ArticleBiophysical journal2019
A Highly Accurate Pixel-Based FRAP Model Based on Spectral-Domain Numerical Methods.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inferring diffusion, reaction, and exchange parameters from imperfect FRAP.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
- Exploring focal adhesion data: dynamic parameter extraction from FRAP and FLAP experiments using chemical master equation.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- A paintbrush for delivery of nanoparticles and molecules to live cells with precise spatiotemporal control.Nature methods · 2024Article
- What's past is prologue: FRAP keeps delivering 50 years later.Biophysical journal · 2023Review
- Article
- Parameter estimation in fluorescence recovery after photobleaching: quantitative analysis of protein binding reactions and diffusion.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- DeepFRAP: Fast fluorescence recovery after photobleaching data analysis using deep neural networks.Journal of microscopy · 2021Article
- Fluorescence strategies for mapping cell membrane dynamics and structures.APL bioengineering · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a new, to our knowledge, numerical model based on spectral methods for analysis of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching data. The model covers pure diffusion and diffusion and binding (reaction-diffusion) with immobile binding sites, as well as arbitrary bleach region shapes. Fitting of the model is supported using both conventional recovery-curve-based estimation and pixel-based estimation, in which all individual pixels in the data are utilized. The model explicitly accounts for multiple bleach frames, diffusion (and binding) during bleaching, and bleaching during imaging. To our knowledge, no other fluorescence recovery after photobleaching framework incorporates all these model features and estimation methods. We thoroughly validate the model by comparison to stochastic simulations of particle dynamics and find it to be highly accurate. We perform simulation studies to compare recovery-curve-based estimation and pixel-based estimation in realistic settings and show that pixel-based estimation is the better method for parameter estimation as well as for distinguishing pure diffusion from diffusion and binding. We show that accounting for multiple bleach frames is important and that the effect of neglecting this is qualitatively different for the two estimation methods. We perform a simple experimental validation showing that pixel-based estimation provides better agreement with literature values than recovery-curve-based estimation and that accounting for multiple bleach frames improves the result. Further, the software developed in this work is freely available online.
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.