Resolution in Electron Tomography
Traditionally, in computed tomography practiced in radiology, the resolution of the reconstruction is expressed in terms of the number of evenly spaced projections required for the faithful reconstruction of an object that has a given diameter (see equation (10) below).The tacit assumption is that projection data have a sufficient spectral signal-to-noise ratio (SSNR) in the whole frequency range in order to reproduce the object faithfully. In electron microscopy, the situation is dramatically different, as the electron dose limitations result in very low SSNR in the individual projections. The suppression of signal is particularly severe in high spatial frequencies, where the signal is affected by the envelope function of the microscope and the high amount of ambient noise, as well as in some low spatial frequency regions (due to the influence of the contrast transfer function (CTF) of the electron microscope). In single-particle reconstruction, a satisfactory level of the SSNR in the 3D reconstruction is achieved by including a large number of 2D projections (tens to hundreds of thousands) that are averaged during the reconstruction process. Except for rare cases (Boisset et al., 1998), the angular distribution of projections is not an issue, as the large number of molecules and the randomness of their orientations on the support grid all but guarantee uniform coverage of angular space. The concern is whether the number of projections per angular direction is sufficient to yield the desired SSNR or whether the angular distribution of projections is such that the oversampling of the 3D Fourier space achieved during the reconstruction process will yield the desired SSNR.
KeywordsSpatial Frequency Tilt Angle Electron Tomography Fourier Space Tomographic Reconstruction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Carazo, J. M. (1992). The fidelity of 3D reconstruction from incomplete data and the use of restoration methods. In Electron Tomography (J. Frank, ed.). Plenum, New York, pp. 117–166.Google Scholar
- Carazo, J.M. and Carrascosa, J. L. (1986). Information recovery in missing angular data cases: an approach by the convex projections method in three dimensions. J. Microsc. 145:23–43.Google Scholar
- Faridani, A. (2003). Introduction to the mathematics of computed tomography. In Inside Out: Inverse Problems and Applications, vol. 47 (G. Uhlmann, ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
- Frank, J. (2006). Three-Dimensional Electron Microscopy of Macromolecular Assemblies. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Natterer, F. (1986). The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Natterer, F. and Wübbeling, F. (2001). Mathematical Methods in Image Reconstruction. SIAM, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Orlov, S. S. (1976). Theory of three-dimensional reconstruction 1. Conditions for a complete set of projections. Soviet Phys. Crystallogr. 20:312–314.Google Scholar
- Penczek, P. (1998). Measures of resolution using Fourier shell correlation. J. Mol. Biol. 280:115–116.Google Scholar
- Saxton, W.O. (1978). Computer Techniques for Image Processing of Electron Microscopy. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Vainshtein, B. K. and Penczek, P. A. (2006). Three-dimensional reconstruction. In International Tables for Crystallography 3rd edn., vol. B Reciprocal Space (U. Shmueli, ed.).Google Scholar