ArticleIUCrJ2020
The achievable resolution for X-ray imaging of cells and other soft biological material.
Article in IUCrJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrons and X-rays for diffraction and imaging.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2026Review
- Damage-limited resolution for X-ray and electron microscopy of organic specimens.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2026Article
- The Use of Synchrotron Radiation in the Medical Sciences.Photon science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
X-ray imaging of soft materials is often difficult because of the low contrast of the components. This particularly applies to frozen hydrated biological cells where the feature of interest can have a similar density to the surroundings. As a consequence, a high dose is often required to achieve the desired resolution. However, the maximum dose that a specimen can tolerate is limited by radiation damage. Results from 3D coherent diffraction imaging (CDI) of frozen hydrated specimens have given resolutions of ∼80 nm compared with the expected resolution of 10 nm predicted from theoretical considerations for identifying a protein embedded in water. Possible explanations for this include the inapplicability of the dose-fractionation theorem, the difficulty of phase determination, an overall object-size dependence on the required fluence and dose, a low contrast within the biological cell, insufficient exposure, and a variety of practical difficulties such as scattering from surrounding material. A recent article [Villaneuva-Perez
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.