Bridging the gap between qualitative and quantitative colocalization results in fluorescence microscopy studies.

Researchers doing fluorescence microscopy and performing quantitative colocalization analysis know how difficult it is to describe obtained quantitative data using natural language with subjective qualifiers, such as "Weak", "Moderate", "Strong", etc. Depending on what they expect, many tend to misreport their results: "Strong" colocalization in the case of overlap coefficient (standard values are from 0 to 1.0) may mean 0.99 to one researcher and 0.51 to another. This discrepancy can cause significant confusions and create errors.

For the last several years we tried to find a solution to solving this problem. Assistance came from using the fuzzy system model. With its help, we developed a tool to characterize colocalization data in a way so that they are understandable and comparable both qualitatively and quantitatively. We produced a set of just five linguistic variables tied to the values of popular colocalization coefficients: "Very Weak", "Weak", "Moderate", "Strong", and "Very Strong". The use of these variables ensures that the results of colocalization studies are properly reported, easily shared, and universally understood by all researchers working in the field. Importantly, when new coefficients are introduced, their values can be readily fitted into the set.

To make this information accessible to as many researchers as possible, we decided to publish it in Scientific Reports, an open access journal from Nature Publishing Group (NPG), so that all interested can download a free copy of the paper. Get your copy of the paper here and don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Editorial Board of Scientific Reports

I recently joined Editorial Board of Scientific Reports, new online and open access journal from the publishers of Nature. It covers all areas of the natural sciences. As a member of Nature Publishing Group (NPG), Scientific Reports publishes technically sound, original research papers of interest to specialists within their field and without barriers to access. I am affiliated with the Cell Biology section of the Board.

To ensure rapid peer review and publication of research, Scientific Reports relies on an external Editorial Board and a streamlined peer-review system. An internal publishing team works with the board and authors to make sure that accepted manuscripts are processed for publication as quickly and smoothly as possible.

In addition, Scientific Reports leverages the tools, technology and experience of NPG to ensure that published manuscripts are enhanced by innovative web technologies. All papers are archived in PubMed Central.

I look forward to help making Scientific Reports an another NPG success.