Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36323134›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2022

Recent advances and current trends in cryo-electron microscopy.

Margherita Guaita, Scott C Watters, Sarah Loerch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Cryo-EM single-particle analysis expanding towards increasingly native samples.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Margherita GuaitaUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Scott C WattersUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Sarah LoerchUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. Electronic address: sloerch@ucsc.edu.

Funding

SupplementR35GM146862 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Sarah Loerch · 2022 to 2026
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM146862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All steps of cryogenic electron-microscopy (cryo-EM) workflows have rapidly evolved over the last decade. Advances in both single-particle analysis (SPA) cryo-EM and cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) have facilitated the determination of high-resolution biomolecular structures that are not tractable with other methods. However, challenges remain. For SPA, these include improved resolution in an additional dimension: time. For cryo-ET, these include accessing difficult-to-image areas of a cell and finding rare molecules. Finally, there is a need for automated and faster workflows, as many projects are limited by throughput. Here, we review current developments in SPA cryo-EM and cryo-ET that push these boundaries. Collectively, these advances are poised to propel our spatial and temporal understanding of macromolecular processes.

Indexed as

Electron Microscope TomographySingle Molecule ImagingCryoelectron MicroscopyMacromolecular SubstancesMacromolecular Substances

Identifiers

PMID36323134
PMCPMC10266358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.