Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19302715›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

Statistical and visual differentiation of subcellular imaging.

Nicholas A Hamilton, Jack T H Wang, Markus C Kerr, Rohan D Teasdale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. CellTrackVis: analyzing the performance of cell tracking algorithms.Eurographics/IEEE VGTC Symposium on Visualization : EUROVIS : [proceedings]. Eurographics/IEEE VGTC Symposium on Visualization · 2022
    Article
  4. Quantitative analysis of F-actin redistribution in astrocytoma cells treated with candidate pharmaceuticals.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2014
    Article
  5. Rapid analysis and exploration of fluorescence microscopy images.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicholas A HamiltonInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. n.hamilton@imb.uq.edu.au
Jack T H Wang
Markus C Kerr
Rohan D Teasdale

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated microscopy technologies have led to a rapid growth in imaging data on a scale comparable to that of the genomic revolution. High throughput screens are now being performed to determine the localisation of all of proteins in a proteome. Closer to the bench, large image sets of proteins in treated and untreated cells are being captured on a daily basis to determine function and interactions. Hence there is a need for new methodologies and protocols to test for difference in subcellular imaging both to remove bias and enable throughput. Here we introduce a novel method of statistical testing, and supporting software, to give a rigorous test for difference in imaging. We also outline the key questions and steps in establishing an analysis pipeline.

resultsThe methodology is tested on a high throughput set of images of 10 subcellular localisations, and it is shown that the localisations may be distinguished to a statistically significant degree with as few as 12 images of each. Further, subtle changes in a protein's distribution between nocodazole treated and control experiments are shown to be detectable. The effect of outlier images is also examined and it is shown that while the significance of the test may be reduced by outliers this may be compensated for by utilising more images. Finally, the test is compared to previous work and shown to be more sensitive in detecting difference. The methodology has been implemented within the iCluster system for visualising and clustering bio-image sets.

conclusionThe aim here is to establish a methodology and protocol for testing for difference in subcellular imaging, and to provide tools to do so. While iCluster is applicable to moderate (<1000) size image sets, the statistical test is simple to implement and will readily be adapted to high throughput pipelines to provide more sensitive discrimination of difference.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalOrganellesSoftwareUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID19302715
PMCPMC2676259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.