-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
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
Annotation Refinement #173
Comments
In the One of these subpopulations is likely pericytes. It is marked by expression of See Fig. 4 in this great review for a reference on these markers. http://dev.biologists.org/content/develop/141/3/502.full.pdf Thanks for the amazing resource! Please let me know if a PR of some sort is a better way to contribute this information. |
hi @jacobkimmel, thanks for the reference! We're currently working on a larger data release and I'll make sure this point is addressed. As part of the new data release we will also introduce a way for community contributions towards improved annotations so please stay tuned :) |
Thanks @aopisco! Cataloging here in case it's helpful in the future, I also think there's an unannotated cluster of oligodendrocytes in the The cells are marked by See the reference below: https://docs.abcam.com/pdf/neuroscience/neural-markers-guide-web.pdf |
If I can add a final note, there's another unlabeled population marked by I have a strong hunch these are also pericytes, though the literature in skeletal muscle on pericyte markers isn't quite as robust as elsewhere. See below for references that some of the common markers (Cpsg4 et al) are still valid in the skeletal muscle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23517218 . |
As people dig deeper into this dataset, they invariably come across interesting subpopulations below the granularity of the existing resolution. This issue is to track them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: