4.5 Article

Multistep Track Segmentation and Motion Classification for Transient Mobility Analysis

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 1018-1025

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.01.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) [MIRA R35GM119619]
  2. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) [R1216, RP140110]
  3. University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Endowed Scholars Program
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [FDN-143202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular interactions are often transient and might change within the window of observation, leading to changes in molecule movement. Therefore, accurate motion analysis often requires transient motion classification. Here we present an accurate and computationally efficient transient mobility analysis framework, termed divide-and-conquer moment scaling spectrum (DC-MSS). DC-MSS works in a multistep fashion: 1) it utilizes a local movement descriptor throughout a track to divide it into initial segments of putatively different motion classes; 2) it classifies these segments via moment scaling spectrum (MSS) analysis of molecule displacements; and 3) it uses the MSS analysis results to refine the track segmentation. This strategy uncouples the initial identification of motion switches from motion classification, allowing DC-MSS to circumvent the sensitivity -accuracy tradeoff of classic rolling window approaches for transient motion analysis, while at the same time harnessing the classification power of MSS analysis. Testing of DC-MSS demonstrates that it detects switches among free diffusion, confined diffusion, directed diffusion, and immobility with great sensitivity. To illustrate the utility of DC-MSS, we have applied it to single-particle tracks of the transmembrane protein CD44 on the surface of macrophages, revealing actin cortex-dependent transient mobility changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据