Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28414801›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Probabilistic fluorescence-based synapse detection.

Anish K Simhal, Cecilia Aguerrebere, Forrest Collman, Joshua T Vogelstein, Kristina D Micheva, Richard J Weinberg, Stephen J Smith, Guillermo Sapiro

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Q&A: Array tomography.BMC biology · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anish K SimhalElectrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7848-3565
Cecilia AguerrebereElectrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Forrest CollmanSynapse Biology, Allen Institute for Brain Sciences, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Joshua T VogelsteinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Kristina D MichevaMolecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Richard J WeinbergDepartment of Cell Biology and Physiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Stephen J SmithSynapse Biology, Allen Institute for Brain Sciences, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Guillermo SapiroElectrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Duke University · USAllen Institute for Brain Science · USJohns Hopkins University · USStanford University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deeper exploration of the brain's vast synaptic networks will require new tools for high-throughput structural and molecular profiling of the diverse populations of synapses that compose those networks. Fluorescence microscopy (FM) and electron microscopy (EM) offer complementary advantages and disadvantages for single-synapse analysis. FM combines exquisite molecular discrimination capacities with high speed and low cost, but rigorous discrimination between synaptic and non-synaptic fluorescence signals is challenging. In contrast, EM remains the gold standard for reliable identification of a synapse, but offers only limited molecular discrimination and is slow and costly. To develop and test single-synapse image analysis methods, we have used datasets from conjugate array tomography (cAT), which provides voxel-conjugate FM and EM (annotated) images of the same individual synapses. We report a novel unsupervised probabilistic method for detection of synapses from multiplex FM (muxFM) image data, and evaluate this method both by comparison to EM gold standard annotated data and by examining its capacity to reproduce known important features of cortical synapse distributions. The proposed probabilistic model-based synapse detector accepts molecular-morphological synapse models as user queries, and delivers a volumetric map of the probability that each voxel represents part of a synapse. Taking human annotation of cAT EM data as ground truth, we show that our algorithm detects synapses from muxFM data alone as successfully as human annotators seeing only the muxFM data, and accurately reproduces known architectural features of cortical synapse distributions. This approach opens the door to data-driven discovery of new synapse types and their density. We suggest that our probabilistic synapse detector will also be useful for analysis of standard confocal and super-resolution FM images, where EM cross-validation is not practical.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsCerebral CortexComputational BiologyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopy, ElectronModels, StatisticalOptical ImagingSynapsesTomography

Identifiers

PMID28414801
PMCPMC5411093
OpenAlexW2549870074

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.