Advertisement

Colocalization Analysis in Fluorescence Microscopy

  • Jeremy Adler
  • Ingela Parmryd
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 931)

Abstract

The measurement of colocalization requires images of two fluorophores that are aligned, with no cross talk, and that the intensities remain within the response range of the microscope. Quantitation depends upon differentiating between the presence and absence of fluorescence, and measurements should be made within biologically relevant regions of interest. Co-occurrence can be measured simply by area or with the M1 and M2 coefficients, and should be compared to random distributions. Correlation analysis should use the Pearson and Spearman coefficients, which need to be measured by replicate based noise corrected correlation to eliminate errors arising from differences in image quality. Ideally, both co-occurrence and correlation should be reported.

Key words

Colocalization Co-occurrence Correlation Pearson correlation coefficient RBNCC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from Signhild Engkvist’s Foundation. The authors declare that they are shareholders in the company, No More Noise.

References

  1. 1.
    Manders E, Verbeek FJ, Aten JA (1993) Measurement of co-localisation of objects in dual-colour confocal images. J Microsc 169:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adler J, Bergholm F, Pagakis SN, Parmryd I (2008) Noise and colocalization in fluorescence microscopy: solving a problem. Microsc Anal 22:7–10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cromey DW (2010) Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci Eng Ethics 16:639–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adler J, Parmryd I (2010) Quantifying colocalization by correlation: the Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander’s overlap coefficient. Cytometry A 77:733–742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolte S, Cordelieres FP (2006) A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J Microsc 224:213–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li Q, Lau A, Morris TJ, Guo L, Fordyce CB et al (2004) A syntaxin 1, Galpha(o), and N-type calcium channel complex at a presynaptic nerve terminal: analysis by quantitative immunocolocalization. J Neurosci 24:4070–4081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunn KW, Kamocka MM, McDonald JH (2011) A practical guide to evaluating colocalization in biological microscopy. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 300:C723–C742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costes SV, Daelemans D, Cho EH, Dobbin Z, Pavlakis G et al (2004) Automatic and quantitative measurement of protein-protein colocalization in live cells. Biophys J 86:3993–4003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong B (2011) Color blindness. Nat Methods 8:441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adler J, Pagakis SN, Parmryd I (2008) Replicate-based noise corrected correlation for accurate measurements of colocalization. J Microsc 230:121–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barlow AL, Macleod A, Noppen S, Sanderson J, Guerin CJ (2010) Colocalization analysis in fluorescence micrographs: verification of a more accurate calculation of pearson’s correlation coefficient. Microsc Microanal 16:710–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergholm F, Adler J, Parmryd I (2010) Analysis of bias in the apparent correlation coefficient between image pairs corrupted by severe noise. J Math Imaging Vis 37:204–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Immunology, Genetics and PathologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Medical BiologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations