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
In principle, it seems the framework could be species-agnostic and thus be useful more generally beyond humans (perhaps it would be enough to add just one more "species" metadata field?). It is of course up to the authors to decide how broadly they want to cater.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think it makes sense. We don't have to support it it in the archives (or rather: force it to be human), but people could still use Poseidon Packages for dogs/wolves/sheep etc. Ploidy is actually already species-agnostic. That's a general biology term and is meaningful for all higher organisms.
So I think it would be a very easy win to simply add a field "species" and specify to be the Latin name, so "Homo sapiens" and friends. It's a bit unclear then how to deal with Neandertals and Denisovans, but perhaps we can then simply allow "Neanderthal" and "Denisovan" as an exception. Or, even easier "Archaic hominin".
OK - I suggest we go through all columns of the .janno file once more and check for potential ramifications. I also think we should talk to some colleagues actively working with animal data.
This recommendation was raised in the review of the Poseidon paper.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: