ArticleACS photonics2026
Optimizing Effective Labeling Efficiency in MINFLUX 3D DNA-PAINT Microscopy by Maximizing Marker Detection Probability.
Article in ACS photonics, 2026. 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.
- MINFLUX microscopy resolves subunits of the cardiac ryanodine receptor and its 3D orientation in cells.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Charting the nanotopography of inner hair cell synapses using MINFLUX nanoscopy.Science advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MINFLUX is a powerful single-molecule approach capable of achieving high spatially isotropic resolution in three dimensions. Current implementations collect localizations strictly serially, but criteria for when to terminate acquisition are often unclear. We therefore systematically investigate the time course of effective labeling efficiency (ELE) and achievable saturation values in MINFLUX 3D DNA-PAINT microscopy of Nup96 proteins in a U-2 OS-Nup96-mEGFP modified cell line using a commercial MINFLUX microscope. ELE was measured using a quantitative procedure based on maximum-likelihood template fitting. We collected data measured over various scan sizes and achieved ELE values of ∼60% after passing a time interval dependent on the region size, typically requiring long-duration acquisitions over several hours. Our data and a simple model suggest that maximizing marker detection is key to achieving the limits set by chemical labeling efficiency. A factor limiting the marker detection probability when using conventional DNA-PAINT markers is docking strand site-loss, observed over the duration required to build up the image data of MINFLUX acquisitions, which also limits the achievable number of labeling site visits to values around 1-3. Using repeat DNA-PAINT, i.e., employing oligonucleotide sequences with repeated docking sites, we observed greatly reduced site-loss and could increase the number of individual visits to site locations by more than 3-fold over the same period. Additionally, this enabled increasing stringency criteria for labeling (i.e., higher threshold values) and maximizing marker detection probabilities so that ELE reaches the limits set by chemical labeling efficiency.
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.