ReviewFrontiers in molecular biosciences2022
Analysis and comparison of electron radiation damage assessments in Cryo-EM by single particle analysis and micro-crystal electron diffraction.
Review in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- From rosemary and coffee to bioactive nanovesicles: exploring new frontiers in food functional ingredients.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Strategies for mitigating radiation damage and improving data completeness in 3D electron diffraction of protein crystals.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2026Article
- Review
- From Beam Damage to Massive Reaction Amplification under the Electron Microscope: An Ionization-Induced Chain Reaction in Crystals of a Dewar Benzene.ACS central science · 2024Article
- Exploiting the full potential of cryo-EM maps.BBA advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electron radiation damage to macromolecules is an inevitable resolution limit factor in all major structural determination applications using cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM). Single particle analysis (SPA) and micro-crystal electron diffraction (MicroED) have been employed to assess radiation damage with a variety of protein complexes. Although radiation induced sidechain density loss and resolution decay were observed by both methods, the minimum dose of electron irradiation reducing high-resolution limit reported by SPA is more than ten folds higher than measured by MicroED using the conventional dose concept, and there is a gap between the attained resolutions assessed by these two methods. We compared and analyzed these two approaches side-by-side in detail from several aspects to identify some crucial determinants and to explain this discrepancy. Probability of a high energy electron being inelastically scattered by a macromolecule is proportional to number of layers of the molecules in its transmission path. As a result, the same electron dose could induce much more site-specific damage to macromolecules in 3D protein crystal than single particle samples. Major differences in data collection and processing scheme are the key factors to different levels of sensitivity to radiation damage at high resolution between the two methods. High resolution electron diffraction in MicroED dataset is very sensitive to global damage to 3D protein crystals with low dose accumulation, and its intensity attenuation rates at atomic resolution shell could be applied for estimating ratio of damaged and total selected single particles for SPA. More in-depth systematically radiation damage assessments using SPA and MicroED will benefit all applications of cryo-EM, especially cellular structure analysis by tomography.
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.