Chapter Fifteen - Radiation Damage in Electron Cryomicroscopy
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION
In an electron microscope, electrons may interact with a specimen in one of two ways: electrons that scatter from the sample but retain their incident energy leave the structure unchanged; electrons that deposit some of their energy into the sample cause radiation damage and consequent structural changes. Contrast in bright field phase contrast electron microscopy (EM) comes primarily from the electrons that do not deposit energy into the specimen. If this type of scattering was the only type
MEASURING ELECTRON EXPOSURE
While discussing EM, many authors have used the words dose and exposure interchangeably. However, in more precise terminology, dose refers to the energy absorbed by the specimen while exposure indicates the amount of radiation incident on the specimen. Clearly, there is a relationship between the exposure of electrons to which a sample is subjected and the dose of energy absorbed. An experimentalist can perform an approximate conversion between these two quantities if the linear energy transfer
ENERGY ABSORBED BY SPECIMENS
The exposure of the sample to a flux of electrons is conveniently expressed in terms of electrons per Å2 of specimen surface area (e−/Å2). The energy of the electrons is usually between 100 and 300 keV (1 eV = 1.602 × 10− 19 J), although some microscopes employ accelerating voltages in the MV range. To convert from electron exposure to the dose of energy absorbed by the specimen, one must know the LET of incident electrons of a specific energy with a specific specimen. Glaeser has quoted values for the
RADIATION DAMAGE AND CHOICE OF ACCELERATING VOLTAGE
The probabilities of different types of interactions between an electron and a specimen are described by the cross-sections for each kind of interaction. Nondamaging interactions are always elastic events, where the kinetic energy of the incident electron is conserved. Only a small fraction of elastic events are destructive, causing the so-called “knock-on damage” that dislocates atoms from their chemical bonds (Glaeser et al., 2007). The vast majority of damaging interactions are inelastic
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DAMAGE TO PROTEINS DURING IRRADIATION
At hundreds of keVs, the electron energies used for cryo-EM are significantly higher than the covalent bond energies in biological specimens, which are on the order of a few eVs. Most beam damage occurs due to electrons that lose between ~ 5 and ~ 100 eV during interaction with the specimen (on average ~ 20 eV) (Langmore and Smith, 1992). The deposited energy predominantly excites or ionizes the valence electrons that make up chemical bonds, breaking the bond and producing free radicals and causing
TERTIARY DAMAGE TO PROTEINS DURING IRRADIATION
In tertiary or global damage during irradiation, protein crystals and single particle EM or electron tomography samples become distorted, with bubbles becoming apparent in the extreme case. X-ray and EM analysis have shown that these distortions are coincident with the production of gas within the sample during irradiation. Bubbling of specimens in the electron beam (Dubochet et al., 1988) is due to the buildup of hydrogen gas in frozen-hydrated specimens (Leapman and Sun, 1995). Similarly,
CRYOPROTECTION AND OPTIMAL TEMPERATURES
Breaking of bonds by electrons occurs at any temperature. Therefore, cooling the specimen does not affect primary beam damage. However, it has long been known that cooling a specimen reduces the rate of fading of diffraction spots from 2D crystals (Hayward and Glaeser, 1979, Taylor and Glaeser, 1976). It is now thought that the mechanism of cryoprotection in both cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography is the mechanical restraint of molecular fragments by the ice matrix, preventing their movement so
QUANTIFICATION OF BEAM DAMAGE WITH INCREASING EXPOSURE
As has been recognized by many investigators, analysis of radiation damage in thin crystals offers a way of selecting optimal exposures for many types of samples by capturing the relevant effects of beam damage. Radiation damage of thin crystals results in a loss of diffraction intensity. This fading of the diffraction pattern does not automatically suggest destruction of the individual molecules that make up a crystal but instead could suggest that the crystallinity of the sample is destroyed.
OPTIMAL EXPOSURES FOR THIN CRYSTALS
For 2D crystals, the relationship between the exposure that maximizes the SNR at a resolution (i.e., the optimal exposure ) and the critical exposure, , depends on whether data is collected by imaging or diffraction. In diffraction experiments, SNRs depend on the height of the intensity peak above the background noise. Therefore, the optimal exposure varies with the intensity of the spot. Spots with large ratios of peak height to background intensity have optimal exposures well
OPTIMAL EXPOSURES FOR SINGLE PARTICLE SAMPLES
For imaging of single particles, the SNR relationship derived by Hayward and Glaeser holds true. With these noncrystalline specimens, one must select the resolution at which the SNR is to be optimized in an image. While it may seem prudent to optimize the SNR at the highest resolution that the experiment aims to obtain, doing so may produce suboptimal SNRs at lower spatial frequencies needed to align particles so that images can be averaged coherently. Because critical exposures change rapidly
OPTIMAL EXPOSURES FOR TOMOGRAPHIC SAMPLES
For electron tomography, target resolutions are usually 20–60 Å, which is generally lower than for single particle EM and electron crystallography, and therefore higher electron exposures can be tolerated. The total electron exposure required for a given level of statistical significance at a given resolution in a 3D tomogram is the same as the exposure required for the same significance at the same frequency in a 2D image (Hegerl and Hoppe, 1976, McEwen et al., 1995). Therefore, the exposure
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
As described above, radiation damage imposes strict limitation on the electron exposure to which biological specimens can be subjected. Recent experiments have suggested that there is little advantage still to be gained from further optimization of specimen temperatures for the reduction of secondary damage. Radiation damage forces the experimentalist to work at conditions where every bit of extra signal in an image can improve a 3D model and every additional source of noise can reduce the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Robert Glaeser and Richard Henderson for many informative discussions and a critical reading of this chapter. L. A. B. was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and J. L. R. was supported by a New Investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This work was funded by operating grant MOP 81294 from the CIHR.
REFERENCES (36)
- et al.
The resolution dependence of optimal exposures in liquid nitrogen temperature electron cryomicroscopy of catalase crystals
J. Struct. Biol.
(2010) - et al.
Radiation damage effects at four specimen temperatures from 4 to 100 K
J. Struct. Biol.
(2010) - et al.
A dose-rate effect in single-particle electron microscopy
J. Struct. Biol.
(2008) - et al.
Dose tolerance at helium and nitrogen temperatures for whole cell electron tomography
J. Struct. Biol.
(2005) - et al.
The effects of radiation damage on the structure of frozen hydrated HSV-1 capsids
J. Struct. Biol.
(1993) Correction of high-resolution data for curvature of the Ewald sphere
Ultramicroscopy
(2000)- et al.
Electronic detectors for electron microscopy
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
(2007) Limitations to significant information in biological electron microscopy as a result of radiation damage
J. Ultrastruct. Res.
(1971)- et al.
Radiation damage of purple membrane at low temperature
Ultramicroscopy
(1979) Observations on ice layers
Ultramicroscopy
(1984)
The physical behavior of solid water at low temperatures and the embedding of electron microscopical specimens
Ultramicroscopy
The potential and limitations of neutrons, electrons and X-rays for atomic resolution microscopy of unstained biological molecules
Q. Rev. Biophys.
A comparison of liquid nitrogen and liquid helium as cryogens for electron cryotomography
J. Struct. Biol.
Quantitative energy-filtered electron microscopy of biological molecules in ice
Ultramicroscopy
Cryo-electron energy loss spectroscopy: Observations on vitrified hydrated specimens and radiation damage
Ultramicroscopy
The relevance of dose-fractionation in tomography of radiation-sensitive specimens
Ultramicroscopy
Origin and temperature dependence of radiation damage in biological samples at cryogenic temperatures
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
High-Resolution Electron Microscopy
Cited by (111)
Low energy electron microscopy at cryogenic temperatures
2023, UltramicroscopyRadiation damage to biological macromolecules∗
2023, Current Opinion in Structural BiologyOptimization of cryo-electron microscopy for quantitative analysis of lipid bilayers
2023, Biophysical ReportsReactions of polyaromatic molecules in crystals under electron beam of the transmission electron microscope
2023, MicronCitation Excerpt :The IR spectrum of F6-HATN crystals (Fig. S35) contains two strong, sharp O-H stretches at 3468 and 3323 cm-1 which supports the SCXRD data. Multiple studies into radiation damage of organic crystals have shown that organic molecules are generally highly sensitive to the electron beam (Haque et al., 2014; Skowron et al., 2019; Fryer and Holland, 1983; S’ari et al., 2015; Egerton, 2019; Baker and Rubinstein, 2010; Biskupek et al., 2020; Ballester et al., 1960; Schneider et al., 2012; Schindelin et al., 2012, 2015). The presence of nitrogen atoms and even copper do not seem to have a significant impact on the reactivity and stability of these molecules under the electron beam.
Frontiers in metalloprotein crystallography and cryogenic electron microscopy
2022, Current Opinion in Structural Biology