Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33205106›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2020

A Review of Super-Resolution Single-Molecule Localization Microscopy Cluster Analysis and Quantification Methods.

Ismail M Khater, Ivan Robert Nabi, Ghassan Hamarneh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing 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

125 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

65 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

3 authors.

Ismail M KhaterMedical Image Analysis Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Ivan Robert NabiDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Ghassan HamarnehMedical Image Analysis Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) is a relatively new imaging modality, winning the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and considered as one of the key super-resolution techniques. SMLM resolution goes beyond the diffraction limit of light microscopy and achieves resolution on the order of 10-20 nm. SMLM thus enables imaging single molecules and study of the low-level molecular interactions at the subcellular level. In contrast to standard microscopy imaging that produces 2D pixel or 3D voxel grid data, SMLM generates big data of 2D or 3D point clouds with millions of localizations and associated uncertainties. This unprecedented breakthrough in imaging helps researchers employ SMLM in many fields within biology and medicine, such as studying cancerous cells and cell-mediated immunity and accelerating drug discovery. However, SMLM data quantification and interpretation methods have yet to keep pace with the rapid advancement of SMLM imaging. Researchers have been actively exploring new computational methods for SMLM data analysis to extract biosignatures of various biological structures and functions. In this survey, we describe the state-of-the-art clustering methods adopted to analyze and quantify SMLM data and examine the capabilities and shortcomings of the surveyed methods. We classify the methods according to (1) the biological application (i.e., the imaged molecules/structures), (2) the data acquisition (such as imaging modality, dimension, resolution, and number of localizations), and (3) the analysis details (2D versus 3D, field of view versus region of interest, use of machine-learning and multi-scale analysis, biosignature extraction, etc.). We observe that the majority of methods that are based on second-order statistics are sensitive to noise and imaging artifacts, have not been applied to 3D data, do not leverage machine-learning formulations, and are not scalable for big-data analysis. Finally, we summarize state-of-the-art methodology, discuss some key open challenges, and identify future opportunities for better modeling and design of an integrated computational pipeline to address the key challenges.

Indexed as

cluster analysislocalization microscopymolecular complexespoint cloudsquantification of biological structuressingle moleculeSMLMsuper-resolution nanoscopy

Identifiers

PMID33205106
PMCPMC7660399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.