Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Images Are Data: And Should Be Treated as Such

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Cell Imaging Techniques

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 931))

Abstract

The scientific community has become very concerned about inappropriate image manipulation. In journals that check figures after acceptance, 20–25% of the papers contained at least one figure that did not comply with the journal’s instructions to authors. The scientific press continues to report a small, but steady stream of cases of fraudulent image manipulation. Inappropriate image manipulation taints the scientific record, damages trust within science, and degrades science’s reputation with the general public. Scientists can learn from historians and photojournalists, who have provided a number of examples of attempts to alter or misrepresent the historical record. Scientists must remember that digital images are numerically sampled data that represent the state of a specific sample when examined with a specific instrument. These data should be carefully managed. Changes made to the original data need to be tracked like the protocols used for other experimental procedures. To avoid pitfalls, unexpected artifacts, and unintentional misrepresentation of the image data, a number of image processing guidelines are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rossner M, Held MJ, Bozuwa GP et al (1998) Managing editors and digital images: shutter diplomacy. CBE Views 21:187–192

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rossner M, Yamada KM (2004) What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. J Cell Biol 166:11–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rossner M (2006) How to guard against image fraud. Scientist 20:24

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rossner M (2008) A false sense of security. J Cell Biol 183:573–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Marris E (2006) Should journals police scientific fraud? Nature 439:520–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marcus A, Oransky I (2011) Stop the picture doctors. Lab Times 4–2011:35

    Google Scholar 

  7. Editorial Nature Cell Biology (2011) Combating scientific misconduct. Nat Cell Biol 13:1

    Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson C (1994) Easy-to-alter digital images raise fears of tampering. Science 263:317–318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Taubes G (1994) Technology for turning seeing into believing. Science 263:318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McInnes SJ (2001) Is it real? Zool Anz 240:467–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Suvarna SK, Ansary MA (2001) Histopathology and the ‘third great lie’. When is an image not a scientifically authentic image? Histopathology 39:441–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krueger J (2002) Forensic examination of questioned scientific images. Account Res Policies Qual Assur 9:105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pritt BS, Gibson PC, Cooper K (2003) Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: a proposal for general and academic use. Adv Anat Pathol 10:96–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Editorial Nature Cell Biology (2004) Gel slicing and dicing: a recipe for disaster. Nat Cell Biol 6:275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Editorial Nature Cell Biology (2004) Images to reveal all? Nat Cell Biol 6:909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guneri P, Akdeniz BG (2004) Fraudulent management of digital endodontic images. Int Endod J 37:214–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Krueger J (2005) Confronting manipulation of digital images in science. Office Res Integr Newslett 13–3:8–9

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pearson H (2005) Image manipulation: CSI: cell biology. Nature 434:952–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nature Cell Biology Editorial (2006) Beautification and fraud. Nat Cell Biol 8:101–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nature Cell Biology Editorial (2006) Appreciating data: warts, wrinkles and all. Nat Cell Biol 8:203

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abraham E (2007) Update on the AJRCCM—2007. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175:207–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nature Cell Biology Editorial (2007) Imagine. Nat Cell Biol 9:355

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krueger J (2009) Incidences of ORI cases involving falsified images. Office Res Integr Newslett 17–4:2–3

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cromey DW (2010) Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci Eng Ethics 16:639–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH et al (2004) Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303:1669–1674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Department of Health and Human Services (2005) Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, (Public Health Service, Ed.) 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93. http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/documents/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  27. Office of Research Integrity. Definition of Research Misconduct, http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  28. National Academies (U.S.). Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (2009) On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd edn. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  29. Young JR (2008) Journals find fakery in many images submitted to support research. Chron Higher Ed, Washington, DC. http://chronicle.com/article/Journals-Find-Fakery-in-Man/846/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  30. Couzin J (2006) Scientific publishing. Don’t pretty up that picture just yet. Science 314:1866–1868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Abraham E, Adler KB, Shapiro SD et al (2008) The ATS journals’ policy on image manipulation. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 39:499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shattil SJ (2007) A digital exam for hematologists. Blood 109:2275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Caelleigh AS, Miles KD (2011) Biomedical Journals’ Standards for Digital Images in Biomedical Articles (presented at the Council of Science Editors annual meeting). http://scienceimageintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CSEPoster-April20-FINAL-AC-Edit1.ppt. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  34. Farid H (2011) Photo tampering throughout history, Fourandsix Technologies. http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  35. King D (2011) The commissar vanishes. The Newseum, Washington, DC. http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  36. Oberg J (2011) Soviet Space Propaganda: Doctored Cosmonaut Photos, Wired.com, Condé Nast Digital. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/soviet-space-propaganda/?pid=1177. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  37. Mackey R (2011) Newspaper ‘Regrets’ Erasing Hillary Clinton. In: The Lede. New York Times, New York. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/newspaper-regrets-erasing-hillary-clinton/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  38. Orwell G (1949) Nineteen eighty-four, a novel. Secker & Warburg, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Franklin D (2011) Roosevelt, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  40. Meltzer B (1996) Digital photography: a question of ethics. Lead Learn Technol 23–4:18–21

    Google Scholar 

  41. Stanleigh S (1995) Where do we re-draw the line?, In: Ryerson Review of Journalism. Ryerson University School of Journalism, Toronto, Canada. http://www.rrj.ca/m3693/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  42. Carmody D (1994) Time responds to criticism over Simpson cover. New York Times Company, New York. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  43. Glater JD (2005) Martha Stewart Gets New Body in Newsweek. In: New York Times. New York Times Company, New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/business/media/03mag.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  44. National Press Photographer’s Association (2005) NPPA Calls Newsweek’s Martha Stewart Cover “A Major Ethical Breach”. http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/03/newsweek.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  45. Nizza M, Lyon PJ (2008) In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many. In: New York Times. New York Times Company, New York. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  46. Nature (2007) Cover Image. Nature 448(7153)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sincich L (2007) Cover story may obscure the plane truth. Nature 449:139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Russ JC (2004) Seeing the Scientific Image (parts 1–3). Proc R Microsc Soc 39(2):97–114; (113):179–194; (114):267–281

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hyde DM, Tyler NK, Plopper CG (2007) Morphometry of the respiratory tract: avoiding the sampling, size, orientation, and reference traps. Toxicol Pathol 35:41–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. McNamara G (2006) Crusade for Publishing Better Light Micrographs—Light Microscope Publication Guidelines. http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara/CrusadeBetterMicrographs.htm. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  52. North AJ (2006) Seeing is believing? A beginners’ guide to practical pitfalls in image acquisition. J Cell Biol 172:9–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Stack RF, Bayles CJ, Girard AM et al (2011) Quality assurance testing for modern optical imaging systems. Microsc Microanal 17:598–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Supported Formats (2011) In: Bio-Formats. Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation (LOCI), University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://loci.wisc.edu/bio-formats/formats. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  55. Pawley JB (2006) Points, pixels, and gray levels: digitizing image data. In: Pawley JB (ed) Handbook of biological confocal microscopy, 3rd edn. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York, NY, pp 59–79

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Spring KR, Parry-Hill MJ, Long JC et al (2006) Spatial resolution in digital images. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/digitalimaging/processing/spatialresolution/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  57. Spring KR, Fellers TJ, Davidson MW (2006) Resolution and contrast in confocal microscopy. http://www.olympusconfocal.com/theory/resolutionintro.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  58. New York Times written in (1918) Why movie wheels turn backward; an explanation of the illusion and a suggested method for correcting it. In: Sunday (ed) New York Times. New York Times, New York. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E6DA143EE433A25752C2A9619C946996D6CF. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  59. Purves D, Paydarfar JA, Andrews TJ (1996) The wagon wheel illusion in movies and reality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:3693–3697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Pawley JB (2006) Fundamental limits in confocal microscopy. In: Pawley JB (ed) Handbook of biological confocal microscopy, 3rd edn. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York, NY, pp 20–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Corporation M (1997) The Microsoft Press® computer dictionary, 3rd edn. Microsoft Press®, Redmond, WA

    Google Scholar 

  62. Burger W, Burge MJ (2008) Histograms. In: Texts in Computer Science: Digital image processing. Springer, London, pp 37–52

    Google Scholar 

  63. National Science Foundation (2011) Chapter II—Proposal Preparation Instructions: Data Management Plan. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#dmp. Accessed 16 Sep 2011

  64. National Science Foundation (2011) Dissemination and sharing of research results. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  65. Center for Bio-Image Informatics (2011) University of California—Santa Barbara. Bisque Database. http://www.bioimage.ucsb.edu/bisque. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  66. Open Microscopy Environment (2011) http://www.openmicroscopy.org/site. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  67. Blau J (2006) Do burned CDs have a short life span?, PC Magazine. http://www.pcworld.com/article/124312/do_burned_cds_have_a_short_life_span.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  68. Searls DB (2005) Data integration: challenges for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4:45–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Alberts B (2010) Promoting scientific standards. Science 327:12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Melino G (2010) Policy and procedures on scientific misconduct. Cell Death Differ 17:1805–1806

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age, National Academiy of Sciences (2009) Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tengowski MW (2004) Image compression in morphometry studies requiring 21 CFR Part 11 compliance: procedure is key with TIFFs and various JPEG compression strengths. Toxicol Pathol 32:258–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Food and Drug Administration (2010) CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Food and Drug Administration. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=11. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  74. Wikipedia (2011) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  75. Scientific Working Group Imaging Technology (2004) Best Practices for Documenting Image Enhancement, section 11 (Version 1.2 2004.03.04)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Scientific Working Group Imaging Technology (2010) Best Practices for Documenting Image Enhancement, section 11 (Version 1.3 2010.01.15). http://www.theiai.org/guidelines/swgit/guidelines/section_11_v1-3.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  77. Open Microscopy Environment (2011) OME-TIFF Overview and Rationale. http://www.ome-xml.org/wiki/OmeTiff. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  78. MacKenzie JM, Burke MG, Carvalho T, Eades A (2006) Ethics and digital imaging. Microsc Today 14–1:40–41

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wikipedia (2011) Tagged Image File Format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  80. Guo H (2007) Retraction: Guo H. Complication of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: e2. N Engl J Med 356:1075

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Le HQ, Chua SJ, Koh YW et al (2010) Growth of single crystal ZnO nanorods on GaN using an aqueous solution method (Retraction of vol 87, 101908, 2005). Appl Phys Lett 97:239903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. (2011) Retraction: Jiang S, Alberich-Jorda M, Zagozdzon R, Parmar K, Fu Y, Mauch P, Banu N, Makriyannis A, Tenen DG, Avraham S, Groopman JE, Avraham HK. Cannabinoid receptor 2 and its agonists mediate hematopoiesis and hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell mobilization. Blood 2011;117(3):827–838, Blood. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-06-363325

    Google Scholar 

  83. Miano JM (2010) What is truth? Standards of scientific integrity in American Heart Association Journals. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 30:1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Editorial N (2006) Not picture-perfect. Nature 439:891–892

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kaiser J (2009) Scientific publishing. Data integrity report sends journals back to the drawing board. Science 325:381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Cromey DW (2001) Digital Imaging: Ethics. http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/micro/digimage_ethics.php. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  87. Vollmer SH (2008) Online Learning Tool for Research Integrity and Image Processing. http://www.uab.edu/researchintegrityandimages/. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  88. Miles KD (2011) Integrity of Science Image Data Issues and emerging standards—Audit Tutorial, PI Outcomes. http://scienceimageintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Audit_Tutorial.pptx. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  89. Microscopy Society of America (2003) Position on ethical digital imaging. Microsc Today 11–6:61

    Google Scholar 

  90. Journal of Cell Biology (2011) Instructions for Authors. http://jcb.rupress.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  91. Nature (2009) Editorial Policy: Image integrity and standards. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/image.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  92. Hall PA, Wixon J, Poulsom R (2011) The Journal of Pathology’s approach to publication ethics and misconduct. J Pathol 223:447–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cromey DW (2002) Potentially the most dangerous dialog box in Adobe Photoshop™. http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/resources/pdf/Photoshop_Image_Size_dialog_box.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  94. Bell AA, Brauers J, Kaftan JN et al (2009) High dynamic range microscopy for cytopathological cancer diagnosis. Sel Top Signal Process J IEEE 3:170–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Valdecasas AG, Marshall D, Becerra JM, Terrero JJ (2001) On the extended depth of focus algorithms for bright field microscopy. Micron 32:559–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Russ JC (1998) The image processing handbook, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  97. Zwier JM, Van Rooij GJ, Hofstraat JW, Brakenhoff GJ (2004) Image calibration in fluorescence microscopy. J Microsc 216:15–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Pawley JB (2000) The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. Biotechniques 28(884–886):888

    Google Scholar 

  99. Bolte S, Cordelières FP (2006) A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J Microsc 224:213–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Taylor CR, Levenson RM (2006) Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. Histopathology 49:411–424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Bernardo V, Lourenco SQ, Cruz R et al (2009) Reproducibility of immunostaining quantification and description of a new digital image processing procedure for quantitative evaluation of immunohistochemistry in pathology. Microsc Microanal 15:353–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. (2011) PNG (Portable Network Graphics) Specification, Version 1.2–12. Appendix: Rationale. http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/1.2/PNG-Credits.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  103. Rossner M, O’Donnell R (2004) The JCB will let your data shine in RGB. J Cell Biol 164:11–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Waters JC (2009) Accuracy and precision in quantitative fluorescence microscopy. J Cell Biol 185:1135–1148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Cidlowski JA, Haworth M (2008) Digital image integrity and RIGOUR. Mol Endocrinol 22:225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Pearson H (2006) Forensic software traces tweaks to images. Nature 439:520–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Powell K (2006) Your own desktop crime lab. Nat Med 12:493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Schoenwolf GC (2005) Lost in (color) space? Dev Dyn 234:243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Pesanelli EJ (2005) Processing color figures: that was then, this is now. Physiol Genomics 22:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Neill US (2006) Stop misbehaving! J Clin Invest 116:1740–1741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Editorial Nature Cell Biology (2009) Accurately reporting research. Nat Cell Biol 11:1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Franklin D (2011) Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Roosevelt Facts and Figures. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/facts.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  113. (2010) Photoshop gone wrong: famous examples of doctored images. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/22/GA2010092202105.html. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  114. Interpolate (2011) Merriam Webster.com. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/citing.htm. Accessed 16 Sept 2011

  115. Rasband WS (1997–2011) ImageJ, U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center (NIEHS ES006694); the Division of Biotechnology, Arizona Research Labs at the University of Arizona; the Arizona Cancer Center (NCI CA23074); and the University of Arizona Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. The views, opinions, and conclusions of this chapter are not necessarily those of the SWEHSC, NIEHS, AZCC, NCI, or the University of Arizona.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center, Arizona Research Labs - Division of Biotechnology, Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tuscon, AZ, USA

    Douglas W. Cromey

Authors
  1. Douglas W. Cromey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas W. Cromey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, Professor, Department of Pathology, University of Vermont, Beaumont Ave 89, Burlington, 05405-1742, Vermont, USA

    Douglas J. Taatjes

  2. , Abt. Zell- und Molekularpathologie, Universität Zürich, Schmelzbergstr. 12, Zürich, 8091, Switzerland

    Jürgen Roth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Cromey, D.W. (2012). Digital Images Are Data: And Should Be Treated as Such. In: Taatjes, D., Roth, J. (eds) Cell Imaging Techniques. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 931. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-055-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-056-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation