Task #12473 (new)
Opened 10 years ago
Last modified 9 years ago
Channel should model separate probe/fluor metadata attributes — at Initial Version
Reported by: | rleigh | Owned by: | ajpatterson |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | Unscheduled |
Component: | Specification | Version: | 5.0.2 |
Keywords: | n.a. | Cc: | forrest.collman@…, mlinkert |
Resources: | n.a. | Referenced By: | n.a. |
References: | n.a. | Remaining Time: | n.a. |
Sprint: | n.a. |
Description
Most users and indeed file formats aren't separating the conjugated probes into separate metadata elements, so for most cases the existing channel name is sufficient for these needs. However, newer formats like CZI do allow separation of the conjugated fluorophore and the probe.
With the current model, the channel name might be CK18-AF594 where in CZI you can
separate the probe (anti-cytokeratin-18) from its flurophore (Alexa
Fluor 594). However, CZI's use of channel and name for modelling this isn't particularly self-describing. We might want to retain the generic channel name and provide additional attributes for the probe and the reporter (which isn't necessarily fluorescent), and possibly also have another generic "description" attribute for detailed description.
Also note that there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between channel and probe/fluor. Examples include hyperspectral imaging and normal imaging which requires correction for "bleedthrough" between channels. In these cases, the physical channels used for acquisition require transformation to a set of logical channels which will be equal to or less than the acquisition channel count in number. We might want to consider modelling this as part of the rendering settings work, or possibly split it out as a separate unit of work.