Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep;99(9):910-920.
doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.24336. Epub 2021 Mar 30.

Quantifying colocalization: The case for discarding the Manders overlap coefficient

Affiliations
Free article

Quantifying colocalization: The case for discarding the Manders overlap coefficient

Jeremy Adler et al. Cytometry A. 2021 Sep.
Free article

Abstract

Colocalization measurements aim to characterize the relative distribution of two molecules within a biologically relevant area. It is efficient to measure two distinct features, co-occurrence, the extent to which the molecules appear together, and correlation, how well variations in concentration of the two molecules match. The Manders overlap coefficient (MOC) appears in most colocalization software but the literature contains three interpretations of its measurements: (a) co-occurrence, (b) correlation, or (c) a combination of both. This is surprising given the simplicity of the underlying equation. Testing shows that the MOC responds both to changes in co-occurrence and to changes in correlation. Further testing reveals that different distributions of intensity (Gaussian, gamma, uniform, exponential) dramatically alter the balance between the contribution from co-occurrence and correlation. It follows that the MOC's ability to differentiate between different patterns of colocalization is very limited, since any value is compatible with widely differing combinations of co-occurrence, correlation, and intensity distribution. To characterize colocalization, we recommend reporting both co-occurrence and correlation, using coefficients specific for each attribute. Since the MOC has no clear role in the measurement of colocalization and causes considerable confusion, we conclude that it should be discarded.

Keywords: MOC; co-occurrence; colocalization analysis; correlation; fluorescence; quantification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. Adler J, Parmryd I. Recent review on colocalization seem to misunderstand the Pearson correlation coefficient. J Microsc. 2007;227:83 author reply 84-5.
    1. Manders E, Verbeek FJ, Aten JA. Measurement of co-localisation of objects in dual-colour confocal images. J Microsc. 1993;169:375-82.
    1. Adler J, Parmryd I. Quantifying colocalization by correlation: the Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient. Cytometry A. 2010;77:733-42.
    1. Herce HD, Casas-Delucchi CS, Cardoso MC. New image colocalization coefficient for fluorescence microscopy to quantify (bio-)molecular interactions. J Microsc. 2013;249:184-94.
    1. Adler J, Parmryd I. Quantifying colocalization: thresholding, void voxels and the H(coef). PLoS One. 2014;9:e111983.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources