Spot Scan Imaging and the Future of High Resolution

Author(s):  
K.H. Downing

Electron crystallographers who have been working on determination of protein structure have set a goal of obtaining image information to a resolution of about 3.5 Å, from specimens tilted up to 60 degrees. This information would allow the construction of a three-dimensional density map within which the path of the peptide chain could be followed and locations of side chains defined. The recent determination of an atomic model of the membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin (bR) from EM data (1) which was not as complete as we would like, used a good deal of other biochemical and biophysical data to constrain the model. In cases where this type of information is not as extensive as with bR, isotropic high-resolution data would be required. Significant advances in several different areas have brought us tantalizingly close to reaching our goal, but there are still improvements to be made.The essential limitations in obtaining high resolution data from proteins arise from the radiation sensitivity of the specimen, which severely limits the electron exposure that can be used in recording an image and thus limits the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Increasing both the electron dose, which is possible with cold specimens, and the area processed, which required implementation of significant computer software, have each given about a factor of three improvement in SNR. Still, with conventional imaging, a study by Henderson and Glaeser (2) revealed that the best images contained only a small fraction of the signal that would be present in a perfect image. Factors such as the envelope of the contrast transfer function and the modulation transfer function of the photographic film account for some loss of contrast, but the factor causing the most loss was found to be beam-induced specimen motion. This motion results from the stress which is produced by changes in bond structure during the course of radiation damage.

Author(s):  
Z. Hong Zhou

It is well recognized that the contrast transfer function (CTF) of an electron microscope modulates the image contrast The effects of this CTF are to reverse the sign of the phases and to alter the amplitudes at different spatial frequencies. These changes are dependent on the defocus of the objective lens in a given microscope setting. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the defocus experimentally in order to correct the phase reversal and the amplitudes due to the CTF for attaining a high resolution reconstruction. The most straightforward way of determining the defocus value is to determine the positions of the Thon rings in the CTF by optical or computed transforms. In a crystalline specimen, the defocus value of an image can be refined against the electron diffraction amplitude. For specimen of which the x-ray structure is known, one can also use the x-ray structure factor to determine the CTF parameters.


Author(s):  
H.A. Cohen ◽  
W. Chiu

The goal of imaging the finest detail possible in biological specimens leads to contradictory requirements for the choice of an electron dose. The dose should be as low as possible to minimize object damage, yet as high as possible to optimize image statistics. For specimens that are protected by low temperatures or for which the low resolution associated with negative stain is acceptable, the first condition may be partially relaxed, allowing the use of (for example) 6 to 10 e/Å2. However, this medium dose is marginal for obtaining the contrast transfer function (CTF) of the microscope, which is necessary to allow phase corrections to the image. We have explored two parameters that affect the CTF under medium dose conditions.Figure 1 displays the CTF for carbon (C, row 1) and triafol plus carbon (T+C, row 2). For any column, the images to which the CTF correspond were from a carbon covered hole (C) and the adjacent triafol plus carbon support film (T+C), both recorded on the same micrograph; therefore the imaging parameters of defocus, illumination angle, and electron statistics were identical.


2009 ◽  
Vol 474 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 271-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Tosi ◽  
P. Teatini ◽  
L. Carbognin ◽  
G. Brancolini

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyalo Richard ◽  
Elfatih M. Abdel-Rahman ◽  
Sevgan Subramanian ◽  
Johnson O. Nyasani ◽  
Michael Thiel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document