ArticleNature computational science2024
An error correction strategy for image reconstruction by DNA sequencing microscopy.
Article in Nature computational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-linked volumetric DNA microscopy for dense molecular-network phenotyping in intact tissue.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Spatial transcriptomic imaging of an intact organism using volumetric DNA microscopy.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Spatial coherence in DNA barcode networks.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Hidden network preserved in Slide-tags data allows reference-free spatial reconstruction.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Optics-free reconstruction of 2D images via DNA barcode proximity graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- An error correction strategy for image reconstruction by DNA sequencing microscopy.Nature computational science · 2024Article
- Refining the lens of DNA microscopy.Nature computational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
By pairing adjacent molecules in situ and then mapping these pairs, DNA microscopy could substantially reduce the workload in spatial omics methods by directly inferring geometry from sequencing data alone. However, experimental artifacts can lead to errors in the adjacency data, which distort the spatial reconstruction. Here we describe a method to correct two such errors: spurious crosslinks formed between any two nodes, and fused nodes that are formed out of multiple molecules. We build on the principle that spatially close molecules should be connected and show that these errors violate this principle, allowing for their detection and correction. Our method corrects errors in simulated data, even in the presence of up to 20% errors, and proves to be more efficient at removing errors from experimental data than a read count filter. Integrating this method in DNA microscopy will substantially improve the accuracy of spatial reconstructions with lower data loss.
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.