ArticleIUCrJ2019
A comparative study of single-particle cryo-EM with liquid-nitrogen and liquid-helium cooling.
Article in IUCrJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Reducing the effects of radiation damage in cryo-EM using liquid helium temperatures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Insights into protein structure using cryogenic light microscopy.Biochemical Society transactions · 2023Review
- CryomicroscopyFaraday discussions · 2022Article
- On the reduction in the effects of radiation damage to two-dimensional crystals of organic and biological molecules at liquid-helium temperature.Ultramicroscopy · 2022Article
- The progressive spectral signal-to-noise ratio of cryo-electron micrograph movies as a tool to assess quality and radiation damage.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022Article
- Forty years in cryoEM of membrane proteins.Microscopy (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Cryo-electron tomography related radiation-damage parameters for individual-molecule 3D structure determination.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiation damage is the most fundamental limitation for achieving high resolution in electron cryo-microscopy (cryo-EM) of biological samples. The effects of radiation damage are reduced by liquid-helium cooling, although the use of liquid helium is more challenging than that of liquid nitrogen. To date, the benefits of liquid-nitrogen and liquid-helium cooling for single-particle cryo-EM have not been compared quantitatively. With recent technical and computational advances in cryo-EM image recording and processing, such a comparison now seems timely. This study aims to evaluate the relative merits of liquid-helium cooling in present-day single-particle analysis, taking advantage of direct electron detectors. Two data sets for recombinant mouse heavy-chain apoferritin cooled with liquid-nitrogen or liquid-helium to 85 or 17 K were collected, processed and compared. No improvement in terms of resolution or Coulomb potential map quality was found for liquid-helium cooling. Interestingly, beam-induced motion was found to be significantly higher with liquid-helium cooling, especially within the most valuable first few frames of an exposure, thus counteracting any potential benefit of better cryoprotection that liquid-helium cooling may offer for single-particle cryo-EM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.