The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantifying colocalization by correlation: The Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient
Open accessAbstract
The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and the Mander's overlap coefficient (MOC) are used to quantify the degree of colocalization between fluorophores. The MOC was introduced to overcome perceived problems with the PCC. The two coefficients are mathematically similar, differing in the use of either the absolute intensities (MOC) or of the deviation from the mean (PCC). A range of correlated datasets, which extend to the limits of the PCC, only evoked a limited response from the MOC. The PCC is unaffected by changes to the offset while the MOC increases when the offset is positive. Both coefficients are independent of gain. The MOC is a confusing hybrid measurement, that combines correlation with a heavily weighted form of co‐occurrence, favors high intensity combinations, downplays combinations in which either or both intensities are low and ignores blank pixels. The PCC only measures correlation. A surprising finding was that the addition of a second uncorrelated population can substantially increase the measured correlation, demonstrating the importance of excluding background pixels. Overall, since the MOC is unresponsive to substantial changes in the data and is hard to interpret, it is neither an alternative to nor a useful substitute for the PCC. The MOC is not suitable for making measurements of colocalization either by correlation or co‐occurrence. © 2010 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Unified Model of Mammalian BCL-2 Protein Family Interactions at the Mitochondria
Llambi, F., Moldoveanu, T., Tait, S. W. G., Bouchier-Hayes, L., Temirov, J., McCormick, L. L., Dillon, C. P., & Green, D. R. (2011) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2011.10.001 · Cited by 596
Borkowska, M., Siek, M., Kolygina, D. V., Sobolev, Y. I., Lach, S., Kumar, S., Cho, Y.-K., Kandere-Grzybowska, K., & Grzybowski, B. A. (2020) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-020-0643-3 · Cited by 281
Wang, R., Yu, F., Chen, L., Chen, H., Wang, L., & Zhang, W. (2012) · Chemical Communications · doi:10.1039/c2cc36088h · Cited by 262
Health Prognosis for Electric Vehicle Battery Packs: A Data-Driven Approach
Hu, X., Che, Y., Lin, X., & Deng, Z. (2020) · IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · doi:10.1109/tmech.2020.2986364 · Cited by 206
Digiacomo, L., Cardarelli, F., Pozzi, D., Palchetti, S., Digman, M. A., Gratton, E., Capriotti, A. L., Mahmoudi, M., & Caracciolo, G. (2017) · Nanoscale · doi:10.1039/c7nr06437c · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Adler, J., & Parmryd, I.
- Venue
- Cytometry Part A
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03-30
- Volume
- 77A
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 733-742
- ISSN
- 1552-4922 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4930
- OpenAlex
- W2063559185
- Cited by
- 1,054
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying colocalization by correlation: The Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cyto.a.20896
- The paper
- Adler, J., & Parmryd, I. (2010). Quantifying colocalization by correlation: The Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient. Cytometry Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.20896
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.