Scholarlink

<p>Accurate neuron identification is necessary for reproducible connectomics. While examining historically described octopaminergic neurons of the <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> optic lobe, I found that most octopaminergic (OA) neurons of interest remained searchable under their original names across commonly used resources. However, two neurons did not behave the same way. OA- AL2b1, which was linked to the alias LoVCLo3, and OA-AL2b2, which was linked to the alias MeVCMe1. This created a selective nomenclature problem. OA-AL2b1 was especially notable because it remained octopaminergic in the queried resources, yet its historical OA-based name was not consistently preserved as the searchable or visible label. OA-AL2b2 showed a different pattern; in current connectomic tools, it was labeled cholinergic, whereas in other databases, it still remained under octopaminergic groupings. Importantly, Busch et al. originally noted that OA-AL2b2 was not confirmed to be octopamine immunoreactive. An additional layer of ambiguity arose because neuPrint displayed a predicted neurotransmitter (NT) field, whereas Neuroglancer displayed consensus NT, both showing Acetylcholine as its NT. Together, these observations show how small inconsistencies in nomenclature and annotation can create major practical problems in neuron retrieval, interpretation, and cross-platform reproducibility. Although this report focuses on two neurons in <i>Drosophila</i>, the same problem can arise more broadly whenever historical names, database aliases, and current annotation systems are not interlinked.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cross-Platform Neurotransmitter & Alias Ambiguity for OA-AL2b1 and OA-AL2b2 Neurons in Drosophila melanogaster

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月27日

查看全文
  • Renoy Antony Olivera

摘要

Accurate neuron identification is necessary for reproducible connectomics. While examining historically described octopaminergic neurons of the Drosophila melanogaster optic lobe, I found that most octopaminergic (OA) neurons of interest remained searchable under their original names across commonly used resources. However, two neurons did not behave the same way. OA- AL2b1, which was linked to the alias LoVCLo3, and OA-AL2b2, which was linked to the alias MeVCMe1. This created a selective nomenclature problem. OA-AL2b1 was especially notable because it remained octopaminergic in the queried resources, yet its historical OA-based name was not consistently preserved as the searchable or visible label. OA-AL2b2 showed a different pattern; in current connectomic tools, it was labeled cholinergic, whereas in other databases, it still remained under octopaminergic groupings. Importantly, Busch et al. originally noted that OA-AL2b2 was not confirmed to be octopamine immunoreactive. An additional layer of ambiguity arose because neuPrint displayed a predicted neurotransmitter (NT) field, whereas Neuroglancer displayed consensus NT, both showing Acetylcholine as its NT. Together, these observations show how small inconsistencies in nomenclature and annotation can create major practical problems in neuron retrieval, interpretation, and cross-platform reproducibility. Although this report focuses on two neurons in Drosophila, the same problem can arise more broadly whenever historical names, database aliases, and current annotation systems are not interlinked.