ventricle, it should have been and now is A77 which is left atrium, the duplicate structure meant that when we did our count check we did not catch the issue because the number of processes was correct

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants