MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410153702 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003157

A standardized nomenclature for the rods and cones of the vertebrate retina

2025· article· en· W4410153702 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Baden, Juan M Angueyra, Jenny M. Bosten, Shaun P. Collin, Bevil R. Conway, Fabio Cortesi, Karin Dedek, Thomas Euler, Iñigo Novales Flamarique, Anna Franklin, Silke Haverkamp, Almut Kelber, Stephan C. F. Neuhauss, Wei Li, Robert J. Lucas, Daniel Osorio, Karthik Shekhar, Dario Tommasini, Takeshi Yoshimatsu, Joseph C. Corbo

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNational Eye InstituteWellcome TrustLister Institute of Preventive MedicineLeverhulme TrustUK Research and InnovationMcKnight Foundation
KeywordsBiologyVertebrateOpsinNomenclatureRhodopsinEvolutionary biologyRetinaGeneGeneticsNeuroscienceTaxonomy (biology)RetinalZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertebrate photoreceptors have been studied for well over a century, but a fixed nomenclature for referring to orthologous cell types across diverse species has been lacking. Instead, photoreceptors have been variably-and often confusingly-named according to morphology, presence/absence of 'rhodopsin', spectral sensitivity, chromophore usage, and/or the gene family of the opsin(s) they express. Here, we propose a unified nomenclature for vertebrate rods and cones that aligns with the naming systems of other retinal cell classes and that is based on the photoreceptor type's putative evolutionary history. This classification is informed by the functional, anatomical, developmental, and molecular identities of the neuron as a whole, including the expression of deeply conserved transcription factors required for development. The proposed names will be applicable across all vertebrates and indicative of the widest possible range of properties, including their postsynaptic wiring, and hence will allude to their common and species-specific roles in vision. Furthermore, the naming system is open-ended to accommodate the future discovery of as-yet unknown photoreceptor types.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207