ArticleBiophysical journal2015
Quantitative Analysis of Intracellular Fluorescent Foci in Live Bacteria.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- BiFCROS: A Low-Background Fluorescence Repressor Operator System for Labeling of Genomic Loci.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescence microscopy has revolutionized in vivo cellular biology. Through the specific labeling of a protein of interest with a fluorescent protein, one is able to study movement and colocalization, and even count individual proteins in a live cell. Different algorithms exist to quantify the total intensity and position of a fluorescent focus. Although these algorithms have been rigorously studied for in vitro conditions, which are greatly different than the in-homogenous and variable cellular environments, their exact limits and applicability in the context of a live cell have not been thoroughly and systematically evaluated. In this study, we quantitatively characterize the influence of different background subtraction algorithms on several focus analysis algorithms. We use, to our knowledge, a novel approach to assess the sensitivity of the focus analysis algorithms to background removal, in which simulated and experimental data are combined to maintain full control over the sensitivity of a focus within a realistic background of cellular fluorescence. We demonstrate that the choice of algorithm and the corresponding error are dependent on both the brightness of the focus, and the cellular context. Expectedly, focus intensity estimation and localization accuracy suffer in all algorithms at low focus to background ratios, with the bacteroidal background subtraction in combination with the median excess algorithm, and the region of interest background subtraction in combination with a two-dimensional Gaussian fit algorithm, performing the best. We furthermore show that the choice of background subtraction algorithm is dependent on the expression level of the protein under investigation, and that the localization error is dependent on the distance of a focus from the bacterial edge and pole. Our results establish a set of guidelines for what signals can be analyzed to give a targeted spatial and intensity accuracy within a bacterial cell.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.