ArticleMolecular biology of the cell2021
Performance of deep learning restoration methods for the extraction of particle dynamics in noisy microscopy image sequences.
Article in Molecular biology of the cell, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Closing the loops: chromatin loop dynamics after DNA damage.Nucleus (Austin, Tex.) · 2025Review
- Deep learning in chromatin organization: from super-resolution microscopy to clinical applications.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Review
- RAD51 regulates eukaryotic chromatin motions in the absence of DNA damage.Molecular biology of the cell · 2024Article
- Live-cell imaging powered by computation.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2024Review
- DNA damage reduces heterogeneity and coherence of chromatin motions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- A guide for single-particle chromatin tracking in live cell nuclei.Cell biology international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Particle tracking in living systems requires low light exposure and short exposure times to avoid phototoxicity and photobleaching and to fully capture particle motion with high-speed imaging. Low-excitation light comes at the expense of tracking accuracy. Image restoration methods based on deep learning dramatically improve the signal-to-noise ratio in low-exposure data sets, qualitatively improving the images. However, it is not clear whether images generated by these methods yield accurate quantitative measurements such as diffusion parameters in (single) particle tracking experiments. Here, we evaluate the performance of two popular deep learning denoising software packages for particle tracking, using synthetic data sets and movies of diffusing chromatin as biological examples. With synthetic data, both supervised and unsupervised deep learning restored particle motions with high accuracy in two-dimensional data sets, whereas artifacts were introduced by the denoisers in three-dimensional data sets. Experimentally, we found that, while both supervised and unsupervised approaches improved tracking results compared with the original noisy images, supervised learning generally outperformed the unsupervised approach. We find that nicer-looking image sequences are not synonymous with more precise tracking results and highlight that deep learning algorithms can produce deceiving artifacts with extremely noisy images. Finally, we address the challenge of selecting parameters to train convolutional neural networks by implementing a frugal Bayesian optimizer that rapidly explores multidimensional parameter spaces, identifying networks yielding optimal particle tracking accuracy. Our study provides quantitative outcome measures of image restoration using deep learning. We anticipate broad application of this approach to critically evaluate artificial intelligence solutions for quantitative microscopy.
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.