ArticleBiophysical journal2022
Inferences from FRAP data are model dependent: A subdiffusive analysis.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamics of the formation of flat clathrin lattices in response to growth factor stimulus.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Exploring focal adhesion data: dynamic parameter extraction from FRAP and FLAP experiments using chemical master equation.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimization of Media Change Intervals through Hydrogels Using Mathematical Models.Biomacromolecules · 2023Article
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
Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) is a widely used biological experiment to study the kinetics of molecules that react and move randomly. Since the development of FRAP in the 1970s, many reaction-diffusion models have been used to interpret FRAP data. However, intracellular molecules are widely observed to move by anomalous subdiffusion instead of normal diffusion. In this article, we extend a popular reaction-diffusion model of FRAP to the case of subdiffusion modeled by a fractional diffusion equation. By analyzing this reaction-subdiffusion model, we show that FRAP data are consistent with both diffusive and subdiffusive motion in many scenarios. We illustrate this general result by fitting our model to FRAP data from glucocorticoid receptors in a cell nucleus. We further show that the assumed model of molecular motion (normal diffusion or subdiffusion) strongly impacts the biological parameter values inferred from a given experimentally observed FRAP curve. We additionally analyze our model in three simplified parameter regimes and discuss parameter identifiability for varying subdiffusion exponents.
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.