Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41373825›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Intensity-Based Estimation of Monomeric Brightness for Fluorescent Proteins.

Michael R Stoneman, Sanam Bista, Thomas D Killeen, Ionel Popa, Valerică Raicu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michael R StonemanDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7060-645X
Sanam BistaDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.
Thomas D KilleenDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-3997-4648
Ionel PopaDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3111-4716
Valerică RaicuDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3427-8516

Funding

U.S. National Science Foundation 1126386U.S. National Science Foundation 1919670U.S. National Science Foundation 2327468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluorescence fluctuation spectroscopy (FFS) techniques rely on determination of monomeric molecular brightness, i.e., the fluorescence intensity of a single, non-aggregated fluorophore, as a critical reference for estimating protein oligomer size. By comparing measured molecular brightness of fluorescently labeled proteins of interest to this monomeric brightness benchmark, FFS enables inference of oligomerization states. However, widely used fluorescent proteins often exhibit self-association, compromising monomeric brightness calibration and introducing errors in brightness-derived oligomer-size estimates. This study compares two strategies for determining monomeric brightness: the conventional fluctuation-based method and a more recently proposed average-intensity-based alternative. The comparison uses two model fluorophores, a fluorescent protein (mCitrine) and the small-molecule dye Janelia Fluor 525 (JF

Indexed as

Luminescent ProteinsCalibrationFluorescent DyesProtein MultimerizationSpectrometry, FluorescenceFluorescent DyesLuminescent Proteinsfluorescence fluctuation spectroscopyfluorescence microscopyfluorescent proteinsmolecular brightnessprotein oligomerizationprotein-protein interactionsquantitative fluorescence imaging

Identifiers

PMID41373825
PMCPMC12691995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.