Away from resolution, assessing the information content of super-resolution images

Super-resolution microscopy has revolutionized optical fluorescence imaging by improving 3D resolution by 1-2 orders of magnitude. While different methods can successfully increase the resolution, all methods share significant differences with standard imaging methods, making the usual measures of resolution inapplicable. In particular image quality and information content are spatially heterogeneous with variabilities that can be comparable to their mean values, limiting the use of the average resolution as a predictor for local information. A common use of super-resolution data is to test or establish structural models, and in these cases it would be valuable to assess the capacity of the data to validate a model. We focus here on single-molecule localization methods and present a new way of assessing the quality and reliability of super-resolution data.

[1]  Suliana Manley,et al.  Simple buffers for 3D STORM microscopy , 2013, Biomedical optics express.

[2]  Mark Bates,et al.  Evaluation of fluorophores for optimal performance in localization-based super-resolution imaging , 2011, Nature Methods.

[3]  Ju Lu,et al.  Estimation theoretic measure of resolution for stochastic localization microscopy. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[4]  S. Hell.  Toward fluorescence nanoscopy , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[5]  Mark Bates,et al.  Three-Dimensional Super-Resolution Imaging by Stochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy , 2008, Science.

[6]  Sjoerd Stallinga,et al.  Measuring image resolution in optical nanoscopy , 2013, Nature Methods.

[7]  E. Betzig,et al.  Live-cell photoactivated localization microscopy of nanoscale adhesion dynamics , 2008, Nature Methods.

[8]  S. Hell,et al.  Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy. , 1994, Optics letters.

[9]  M. Schnitzer,et al.  Unified resolution bounds for conventional and stochastic localization fluorescence microscopy. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[10]  Andreas Schönle,et al.  Resolution scaling in STED microscopy. , 2008, Optics express.

[11]  Dorothea Pinotsi,et al.  Blind assessment of localisation microscope image resolution , 2012, Optical Nanoscopy.

[12]  Suliana Manley,et al.  PALMsiever: a tool to turn raw data into results for single-molecule localization microscopy , 2014, Bioinform..

[13]  J. Lippincott-Schwartz,et al.  Imaging Intracellular Fluorescent Proteins at Nanometer Resolution , 2006, Science.

[14]  M. Gustafsson.  Surpassing the lateral resolution limit by a factor of two using structured illumination microscopy , 2000, Journal of microscopy.

[15]  N. Daigle,et al.  Nuclear Pore Scaffold Structure Analyzed by Super-Resolution Microscopy and Particle Averaging , 2013, Science.

[16]  Prabuddha Sengupta,et al.  Distribution of ESCRT Machinery at HIV Assembly Sites Reveals Virus Scaffolding of ESCRT Subunits , 2014, Science.

[17]  G. C. Rogers,et al.  Subdiffraction-resolution fluorescence microscopy reveals a domain of the centrosome critical for pericentriolar material organization , 2012, Nature Cell Biology.

[18]  Michael J Rust,et al.  Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM) , 2006, Nature Methods.

[19]  Michael D. Mason,et al.  Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[20]  K. Porter,et al.  Morphology of Microtubules of Plant Cell , 1964, Science.