ReviewScience China. Life sciences2020
Rethinking resolution estimation in fluorescence microscopy: from theoretical resolution criteria to super-resolution microscopy.
Review in Science China. Life sciences, 2020. 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.
- NanorulerQA: quantitative quality analysis of dual-color DNA nanorulers via single-molecule photobleaching step counting and spatio-temporal colocalization.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Resolution assessment of super-resolution microscopy imaging: structural and technical dependencies for cell biology.Cytotechnology · 2025Article
- Accelerated protein retention expansion microscopy using microwave radiation.Cell reports methods · 2024Article
- Accelerated protein retention expansion microscopy using microwave radiation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Shedding light on ultrasound in action: Optical and optoacoustic monitoring of ultrasound brain interventions.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2024Review
- Recent advances of lanthanide nanomaterials in Tumor NIR fluorescence detection and treatment.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- LuckyProfiler: an ImageJ plug-in capable of quantifying FWHM resolution easily and effectively for super-resolution images.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- A brief introduction to biophotonic techniques and methods.Science China. Life sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resolution is undoubtedly the most important parameter in optical microscopy by providing an estimation on the maximum resolving power of a certain optical microscope. For centuries, the resolution of an optical microscope is generally considered to be limited only by the numerical aperture of the optical system and the wavelength of light. However, since the invention and popularity of various advanced fluorescence microscopy techniques, especially super-resolution fluorescence microscopy, many new methods have been proposed for estimating the resolution, leading to confusions for researchers who need to quantify the resolution of their fluorescence microscopes. In this paper, we firstly summarize the early concepts and criteria for predicting the resolution limit of an ideal optical system. Then, we discuss some important influence factors that deteriorate the resolution of a certain fluorescence microscope. Finally, we provide methods and examples on how to measure the resolution of a fluorescence microscope from captured fluorescence images. This paper aims to answer as best as possible the theoretical and practical issues regarding the resolution estimation in fluorescence microscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33351176What 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.