Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Impact of gas background on XFEL single-particle imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tenfold background cut buys the same XFEL protein resolution with ten times fewer patterns.

desk verdict A useful, experimentally grounded simulation study for SPI experiment planning, but the 6 keV results—including the headline '10x fewer patterns' claim—are built on an unvalidated extrapolated background and should be read as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16259 v1 pith:FAYO5OA5 submitted 2024-11-25 q-bio.BM physics.bio-phphysics.ins-det

Tong You , Johan Bielecki , Filipe R.N.C. Maia This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMphysics.bio-phphysics.ins-det
keywords single-particleimagingXFELgasbackgroundGroELexpand-maximize-compressphaseretrievalresolutionlimitreduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Single-particle imaging at X-ray free-electron lasers could determine protein structures without crystals, but gas used to deliver the sample scatters X-rays into the detector and competes with the weak signal from one protein. This paper asks how much that gas background actually limits resolution, using simulated GroEL diffraction patterns built from experimentally measured fluences and background levels. It finds that background matters most when signal and background photon counts are comparable, and that a tenfold background reduction can achieve the same resolution with ten times fewer patterns. Under the tested conditions, the best resolution is about 1 nm, reached at 6 keV with a nanofocus beam and $10^{5}$ patterns. The practical message is that reducing delivery-gas scattering could be as valuable as increasing fluence or collecting more patterns.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a gas-background model that sums a uniform-pressure line component and a dense gas-jet component using the Debye scattering formula, with a single fitted factor relating jet density to chamber pressure; that factor lets the authors scale a measured 1.2 keV background to other energies. The reconstruction pipeline then performs two separate expand-maximize-compress (EMC) orientation-recovery assemblies, one on protein-plus-background patterns and one on background-only patterns, and subtracts the second volume from the first, a workaround for the reported instability of correcting the 2D patterns before assembly. Resolution is judged by three metrics — R-factor against the known model, phase-retrieval transfer function, and Fourier shell correlation — with the R-factor 0.2 threshold used for the headline numbers.

What would settle it

Measure the actual gas background at 6 keV under the same aerodynamic-lens and beam conditions used in the simulations, and repeat the GroEL reconstruction with that measured background in place of the scaled model. If the real background is materially higher than the scaled estimate, the reported 1 nm resolution at $10^{5}$ patterns and the tenfold pattern-efficiency gain would not be reproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that residual gas scattering, not the beam or detector alone, is a key factor in how well a single protein can be reconstructed. For the GroEL test case, resolution degrades as background rises, with the strongest effect when background contributes about as many photons as the protein signal. The headline results are that $10^{5}$ patterns at 6 keV with a nanofocus beam yield roughly 1 nm resolution, and that reducing background by a factor of 10 reproduces that resolution with $10^{4}$ patterns. At 2.5 keV, background reduction can be the difference between a reconstruction that converges and one that fails, while at 1.2 keV the detector's finite angular coverage limits what background reduction can buy.

Load-bearing premise

The headline results rest on a modeled 6 keV background obtained by scaling a measured low-energy background, and on the assumption that subtracting two separately assembled three-dimensional volumes leaves the protein signal unbiased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 6 keV with a nanofocus beam and 10^5 patterns, the simulations put the achievable GroEL resolution at roughly 1 nm.
  • Reducing gas background by a factor of 10 reproduces that resolution with 10^4 patterns, a tenfold reduction in the required number of patterns.
  • At 2.5 keV, background reduction can be the difference between a failed and a successful reconstruction for small datasets.
  • At 1.2 keV, the detector's edge resolution, not background, becomes the limiting factor, so background reduction yields smaller gains.
  • Across all tested energies, the gap between background-corrupted and background-free reconstructions widens as the number of patterns shrinks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the scaled 6 keV background is representative, investing in helium-based sample delivery or other gas-reduction methods may be as effective for reaching sub-nanometer resolution as increasing fluence or detector coverage.
  • The predicted tenfold pattern-efficiency gain could be tested before a full experiment by comparing EMC assembly variance on datasets with artificially scaled backgrounds.
  • The slight PRTF improvement seen with medium background over zero background at 6 keV suggests a small noise floor can help phase retrieval explore more solutions; a fine-grained background scan could test this directly.
  • The energy dependence implies a strategic choice: lower energies are robust but detector-limited, so pushing to higher energies only pays off if gas background and focal-spot size are addressed together.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses simulations of GroEL single-particle imaging at the European XFEL to study how gas background scattering affects achievable reconstruction resolution. Diffraction patterns are simulated with Condor using experimentally motivated fluences and detector geometries at 1.2, 2.5, and 6 keV, then combined with measured (1.2 keV) or modeled (6 keV) gas backgrounds at three intensity levels and with zero background. The authors assemble 3D intensities with EMC/Dragonfly, subtract a separately assembled background volume, phase with libspimage, and report resolutions via R-factor, PRTF, and FSC for datasets of 10^3, 10^4, and 10^5 patterns. The central conclusions are that background strongly limits resolution when signal and background are comparable, that a 6 keV nanofocus beam with 10^5 patterns gives roughly 1 nm resolution, and that a 10x background reduction can achieve comparable resolution with 10x fewer patterns.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides actionable guidance for SPI experiments at the European XFEL, notably supporting the push toward helium-based electrospray delivery to reduce gas background. The study is valuable for using experimentally measured instrument parameters, for spanning three photon energies and three background levels, and for reporting multiple resolution metrics (R-factor, PRTF, FSC) rather than a single proxy. The main comparative result that background materially degrades resolution in the signal-limited regime is supported by the simulation outputs. However, the headline 6 keV numbers and the 10x pattern-efficiency comparison rest on a modeled, not measured, 6 keV background and on an untested volume-level background subtraction procedure, so the quantitative guidance is currently conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Background modeling] The 6 keV background is not experimentally measured; it is modeled by scaling the 1.2 keV measured background using the Debye elastic scattering formula (Eq. 1) and a single fitted jet-density parameter c = 1950. This assumes that elastic scattering dominates the gas background at 6 keV and that the same c and spatial distribution apply at this energy. For low-Z gases at 6 keV, inelastic Compton scattering is non-negligible and has a different angular and q-dependence. Because the headline results (best resolution around 1 nm at 6 keV and the 10x pattern-efficiency gain in Table S4) depend on the modeled 6 keV background, the authors should quantify the inelastic contribution over the q-range used for reconstruction or validate the scaled background against an independent measurement or a more complete scattering model. Without this, the 6 keV resolution values and the pattern-count comparison are conditional on an untested assumption.
  2. [Results and Discussion, 3D intensity assembly] Background correction is performed by subtracting two separately EMC-assembled volumes: one from protein-plus-background patterns and one from background-only patterns. This procedure assumes that the presence of background does not bias orientation recovery in the EMC assembly, so that subtracting the assembled background volume recovers the true assembled protein intensity. The manuscript notes that pattern-level background correction caused EMC instabilities, but it does not validate the volume-level subtraction against a known ground truth or against a controlled case where orientations are known. Since the background level affects the EMC convergence (some 2.5 keV high-background cases failed to converge), the subtraction itself may introduce systematic errors that scale with background level. A simulation test comparing the assembled intensities with and without background subtraction to the Condor ground truth would establish whether this step is unbiased, and such a test is needed to support the quantitative resolution comparisons.
  3. [Table 2 / Table S4, resolution metrics] The resolution values in Table 2 and Table S4 are reported as single numbers per condition without any error bars or variability estimate. The EMC assembly is stochastic (random initialization, deterministic annealing) and phasing involves 500 reconstructions from which 450 are averaged, but the reported R-factor, PRTF, and FSC resolutions are point estimates. Without an uncertainty estimate, statements such as 'indistinguishable' for overlapping FSC curves and the '10x fewer patterns' comparison are not statistically supported. The authors should provide error bars, for example from multiple EMC assembly runs with different random seeds or from bootstrap resampling of the pattern sets, and use these in the comparison.
  4. [Conclusion and Table S4] The claim that a 10x background reduction allows 'roughly the same resolution with 10 times less patterns' is not consistently supported by the tabulated values across all three metrics. For example, at 6 keV, the medium-background 10^4 dataset gives R-factor/PRTF/FSC resolutions of 4.8/1.7/1.2 nm, whereas the zero-background 10^3 dataset gives 4.2/3.2/2.1 nm: the R-factor is worse and the FSC is better, so the 'same resolution' conclusion depends on which metric is chosen. The manuscript should specify the metric used for this comparison, include uncertainty estimates, and restrict the claim to the conditions where the comparison actually holds, or revise the claim to match the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results, 3D intensity assembly] The text contains a placeholder reference 'see Fig X (central slices) in the SI' that should be replaced with the actual supplementary figure number.
  2. [Table 3] The fluence unit for the 6 keV case is written as '10 mµJ/µm2'; this appears to be a typo, likely intended as '10 mJ/µm2' or '10^4 µJ/µm2'.
  3. [Results, general] In Section '2D pattern simulation', the instrument is referred to as 'SQB/SFX'; this should be 'SPB/SFX'.
  4. [Table 1] The average GroEL signal at 2.5 keV (101 photons) is three orders of magnitude lower than at 1.2 keV (5644) and substantially lower than at 6 keV (1048); a brief explanation of how the fluence and detector geometry produce this difference would help the reader interpret the background-to-signal ratios.
  5. [References] Reference 7 contains a typo in the URL: 'hhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nphys461'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted gas-background scale c is independent of the resolution outputs, and the background levels are explicit simulation inputs.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The derivation chain is: take a fixed GroEL model (PDB 1SS8), simulate diffraction patterns with Condor using measured fluences and detector parameters, add measured or modeled gas background at four defined levels (high/medium/low/zero), assemble the 3D intensity with two separate EMC runs and subtract the background volume, retrieve phases with libspimage, then compare the result against the known ground truth using R-factor, PRTF, and FSC. The only fitted parameter, c = 1950 in the background model, is fitted to a measured 1.2 keV gas background, not to any resolution value or to the paper's conclusions. The relation n_jet = c·n and the Debey-scattering equations (Eqs. 1-3) determine the background from the gas-flow parameter and the geometry; the four background levels are then defined by fixed multiplicative factors (1, 0.1, 0.01, 0) applied before addition. Thus the reported resolutions are input-output results of a controlled simulation, not quantities that are equal to their inputs by construction. The 6 keV background is admittedly extrapolated, not measured, as stated in Methods: 'As experimental background was not available at 6 keV we modeled it based on the low energy background.' That is a correctness or robustness concern about the 6 keV scenario, but it is not circularity, because no claim is disguised as being derived from data that already contain the claimed resolution. The paper's use of the authors' own software packages (Condor, Dragonfly, libspimage) is ordinary tool use; the underlying algorithms are cited to independent primary sources (EMC, RAAR, shrinkwrap) and are applied as computational methods rather than invoked as proof of the paper's conclusions. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no empirical pattern is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulations rest on standard scattering physics plus several domain assumptions about additivity of background, the validity of separate EMC subtraction, and the extrapolation of measured 1.2 keV background to 6 keV. The only explicit fitted parameter is the gas jet scaling c=1950; the other listed parameters are reconstruction tuning choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Gas jet density scaling parameter c = 1950
    Fitted to a measured 1.2 keV gas background (Methods, Background modeling: 'Here we use a gas background measured at 1.2 keV, and obtain c = 1950'). Used to extend the jet background to other energies and geometries.
  • Initial and final support volumes for shrinkwrap = 2380 nm^3 to 2190 nm^3
    Chosen by hand in 3D phase retrieval (Methods: 'The initial estimate for the volume of the support was 2380 nm3 and this was reduced to 2190 nm3 at the end'). Affects phasing, not the background comparison.
  • EMC annealing beta initial values = 0.001 or 0.01
    Set by hand depending on dataset (Methods: 'For high signal datasets ... initial beta was 0.001. For all the other reconstructions it was 0.01'). Chosen to avoid pattern collapse.
  • RAAR feedback parameter beta = 0.60 to 0.85 depending on noise and energy
    Adjusted based on noise level in phase retrieval (Methods: 'The RAAR feedback parameter beta was adjusted based on noise level'). Tuning parameter, not fitted to resolution outcome.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Debye scattering formula describes rotationally averaged gas scattering (Eq. 1).
    Used in Methods, Background modeling to compute I(q).
  • standard math Ideal gas law n = p/kT gives background number density.
    Methods, Background modeling: 'The volumetric number density of background gas can be well approximated by the ideal gas law'.
  • domain assumption Gas background is incoherent and adds linearly to protein diffraction.
    Methods: patterns are combined 'before incoherent addition' and Igas = Iline + Ijet. If background were coherent with protein scattering, the additive model and the subsequent subtraction would fail.
  • domain assumption Separate EMC assembly of background-only and protein-plus-background patterns, then subtracting assembled volumes, is unbiased.
    Results, 3D intensity assembly: 'we did two separate EMC assemblies ... which we then subtracted'. This assumption is load-bearing for the noise treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper 6 keV background can be modeled by scaling the measured low-energy background.
    Methods, Background modeling: 'As experimental background was not available at 6 keV we modeled it based on the low energy background'. Not validated against a 6 keV measurement.
  • domain assumption Experimental fluence values implicitly include realistic optics and radiation damage effects.
    Introduction: 'we use experimentally derived fluence values ... This way we implicitly include the effects of realistic optics and radiation damage effects'.
  • domain assumption The EMC and phase retrieval algorithms converge to the globally correct solution for these data.
    All results depend on reconstruction convergence; convergence issues were handled by tuning annealing, sampling, and support parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of gas background on XFEL single-particle imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAYO5OA5

@misc{pith2026241116259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of gas background on XFEL single-particle imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAYO5OA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16259}
}
read the original abstract

Single-particle imaging (SPI) using X-ray free-electron Lasers (XFELs) offers the potential to determine protein structures at high spatial and temporal resolutions without the need for crystallization or vitrification. However, the technique faces challenges due to weak diffraction signals from single proteins and significant background scattering from gases used for sample delivery. A recent observation of a diffraction pattern from an isolated GroEL protein complex had similar numbers of signal and background photons. Ongoing efforts aim to reduce the background created by sample delivery, with one approach replacing most of the used gas with helium. In this study, we investigate the effects of a potentially reduced background on the resolution limits for SPI of isolated proteins under different experiment conditions. As a test case, we used GroEL, and we used experimentally measured parameters for our simulations. We observe that background significantly impacts the achievable resolution, particularly when the signal strength is comparable to the background, and a background reduction would lead to a significant improvement in resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diffraction patterns under medium noise conditions. The top row shows protein diffraction combined with background at (a) 1.2 keV, (b) 2.5 keV, and (c) 6.0 keV. The bottom row shows background only scattering for (d) 1.2 keV, (e) 2.5 keV, and (f) 6.0 keV. The color bar denotes photon counts per pixel. (a) (b) (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. R factor curves for all three geometries under medium and zero background conditions for (a) 1.2 keV, (b) 2.5 keV and (c) 6.0 keV. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the 0.2 threshold used to define the resolution. The recovered 3D intensity volumes were then phased with libspimage34 (see methods for more details). We estimated the quality of the reconstructed structures using the Phase Retrieval Transfer Fun… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PRTF curves for all three geometries under medium and zero background conditions for (a) 1.2 keV, (b) 2.5 keV and (c) 6.0 keV. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the 1/e threshold traditionally used to define the resolution. The vertical dashed line indicates the edge resolution for each geometry. Resolutions in nm Photon Energy Dataset Size High Medium Low Zero Background 1.2 keV 103 6.9 / 4.7 / 3.5 6.4 / 3.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radially averaged FSC curves under medium and zero background conditions of electron density reconstructions for (a) 1.2 keV, (b) 2.5 keV and (c) 6 keV. The half-bit curve is shown as a black dashed line. 1k 100k 1.2 keV pnCCD 2.5 keV pnCCD 6.0 keV AGIPD Ground-truth …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstructed electron density for all three energies for 103 , and 105 pattern reconstructions. For each energy, the left column (in blue and green) represents the medium background condition, and the right column (in orange and red) represents the zero background con…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ekeberg, T., Assalauova, D., Bielecki, J. et al. Observation of a single protein by ultrafast X-ray diffraction. Light. Sci Appl 13, 15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-023-01352-7 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41377-023-01352-7 2024

  2. [2]

    Helium-electrospray improves sample delivery in X-ray single-particle imaging experiments

    Yenupuri, T., Rafie-Zinedine, S., Worbs, L.et al. Helium-electrospray improves sample delivery in X-ray single-particle imaging experiments. Sci Rep 14, 4401, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54605-9 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54605-9 2024

  3. [3]

    & Thompson, N

    McNeil, B. & Thompson, N. X-ray free-electron lasers. Nat. Photon 4, 814–821, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton. 2010.239 (2010)

    doi:10.1038/nphoton 2010

  4. [5]

    Megahertz single-particle imaging at the european XFEL

    Sobolev, E., Zolotarev, S., Giewekemeyer, K.et al. Megahertz single-particle imaging at the european XFEL. Commun. Phys. 3, 97, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-020-0362-y (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-020-0362-y 2020

  5. [6]

    Neutze, R., Wouts, R., van der Spoel, D. et al. Potential for biomolecular imaging with femtosecond X-ray pulses. Nature 406, 752–757, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35021099 (2000)

    doi:10.1038/35021099 2000

  6. [7]

    Chapman, H., Barty, A., Bogan, M. et al. Femtosecond diffractive imaging with a soft-X-ray free-electron laser. Nat. Phys 2, 839–843, DOI: hhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nphys461 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys461 2006

  7. [8]

    Aquila, A. et al. The linac coherent light source single particle imaging road map. Struct. dynamics (Melville, N.Y.) 2, 041701, DOI: 10.1063/1.4918726 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4918726 2015

  8. [9]

    Bielecki, J., Maia, F. R. N. C. & Mancuso, A. P. Perspectives on single particle imaging with x rays at the advent of high repetition rate x-ray free electron laser sources. Struct. dynamics (Melville, N.Y.) 7, 040901, DOI: 10.1063/4.0000024 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1063/4.0000024 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    Bielecki, J. et al. Electrospray sample injection for single-particle imaging with x-ray lasers. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav8801, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav8801 (2019)

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    Hantke, M., Hasse, D., Maia, F. et al. High-throughput imaging of heterogeneous cell organelles with an X-ray laser. Nat. Photon 8, 943–949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.270 (2014)

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    van der Schot, G., Svenda, M., Maia, F. et al. Imaging single cells in a beam of live cyanobacteria with an X-ray laser. Nat Commun 6, 5704, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6704 (2015)

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    Ekeberg, T. et al. Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of the Giant Mimivirus Particle with an X-Ray Free-Electron Laser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 098102, DOI: https://10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.098102 (2015)

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    V .et al

    Lundholm, I. V .et al. Considerations for three-dimensional image reconstruction from experimental data in coherent diffractive imaging. IUCrJ 5, 531–541, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252518010047 (2018)

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    & Schwander, P

    Poudyal, I., Schmidt, M. & Schwander, P. Single-particle imaging by x-ray free-electron lasers-how many snapshots are needed? Struct. dynamics (Melville, N.Y.) 7, 024102, DOI: 10.1063/1.5144516 (2020)

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    & Tama, F

    Nakano, M., Miyashita, O., Jonic, S., Tokuhisa, A. & Tama, F. Single-particle XFEL 3D reconstruction of ribosome-size particles based on Fourier slice matching: requirements to reach subnanometer resolution. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 25, 1010–1021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1...

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    & Tama, F

    Nakano, M., Miyashita, O. & Tama, F. Molecular size dependence on achievable resolution from XFEL single-particle 3D reconstruction. Struct. Dyn. 10, 024101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/4.0000175 (2023)

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    & Bortel, G

    Tegze, M. & Bortel, G. Comparison of EMC and CM methods for orienting diffraction images in single-particle imaging experiments. IUCrJ 8, 980–991, DOI: 10.1107/S205225252100868X (2021)

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Sethian, J

    Donatelli, J. J., Sethian, J. A. & Zwart, P. H. Reconstruction from limited single-particle diffraction data via simultaneous determination of state, orientation, intensity, and phase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States Am. 114, 7222–7227, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708217114 (2017)

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    Expected resolution limits of x-ray free-electron laser single-particle imaging for reamlistic source and detector properties

    Kim, Y .et al. Expected resolution limits of x-ray free-electron laser single-particle imaging for reamlistic source and detector properties. Struct. Dyn. 9, 064101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/4.0000169 (2022)

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    Yoon, C. H. et al. A comprehensive simulation framework for imaging single particles and biomolecules at the european x-ray free-electron laser. Sci. Reports 6, 24791, DOI: 10.1038/srep24791 (2016)

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    Fortmann-Grote, C. et al. Start-to-end simulation of single-particle imaging using ultra-short pulses at the European X-ray Free-Electron Laser. IUCrJ 4, 560–568, DOI: 10.1107/S2052252517009496 (2017)

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    & Martin, A

    Östlin, C., Timneanu, N., Caleman, C. & Martin, A. V . Is radiation damage the limiting factor in high-resolution single particle imaging with x-ray free-electron lasers? Struct. dynamics (Melville, N.Y.) 6, 044103, DOI: 10.1063/1.5098309 (2019)

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Stransky, M., E, J., Jurek, Z. et al. Computational study of diffraction image formation from XFEL irradiated single ribosome molecule. Sci Rep 14, 10617, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61314-w (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    E, J., Stransky, M., Jurek, Z. et al. Effects of radiation damage and inelastic scattering on single-particle imaging of hydrated proteins with an X-ray Free-Electron Laser.Sci Rep 11, 17976, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97142-5 (2021)

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    E, J., Stransky, M., Shen, Z. et al. Water layer and radiation damage effects on the orientation recovery of proteins in single- particle imaging at an X-ray free-electron laser. Sci Rep 13, 16359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43298-1 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    & Hartl, F

    Hayer-Hartl, M., Bracher, A. & Hartl, F. U. The GroEL-GroES chaperonin machine: A nano-cage for protein folding. Trends Biochem. Sci. 41, 62–76, DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.07.009 (2016)

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    L., Brunger, A

    Chaudhry, C., Horwich, A. L., Brunger, A. T. & Adams, P. D. Exploring the Structural Dynamics of the E.coli Chaperonin GroEL Using Translation-libration-screw Crystallographic Refinement of Intermediate States. J. Mol. Biol. 342, 229–245, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.200...

    2004 doi

  20. [29]

    Meyer, M. et al. The Small Quantum System (SQS) Instrument at European XFEL: Results of commissioning and first experiments. IOP Publ. 1412, 112005, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1412/11/112005 (2020)

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    Mancuso, A. P. et al. The Single Particles, Clusters and Biomolecules and Serial Femtosecond Crystallography instru- ment of the European XFEL: initial installation. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 26, 660–676, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/ S1600577519003308 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    & Loh, N

    Ayyer, K., Lan, T.-Y ., Elser, V . & Loh, N. D. Dragonfly: an implementation of the expand-maximize-compress algorithm for single-particle imaging. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 49, 1320–1335, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576716008165 (2016)

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    Loh, N.-T. D. & Elser, V . Reconstruction algorithm for single-particle diffraction imaging experiments.Phys. Rev. E 80, 026705, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.026705 (2009)

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    P., London, R

    Hau-Riege, S. P., London, R. A., Huldt, G. & Chapman, H. N. Pulse requirements for x-ray diffraction imaging of single biological molecules. Phys. Rev. E 71, 061919, DOI: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.71.061919 (2005)

    2005 doi

  25. [34]

    Maia, F. R. N. C., Ekeberg, T., van der Spoel, D. & Hajdu, J. Hawk: the image reconstruction package for coherent X-ray diffractive imaging. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 43, 1535–1539, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889810036083 (2010)

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    Chapman, H. N. et al. High-resolution ab initio three-dimensional x-ray diffraction microscopy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23, 1179–1200, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.23.001179 (2006)

    2006 doi

  27. [36]

    Liao, H. Y . & Frank, J. Definition and Estimation of Resolution in Single-Particle Reconstructions. Structure 18, 768–775, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2010.05.008 (2010)

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    F., Ekeberg, T

    Hantke, M. F., Ekeberg, T. & Maia, F. R. N. C. Condor: a simulation tool for flash X-ray imaging. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 49, 1356–1362, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576716009213 (2016). 9/19

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    Kuster, M. et al. The 1-Megapixel pnCCD detector for the Small Quantum Systems Instrument at the European XFEL: system and operation aspects. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 28, 576–587, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577520015659 (2021)

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Allahgholi, A. et al. Megapixels @ Megahertz – the AGIPD high-speed cameras for the European XFEL.Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A: Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 942, 162324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima. 2019.06.065 (2019)

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Aquila, A., Samoylova, L

    Bean, R. J., Aquila, A., Samoylova, L. & Mancuso, A. P. Design of the mirror optical systems for coherent diffractive imaging at the SPB/SFX instrument of the european XFEL. J. Opt. 18, 074011, DOI: 10.1088/2040-8978/18/7/074011 (2016)

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    Luke, D. R. Relaxed averaged alternating reflections for diffraction imaging. Inverse Probl. 21, 37, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/0266-5611/21/1/004 (2004)

    2004 doi

  33. [42]

    Fienup, J. R. Phase retrieval algorithms: a comparison. Appl. Opt. 21, 2758–2769, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.21. 002758 (1982)

    1982 doi

  34. [43]

    Marchesini, S. et al. X-ray image reconstruction from a diffraction pattern alone. Phys. Rev. B 68, 140101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.140101 (2003)

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    Meng, E. C. et al. UCSF ChimeraX: Tools for structure building and analysis. Protein Sci. 32, 2023, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1002/pro.4792 (e4792)

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    & Schatz, M

    van Heel, M. & Schatz, M. Fourier shell correlation threshold criteria. J. Struct. Biol. 151, 250–262, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2005.05.009 (2005). Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Swedish Research Council (2018-00234 and 2019-06092) and the European R...

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.