ReviewBiophysical journal2025
Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy for particle sizing: A notorious challenge.
Review in Biophysical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many quantitative investigations of biological systems, including, e.g., the study of biomolecular interactions, assembly and disassembly, aggregation, micelle and vesicle formation, or drug encapsulation, accurate determination of particle sizes is of key interest. Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS), with its exceptional sensitivity for molecular diffusion properties, has long been proposed as a valuable method to size small, freely diffusible particles with superior precision. It is conceptually related to the more widespread particle sizing technique dynamic light scattering (DLS) but offers greater selectivity and sensitivity due to the use of fluorescence rather than scattered light. However, in spite of these apparent advantages, FCS has never become established as a biophysical routine for particle sizing. This is due to the fact that sensitivity can, under certain conditions, indeed be disadvantageous, as it renders the technique error prone and overly susceptible to signal disturbances. Here, we discuss the systematic challenges, as well as the advances made over the past decades, to employing FCS in polydisperse samples. The problematic role of large particles, a common issue in DLS and FCS, and the effect of fluorescent labeling are discussed in detail, along with strategies for respective error mitigation in experiments and data analysis. We expect this overview to guide future users in successfully applying FCS to their particle sizing problems in the hope of fostering a more widespread and routine use of FCS-based technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.