To be quite honest this is the opposite of what I have understood this thread and “Useful Structures” to be used for. I identified this thread as here for assistance in identifying tricky cell types, and “Useful Structures” to talk about any macrostructure including specific neuron overviews. In your description, my cell breakdowns in that thread are placed incorrectly, and yet I know they would get lost in this thread.
I’m okay with us establishing specific purposes for these threads, although I ask that whoever has started the thread please edit their first post to make clear what the thread’s purpose is for (and possible related threads for confusion’s sake).
@AzureJay Lol, you are absolutely correct, AJ…I just didn’t wanna make a fuss, and encourage too much “rule making” for the discussion threads, lol.
As the founder of the “Useful Structural Patterns…” topic, I encourage anyone to post as much as they like, on ANY structural pattern relevant to the optic lobe, without limitation…so yeah, your posts there are well placed, and perfectly appropriate…and still very welcome, I might add.
As for the naming convention for what I called a “Tm2a” variant, you made an excellent point, and provided exactly the kind of feedback that I was looking for. Let me think about it for a while, and see what others have to say, and I guess we’ll come up with our own naming convention, for cases like that.
@AzureJay Also, I’d just like to reiterate here, that as long as the post contains adequate keyword context (i.e. in the text of the post), then it is always discoverable using the search tool, in the discussion board…and in that sense, it doesn’t really matter which topic it is posted under. For example, if I go search “Centrifugal C2” right now, I will see results from both your visuals topic and from my patterns topic, so…
Either way, we are building a searchable knowledge base here.
,
i’m sure others will have found sister cells as well, there’s 2 lines in the gsheet what cell is this tab, I’m thinking either a subvariant of Y’s? It doesn’t have 2 dendrites like Y11 but it does have that overall ‘shape’. Thoughts?
Sorry for the confusion, I worded that incorrectly.
I meant to describe, how I see all the threads working currently. For example, this thread was at the beginning for identifying cells, but when the gsheet became a thing, the thread’s topic shifted towards describing patterns in individual neurons. Patterns that allow recognizing cells’ types.
I’ve seen the “Useful structures” topic more as top down view - also for recognizing cells’ types, but rather from the surroundings and the shape of a cell, than the cell alone.
But, of course, everything evolves and changes.
I absolutely didn’t mean to suggest anyone, what should be in which thread, however it might have sounded like that. Sorry for this.
No offense taken KK, I was just a little confused by your descriptions since that was contradictory to how I’d seen the threads be used so far.
I do think though that we should find some good way to combine this thread and the GSheet - perhaps we can add a column for ‘forum post’ and link to a forum post where we post the cell/offer our initial thoughts? That way folks can see details and respond a little easier than the sheet, and also read replies easier. It’s great for tracking cells needing ID but lacks a bit in the communication and discussion department.
Just wanted to post up the summary of what I mentioned on today’s Twitch stream regarding the cell identification/labeling process (and to answer some of the questions asked here in this thread above). The cell identification process is constantly evolving as we all learn together so changes may (and probably will!) happen in the future. At the time of this post, please:
Try to include the “full name” and the abbreviation ie. “transmedullary; Tm” in your label (You can use this resource for those names here: Optic Lobe Cell Name Guide - Google Slides)
We’re aware that some cell types like “Y” and “T” have no full name, that’s okay to just to use the singular letter. We’re asking to include the “full name” when possible to make it a little easier when searching the current cell identification database (currently, if you type in “R” you will get all cells with the letter “R” in the label)
It’s okay if you are only able to label the general “class” (ie. Tm) and not the actual “type” number (ie. Tm11). Some cell type numbers may only be able to be determined in the context of other cells.
Do not include editing, completion or proofreading status in the label (these statuses are recorded in the Change Log and Completion tables)
If you disagree with how cell is labeled and believe it to be another cell type, simply submit the cell type you think is correct. Your label will appear in addition to the incorrect one, but both labels will show up when somebody queries for that neuron.
No need to include “Flyer” or citizen science in the label, your username appears next to the label and we know if you’re a Flyer so you’ll get credited for labeling that cell type
If you have a “new” variant beyond the Optic Lobe Cell Guide/Tab 5 of Q&A (such as the Tm2a variant) but are a little unsure, it’s okay to say “Tm2a?” or “Putative Tm2a” as the label
I understand the putative vs non putative, but what of the other things in the examples given in the screenshot (submission popup)? ie: power 1948 or other such? Is it ok if we just have “Trans Cell - T(2)”?
The other examples are due to the fact that different science papers refer to cells by different names. In this case of the above example, “giant fibre neuron (Power 1948)” is referring to the fact that the cell is called “giant fibre neuron” in the 1948 paper with an author named Power.
Also, please note that some of the past/previous labels were done when we didn’t have a Change Log or Completion status available for each neuron, so that’s why there are odd little notes here and there that researchers have left.
How about “Golgi C., Sulle alterazioni degli organi centrali nervosi in un caso di corea gesticolatoria associata ad alienazione mentale. Rivista Clinica 4, ss. 361-377 (1874)” for example
@Nseraf Nice find! I am not thoroughly familiar with them yet, but my initial reaction was that it looks like a potential variant of the T2 cells perhaps (reference Fig. 14 of the Fischbach paper, shown below). If we can locate more examples, with the same arborization in the distal medulla, then perhaps you have found an undocumented T2 variant!
@Nseraf Nice! Yeah, agreed…it definitely most closely resembles the overall morphology of the T2a variant, in Fischbach. Fwiw, I would say that it is worth keeping an eye out for other similar cells, that share that top arbor morphology (i.e. distal medulla arborization). That top arbor seems to me to be enough of a departure from the Fischbach depiction, for consideration as an additional variant. But as I said, I am not thoroughly familiar with the T cells yet, and I have already come across cases where the depiction in Fischbach does not entirely match what we find in our dataset, so…
