2023
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28539-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine learning framework to segment sarcomeric structures in SMLM data

Abstract: Object detection is an image analysis task with a wide range of applications, which is difficult to accomplish with traditional programming. Recent breakthroughs in machine learning have made significant progress in this area. However, these algorithms are generally compatible with traditional pixelated images and cannot be directly applied for pointillist datasets generated by single molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) methods. Here, we have improved the averaging method developed for the analysis of SMLM… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
(31 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S2(B)), which is the structure of several sarcomeric proteins with known dimensions from previous measurements [ 46 ]. Simulation parameters were used as described earlier [ 47 ]. Briefly, we generated disk patterns with a radius of 750 nm, forming double-line patterns with a distance of 110 nm.…”
Section: Theoretical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S2(B)), which is the structure of several sarcomeric proteins with known dimensions from previous measurements [ 46 ]. Simulation parameters were used as described earlier [ 47 ]. Briefly, we generated disk patterns with a radius of 750 nm, forming double-line patterns with a distance of 110 nm.…”
Section: Theoretical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spatial coordinates of the localized events were stored and the final super-resolved image was visualized with a pixel size of 10 nm. ROI was segmented as described in Varga et al, 2023 [ 62 ]. Structure averaging and line distance measurements were performed in IFM Analyzer v2.1 [ 39 , 56 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%