Bayesian counting of photobleaching steps with physical priors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counting fluorescence photobleaching steps is commonly used to infer the number n0 of monomeric units of individual oligomeric protein complexes or misfolded protein aggregates. We present a principled Bayesian approach for counting that incorporates the statistics of photobleaching. Our physics-based prior leads to a simple and efficient numerical scheme for maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) estimates of the initial fluorophore number n^0. Our focus here is on using a calibration to precisely estimate n^0, though our approach can also be used to calibrate the photophysics. Imaging noise increases with n^0, while bias is often introduced by temporal averaging. We examine the effects of fluorophore number n^0 of the oligomer or aggregate, lifetime photon yield μeff of an individual fluorophore, and exposure time Δt of each image frame in a time-lapse experiment. We find that, in comparison with standard ratiometric approaches or with a “change-point” step-counting algorithm, our MAP approach is both more precise and less biased.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".