Estimating the Dynamic Range of Quantitative Single-Molecule Localization Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, there have been significant advances in quantifying molecule copy number and protein stoichiometry with single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM). However, as the density of fluorophores per diffraction-limited spot increases, distinguishing between detection events from different fluorophores becomes progressively more difficult, affecting the accuracy of such measurements. Although essential to the design of quantitative experiments, the dynamic range of SMLM counting techniques has not yet been studied in detail. Here we provide a working definition of the dynamic range for quantitative SMLM in terms of the relative number of missed localizations or blinks, and explore the photophysical and experimental parameters that affect it. We begin with a simple two-state model of blinking fluorophores, then extend the model to incorporate photobleaching and temporal binning by the detection camera. From these models, we first show that our estimates of the dynamic range agree with realistic simulations of the photoswitching. We find that the dynamic range scales inversely with the duty cycle when counting both blinks and localizations. Finally, we validate our theoretical approach on dSTORM datasets of photo-switching Alexa647 dyes. Our results should help guide researchers in designing and implementing SMLM-based molecular counting experiments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".