2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.19.449098
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A framework for evaluating the performance of SMLM cluster analysis algorithms

Abstract: Single molecule localisation microscopy (SMLM) generates data in the form of Cartesian coordinates of localised fluorophores. Cluster analysis is an attractive route for extracting biologically meaningful information from such data and has been widely applied. Despite the range of developed cluster analysis algorithms, there exists no consensus framework for the evaluation of their performance. Here, we use a systematic approach based on two metrics, the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) and Intersection over Union (I… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Various clustering algorithms have been developed to quantify the degree or variability of clustering of a protein of interest under various conditions. Examples include local clustering algorithms that define boundaries of dense localizations ( Ester et al, 1996 ; Perry, 2004 ; Owen et al, 2010 ; Pageon et al, 2016a ; Griffié et al, 2016 ; Levet et al, 2019 ; Khater et al, 2020 ; Nino et al, 2020 ; Simoncelli et al, 2020 ; Williamson et al, 2020 ; Marenda et al, 2021 ; Nieves et al, 2021 ) or bulk metrics based on the radial distribution or pair-correlation function that quantify the density of localization pairs as a function of their distance to each other ( Ripley, 1979 ; Kiskowski et al, 2009 ; Sengupta et al, 2011 ; Veatch et al, 2012 ; Stone and Veatch, 2015 ). Importantly, these analysis methods can be expanded to two-color SMLM data to quantify the colocalization and structural relation of two proteins.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various clustering algorithms have been developed to quantify the degree or variability of clustering of a protein of interest under various conditions. Examples include local clustering algorithms that define boundaries of dense localizations ( Ester et al, 1996 ; Perry, 2004 ; Owen et al, 2010 ; Pageon et al, 2016a ; Griffié et al, 2016 ; Levet et al, 2019 ; Khater et al, 2020 ; Nino et al, 2020 ; Simoncelli et al, 2020 ; Williamson et al, 2020 ; Marenda et al, 2021 ; Nieves et al, 2021 ) or bulk metrics based on the radial distribution or pair-correlation function that quantify the density of localization pairs as a function of their distance to each other ( Ripley, 1979 ; Kiskowski et al, 2009 ; Sengupta et al, 2011 ; Veatch et al, 2012 ; Stone and Veatch, 2015 ). Importantly, these analysis methods can be expanded to two-color SMLM data to quantify the colocalization and structural relation of two proteins.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of benchmarking clustering algorithms has recently been addressed by proposing a unifying framework for comparison 27 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%