Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 46 references

Superselectivity as a Receptor-Fluctuation Response

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that superselectivity in multivalent binding measures, in the dilute limit, the mean excess of receptors beneath bound particles — readable from a single co-registered image instead of a fitted titration curve.

desk verdict A sound, honest theory paper: the central Poisson identity is exact and the limits are clearly marked, though the novelty is interpretive and practical rather than conceptual. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29599 v1 pith:3HM4NNCC submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph

Xiuyang Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph
keywords superselectivitymultivalentbindingreceptorfluctuationsfluctuation-responserelationPoissonstatisticsFanofactorselectivityadsorption
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

Multivalent particles — viruses, colloids, designed polymers — bind surfaces through many weak contacts, and superselectivity is their ability to switch from almost no binding to strong binding within a narrow range of receptor density. This paper asks what the standard measure of that sharpness, the logarithmic response α = ∂ln Θ / ∂ln n̄, actually measures at the microscopic level, and answers with an exact decomposition into two terms: how receptor-count states are reweighted as the mean density rises (averaged over bound particles), and how binding probability at a fixed receptor count changes directly along the scan. In the dilute limit on a fixed 'quenched' receptor landscape the second term vanishes, and for Poisson-distributed receptors α reduces to the mean number of excess receptors beneath bound particles — a quantity that can be read off a single co-registered receptor–particle image, no titration or numerical derivative required. Beyond Poisson statistics, the same excess is rescaled by the Fano factor when the count response is linear, and a new quantity M(n̄) says when nonlinear reshaping of the count distribution makes the simple excess insufficient. If correct, this turns superselectivity from a fitted curve parameter into an observable fluctuation property of the receptor landscape.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the count-resolved response R(n;n̄) = ∂ln P(n;n̄)/∂ln n̄, which measures how the probability of a footprint containing n receptors changes as the mean density rises. Selectivity is the average of this response over occupied footprints, because binding preferentially samples receptor-rich environments. The exact decomposition α = ⟨R⟩_occ + ⟨∂ln θ/∂ln n̄⟩_occ separates receptor reweighting from direct occupation changes; for Poisson counts R = n − n̄, so α reduces to ⟨n⟩_occ − n̄, a difference of two means measurable from one image. The Fano factor rescales the excess for linear non-Poisson responses, and the linear-mode weight M(n̄) = Corr²[n,R] reports how much of

What would settle it

On a quenched, randomly grafted surface, measure selectivity two ways: from the slope of the coverage–density titration and from the single-image difference ⟨n⟩_occ − n̄ (Fano-rescaled when needed). If the two disagree beyond sampling error at low particle activity, the central identity fails. The paper's off-lattice simulations already locate one failure mode — at high coverage the titration slope falls below the image estimate — so the decisive experiment is to reduce coverage until the discrepancy disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the dilute quenched regime, superselectivity is a fluctuation–response relation: selectivity α equals the occupied-footprint average of the count-resolved response R(n;n̄) = ∂ln P(n;n̄)/∂ln n̄, the direct occupation term of the exact decomposition vanishing. For Poisson receptor statistics this reduces to α = ⟨n⟩_occ − n̄: each bound particle sits, on average, on a footprint with more than one excess receptor. Beyond Poisson, a linear count response divides the same excess by the Fano factor; clustering or frozen heterogeneity requires the full count-resolved response, averaged over occupied footprints. Simulations confirm each relation, and the decomposition locates

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the probability of a footprint with n receptors being bound does not depend on the global mean receptor density — true only for dilute particles on a fixed receptor landscape, and broken when adsorbed particles crowd and block one another, a breakdown the paper's own off-lattice simulations exhibit at high coverage (Supplemental S1.E, Fig. 3a).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single co-registered receptor–particle image can replace multi-density titration for measuring selectivity in the dilute Poisson regime, removing derivative noise at low coverage.
  • Superselectivity gains a microscopic meaning: on Poisson landscapes each occupied footprint must contain, on average, more than one excess receptor for the binding curve to be sharp.
  • For finite-capacity or weakly correlated receptor fields, only the Fano factor is needed to correct the receptor-excess estimate; the full response is unnecessary.
  • On clustered or heterogeneous surfaces (Cox statistics, interacting receptors), the count excess and its Fano rescaling systematically underestimate the true response; receptor-only histograms at two neighboring densities supply the needed correction.
  • At high particle coverage, crowding adds a direct occupation response that no receptor-based measurement captures, delimiting the regime of validity of image-based estimators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework yields a practical classification rule the paper does not spell out: measure M(n̄) on a receptor-only density series, then trust the single-image estimator only where M ≈ 1; where it drops, reconstruct R(n;n̄) from two neighboring histograms and average it over occupied footprints.
  • A testable separation follows for surface engineering: two surfaces with identical mean receptor density but different fluctuation amplitude (different Fano factors) should show different selectivities, so titration curves alone cannot distinguish binding physics from receptor organization without fluctuation information.
  • In nonequilibrium or mobile-receptor settings, the vanishing of the direct occupation term is the natural place kinetics enters; the decomposition suggests the direct term carries exactly the time-dependent part of selectivity and could be used to phrase kinetic superselectivity in the same response language.
  • Because the estimator is a difference of two means, its precision is governed by the number of bound particles rather than curve smoothness — so with enough occupied footprints, selectivity could be mapped spatially across patterned or heterogeneous surfaces, a diagnostic the paper gestures at but does not develop.
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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper derives an exact decomposition of multivalent-binding selectivity α=∂lnΘ/∂ln n̄ into an occupied-footprint average of the receptor-count response R(n;n̄)=∂lnP(n;n̄)/∂ln n̄ plus a direct occupation term (Eq. 1). For quenched receptors and independent guest footprints the direct term vanishes. For Poisson receptor statistics R=n−n̄, so α equals the mean receptor excess beneath bound particles (Eq. 2), giving a single-density image-based estimator. For general count distributions with a linear count response the excess is rescaled by the Fano factor (Eq. 3); the paper introduces M(n̄) as the squared correlation between n and R, measuring how much of the Fisher information lies in the linear count mode. Lattice simulations verify the relations for Poisson, binomial, binary Cox, and interacting receptor ensembles, and off-lattice simulations show that guest-particle crowding appears through the direct occupation term.

Significance. The central identity is exact, parameter-free, and surprising: it links a macroscopic logarithmic derivative to a microscopic conditional mean. The paper therefore gives a fluctuation-response interpretation of superselectivity and a practical recipe for estimating α from co-registered images without differentiating a titration curve. The simulations are thorough: independent replicas, bootstrap intervals at the replica level, explicit protocols, and honest treatment of the regime where the direct occupation term does not vanish (Fig. 3, S1.E). The nonlinear-response diagnostic M(n̄) is a useful, falsifiable quantity. If the result is correct—and the derivation and checks support it—this will be a reference for the field.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Beyond Poisson, Eq. (4)] The phrase "fraction of the density sensitivity captured by the count excess" is imprecise: M is a squared correlation, i.e. the fraction of Fisher information carried by the linear projection, not a fraction of α itself. S1.C clarifies this, but the first mention should be reworded to avoid misreading.
  2. [Poisson receptor fluctuations, before Eq. (2)] The condition for the direct term to vanish is better stated as "independent footprints" or "negligible particle–particle correlations" rather than "dilute particles". In the lattice model the direct term vanishes by construction even at finite coverage, while the off-lattice failure in S1.E and Fig. 3 is specifically guest-particle crowding; adjusting the wording would make the operating assumption precise.
  3. [Interacting receptors and phase conversion, S2.D] At the phase-conversion points, both reconstructed derivatives are resolution-sensitive, as the authors state. The main-text Fig. 2(c) would benefit from a visible marker or shading of this narrow interval so that readers do not interpret the pointwise values there as reliable continuum derivatives.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central identity is derived from definitions and independently verified by simulation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and non-circular. Eq. (1) is an exact consequence of the definitions Θ = Σ P(n;n̄)θ(n;n̄), α = ∂lnΘ/∂ln n̄, and R(n;n̄) = ∂lnP(n;n̄)/∂ln n̄; it is an identity, not an assumed result. The quenched/dilute condition that the direct occupation term ⟨∂lnθ/∂ln n̄⟩_occ vanishes is stated as an explicit assumption and independently checked, with the paper identifying its precise failure mode (particle crowding) in S1.E and Fig. 3. Poisson statistics then give R(n;n̄)=n−n̄ by direct differentiation of the Poisson distribution, so Eq. (2) is a theorem under the stated assumptions rather than a restatement of the inputs. The Fano-factor relation Eq. (3) follows from the mean-count identity ⟨(n−n̄)R⟩=n̄ plus the linear-response assumption, and the linear-mode weight M(n̄) is defined precisely to quantify when that assumption holds; Monte Carlo and off-lattice simulations are used as independent tests, not as fitting sources. Self-citation [16] is contextual and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper's own limitation sections (S1.E and Fig. 3) flag where the direct occupation term does not vanish, which is the opposite of concealing a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; illustrative simulation constants (κ=4, s=e², z=10⁻⁸, M=9, J=3, Cox p/x, dR/σ) are inputs for demonstrations and do not enter the central identities. The axioms below are the explicit modeling assumptions that carry the derivation.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Receptor landscapes are quenched (fixed) during a binding measurement.
    S1.A: the coverage is an average of θ(n;n̄) over the receptor-count distribution P(n;n̄); no annealing of receptors during binding.
  • domain assumption The occupation probability of a footprint depends on the receptor state only through the count n.
    S1.B notes this explicitly and says larger local states are required if geometry matters.
  • domain assumption At fixed n, the occupation probability θ is independent of n̄ (direct response vanishes).
    Main text before Eq. 2 ('quenched receptors and dilute particles'); S1.E says it fails with particle crowding.
  • domain assumption Receptor counts follow a Poisson distribution for Eq. 2.
    Eq. S18; used to obtain R = n − n̄.
  • domain assumption Count-resolved response is linear in n for Eq. 3.
    Exact for Poisson and binomial; for Cox and interacting LG it is an approximation whose accuracy is quantified by M(¯n) and tested in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The density scan is performed at fixed z, κ, s, A0, and receptor-ensemble parameters.
    This fixes the meaning of the logarithmic derivative α in Eq. 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superselectivity as a Receptor-Fluctuation Response." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HM4NNCC

@misc{pith2026260729599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superselectivity as a Receptor-Fluctuation Response},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HM4NNCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29599}
}
read the original abstract

Superselective multivalent binding enables sharp receptor-density discrimination in targeting and sensing, but what its logarithmic response measures microscopically remains unclear. Here, we derive an exact response decomposition of the selectivity into receptor-state reweighting and a direct occupation response. In the dilute quenched Poisson limit, the direct term vanishes and selectivity is exactly the mean receptor excess beneath bound particles, which can be measured at a single density from a sufficiently large co-registered receptor-particle image. Beyond Poisson statistics, the excess is normalized by the Fano factor for a linear count response, while changes in distribution shape require the full count-resolved response. Lattice simulations verify these relations across distinct receptor statistics, while off-lattice simulations show that particle crowding enters through the direct term. These results establish a fluctuation-response framework linking multivalent selectivity to the local receptor fluctuations preferentially sampled by adsorption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Poisson receptor fluctuations and selectivity. Pan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Receptor statistics and selectivity. Panels (a–c) compare selectivity from finite differences (FD), the Fano-rescaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Receptor exclusion and particle crowding. Panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Mammen, S.-K

    M. Mammen, S.-K. Choi, and G. M. Whitesides, Poly- valent interactions in biological systems: Implications for design and use of multivalent ligands and inhibitors, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.37, 2754 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Fasting, C

    C. Fasting, C. A. Schalley, M. Weber, O. Seitz, S. Hecht, B. Koksch, J. Dernedde, C. Graf, E.-W. Knapp, and R. Haag, Multivalency as a chemical organization and ac- tion principle, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51, 10472 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Huskens, Multivalent interactions at interfaces, Curr

    J. Huskens, Multivalent interactions at interfaces, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.10, 537 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    P. I. Kitov and D. R. Bundle, On the nature of the mul- tivalency effect: A thermodynamic model, J. Am. Chem. Soc.125, 16271 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    Varilly, S

    P. Varilly, S. Angioletti-Uberti, B. M. Mognetti, and D. Frenkel, A general theory of DNA-mediated and other valence-limited colloidal interactions, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 094108 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Angioletti-Uberti, P

    S. Angioletti-Uberti, P. Varilly, B. M. Mognetti, A. V. Tkachenko, and D. Frenkel, Communication: A sim- ple analytical formula for the free energy of ligand– receptor-mediated interactions, J. Chem. Phys.138, 021102 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    F. J. Martinez-Veracoechea and D. Frenkel, Designing su- per selectivity in multivalent nano-particle binding, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 10963 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    G. V. Dubacheva, T. Curk, B. M. Mognetti, R. Auz´ ely- Velty, D. Frenkel, and R. P. Richter, Superselective tar- geting using multivalent polymers, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 1722 (2014)

    2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    G. V. Dubacheva, T. Curk, R. Auz´ ely-Velty, D. Frenkel, and R. P. Richter, Designing multivalent probes for tunable superselective targeting, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 5579 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Albertazzi, F

    L. Albertazzi, F. J. Martinez-Veracoechea, C. M. A. Leenders, I. K. Voets, D. Frenkel, and E. W. Meijer, Spa- tiotemporal control and superselectivity in supramolecu- lar polymers using multivalency, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110, 12203 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Linne, D

    C. Linne, D. Visco, S. Angioletti-Uberti, L. Laan, and D. J. Kraft, Direct visualization of superselective colloid– surface binding mediated by multivalent interactions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118, e2106036118 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    N. J. Overeem, P. H. E. Hamming, M. Tieke, E. van der Vries, and J. Huskens, Multivalent affinity profiling: Di- rect visualization of the superselective binding of in- fluenza viruses, ACS Nano15, 8525 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    G. V. Dubacheva, T. Curk, and R. P. Richter, Determi- nants of superselectivity—practical concepts for applica- tion in biology and medicine, Acc. Chem. Res.56, 729 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    M. Liu, A. Apriceno, M. Sipin, E. Scarpa, L. Rodriguez- Arco, A. Poma, G. Marchello, G. Battaglia, and S. Angioletti-Uberti, Combinatorial entropy behaviour leads to range selective binding in ligand–receptor inter- actions, Nat. Commun.11, 4836 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    G. V. Dubacheva, T. Curk, D. Frenkel, and R. P. Richter, Multivalent recognition at fluid surfaces: The interplay of receptor clustering and superselectivity, J. Am. Chem. Soc.141, 2577 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    X. Xia, G. Zhang, M. Pica Ciamarra, Y. Jiao, and R. Ni, The role of receptor uniformity in multivalent binding, JACS Au3, 1385 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Z. Xie, S. Angioletti-Uberti, J. Dobnikar, D. Frenkel, and T. Curk, Receptor clustering tunes and sharpens the se- lectivity of multivalent binding, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122, e2417159122 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Linne, E

    C. Linne, E. S. M. Heemskerk, J. W. Zwanikken, D. J. Kraft, and L. Laan, Optimality and cooperativity in su- perselective surface binding by multivalent DNA nanos- tars, Soft Matter20, 8515 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ahnert and M

    K. Ahnert and M. Abel, Numerical differentiation of ex- perimental data: Local versus global methods, Comput. Phys. Commun.177, 764 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    See Supplemental Material for complete response deriva- tions, receptor-count distributions, image-based recon- struction, simulation protocols, uncertainty estimates, and additional figures

  13. [21]

    W. B. Rogers and J. C. Crocker, Direct measurements of DNA-mediated colloidal interactions and their quantita- tive modeling, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 15687 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Y. Wang, Y. Wang, X. Zheng, ´E. Ducrot, J. S. Yodh, M. Weck, and D. J. Pine, Crystallization of DNA-coated colloids, Nat. Commun.6, 7253 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    A. Shaw, V. Lundin, E. Petrova, F. F¨ ord˝ os, E. Ben- son, A. Al-Amin, A. Herland, A. Blokzijl, B. H¨ ogberg, and A. I. Teixeira, Spatial control of membrane receptor function using ligand nanocalipers, Nat. Methods11, 841 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Veneziano, T

    R. Veneziano, T. J. Moyer, M. B. Stone, E.-C. Wamhoff, B. J. Read, S. Mukherjee, T. R. Shepherd, J. Das, W. R. Schief, D. J. Irvine, and M. Bathe, Role of nanoscale antigen organization on B-cell activation probed using DNA origami, Nat. Nanotechnol.15, 716 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Salaita, P

    K. Salaita, P. M. Nair, R. S. Petit, R. M. Neve, D. Das, J. W. Gray, and J. T. Groves, Restriction of receptor movement alters cellular response: Physical force sensing by EphA2, Science327, 1380 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    D. R. Cox, Some statistical methods connected with se- ries of events, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B17, 129 (1955)

    1955

  19. [27]

    Møller, A

    J. Møller, A. R. Syversveen, and R. P. Waagepetersen, Log gaussian cox processes, Scand. J. Stat.25, 451 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Eggeling, C

    C. Eggeling, C. Ringemann, R. Medda, G. Schwarzmann, K. Sandhoff, S. Polyakova, V. N. Belov, B. Hein, C. von 6 Middendorff, A. Sch¨ onle, and S. W. Hell, Direct observa- tion of the nanoscale dynamics of membrane lipids in a living cell, Nature457, 1159 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    A. D. Douglass and R. D. Vale, Single-molecule mi- croscopy reveals plasma membrane microdomains cre- ated by protein–protein networks that exclude or trap signaling molecules in T cells, Cell121, 937 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    B. F. Lillemeier, M. A. M¨ ortelmaier, M. B. Forstner, J. B. Huppa, J. T. Groves, and M. M. Davis, TCR and Lat are expressed on separate protein islands on T cell mem- branes and concatenate during activation, Nat. Immunol. 11, 90 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    M. J. Paszek, C. C. DuFort, O. Rossier, R. Bainer, J. K. Mouw, K. Godula, J. E. Hudak, J. N. Lakins, A. C. Wijekoon, L. Cassereau, M. G. Rubashkin, M. J. Magbanua, K. S. Thorn, M. W. Davidson, H. S. Rugo, J. W. Park, D. A. Hammer, G. Giannone, C. R. Bertozzi, and V. M. Weaver,...

    2014

  24. [32]

    M. B. Stone, S. A. Shelby, M. F. N´ u˜ nez, K. Wisser, and S. L. Veatch, Protein sorting by lipid phase-like domains supports emergent signaling function in B lymphocyte plasma membranes, eLife6, e19891 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Statistical theory of equations of state and phase transitions. II. lattice gas and Ising model, Phys. Rev.87, 410 (1952)

    1952

  26. [34]

    Banjade and M

    S. Banjade and M. K. Rosen, Phase transitions of multi- valent proteins can promote clustering of membrane re- ceptors, eLife3, e04123 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    X. Su, J. A. Ditlev, E. Hui, W. Xing, S. Banjade, J. Okrut, D. S. King, J. Taunton, M. K. Rosen, and R. D. Vale, Phase separation of signaling molecules promotes T cell receptor signal transduction, Science352, 595 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    C. B. Carlson, P. Mowery, R. M. Owen, E. C. Dykhuizen, and L. L. Kiessling, Selective tumor cell targeting using low-affinity, multivalent interactions, ACS Chem. Biol.2, 119 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Angioletti-Uberti, Theory, simulations and the design of functionalized nanoparticles for biomedical applica- tions: A soft matter perspective, npj Comput

    S. Angioletti-Uberti, Theory, simulations and the design of functionalized nanoparticles for biomedical applica- tions: A soft matter perspective, npj Comput. Mater. 3, 48 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    T. M. Squires, R. J. Messinger, and S. R. Manalis, Mak- ing it stick: Convection, reaction and diffusion in surface- based biosensors, Nat. Biotechnol.26, 417 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    T. Curk, J. Dobnikar, and D. Frenkel, Optimal multiva- lent targeting of membranes with many distinct recep- tors, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 7210 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Ravnik, B

    V. Ravnik, B. Chabaud, U. Bren, G. V. Dubacheva, and T. Curk, Kinetic superselectivity in multivalent binding, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.17, 6357 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    O. A. Amjad, B. M. Mognetti, P. Cicuta, and L. Di Michele, Membrane adhesion through bridging by multimeric ligands, Langmuir33, 1139 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Jungmann, M

    R. Jungmann, M. S. Avenda˜ no, M. Dai, J. B. Woehrstein, S. S. Agasti, Z. Feiger, A. Rodal, and P. Yin, Quantita- tive super-resolution imaging with qPAINT, Nat. Meth- ods13, 439 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Superselectivity as a Receptor-Fluctuation Response

    F. Levet, G. Julien, R. Galland, C. Butler, A. Beghin, A. Chazeau, P. Hoess, J. Ries, G. Giannone, and J.-B. Sibarita, A tessellation-based colocalization analysis ap- proach for single-molecule localization microscopy, Nat. Commun.10, 2379 (2019). Supplemental Material for “S...

    2019

  36. [44]

    with the strong-attraction value J= 3 used in the main text. At strong attraction, the receptor-count distribution near phase separation can be viewed approximately as a mixture of receptor-poor and receptor-rich window distributions, P(n; ¯n) = [1−ϕ(¯n)]Ppoor(n) +ϕ(¯n)Prich(n...

  37. [45]

    D. R. Cox, Some statistical methods connected with series of events, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B17, 129 (1955)

    1955

  38. [46]

    Møller, A

    J. Møller, A. R. Syversveen, and R. P. Waagepetersen, Log gaussian cox processes, Scand. J. Stat.25, 451 (1998). 8 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 P(n; ̄n) ̄n = 4.54 a Poisson ̄n− ̄n ̄n+ 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 ̄n = 4.54 b Binomial LG 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 ̄n = 4.54 c Cox 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 ̄n = 0...

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.