4.5 Review

Electronic detectors for electron microscopy

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 549-555

Publisher

CURRENT BIOLOGY LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.08.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105184321, MC_U105184322] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U105184322, MC_U105184321] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U105184322, MC_U105184321] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the increasing popularity of electron cryo-microscopy (cryoEM) in the structural analysis of large biological molecules and macro-molecular complexes and the need for simple, rapid and efficient readout, there is a persuasive need for improved detectors. Commercial detectors, based on phosphor/fibre optics-coupled CCDs, provide adequate performance for many applications, including electron diffraction. However, due to intrinsic light scattering within the phosphor, spatial resolution is limited. Careful measurements suggest that CCDs have superior performance at lower resolution while all agree that film is still superior at higher resolution. Consequently, new detectors are needed based on more direct detection, thus avoiding the intermediate light conversion step required for CCDs. Two types of direct detectors are discussed in this review. First, there are detectors based on hybrid technology employing a separate pixellated sensor and readout electronics connected with bump bonds - hybrid pixel detectors (HPDs). Second, there are detectors, which are monolithic in that sensor and readout are all in one plane (monolithic active pixel sensor, MAPS). Our discussion is centred on the main parameters of interest to cryoEM users, viz. detective quantum efficiency (DOE), resolution or modulation transfer function (MTF), robustness against radiation damage, speed of readout, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the number of independent pixels available for a given detector.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available