Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Optical detection of the spatial structural alteration in the human brain tissues and cells and DNA and chromatin due to Parkinsons disease

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Parkinson's disease leaves a measurable nanoscale fingerprint in brain tissue, and this paper shows two optical methods can detect it.

desk verdict First PWS/IPR look at human PD midbrain shows a plausible disorder signal, but the IPR arm's hand-picked cells and missing patient counts leave the 53% claim unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18804 v1 pith:YMJBR2IA submitted 2024-12-25 physics.med-ph physics.bio-phphysics.optics

Fatemah Alharthi , Dhruvil Solanki , Ishmael Apachigawo , Jianfeng Xiao , Mohammad Moshahid Khan , Prabhakar Pradhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-phphysics.optics
keywords partialwavespectroscopyParkinson'sdiseaseinverseparticipationratiostructuraldisorderstrengthalpha-synucleinmesoscopiclighttransportconfocalmicroscopynanoscalebiomarker
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Parkinson's disease is known to rearrange brain tissue at scales far below what ordinary microscopes resolve, and this paper tries to catch those rearrangements with light. The authors use partial wave spectroscopy (PWS) to measure a disorder strength in human brain tissue and an inverse participation ratio (IPR) analysis of confocal images to measure disorder in DNA and chromatin inside cell nuclei. They report that both measures rise significantly in Parkinson's tissue: average disorder strength up 26.8 percent with a 27.5 percent wider spread, and mean IPR up 53 percent. If the measurements hold, this would give clinicians a quantitative, optics-based biomarker that could track disease progression or prescreen at-risk patients before symptoms dominate. The paper also connects the optical signal to known Parkinson's pathology by showing alpha-synuclein accumulation and dopaminergic neuron loss in the same tissue.

What carries the argument

The central object is the structural disorder strength $L_d = \langle \Delta n^2 \rangle l_c$, the product of refractive-index variance and correlation length, which measures nanoscale mass-density fluctuations in tissue. In the PWS arm, $L_d$ is recovered from the root-mean-square reflected intensity and the spectral autocorrelation of backscattered light under a quasi-1D mesoscopic transport approximation. In the IPR arm, a confocal image of a DAPI-stained nucleus is turned into an optical lattice with a tight-binding Hamiltonian; the eigenfunctions give $\mathrm{IPR} = \int |E(r)|^4 dr$, whose sample average and standard deviation are taken as proportional to $L_d$. Both arms translate how disordered the refractive-index landscape is into a single number that rises in disease.

What would settle it

A pre-registered, blinded IPR analysis on more tissue, with nuclei chosen by a fixed rule rather than by visible change, would settle whether the 53% mean-IPR difference is real; if the difference disappears, the DNA and chromatin disorder claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that human Parkinson's brain tissue and DAPI-stained nuclei carry a statistically significant increase in nanoscale structural disorder compared with non-PD controls, detectable without resolving the structures themselves. Using mesoscopic light transport theory, the authors compute the disorder strength $L_d$ from wavelength-resolved backscattered spectra and find the mean and standard deviation of $L_d$ rise by 26.8% and 27.5% ($p<0.05$) in PD patients. Using a tight-binding model on confocal images, they compute the mean inverse participation ratio $\langle \mathrm{IPR}\rangle$ as a proxy for $L_d$ inside DNA and chromatin and report a 53% increase in the mean in PD nuclei, while the standard deviation changes little at 2.4%. The paper interprets these changes as mass-density fluctuations from cytoskeletal dysregulation and protein bundling, and it takes the histological evidence of $\alpha$-synuclein deposition and dopaminergic neuron loss as independent confirmation that the optical signal tracks Parkinson's pathology.

Load-bearing premise

The 53% DNA and chromatin result rests on the assumption that the cells picked for analysis, described as those showing the most change in DNA and chromatin, were selected the same way and without bias in both Parkinson's and control samples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single numerical index $L_d$ from PWS can separate Parkinson's from control brain tissue with statistical significance, making it a candidate biomarker for PD progression.
  • The dual optical approach can detect DNA and chromatin reorganization inside individual nuclei, so it may reveal PD-related changes before bulk tissue loss is visible.
  • The same approach could serve as a low-cost prescreen: tissue from a biopsy or accessible site showing elevated disorder strength could flag patients for confirmatory imaging or therapy.
  • Because the IPR mean, not its standard deviation, carries the PD signal, the relevant biological change is an overall increase in chromatin mass-density disorder rather than greater cell-to-cell variability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, if the rise in $L_d$ is driven by alpha-synuclein aggregation, then $L_d$ might also be elevated in other synucleinopathies; testing brain tissue from dementia with Lewy bodies would check whether the signal is specific to Parkinson's.
  • A direct test of the biomarker claim would be to measure $L_d$ and IPR in postmortem tissue from patients at different motor-symptom durations to see whether the disorder strength tracks clinical progression stage by stage.
  • The 53% IPR increase is the most striking number, but it rests on a cell-selection step; an independent blinded replication with a fixed selection rule would establish whether that effect size is real or partly selection-driven.
  • PWS samples all refractive-index fluctuations in the volume, not just DNA; combining it with molecularly specific IPR could eventually separate the chromatin contribution from cytoskeletal and organellar contributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an optical study of postmortem human brain tissue from Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and controls. Two techniques are used: partial wave spectroscopy (PWS), which measures a disorder strength L_d from backscattered light spectra, and inverse participation ratio (IPR) analysis of confocal DAPI-stained nuclei, which is claimed to probe DNA/chromatin structural disorder. The authors report a 26.8% increase in mean PWS L_d and a 27.5% increase in its standard deviation for PD tissue, and a 53% increase in mean IPR for PD nuclei (p<0.05). Immunohistochemistry confirms alpha-synuclein deposits and tyrosine hydroxylase loss in PD, which the authors interpret as supporting the optical findings. The paper concludes that L_d is a promising biomarker for PD progression.

Significance. If the reported effects are robust, the study would provide a relatively simple optical method for detecting nanoscale structural alterations in human brain tissue and nuclei, with potential application to early PD diagnosis. The use of two independent optical approaches together with histological validation is a strength, as is the direct comparison of measured optical signals between PD and control samples rather than any fitted disease-label model. However, the current manuscript does not establish the robustness of the central quantitative claims because key experimental details—sample sizes at the donor level, the PWS calibration constant, and the IPR cell-selection protocol—are missing or described in a way that invites selection bias.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5] The cell-selection procedure for IPR analysis is described as: 'Cells that show the most change in the formation of DNA and chromatin were selected.' This is an outcome-dependent selection rule with no stated blinding to disease status and no prespecified, reproducible inclusion criteria. Because the reported 53% increase in mean IPR is the primary DNA/chromatin evidence, this selection step could directly inflate or even create the group difference. The authors must specify exactly how cells were chosen, whether the selector was blinded, and how the rule was applied identically to PD and control samples; otherwise the IPR result cannot be considered a valid comparison.
  2. [Figure 4] The statistical analysis reports only cell-level counts ('n=10-15 cells, 5-11 images per cell, ~6 sets') and never states how many individual patients or brain donors contributed to each group. Cells from the same donor are pseudoreplicates, and a p<0.05 computed at the cell level does not establish a population-level biomarker effect. The authors should report the number of independent brains per group and, if possible, perform a donor-level or mixed-effects analysis to confirm that the IPR and PWS differences are not driven by a single or a few individuals.
  3. [Equation (1)] The PWS disorder strength L_d is defined with a calibration constant B: L_d = (B n0^2 / 2 k^2) * ( -ln(<C(Δk)>) / (Δk)^2 ). The value of B and the procedure used to calibrate it are not reported anywhere in the manuscript. Although B may cancel in the ratio of PD to control L_d values if the same setup is used, its absence prevents reproducibility of the absolute L_d values and makes it impossible for readers to assess whether the 26.8% and 27.5% changes are robust to calibration drift. The authors should provide the calibration method and value, or explicitly state and justify that B cancels in the relative comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There are several typographical errors, including 'Parkinsons disease' in the abstract and inconsistent hyphenation of 'Parkinson's disease' throughout; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.5] The tight-binding Hamiltonian is written as H = Σ ε_i |i><i| + t Σ_<ij> (|i><j| + |i><j|). The second term appears to contain a typo: the bra and ket of the hopping term should be |i><j| + |j><i| to represent Hermitian hopping. Please correct this.
  3. [Section 2.5] The proportionality between mean and STD of IPR and L_d is asserted via Eqs. (5)-(6) with citations to prior work, but the logical connection is not explained in this manuscript. Since the raw IPR values are the measured quantity, the interpretive link to L_d should be stated more carefully or removed if it is not used in the statistical comparison.
  4. [Figure 4] The figure caption states 'n=10-15 cells, 5-11 images per cell, ~6 sets' but the text in Section 3.2 says '12–15 cells from each of the two categories' and '5-8 confocal images.' These numbers are inconsistent and should be reconciled.
  5. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says data 'may be available' upon request. For a biomarker claim, the authors should provide the underlying de-identified data or at least a clear commitment to share it on request without qualification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the PD-vs-control Ld and IPR differences are measured contrasts, not fitted outputs, but the IPR arm's outcome-dependent cell-selection rule in Section 2.5 is a validity risk rather than a derivation cycle.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The PWS result computes Ld from measured reflection spectra via Eq. (1) and compares PD versus control tissue; the reported 26.8% and 27.5% differences are empirical contrasts, not values forced by a model fitted to disease status. The IPR arm likewise computes a statistical quantity from DAPI-stained confocal images; Eqs. (5) and (6) assert proportionality between mean/STD IPR and Ld, but this is an imported measurement convention from prior work, not a fit to the PD/control label. No equation in the paper makes the PD-vs-control difference true by construction. The main flagged concern is Section 2.5: 'Cells that show the most change in the formation of DNA and chromatin were selected.' Because the IPR metric is intended to quantify chromatin/DNA structural disorder, selecting cells by a visual judgment of that same alteration introduces possible selection bias, and the paper does not report blinding, a prespecified inclusion rule, or patient-level counts (only 12-15 cells per category, 5-11 images per cell). This threatens the validity and generalizability of the 53% mean-IPR increase, but it is an experimental-design/selection-bias issue, not a circular derivation: the measured IPR values are not mathematically guaranteed to differ by the selection rule alone. The extensive self-citations supply the PWS and IPR methodology and the IPR-to-Ld proportionality, but the disease-group difference is new data that does not reduce to those citations. I therefore assign a low circularity score of 2, reflecting the methodological dependence on prior self-cited formalism while finding no by-construction circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the optical formalisms (PWS and IPR) that are mostly cited from the authors' prior publications rather than derived here, plus several domain assumptions linking intensity fluctuations to refractive index and mass density. No new physical entities are introduced. The measurement protocol includes unreported calibration and length-scale parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • PWS calibration constant B = not reported
    Appears in Eq. (1) as a calibration factor converting reflected intensity to Ld; the calibration procedure is not described, so absolute Ld values depend on an unreported constant.
  • IPR lattice size L = 0.4 µm
    The IPR disorder values are computed at L=0.4 µm (Section 3.2); results are scale-dependent and no justification for this specific length scale is given.
  • tight-binding hopping amplitude t = not specified
    In Eq. (3), the Hamiltonian includes inter-lattice hopping t; its value is never stated, and IPR eigenvalues depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multiply scattered light in weakly disordered media follows mesoscopic transport theory and the quasi-1D approximation with 200x200 nm channels.
    Invoked in Section 2.4.2 to justify extracting Ld from reflection spectra; from prior work by the same group rather than validated here.
  • domain assumption Refractive index fluctuations are proportional to local mass density fluctuations, dn = beta dρ.
    Section 2.5 links confocal intensity to refractive index and mass density; this linear relation is assumed, not tested in this study.
  • domain assumption DAPI fluorescence primarily reports DNA and chromatin spatial organization.
    Used to claim IPR measures DNA and chromatin structural alteration; DAPI binding is assumed to track chromatin architecture.
  • standard math Eigenfunction localization in the tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eq. 3) quantifies structural disorder via mean IPR proportional to Ld.
    Anderson localization in a disordered lattice; the proportionality is asserted in Eqs. (5)-(6) and relies on prior publications (Refs. 20-24).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical detection of the spatial structural alteration in the human brain tissues and cells and DNA and chromatin due to Parkinsons disease." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMJBR2IA

@misc{pith2026241218804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical detection of the spatial structural alteration in the human brain tissues and cells and DNA and chromatin due to Parkinsons disease},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMJBR2IA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18804}
}
read the original abstract

Parkinsons disease (PD) is considered one of the most frequent neurological diseases in the world. There is a need to study the early and efficient biomarkers of Parkinsons, such as changes in structural disorders like DNA and chromatin, especially at the subcellular level in the human brain. We used two techniques, Partial wave spectroscopy (PWS) and Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR), to detect the changes in structural disorder in the human brain tissue samples. It was observed from the PWS experiment that there was an increase in structural disorder in Parkinsons disease tissues and cells when compared to normal tissues and cells using mesoscopic light transport theory. Furthermore, the IPR experiment also showed DNA and chromatin structural alterations that have the same trend and support the PWS results. The increase in mass density in the nuclei components, such as DNA and chromatin, can be linked to the aggregation of alpha-synuclein in the substantia nigra of the brain. This protein deposition is considered a significant cause of neuronal death in the brains of PD patients. We also did a histological analysis of brain tissues, which supports our results from dual photonics techniques. The results show that this dual technique is a powerful approach to detect the changes. Our results highlight the potential of the parameter, related to the structural disorder strength, as an efficient biomarker for PD progress, paving the way for research into early disease detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18804 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative confocal images of DAPI stained and IPR images of human brain cells from control and PD patients. (a) and (b) are representative confocal images of normal cell nuclei and PD cell nuclei, DAPI stained, respectively, and (a’) and (b’) are their following disorder strength (IPR) images with L =0.4 µm. A comparison of the mean and std of the structural disorder, 𝐿𝑑−𝐼𝑃𝑅 or <IPR> values between the normal h… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The IPR analysis of the human brain cell’s nuclei, DAPI stained (a) and (b) are the bar plots for mean and standard deviation of IPR values (n=10-15 cells, 5-11 images per cell, ~6 sets) for the control and PD cells nuclei at sample length L= 0.4 µm; p-value < 0.05 for each pair. The result shows that the mean and STD of the IPR values of PD cell samples are higher than the control. The percentage increase is 53% an… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. These are the representative images of human non-PD and PD brain tissues from substantia nigra from the midbrain stained for α-Synuclein. PD image shows prominent reactivity of α-Synuclein (brown staining), while the non-PD image shows the absence of it, confirming the presence of α-Synuclein immunoreactivity in PD brain. We utilized an immunohistochemical approach to determine the α-Synuclein expression in the midb… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: These are representative immunofluorescent-stained images of human brain tissues from the SN region. There is a prominent loss of dopaminergic neurons (green color) in PD brain tissue compared to non-PD brain tissue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dopamine in Parkinson’s disease,

    Latif, S., Jahangeer, M., Maknoon Razia, D., Ashiq, M., Ghaffar, A., Akram, M., El Allam, A., Bouyahya, A., Garipova, L., et al., “Dopamine in Parkinson’s disease,” Clinica Chimica Acta 522, 114–126 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Possible causes of Parkinson’s disease,

    Adams, J., “Possible causes of Parkinson’s disease,” Frontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition) 26, 387–394 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Behavioral disturbances in Parkinson’s disease,

    Anderson, K.E., “Behavioral disturbances in Parkinson’s disease,” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 6(3), 323–332 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Parkinson’s Disease in Women and Men: What’s the Difference?,

    Cerri, S., Mus, L., and Blandini, F., “Parkinson’s Disease in Women and Men: What’s the Difference?,” Journal of Parkinson’s Disease 9(3), 501–515

    work page

  5. [5]

    Parkinson disease: from pathology to molecular disease mechanisms,

    Dexter, D.T., and Jenner, P., “Parkinson disease: from pathology to molecular disease mechanisms,” Free Radical Biology & Medicine 62, 132–144 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease,

    Schapira, A.H., and Jenner, P., “Etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease,” Movement Disorders 26(6), 1049–1055 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Targeting Alpha-Synuclein as a Therapy for Parkinson’s Disease,

    Fields, C.R., Bengoa-Vergniory, N., and Wade-Martins, R., “Targeting Alpha-Synuclein as a Therapy for Parkinson’s Disease,” Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 12, (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Gastrointestinal involvement in Parkinson’s disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management,

    Warnecke, T., Schäfer, K.-H., Claus, I., Del Tredici, K., and Jost, W.H., “Gastrointestinal involvement in Parkinson’s disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management,” npj Parkinson’s Disease 8, (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Parkinson’s disease: proteinopathy or lipidopathy?,

    Fanning, S., Selkoe, D., and Dettmer, U., “Parkinson’s disease: proteinopathy or lipidopathy?,” npj Parkinson’s Disease 6(1), 1–9 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Localization of light in coherently amplifying random media,

    Pradhan, P., and Kumar, N., “Localization of light in coherently amplifying random media,” Physical Review B 50(13), 9644–9647 (1994)

    1994

  3. [11]

    Mesoscopic light transport properties of a single biological cell : Early detection of cancer

    Pradhan, P., Liu, Y ., Kim, Y ., Li, X., Wali, R.K., Roy, H.K., and Backman, V ., “Mesoscopic light transport properties of a single biological cell : Early detection of cancer”Q1.326 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Application of mesoscopic light transport theory to ultra-early detection of cancer in a single biological cell

    Pradhan, P., Subramanian, H., Liu, Y ., Kim, Y ., Roy, H., and Backman, V ., “Application of mesoscopic light transport theory to ultra-early detection of cancer in a single biological cell”B41.013 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Optical methodology for detecting histologically unapparent nanoscale consequences of genetic alterations in biological cells,

    Subramanian, H., Pradhan, P., Liu, Y ., Capoglu, I.R., Li, X., Rogers, J.D., Heifetz, A., Kunte, D., Roy, H.K., et al., “Optical methodology for detecting histologically unapparent nanoscale consequences of genetic alterations in biological cells,” Proceedings of the National ...

    2008

  6. [14]

    Nanocytological Field Carcinogenesis Detection to Mitigate Overdiagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Proof of Concept Study,

    Roy, H.K., Brendler, C.B., Subramanian, H., Zhang, D., Maneval, C., Chandler, J., Bowen, L., Kaul, K.L., Helfand, B.T., et al., “Nanocytological Field Carcinogenesis Detection to Mitigate Overdiagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Proof of Concept Study,” PLoS ONE 10(2), e0115999 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Optical study of stress hormone-induced nanoscale structural alteration in brain using partial wave spectroscopic (PWS) microscopy

    Bhandari, S., Shukla, P., Almabadi, H., Sahay, P., Rao, R., and Pradhan, P., “Optical study of stress hormone-induced nanoscale structural alteration in brain using partial wave spectroscopic (PWS) microscopy”10

  8. [16]

    Optical detection of the structural properties of tumor tissue generated by xenografting of drug-sensitive and drug-resistant cancer cells using partial wave spectroscopy (PWS),

    Adhikari, P., Nagesh, P.K.B., Alharthi, F., Chauhan, S.C., Jaggi, M., Yallapu, M.M., and Pradhan, P., “Optical detection of the structural properties of tumor tissue generated by xenografting of drug-sensitive and drug-resistant cancer cells using partial wave spectroscopy (PW...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Optical probing of nanostructural alterations of brain tissues by partial wave spectroscopy in chronic alcoholism,

    Adhikari, P., Shukla, P.K., Alharthi, F., Regmi, B., Rao, R., and Pradhan, P., “Optical probing of nanostructural alterations of brain tissues by partial wave spectroscopy in chronic alcoholism,” in Conf. Lasers Electro-Opt., AM3I.4 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Partial Wave Spectroscopy Detection of Cancer Stages using Tissue Microarrays (TMA) Samples,

    Adhikari, P., Alharthi, F., and Pradhan, P., “Partial Wave Spectroscopy Detection of Cancer Stages using Tissue Microarrays (TMA) Samples,” in Front. Opt. Laser Sci. APSDLS 2019 Pap. JW4A89, JW4A.89 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Optical Detection of Buccal Epithelial Nanoarchitectural Alterations in Patients Harboring Lung Cancer: Implications for Screening,

    Roy, H.K., Subramanian, H., Damania, D., Hensing, T.A., Rom, W.N., Pass, H.I., Ray, D., Rogers, J.D., Bogojevic, A., et al., “Optical Detection of Buccal Epithelial Nanoarchitectural Alterations in Patients Harboring Lung Cancer: Implications for Screening,” Cancer Research 70...

    2010

  12. [20]

    Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection,

    Sahay, P., Almabadi, H.M., Ghimire, H.M., Skalli, O., and Pradhan, P., “Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection,” Optics Express 25(13), 15428 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Optical probing of pups’ brain tissue and molecular specific nuclear nano-structural alterations due to fetal alcoholism via dual spectroscopic approach

    Adhikari, P., Shukla, P.K., Bhandari, S., Meena, A.S., Regmi, B., Alharthi, F., Sahay, P., Rao, R., and Pradhan, P., “Optical probing of pups’ brain tissue and molecular specific nuclear nano-structural alterations due to fetal alcoholism via dual spectroscopic approach”13

  14. [22]

    Photonics probing of DNA specific spatial mass density fluctuations in gut cell nuclei due to total body irradiation via confocal imaging

    Hasan, M., Shukla, P., Nanda, S., Adhikari, P., Rao, R., and Pradhan, P., “Photonics probing of DNA specific spatial mass density fluctuations in gut cell nuclei due to total body irradiation via confocal imaging”13

  15. [23]

    Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Roy, H.K., Joshi, H., Taflove, A., and Backman, V ., “Quantification of Nanoscale Density Fluctuations in Biological Cells/Tissues: Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR) Analysis of Transmission Electron Microscopy Images and Implications for Early-Stage ...

  16. [24]

    Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in ovarian cancer treatment using TEM imaging,

    Adhikari, P., Hasan, M., Sridhar, V ., Roy, D., and Pradhan, P., “Nanoscale structural alterations in cancer cells to assess anti-cancerous drug effectiveness in ovarian cancer treatment using TEM imaging,” Physical biology 17(3), 036005 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Wave propagation in one-dimensional disordered structures,

    Haley, S.B., and Erdös, P., “Wave propagation in one-dimensional disordered structures,” Physical Review B 45(15), 8572–8584 (1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    Role of Cytoskeleton in Controlling the Disorder Strength of Cellular Nanoscale Architecture,

    Damania, D., Subramanian, H., Tiwari, A.K., Stypula, Y ., Kunte, D., Pradhan, P., Roy, H.K., and Backman, V ., “Role of Cytoskeleton in Controlling the Disorder Strength of Cellular Nanoscale Architecture,” Biophysical Journal 99(3), 989–996 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Phase statistics of the light wave reflected from one-dimensional optical disordered media and its effects on light transport properties

    Pradhan, P., “Phase statistics of the light wave reflected from one-dimensional optical disordered media and its effects on light transport properties”18

  20. [28]

    Single-cell partial wave spectroscopic microscopy,

    Subramanian, H., Pradhan, P., Kunte, D., Deep, N., Roy, H., and Backman, V ., “Single-cell partial wave spectroscopic microscopy,” in Biomed. Opt. 2008 Pap. BTuC5, BTuC5 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Transport and Anderson localization in disordered two-dimensional photonic lattices,

    Schwartz, T., Bartal, G., Fishman, S., and Segev, M., “Transport and Anderson localization in disordered two-dimensional photonic lattices,” Nature 446(7131), 52–55 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells,

    Pradhan, P., Damania, D., Joshi, H.M., Turzhitsky, V ., Subramanian, H., Roy, H.K., Taflove, A., Dravid, V .P., and Backman, V ., “Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells,” Applied Physics Le...

    2010

  23. [31]

    DNA Double-Strand Break Accumulation in Alzheimer’s Disease: Evidence from Experimental Models and Postmortem Human Brains,

    Thadathil, N., Delotterie, D.F., Xiao, J., Hori, R., McDonald, M.P., and Khan, M.M., “DNA Double-Strand Break Accumulation in Alzheimer’s Disease: Evidence from Experimental Models and Postmortem Human Brains,” Molecular Neurobiology 58(1), 118–131 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.