Brodmann area 4

[Chris Mungall]

The wikipedia page for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area_4

Links to
http://neurolex.org/wiki/Birnlex_4735

But this is a dead link. I usually correct wikipedia links whenever I see incorrect ones, what should be used here?

A search in neurolex reveals:

1. http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Brodmann_%281909%29_area_4 (birnlex_1735)
2. http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Brodmann_1909_area_4_human (nlx_143609),
3. http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Brodmann_area_4 (birnlex_1735)

3 appears to be a broken rendering of 1, I think there is a neurolex bug here. So I'll focus on 1 and 2.

Judging by the definition, 1 appears to refer to the structure in the guenon. However, this is not indicated with the Species field. 2 is the human structure

There are issues linking to neuronames:

Page 1 links to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/hiercentraldirectory.aspx?ID=1043

However, this is a dead link. I think the two identifier schemes for neuronames have become confused?

Page 2 has no links to neuronames. However, the textual definition says "modified from neuronames", so presumably someone had the link at some point and it's been lost.

(note that NN has two IDs, one for human and one from guenon, and this appears to be the source of both neurolex pages)

If one were to describe the region in humans, I assume nlx143609 is to be used? Is birnlex1735 only to be used for the guenon region? Or is there an intent for this to represent some kind of homologous or analogous grouping?

Note that there are no links between nlx143609 and birnlex1735. Presumably these should be connected in some way (or indirectly, e.g. via shared overlaps)

Note that in Uberon we have an equivalence axiom to birnlex1735 - this is because birnlex1735 is present in the NIFSTD ontology (with no indication that the class is to be used for the guenon) whereas nlx_143609 is not.

nlx143609 has an overlaps relationship to the primary motor cortex, whereas birnlex1735 has no overlaps links. This leads me to think that birnlex1735 is legacy and nlx143609 is the class we should use.

Can someone shed some light on this?

[Jessica Turner]

Nice detective work, Chris! looking at birnlex_1735 vs nlx_143609, the nlx one is designated specifically as human, so I'm betting both concepts are kept to allow for the guenon-specific concept to be birnlex1735.  But I'd be glad to hear for sure from the NIF folks...

Thanks,

Jess

Jessica A. Turner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Psychology and Neuroscience

Georgia State University

Atlanta, GA

(404) 413-6211

email: jtur...@gsu.edu

web:http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwpsy/turner.html

Associate Professor (Affiliate), Translational Neuroscience

Mind Research Network
Albuquerque, New Mexico
email: jtu...@mrn.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neurolex" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to neurolex+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[anita bandrowski]

Thanks Chris and Jess, 

I agree the human structure should be the correct one, but I still would like to hear from Maryann as she is the keeper of anatomical areas and on a plane today.

--

Anita Bandrowski, Ph.D.
NIF Project Lead
UCSD 858-822-3629
http://neuinfo.org
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5497-0243
9500 Gillman Dr.#0446
la Jolla, CA 92093-0608

[Mihail Bota]

Chris,

The link: http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Brodmann_%281909%29_area_4

is for Area 4 in the guenon. In its definition there is a sentence about its relationship with the human 4: Brodmann-1909 regarded it as topographically and cytoarchitecturally homologous to the human gigantopyramidal area 4 and noted that it occupies a much greater fraction of the frontal lobe in the monkey than in the human. I.e. the guenon 4 is cyto- and topographically similar with human 4.

The human 4 is defined here: http://neurolex.org/wiki/Category:Brodmann_1909_area_4_human -- the URI of the link is clear also that's about humans.

This second link should have a homology (similarity) sentence in it, pointing back to the guenon, even it would seem redundant.

If you need the original definitions of Brodmann, please let me know.

I didn't understand the question about "overlap".

Mihai

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neurolex" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to neurolex+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Mihail Bota
Associate Professor of Research
Department of Neurobiology
University of Southern California

[Mihail Bota]

Anita, both definitions are correct: one is for human (nlx_143609), and one more generic, specifying the common and distinct features of human and monkey 4, respectively (birnlex_1735). Indeed, Brodmann notes that area 4 in the guenon (genus cercopithecus) has a greater surface relative to the human, and extends in the precentral gyrus and more specifically beyond the "true precentral gyrus". The human area 4  occupies a much less part of this gyrus than the guenon.

[Chris Mungall]

Hi Mihail,

It's still not clear to me whether birnlex_1735 is intended to be (1) specific to guenon or (2) generically applicable to humans and other primates.

Based on the label, I would think (2), but based on reading the Description field, I would perhaps think (1). There is no Species field to help me (or a machine) out.

Either way, it seems that as you suggest there should be some relationship such as homology between the two (I would prefer this as a field that can be traversed by a machine than text). I think this would only need to be asserted in one direction A->B, nlx would show the reciprocal when on the B page.

Regarding my point about overlaps: some work has gone into making very useful Overlaps relationships in neurolex. The nlx_143609 page has a Overlaps link to 'primary motor cortex'. However, if I choose to instead link my information to birnlex_1735 then I don't get the benefits of this link (unless the two pages are connected somehow), because birnlex_1735 has no Overlaps information (it does however have "primary motor cortex" as a text synonym).

However, if I do link my information to birnlex_1735 then I get the benefit of the link to neuronames, which is not present on the geunon page. 

[Mihail Bota]

Chris,

yes, birnlex_1735 is a little bit confusing, and I added more with my message to you. However, please see the message to Anita. This concept is actually a generalization over 2 species, is sort of more abstract area 4, because the term is "Brodmann (1909) area 4".
The text specifies human and guenon, and the definition/description includes both the common features (the cytoarchitecture; it should have been the neighbors too), and the specific difference to a species (actually a genus): the relative size. Yes, the relationship is that of "homology", but I'd stay away from it for now, because this term is often misused. I'd say it is similar according to several criteria.

The confusion arises from the how the definition or description was written, but since it contains both common and specific features of the area 4 of 2 species, I'd say it's an (incomplete) generalization of this area. Area 4 is discussed in the cited reference for many species.

nlx_143609 is only the human area 4, but incomplete, because the cytoarchitecture is the criterion use to identify and define it. Instead, it has only the neighbors.

Regarding the relationship "overlaps" this is with primary cortex (I haven't seen it initially), but it can be safely specified to "identical", because the primary cortex definition includes the sentence "The motor cortex corresponds to Brodmann's area 4 (MM)". However, I'd put this relationship to birnlex_1735, because the relationship is between generic regions and not instances (species).

This is how I understood these terms and the relationships between them. Hope it helps.

Mihai

[Maryann Martone]

I just saw this now.  Part of the confusion is historical, as we imported the terms from NeuroNames and I think the original import was classified as human, but if you read what Doug had written in Neuronames, the nomenclature was from the guenon.  So we started to change things over to the species specific concept.  But, when I read more deeply into the Brodmann 1909 reference, it seemed that he was making a case for identifying equivalent areas in the different primate species.

Anything with a birnlex id was imported before the model of “overlaps with” was established, so I think the entire branch needs to be reconsidered and updated.