Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29872002›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2018

Electron diffraction data processing with DIALS.

Max T B Clabbers, Tim Gruene, James M Parkhurst, Jan Pieter Abrahams, David G Waterman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

74 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Crystal structure determination of an FeActa crystallographica. Section E, Crystallographic communications · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Standards for MicroED.Acta crystallographica. Section C, Structural chemistry · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Max T B ClabbersCenter for Cellular Imaging and NanoAnalytics (C-CINA), Biozentrum, University of Basel, Mattenstrasse 26, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.
Tim GruenePaul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
James M ParkhurstDiamond Light Source Ltd, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot OX11 0DE, England.
Jan Pieter AbrahamsCenter for Cellular Imaging and NanoAnalytics (C-CINA), Biozentrum, University of Basel, Mattenstrasse 26, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8216-1868
David G WatermanSTFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot OX11 0FA, England.ORCID 0000-0002-2134-182X

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 202933/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electron diffraction is a relatively novel alternative to X-ray crystallography for the structure determination of macromolecules from three-dimensional nanometre-sized crystals. The continuous-rotation method of data collection has been adapted for the electron microscope. However, there are important differences in geometry that must be considered for successful data integration. The wavelength of electrons in a TEM is typically around 40 times shorter than that of X-rays, implying a nearly flat Ewald sphere, and consequently low diffraction angles and a high effective sample-to-detector distance. Nevertheless, the DIALS software package can, with specific adaptations, successfully process continuous-rotation electron diffraction data. Pathologies encountered specifically in electron diffraction make data integration more challenging. Errors can arise from instrumentation, such as beam drift or distorted diffraction patterns from lens imperfections. The diffraction geometry brings additional challenges such as strong correlation between lattice parameters and detector distance. These issues are compounded if calibration is incomplete, leading to uncertainty in experimental geometry, such as the effective detector distance and the rotation rate or direction. Dynamic scattering, absorption, radiation damage and incomplete wedges of data are additional factors that complicate data processing. Here, recent features of DIALS as adapted to electron diffraction processing are shown, including diagnostics for problematic diffraction geometry refinement, refinement of a smoothly varying beam model and corrections for distorted diffraction images. These novel features, combined with the existing tools in DIALS, make data integration and refinement feasible for electron crystallography, even in difficult cases.

Indexed as

SoftwareCrystallographyData AccuracyElectronic Data ProcessingMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionMuramidaseProteinsMuramidaseProteinsDIALSdiffraction geometryelectron crystallographyelectron microscopyprotein nanocrystals

Identifiers

PMID29872002
PMCPMC6096487

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.