Identifying intermolecular interactions in single-molecule localization microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermolecular interactions underlie all cellular functions, yet visualizing these interactions at the single-molecule level remains challenging. Single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) offers a potential solution. Given a nanoscale map of two putative interaction partners, it should be possible to assign molecules either to the class of coupled pairs or to the class of noncoupled bystanders. Here, we developed a probabilistic algorithm that allows accurate determination of both the absolute number and the proportion of molecules that form coupled pairs. The algorithm calculates interaction probabilities for all possible pairs of localized molecules, selects the most likely interaction set, and corrects for any spurious colocalizations. Benchmarking this approach across a set of simulated molecular localization maps with varying densities (up to ∼55 molecules μm −2 ) and localization precisions (1 to 50 nm) showed typical errors in the identification of correct pairs of only a few percent. At molecular densities of ∼5 to 10 molecules μm −2 and localization precisions of 20 to 30 nm, which are typical parameters for SMLM imaging, the recall was ∼90%. The algorithm was effective at differentiating between noninteracting and coupled molecules both in simulations and experiments. Finally, it correctly inferred the number of coupled pairs over time in a simulated reaction–diffusion system, enabling determination of the underlying rate constants. The proposed approach promises to enable direct visualization and quantification of intermolecular interactions using SMLM.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".