↓ Skip to main content

Universal Approach to FRAP Analysis of Arbitrary Bleaching Patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Universal Approach to FRAP Analysis of Arbitrary Bleaching Patterns
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep11655
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Blumenthal, Leo Goldstien, Michael Edidin, Levi A. Gheber

Abstract

The original approach to calculating diffusion coefficients of a fluorescent probe from Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) measurements assumes bleaching with a circular laser beam of a Gaussian intensity profile. This method was used without imaging the bleached cell. An empirical equation for calculating diffusion coefficients from a rectangular bleaching geometry, created in a confocal image, was later published, however a single method allowing the calculation of diffusion coefficients for arbitrary geometry does not exist. Our simulation approach allows computation of diffusion coefficients regardless of bleaching geometry used in the FRAP experiment. It accepts a multiple-frame TIFF file, representing the experiment as input, and simulates the (pure) diffusion of the fluorescent probes (2D random walk) starting with the first post-bleach frame of the actual data. It then fits the simulated data to the real data and extracts the diffusion coefficient. We validate our approach using a well characterized diffusing molecule (DiIC18) against well-established analytical procedures. We show that the algorithm is able to calculate the absolute value of diffusion coefficients for arbitrary bleaching geometries, including exaggeratedly large ones. It is provided freely as an ImageJ plugin, and should facilitate quantitative FRAP measurements for users equipped with standard fluorescence microscopy setups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 32%
Student > Master 24 17%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 19%
Physics and Astronomy 19 13%
Chemistry 14 10%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 29 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#72,181
of 123,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,032
of 263,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,136
of 2,040 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,040 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.