Advertisement

Practical Guidelines for Two-Color SMLM of Synaptic Proteins in Cultured Neurons

  • Xiaojuan Yang
  • Christian G. SpechtEmail author
Protocol
  • 78 Downloads
Part of the Neuromethods book series (NM, volume 154)

Abstract

The application of single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) to the study of synaptic proteins has shown that the postsynaptic density (PSD) is organized heterogeneously in subsynaptic domains (SSDs) that are thought to play important roles in neurotransmission and synaptic plasticity. However, the dense packing of neurotransmitter receptors and scaffold proteins at synapses, together with the small total number of target molecules, makes SMLM of synaptic components particularly challenging. Here, we discuss the technical difficulties of SMLM imaging that are specific to synapses. We present a method for dual-color direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM) of two inhibitory synaptic proteins, the glycine receptor (GlyR) and the scaffold protein gephyrin (GPHN), highlighting strategic choices and practical solutions for imaging quality control. Our aim is to provide biologists with guidelines for the implementation of two-color dSTORM imaging of synaptic proteins from sample preparation to data analysis.

Key words

Super-resolution imaging Single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) Two-color direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM) Synaptic proteins Subsynaptic domain (SSD) Trans-synaptic nanocolumn Correlation analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Manuel Maidorn and Felipe Opazo for the illustrations in Fig. 2 [55], and Ignacio Izeddin for Fig. 4. Our research is funded by grants (to Antoine Triller, IBENS, Paris) from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-12-BSV4-0019-01, ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02, ANR-10-LABX-54) and the European Research Council (ERC, PlastInhib). X.Y. is supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson RE, Larson DR, Webb WW (2002) Precise nanometer localization analysis for individual fluorescent probes. Biophys J 82:2775–2783PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang B (2010) Super-resolution optical microscopy: multiple choices. Curr Opin Chem Biol 14:10–14PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Izeddin I, Specht CG, Lelek M, Darzacq X, Triller A, Zimmer C, Dahan M (2011) Super-resolution dynamic imaging of dendritic spines using a low-affinity photoconvertible actin probe. PLoS One 6:e15611PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van de Linde S, Löschberger A, Klein T, Heidbreder M, Wolter S, Heilemann M, Sauer M (2011) Direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy with standard fluorescent probes. Nat Protoc 6:991–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baddeley D, Bewersdorf J (2018) Biological insight from super-resolution microscopy: what we can learn from localization-based images. Annu Rev Biochem 87:965–989PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rust MJ, Bates M, Zhuang X (2006) Stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM) provides sub-diffraction-limit image resolution. Nat Methods 3:793–795PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Betzig E, Patterson GH, Sougrat R, Lindwasser OW, Olenych S, Bonifacino JS, Davidson MW, Lippincott-Schwartz J, Hess HF (2006) Imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolution. Science 313:1642–1646PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hess ST, Girirajan TPK, Mason MD (2006) Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy. Biophys J 91:4258–4272PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heilemann M, van de Linde S, Schuttpelz M, Kasper R, Seefeldt B, Mukherjee A, Tinnefeld P, Sauer M (2008) Subdiffraction-resolution fluorescence imaging with conventional fluorescent probes. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 47:6172–6176PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bates MW, Huang B, Dempsey GT, Zhuang X (2007) Multicolor super-resolution imaging with photo-switchable fluorescent probes. Science 317:1749–1753PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhong H (2016) Applying super-resolution localization-based microscopy to neurons. Synapse 69:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sydor AM, Czymmek KJ, Puchner EM, Mennella V (2015) Super-resolution microscopy: from single molecules to supramolecular assemblies. Trends Cell Biol 25:730–748PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu K, Zhong G, Zhuang X (2013) Actin, spectrin, and associated proteins form a periodic cytoskeletal structure in axons. Science 339:1–11Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leterrier C, Potier J, Caillol G, Debarnot C, Noroni FR, Dargent B (2015) Nanoscale architecture of the axon initial segment reveals an organized and robust scaffold. Cell Rep 13:2781–2793PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bär J, Kobler O, Van Bommel B, Mikhaylova M (2016) Periodic F-actin structures shape the neck of dendritic spines. Sci Rep 6:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loschberger A, van de Linde S, Dabauvalle M-C, Rieger B, Heilemann M, Krohne G, Sauer M (2012) Super-resolution imaging visualizes the eightfold symmetry of gp210 proteins around the nuclear pore complex and resolves the central channel with nanometer resolution. J Cell Sci 125:570–575PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szymborska A, De Marco A, Daigle N, Cordes VC, Briggs JAG, Ellenberg J (2013) Nuclear pore scaffold structure analyzed by super-resolution microscopy and particle averaging. Science 341:655–658PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broeken J, Johnson H, Lidke DS, Liu S, Nieuwenhuizen RPJ, Stallinga S, Lidke KA, Rieger B (2015) Resolution improvement by 3D particle averaging in localization microscopy. Methods Appl Fluoresc 3:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dani A, Huang B, Bergan J, Dulac C, Zhuang X (2010) Super-resolution imaging of chemical synapses in the brain. Neuron 68:843–856PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuriu T, Inoue A, Bito H, Sobue K, Okabe S (2006) Differential control of postsynaptic density scaffolds via actin-dependent and -independent mechanisms. J Neurosci 26:7693–7706PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacGillavry HD, Song Y, Raghavachari S, Blanpied TA (2013) Nanoscale scaffolding domains within the postsynaptic density concentrate synaptic AMPA receptors. Neuron 78:615–622PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nair D, Hosy E, Petersen JD, Constals A, Giannone G, Choquet D, Sibarita J-B (2013) Super-resolution imaging reveals that AMPA receptors inside synapses are dynamically organized in nanodomains regulated by PSD-95. J Neurosci 33:13204–13224PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haas KT, Compans B, Letellier M, Bartol TM, Grillo-Bosch D, Sejnowski TJ, Sainlos M, Choquet D, Thoumine O, Hosy E (2018) Pre-post synaptic alignment through neuroligin-1 tunes synaptic transmission efficiency. Elife 7:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Specht CG, Izeddin I, Rodriguez PC, El Begeiry M, Rostaing P, Darzacq X, Dahan M, Triller A (2013) Quantitative nanoscopy of inhibitory synapses: counting gephyrin molecules and receptor binding sites. Neuron 79:308–321PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodriguez PC, Almeida LG, Triller A (2017) Continuous rearrangement of the postsynaptic gephyrin scaffolding domain: a super-resolution quantified and energetic approach. BioRxivGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pennacchietti F, Vascon S, Nieus T, Rosillo C, Das S, Tyagarajan SK, Diaspro A, Del Bue A, Petrini EM, Barberis A, Zanacchi FC (2017) Nanoscale molecular reorganization of the inhibitory postsynaptic density is a determinant of GABAergic synaptic potentiation. J Neurosci 37:1747–1756PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crosby KC, Gookin SE, Garcia JD et al (2019) Nanoscale subsynaptic domains underlie the organization of the inhibitory synapse. Cell Rep 26:3284–3297PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Broadhead MJ, Horrocks MH, Zhu F et al (2016) PSD95 nanoclusters are postsynaptic building blocks in hippocampus circuits. Sci Rep 6:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dzyubenko E, Rozenberg A, Hermann DM, Faissner A (2016) Colocalization of synapse marker proteins evaluated by STED-microscopy reveals patterns of neuronal synapse distribution in vitro. J Neurosci Methods 273:149–159PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hruska M, Henderson N, Le Marchand SJ et al (2018) Synaptic nanomodules underlie the organization and plasticity of spine synapses. Nat Neurosci 21:671–682PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wegner W, Mott AC, Grant SGN et al (2018) In vivo STED microscopy visualizes PSD95 sub-structures and morphological changes over several hours in the mouse visual cortex. Sci Rep 8:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Masch J-M, Steffens H, Fischer J et al (2018) Robust nanoscopy of a synaptic protein in living mice by organic-fluorophore labeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:E8047–E8056PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang X, Specht CG (2019) Subsynaptic domains in super-resolution microscopy: the treachery of images. Front Mol Neurosci 12:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang AH, Chen H, Li TP et al (2016) A trans-synaptic nanocolumn aligns neurotransmitter release to receptors. Nature 536:210–214PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perez de Arce K, Schrod N, Metzbower SWRR et al (2015) Topographic mapping of the synaptic cleft into adhesive nanodomains. Neuron 88:1165–1172PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chamma I, Letellier M, Butler C et al (2016) Mapping the dynamics and nanoscale organization of synaptic adhesion proteins using monomeric streptavidin. Nat Commun 7:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chamma I, Levet F, Sibarita J-B et al (2016) Nanoscale organization of synaptic adhesion proteins revealed by single-molecule localization microscopy. Neurophotonics 3:041810PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trotter JH, Hao J, Maxeiner S, et al (2019) Synaptic neurexin-1 assembles into dynamically regulated active zone nanoclusters. J Cell Biol. pii: jcb.201812076Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fricke F, Beaudouin J, Eils R, Heilemann M (2015) One, two or three? Probing the stoichiometry of membrane proteins by single-molecule localization microscopy. Sci Rep 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patrizio A, Renner M, Pizzarelli R et al (2017) Alpha subunit-dependent glycine receptor clustering and regulation of synaptic receptor numbers. Sci Rep 7:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deschout H, Zanacchi FC, Mlodzianoski M et al (2014) Precisely and accurately localizing single emitters in fluorescence microscopy. Nat Methods 11:253–266PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jonas P, Bischofberger J, Sandkühler J (1998) Co-release of two fast neurotransmitters at a central synapse. Science 281:419–424PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aubrey KR (2016) Presynaptic control of inhibitory neurotransmitter content in VIAAT containing synaptic vesicles. Neurochem Int 98:94–102PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Triller A, Cluzeaud F, Korn H (1987) Gamma-aminobutyric acid-containing terminals can be apposed to glycine receptors at central synapses. J Cell Biol 104:947–956PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bohlhalter S, Mohler H, Fritschy J (1994) Inhibitory neurotransmission in rat spinal cord: co-localization of glycine- and GABAA-receptors at GABAergic synaptic contacts demonstrated by triple immunofluorescence staining. Brain Res 642:59–69PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Todd AJ, Watt C, Spike RC, Sieghart W (1996) Colocalization of GABA, glycine, and their receptors at synapses in the rat spinal cord. J Neurosci 16:974–982PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dumoulin A, Lévi S, Riveau B et al (2000) Formation of mixed glycine and GABAergic synapses in cultured spinal cord neurons. Eur J Neurosci 12:3883–3892PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shrivastava AN, Triller A, Sieghart W (2011) GABA(A) receptors: post-synaptic co-localization and cross-talk with other receptors. Front Cell Neurosci 5:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meyer G, Kirsch J, Betz H, Langosch D (1995) Identification of a gephyrin binding motif on the glycine receptor b subunit. Neuron 15:563–572PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maric H, Mukherjee J, Tretter V et al (2011) Gephyrin-mediated γ-aminobutyric acid type A and glycine receptor clustering relies on a common binding site. J Biol Chem 286:42105–42114PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tretter V, Mukherjee J, Maric H-M et al (2012) Gephyrin, the enigmatic organizer at GABAergic synapses. Front Cell Neurosci 6:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Alvarez FJ (2017) Gephyrin and the regulation of synaptic strength and dynamics at glycinergic inhibitory synapses. Brain Res Bull 129:50–65PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Niwa F, Patrizio A, Triller A, Specht CG (2019) cAMP-EPAC-dependent regulation of gephyrin phosphorylation and GABAAR trapping at inhibitory synapses. iScience 22:453–465Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Russier M, Kopysova IL, Ankri N et al (2002) GABA and glycine co-release optimizes functional inhibition in rat brainstem motoneurons in vitro. J Physiol 541:123–137PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maidorn M, Rizzoli SO, Opazo F (2016) Tools and limitations to study the molecular composition of synapses by fluorescence microscopy. Biochem J 473:3385–3399PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ries J, Kaplan C, Platonova E et al (2012) A simple, versatile method for GFP-based super-resolution microscopy via nanobodies. Nat Methods 9:582–584PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Platonova E, Winterflood CM, Junemann A et al (2015) Single-molecule microscopy of molecules tagged with GFP or RFP derivatives in mammalian cells using nanobody binders. Methods 88:89–97PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pleiner T, Bates M, Trakhanov S et al (2015) Nanobodies: site-specific labeling for super-resolution imaging, rapid epitope-mapping and native protein complex isolation. Elife 4:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Annibale P, Vanni S, Scarselli M et al (2011) Identification of clustering artifacts in photoactivated localization microscopy. Nat Methods 8:527–528PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Annibale P, Vanni S, Scarselli M et al (2011) Quantitative photo-activated localization microscopy: unraveling the effects of photoblinking. PLoS One 6:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Burgert A, Letschert S, Doose S, Sauer M (2015) Artifacts in single-molecule localization microscopy. Histochem Cell Biol 144:123–131PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van de Linde S, Wolter S, Heilemann M, Sauer M (2010) The effect of photoswitching kinetics and labeling densities on super-resolution fluorescence imaging. J Biotechnol 149:260–266PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van de Linde S, Krstić I, Prisner T et al (2011) Photoinduced formation of reversible dye radicals and their impact on super-resolution imaging. Photochem Photobiol Sci 10:499–506PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vogelsang J, Kasper R, Steinhauer C et al (2008) A reducing and oxidizing system minimizes photobleaching and blinking of fluorescent dyes. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 47:5465–5469PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ha T, Tinnefeld P (2012) Photophysics of fluorescence probes for single molecule biophysics and super-resolution imaging. Annu Rev Phys Chem 63:595–617PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dempsey GT, Vaughan JC, Chen KH et al (2011) Evaluation of fluorophores for optimal performance in localization-based super-resolution imaging. Nat Methods 8:1027–1036PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nahidiazar L, Agronskaia AV, Broertjes J et al (2016) Optimizing imaging conditions for demanding multi-color super resolution localization microscopy. PLoS One 11:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zheng Q, Juette MF, Jockusch S et al (2014) Ultra-stable organic fluorophores for single-molecule research. Chem Soc Rev 43:1044–1056PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhegalova NG, He S, Zhou H, Kim DM, Berezin MY (2014) Minimization of self-quenching fluorescence on dyes conjugated to biomolecules with multiple labeling sites via asymmetrically charged NIR fluorophores. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 9:355–362PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grimm JB, English BP, Choi H et al (2016) Bright photoactivatable fluorophores for single-molecule imaging. Nat Methods 13:985–988PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lehmann M, Lichtner G, Klenz H, Schmoranzer J (2016) Novel organic dyes for multicolor localization-based super-resolution microscopy. J Biophotonics 9:161–170PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Annibale P, Scarselli M, Greco M, Radenovic A (2012) Identification of the factors affecting co-localization precision for quantitative multicolor localization microscopy. Opt Nanoscopy 1:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Richter KN, Revelo NH, Seitz KJ et al (2017) Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super-resolution microscopy. EMBO J 37(1):139–159PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Stanly TA, Fritzsche M, Banerji S et al (2016) Critical importance of appropriate fixation conditions for faithful imaging of receptor microclusters. Biol Open 5:1343–1350PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Whelan DR, Bell TDMM (2015) Image artifacts in single molecule localization microscopy: why optimization of sample preparation protocols matters. Sci Rep 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tanaka KAK, Suzuki KGN, Shirai YM et al (2010) Membrane molecules mobile even after chemical fixation. Nat Methods 7:865–866PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brünig I, Scotti E, Sidler C, Fritschy JM (2002) Intact sorting, targeting, and clustering of γ-aminobutyric acid A receptor subtypes in hippocampal neurons in vitro. J Comp Neurol 443:43–55PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sergé A, Bertaux N, Rigneault H, Marguet D (2008) Dynamic multi-target tracing to probe spatiotemporal cartography of cell membrane. Nat Methods 5:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lelek M, Di Nunzio F, Henriques R et al (2012) Superresolution imaging of HIV in infected cells with FlAsH-PALM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:8564–8569PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Thevenaz P, Ruttiman UE, Unser M (1998) A pyramid approach to sub-pixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Trans Image Process 7:27–41PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E et al (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676–682PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sage D, Kirshner H, Pengo T et al (2015) Quantitative evaluation of software packages for single-molecule localization microscopy. Nat Methods 12:717–724PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ovesný M, Křížek P, Borkovec J et al (2014) ThunderSTORM: a comprehensive ImageJ plug-in for PALM and STORM data analysis and super-resolution imaging. Bioinformatics 30:2389–2390PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Henriques R, Lelek M, Fornasiero EF et al (2010) QuickPALM: 3D real-time photoactivation nanoscopy image processing in ImageJ. Nat Methods 7:339–340PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Coltharp C, Yang X, Xiao J (2014) Quantitative analysis of single-molecule superresolution images. Curr Opin Struct Biol 28:112–121PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nicovich PR, Owen DM, Gaus K (2017) Turning single-molecule localization microscopy into a quantitative bioanalytical tool. Nat Protoc 12:453–461PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Malkusch S, Endesfelder U, Mondry J et al (2012) Coordinate-based colocalization analysis of single-molecule localization microscopy data. Histochem Cell Biol 137:1–10PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Georgieva M, Cattoni DI, Fiche J et al (2016) Nanometer resolved single-molecule colocalization of nuclear factors by two-color super resolution microscopy imaging. Methods 105:44–55PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pageon SV, Nicovich PR, Mollazade M et al (2016) Clus-DoC: a combined cluster detection and colocalization analysis for single-molecule localization microscopy data. Mol Biol Cell 27:3627–3636PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Malkusch S, Heilemann M (2016) Extracting quantitative information from single-molecule super- resolution imaging data with LAMA-LocAlization Microscopy Analyzer. Sci Rep 6:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Levet F, Hosy E, Kechkar A et al (2015) SR-Tesseler: a method to segment and quantify localization-based super-resolution microscopy data. Nat Methods 12:1065–1071PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Andronov L, Orlov I, Lutz Y et al (2016) ClusterViSu, a method for clustering of protein complexes by Voronoi tessellation in super-resolution microscopy. Sci Rep 6:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    De Chaumont F, Dallongeville S, Chenouard N et al (2012) Icy: an open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nat Methods 9:690–696PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Li Q, Lau A, Morris TJ et al (2004) A syntaxin 1, Gαo, and N-type calcium channel complex at a presynaptic nerve terminal: analysis by quantitative immunocolocalization. J Neurosci 24:4070–4081PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Khanna R, Li Q, Sun L et al (2006) N type Ca2+ channels and RIM scaffold protein covary at the presynaptic transmitter release face but are components of independent protein complexes. Neuroscience 140:1201–1208PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Brocher J (2014) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of two new histogram limiting binarization algorithms. Int J Image Process 8:30–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biology of the École Normale Supérieure (IBENS), CNRS, InsermPSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.East China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations