Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
194,164 studies31 sourcesUpdated 5 min ago
PreprintCC BY-NDbioRxiv

Localization accuracy in single-molecule fluorescence microscopy

  1. 1Max Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences

Abstract

The two prevalent methods to determine the position of individual fluorophores in the focal plane of a microscope rely either on the centroid of the fluorescence pattern produced by the fluorophore on a camera or on targeting the fluorophore's coordinate with a spatially controlled illumination minimum, as realized in MINFLUX. In both methods, (sub)nanometer localization precisions have been reached, but little is known about their accuracy, i.e., the deviation of the obtained coordinate from its ground truth. Here we report a theoretical and experimental comparison of the accuracy provided by these two strategies. We quantify substantial systematic errors in camera-based localization due to the interplay of two difficult-to-control parameters: the orientation of the fluorophore in space and its axial deviation from the focal plane (defocus). For example, within an axial range of {+/-}120 nm around the focus, the median distance between two fluorophores on a nanobody measured by camera-based localization varies by 26.5 nm. Under the same conditions, a commercial MINFLUX system yields a median variation in distance of 1.4 nm, indicating an improvement in accuracy by an order of magnitude. The accuracy of MINFLUX localization can be further improved to (sub-)[a]ngstrom levels by reducing the average distance between the coordinates targeted by the illumination minimum and the fluorophore. As it delivers unrivaled precision and accuracy for mapping fluorophores and their distances, we consider coordinate-targeted localization essential for studying labeled cells at the sub-10 nm level and for exploring structural and conformational changes of labeled biomolecules.

Related

  1. Brightness demixing for simultaneous multi-target imaging in 3D single-molecule localization microscopy
    Laurent Le, Surabhi Kottigegollahalli Sreenivas, Emmanuel Fort +1
    Nature MethodsPeer-reviewedLicence not stated6 citedBiophysicsOpenAlex
  2. Advanced background removal methods in single molecule localization microscopy using scattering networks and SVD
    Lisa Cuneo, Simone Civita, S. Ivan Trapasso +3
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textBiophysicsCrossref
  3. Protocol for quantifying chromatin DNA replication by multiplex labeling and single-molecule localization microscopy.
    Zhiguang Xiao, Xiaodong Guan, Yujie Sun +2
    STAR protocolsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textBiophysicsEurope PMC
  4. Quantitative In-Cell Localization Microscopy: From Single-Molecule Localizations to Mechanistic Inference.
    Wenkai Chen, Shudan Yan, Luiz B Fernandez +2
    Chemical & biomedical imagingPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textBiophysicsEurope PMCPMC
  5. Accurate and Robust Measurement of Single-Molecule Fluorescence Spectral Heterogeneity.
    Xiayi Gong, Amrita Singh, Hongjing Mao +4
    ACS measurement science auPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textBiophysicsEurope PMC
BibTeX
@misc{chapman2026localization,
  title = {{Localization accuracy in single-molecule fluorescence microscopy}},
  author = {K. B. Chapman and R. Schmidt and J. Engelhardt and S. W. Hell},
  howpublished = {bioRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.64898/2026.10.14.759109},
  url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.14.759109v1},
  note = {CC BY-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Localization accuracy in single-molecule fluorescence microscopy
AU  - K. B. Chapman
AU  - R. Schmidt
AU  - J. Engelhardt
AU  - S. W. Hell
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/14
PB  - bioRxiv
DO  - 10.64898/2026.10.14.759109
UR  - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.14.759109v1
AB  - The two prevalent methods to determine the position of individual fluorophores in the focal plane of a microscope rely either on the centroid of the fluorescence pattern produced by the fluorophore on a camera or on targeting the fluorophore's coordinate with a spatially controlled illumination minimum, as realized in MINFLUX. In both methods, (sub)nanometer localization precisions have been reached, but little is known about their accuracy, i.e., the deviation of the obtained coordinate from its ground truth. Here we report a theoretical and experimental comparison of the accuracy provided by these two strategies. We quantify substantial systematic errors in camera-based localization due to the interplay of two difficult-to-control parameters: the orientation of the fluorophore in space and its axial deviation from the focal plane (defocus). For example, within an axial range of {+/-}120 nm around the focus, the median distance between two fluorophores on a nanobody measured by camera-based localization varies by 26.5 nm. Under the same conditions, a commercial MINFLUX system yields a median variation in distance of 1.4 nm, indicating an improvement in accuracy by an order of magnitude. The accuracy of MINFLUX localization can be further improved to (sub-)[a]ngstrom levels by reducing the average distance between the coordinates targeted by the illumination minimum and the fluorophore. As it delivers unrivaled precision and accuracy for mapping fluorophores and their distances, we consider coordinate-targeted localization essential for studying labeled cells at the sub-10 nm level and for exploring structural and conformational changes of labeled biomolecules.
ER  -