Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T16:19:38.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capabilities and Limitations of Biological Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

R.D. Leapman  and
S.B. Andrews
R.D. Leapman
Affiliation:
Biomedical Engineering & Instrumentation Program, NCRR; Bethesda, MD, 20892.
S.B. Andrews
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Neurobiology, NINDS, National Institutes of HealthBethesda, MD, 20892.
Get access

Extract

Perhaps the ultimate aim of analytical electron microscopy in biology is to detect single atoms or ions bound to isolated macromolecular assemblies and small cellular organelles rapidly frozen in their native state. Although the meaningful spatial resolution in such analyses is limited to ∽10 nm or more by radiation damage, the high intrinsic sensitivity of electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) coupled with recent developments seems to make this rather ambitious goal—originally proposed some twenty years ago—within reach. Here we describe examples where EELS has been able to detect surprisingly small numbers of atoms in biological specimens and discuss some fundamental limits that are encountered as well as some possible strategies for circumventing these difficulties.

In our laboratory we have used a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) equipped with a field-emission source and parallel-detection EELS because the probe size and collection efficiency of this instrument are optimized to give the lowest detectable number of atoms and lowest detectable atomic fraction.

Type
Microscopy and Microanalysis: “Showstoppers” in Critical Applications Areas
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 3 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '97, Microscopy Society of America 55th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 31st Annual Meeting, Histochemical Society 48th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, August 10-14, 1997 , August 1997 , pp. 871 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Isaacson, M. and Johnson, D., Ultramicroscopy 1 (1975) 33.10.1016/S0304-3991(75)80006-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuman, H. and Kruit, P., Rev. Sei. Instrum. 56 (1985) 231.10.1063/1.1138336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivanek, O.L.et al., Ultramicroscopy 22 (1987) 103.10.1016/0304-3991(87)90054-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leapman, R.D. and Andrews, S.B., J. Microsc. 165 (1992) 225.10.1111/j.1365-2818.1992.tb01482.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leapman, R.D.et al., in press.Google Scholar
Tang, Z.et al., J Microsc 175 (1994) 100.10.1111/j.1365-2818.1994.tb03473.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivanek, O.L.et al., Ultramicroscopy 59 (1995) 267.10.1016/0304-3991(95)00034-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacson, M., Principles and Techniques of Electron Microscopy. VII, New York: Van Nostrand- Reinhold (1977)1.Google Scholar
Crewe, A. V., Isaacson, M., Johnson, D., Nature 231 (1971) 262.10.1038/231262a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuman, H. and Somlyo, A.P.Ultramicroscopy 21 (1987) 23.10.1016/0304-3991(87)90004-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leapman, R.D.et al., Ultramicroscopy 49 (1993) 22510.1016/0304-3991(93)90229-QCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leapman, R.D. and Newbury, D.E., Anal. Chem. 65 (1993) 2409.10.1021/ac00066a003CrossRefGoogle Scholar