ArticleBiophysical journal2021
Estimating the dynamic range of quantitative single-molecule localization microscopy.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-molecule counting applied to the study of GPCR oligomerization.Biophysical journal · 2022Review
- Spatiotemporal Clustering of Repeated Super-Resolution Localizations via Linear Assignment Problem.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2021Article
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
In recent years, there have been significant advances in quantifying molecule copy number and protein stoichiometry with single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM). However, as the density of fluorophores per diffraction-limited spot increases, distinguishing between detection events from different fluorophores becomes progressively more difficult, affecting the accuracy of such measurements. Although essential to the design of quantitative experiments, the dynamic range of SMLM counting techniques has not yet been studied in detail. Here, we provide a working definition of the dynamic range for quantitative SMLM in terms of the relative number of missed localizations or blinks and explore the photophysical and experimental parameters that affect it. We begin with a simple two-state model of blinking fluorophores, then extend the model to incorporate photobleaching and temporal binning by the detection camera. From these models, we first show that our estimates of the dynamic range agree with realistic simulations of the photoswitching. We find that the dynamic range scales inversely with the duty cycle when counting both blinks and localizations. Finally, we validate our theoretical approach on direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM) data sets of photoswitching Alexa Fluor 647 dyes. Our results should help guide researchers in designing and implementing SMLM-based molecular counting experiments.
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.