Back

Selecting optimal support grids for super-resolution cryogenic correlated light and electron microscopy

Last, M. G. F.; Tuijtel, M. W.; Voortman, L. M.; Sharp, T. H.

2022-12-05 molecular biology
10.1101/2022.12.05.519127 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM) and super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (FM) are two popular and ever improving methods for high-resolution imaging of biological samples. In recent years, the combination of these two techniques into one correlated workflow has gained attention as a promising route towards contextualizing and enriching cryo-TEM imagery. A problem that is often encountered in the combination of these methods is that of light-induced damage to the sample during fluorescence imaging that renders the sample structure unsuitable for TEM imaging. In this paper, we describe how absorption of light by TEM sample support grids leads to sample damage, and we systematically explore the importance of parameters of grid design. We explain how, by changing the grid geometry and materials, one can increase the maximum illumination power density in fluorescence microscopy by up to an order of magnitude, and demonstrate the significant improvements in super-resolution image quality that are enabled by the selection of support grids that are optimally suited for correlated microscopy.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Structural Biology
○ 64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Neurophotonics
● 42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
IUCrJ
● 32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.1%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Nanoscale Advances
● 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
7
Journal of Microscopy
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.2%
9
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.2%
10
Optics Express
● 26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
11
Nanoscale
● 42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
12
Optica
● 27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
13
Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology
● 59 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
Cell Reports Methods
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
15
Microscopy and Microanalysis
◐ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Journal of Structural Biology: X
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
18
Structure
○ 193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
ACS Nano
● 113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Journal of Cell Biology
● 392 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Journal of Visualized Experiments
● 34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
22
Small Methods
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
23
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
○ 122 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
Journal of Applied Crystallography
● 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
○ 98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Biophysical Journal
○ 631 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 41%
0.8%
28
BMC Methods
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
29
Advanced Biology
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
Biological Imaging
◐ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.