Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23624665›Full record

ArticleNature methods2013

Measuring image resolution in optical nanoscopy.

Robert P J Nieuwenhuizen, Keith A Lidke, Mark Bates, Daniela Leyton Puig, David Grünwald, Sjoerd Stallinga, Bernd Rieger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 376 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
376citing 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

376 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A Versatile Tool to Predict and Guide RESOLFT Images Based on Photoswitching, Labelling and Optical Properties.Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

316 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Robert P J NieuwenhuizenQuantitative Imaging Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Keith A Lidke
Mark Bates
Daniela Leyton Puig
David Grünwald
Sjoerd Stallinga
Bernd Rieger

Funding

UNM TRAININGP50GM085273 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI EDWARDS, JEREMY S · 2009 to 2018
$26.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM085273NIGMS NIH HHS P50GM085273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resolution in optical nanoscopy (or super-resolution microscopy) depends on the localization uncertainty and density of single fluorescent labels and on the sample's spatial structure. Currently there is no integral, practical resolution measure that accounts for all factors. We introduce a measure based on Fourier ring correlation (FRC) that can be computed directly from an image. We demonstrate its validity and benefits on two-dimensional (2D) and 3D localization microscopy images of tubulin and actin filaments. Our FRC resolution method makes it possible to compare achieved resolutions in images taken with different nanoscopy methods, to optimize and rank different emitter localization and labeling strategies, to define a stopping criterion for data acquisition, to describe image anisotropy and heterogeneity, and even to estimate the average number of localizations per emitter. Our findings challenge the current focus on obtaining the best localization precision, showing instead how the best image resolution can be achieved as fast as possible.

Indexed as

Fluorescence PolarizationFluorescent DyesImaging, Three-DimensionalMicroscopy, FluorescenceFluorescent Dyes

Identifiers

PMID23624665
PMCPMC4149789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.