Paper detail

Robust Hypothesis Tests for Detecting Statistical Evidence of 2D and 3D Interactions in Single-Molecule Measurements

A variety of experimental techniques have improved the 2D and 3D spatial resolution that can be extracted from \emph{in vivo} single-molecule measurements. This enables researchers to quantitatively infer the magnitude and directionality of forces experienced by biomolecules in their native cellular environments. Situations where such forces are biologically relevant range from mitosis to directed transport of protein cargo along cytoskeletal structures. Models commonly applied to quantify single-molecule dynamics assume that effective forces and velocity in the $x,y$ (or $x,y,z$) directions are statistically independent, but this assumption is physically unrealistic in many situations. We present a hypothesis testing approach capable of determining if there is evidence of statistical dependence between positional coordinates in experimentally measured trajectories; if the hypothesis of independence between spatial coordinates is rejected, then a new model accounting for 2D (3D) interactions should be considered to more faithfully represent the underlying experimental kinetics. The technique is robust in the sense that 2D (3D) interactions can be detected via statistical hypothesis testing even if there is substantial inconsistency between the physical particle's actual noise sources and the simplified model's assumed noise structure. For example, 2D (3D) interactions can be reliably detected even if the researcher assumes normal diffusion, but the experimental data experiences "anomalous diffusion" and/or is subjected to a measurement noise characterized by a distribution differing from that assumed by the fitted model. The approach is demonstrated on control simulations and on experimental data (IFT88 directed transport in the primary cilium).

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.