Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:52:30.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STEM Darkfield Imaging Revisited: The Benefits of Inelastic Scatter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

F.P. Ottensmeyer ,
A.B. Fernandes ,
J.G. Poulos  and
W. Taylor
F.P. Ottensmeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto and Ontario Cancer Institute, Toronto, ONM5G 2M9, Canada
A.B. Fernandes
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto and Ontario Cancer Institute, Toronto, ONM5G 2M9, Canada
J.G. Poulos
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto and Ontario Cancer Institute, Toronto, ONM5G 2M9, Canada
W. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto and Ontario Cancer Institute, Toronto, ONM5G 2M9, Canada
Get access

Extract

The imaging of biological macromolecules at high resolution is predicated on the use of imaging modalities that combine a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) to observe the desired detail with a sufficiently low dose not to have perturbed the structure at the resolution of that detail. For 3D structure determination the S/N has to be sufficiently high to permit the accurate position and orientation determination for individual molecules or assemblies.

For 2D crystal specimens the position is determined a priori by the lattice, orientation by the externally chosen tilt of the specimen, and signal-to-noise in a single unit cell enhanced by the translocational redundancy of the many unit cells of the crystal. This is close to an ideal specimen, which has permitted imaging with resolutions of 3.4 À at doses of 20-35 e/Â2[l]. Specimens with high internal symmetry, icosahedral or helical structures, are examples which confer intermediate structural redundancies to assist in reducing the requires electron dose.

Type
The Limits of Image Resolution: Seeing is Believing
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 3 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '97, Microscopy Society of America 55th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 31st Annual Meeting, Histochemical Society 48th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, August 10-14, 1997 , August 1997 , pp. 1181 - 1182
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kühlbrandt, W.et al., Nature 367(1994)614.10.1038/367614a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Unwin, N., J. Mol. Biol. 229(1995)1101.10.1006/jmbi.1993.1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Stewart, P.L.et al., (1991) Cell 76(1991)145.10.1016/0092-8674(91)90578-MCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Czarnota, G.J.et al., (1994) J. Struct. Biol. 113(1994)35.10.1006/jsbi.1994.1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Henderson, R., Quart. Rev. Biophys. 28(1995)171.10.1017/S003358350000305XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Isaacson, M.et al., Optik 41(1974)92.Google Scholar
7.Muller, D.A.and Silcox, J., Ultramicroscopy 59(1995)195.10.1016/0304-3991(95)00029-ZCrossRefGoogle Scholar