Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24390311›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2014

High-resolution cryo-electron microscopy on macromolecular complexes and cell organelles.

Andreas Hoenger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Journal of virology · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Updates on Aptamer Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  4. Atomic resolution structure determination by the cryo-EM method MicroED.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2017
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Minicells, Back in Fashion.Journal of bacteriology · 2016
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Correlative fluorescence and electron microscopy.Current protocols in cytometry · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andreas HoengerDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA, hoenger@colorado.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryo-electron microscopy techniques and computational 3-D reconstruction of macromolecular assemblies are tightly linked tools in modern structural biology. This symbiosis has produced vast amounts of detailed information on the structure and function of biological macromolecules. Typically, one of two fundamentally different strategies is used depending on the specimens and their environment. A: 3-D reconstruction based on repetitive and structurally identical unit cells that allow for averaging, and B: tomographic 3-D reconstructions where tilt-series between approximately ± 60 and ± 70° at small angular increments are collected from highly complex and flexible structures that are beyond averaging procedures, at least during the first round of 3-D reconstruction. Strategies of group A are averaging-based procedures and collect large number of 2-D projections at different angles that are computationally aligned, averaged together, and back-projected in 3-D space to reach a most complete 3-D dataset with high resolution, today often down to atomic detail. Evidently, success relies on structurally repetitive particles and an aligning procedure that unambiguously determines the angular relationship of all 2-D projections with respect to each other. The alignment procedure of small particles may rely on their packing into a regular array such as a 2-D crystal, an icosahedral (viral) particle, or a helical assembly. Critically important for cryo-methods, each particle will only be exposed once to the electron beam, making these procedures optimal for highest-resolution studies where beam-induced damage is a significant concern. In contrast, tomographic 3-D reconstruction procedures (group B) do not rely on averaging, but collect an entire dataset from the very same structure of interest. Data acquisition requires collecting a large series of tilted projections at angular increments of 1-2° or less and a tilt range of ± 60° or more. Accordingly, tomographic data collection exposes its specimens to a large electron dose, which is particularly problematic for frozen-hydrated samples. Currently, cryo-electron tomography is a rapidly emerging technology, on one end driven by the newest developments of hardware such as super-stabile microscopy stages as well as the latest generation of direct electron detectors and cameras. On the other end, success also strongly depends on new software developments on all kinds of fronts such as tilt-series alignment and back-projection procedures that are all adapted to the very low-dose and therefore very noisy primary data. Here, we will review the status quo of cryo-electron microscopy and discuss the future of cellular cryo-electron tomography from data collection to data analysis, CTF-correction of tilt-series, post-tomographic sub-volume averaging, and 3-D particle classification. We will also discuss the pros and cons of plunge freezing of cellular specimens to vitrified sectioning procedures and their suitability for post-tomographic volume averaging despite multiple artifacts that may distort specimens to some degree.

Indexed as

AnimalsCHO CellsCricetulusCryoelectron MicroscopyGiardiaMacromolecular SubstancesOrganellesMacromolecular Substances

Identifiers

PMID24390311
PMCPMC3927062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.