ArticleJournal of microscopy2026
Presynaptic actin nanostructures: A reproducibility case study.
Article in Journal of microscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Presynaptic actin nanostructures: A reproducibility case study.Journal of microscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In an effort to assess the reproducibility of bioimage analyses in current publications, we took part in a Global BioImage Analysts' Society (GloBIAS) initiative to try and reproduce results from published articles. We attempted to reproduce core findings from Bingham et al. (2023), who investigate the actin organisation in presynaptic structures by using diffraction-limited and super-resolution microscopy. While the original paper unveiled novel biological insight, it lacked sufficient detail in the bioimage analysis methodology, limiting the depth of reproducibility we could achieve. Through frequent contacts with the corresponding author, we were able to replicate qualitative aspects of the analysis of actin nanostructures in bead-induced presynapses. We performed image reconstruction from super-resolution microscopy data, automatic image registration and visual inspection, followed by manual annotation of structures of interest in approximately 35 images. From this exercise, we provide concrete evidence that key practises such as sharing of example datasets, depositing manual annotations and documenting manual decision criteria and consensus procedures are essential for making bioimage analysis workflows reproducible. Our experience further highlights that transparent data sharing, adherence to bioimage analysis standards, and close collaboration between experimentalist and bioimage analysis specialists are critical to ensure the reproducibility of today's complex biological imaging studies.
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.