A novel and robust method for counting components within bio-molecular complexes using fluorescence microscopy and statistical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular biology occurs through myriad interactions between diverse molecular components, many of which assemble in to specific complexes. Various techniques can provide a qualitative survey of which components are found in a given complex. However, quantitative analysis of the absolute number of molecules within a complex (known as stoichiometry) remains challenging. Here we provide a novel method that combines fluorescence microscopy and statistical modelling to derive accurate molecular counts. We have devised a system in which batches of a given biomolecule are differentially labelled with spectrally distinct fluorescent dyes (label A or B), and mixed such that B-labelled molecules are vastly outnumbered by those with label A. Complexes, containing this component, are then simply scored as either being positive or negative for label B. The frequency of positive complexes is directly related to the stoichiometry of interaction and molecular counts can be inferred by statistical modelling. We demonstrate this method using complexes of Adenovirus particles and monoclonal antibodies, achieving counts that are in excellent agreement with previous estimates. Beyond virology, this approach is readily transferable to other experimental systems and, therefore, provides a powerful tool for quantitative molecular biology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".