ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

3D Electron Diffraction: The Nanocrystallography Revolution

  • Mauro Gemmi*
    Mauro Gemmi
    Center for Nanotechnology Innovation@NEST, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Piazza S. Silvestro 12, 56127 Pisa, Italy
    *E-mail: [email protected]
    More by Mauro Gemmi
  • Enrico Mugnaioli
    Enrico Mugnaioli
    Center for Nanotechnology Innovation@NEST, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Piazza S. Silvestro 12, 56127 Pisa, Italy
  • Tatiana E. Gorelik
    Tatiana E. Gorelik
    University of Ulm, Central Facility for Electron Microscopy, Electron Microscopy Group of Materials Science (EMMS), Albert Einstein Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany
  • Ute Kolb
    Ute Kolb
    Institut für Anorganische Chemie und Analytische Chemie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Duesbergweg 10-14, 55128 Mainz, Germany
    Institut für Angewandte Geowissenschaften, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstraße 9, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
    More by Ute Kolb
  • Lukas Palatinus
    Lukas Palatinus
    Department of Structure Analysis, Institute of Physics of the CAS, Na Slovance 2, 182 21 Prague 8, Czechia
  • Philippe Boullay
    Philippe Boullay
    CRISMAT, Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS UMR 6508, 6 Bd Maréchal Juin, F-14050 Cedex Caen, France
  • Sven Hovmöller
    Sven Hovmöller
    Inorganic and Structural Chemistry, Department of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
  • , and 
  • Jan Pieter Abrahams
    Jan Pieter Abrahams
    Center for Cellular Imaging and NanoAnalytics (C−CINA), Biozentrum, Basel University, Mattenstrasse 26, CH-4058 Basel, Switzerland
    Department of Biology and Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
    Leiden Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands
Cite this: ACS Cent. Sci. 2019, 5, 8, 1315–1329
Publication Date (Web):July 19, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.9b00394

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

  • Open Access

Article Views

19587

Altmetric

-

Citations

LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (8 MB)

Abstract

Crystallography of nanocrystalline materials has witnessed a true revolution in the past 10 years, thanks to the introduction of protocols for 3D acquisition and analysis of electron diffraction data. This method provides single-crystal data of structure solution and refinement quality, allowing the atomic structure determination of those materials that remained hitherto unknown because of their limited crystallinity. Several experimental protocols exist, which share the common idea of sampling a sequence of diffraction patterns while the crystal is tilted around a noncrystallographic axis, namely, the goniometer axis of the transmission electron microscope sample stage. This Outlook reviews most important 3D electron diffraction applications for different kinds of samples and problematics, related with both materials and life sciences. Structure refinement including dynamical scattering is also briefly discussed.

Synopsis

3D electron diffraction allows the atomic structure determination of inorganic, organic, and macromolecular materials that remained hitherto unknown because of their limited crystal size.

1. Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Accelerated electrons have been long considered the less promising among the radiation types used in crystallography for attaining diffraction data suitable for atomic structure determination. In fact, the large majority of structural models deposited in crystallographic databases (1−5) have been obtained by means of X-ray diffraction, and most of what is left has been derived from neutron diffraction or spectroscopic methods. Although still limited, the use of electron diffraction has grown rapidly over the past decade, mostly due to the introduction of 3D methods for the systematic acquisition and analysis of diffracted intensities. Here, we would like to examine how the use of parallel beam electron diffraction for structure determination has evolved from a mostly qualitative technique, used only by few specialists, to a quantitative approach accessible to a much larger community.
To understand the full picture of this (r)evolution, it is important to focus on the strengths of accelerated electrons for crystallography. First, the possibility to have parallel electron probes with a size of a few nanometers allows collecting diffraction data from sample volumes 2 or 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the ones suitable for synchrotron microfocused X-ray beams. Second, the ability to deliver both diffraction and imaging from the same nanovolume allows the combination of reciprocal and direct space information and the experimental determination of crystallographic phases. Third, the strong Coulomb interaction between electrons and matter allows a good signal-to-noise ratio even from very thin samples and an easier identification of light atoms, like lithium and hydrogen, when compared with X-rays.
However, the strong scattering of electrons is also the reason why electron diffraction (ED) was disregarded for many years for structure analysis. The occurrence of multiple scattering events (dynamical effects) while electrons pass through the sample has a significant impact on the intensities of Bragg reflections. (6,7) In diffraction data, the structure information dwells in the relative differences between reflection intensities, and it is evidently lost or jeopardized when such intensities are leveled out, or their ranking is scrabbled due to multiple scattering.
ED experienced a true rebirth in the past 20 years of the past century, thanks to the research of Dorset and co-workers (8,9) and Hovmöller and co-workers, (10,11) that demonstrated how ED data acquired in a transmission electron microscope (TEM) can be used for the structure characterization of both organic and inorganic nanocrystalline samples, despite the presence of dynamical effects. Shortly after, Gonen et al. (12) also showed that ED can be used for the structure determination of 2D protein crystals at almost-atomic resolution. Still, the occurrence of multiple scattering (13) and the difficulty in merging intensities between different ED patterns (14) hindered the application of classical crystallographic routines for structure determination and restricted ED to a very time-consuming and niche technique, whose fallouts often needed a further validation.
Only in 2007 researchers started to realize that limitations of ED were mostly related with the data collection strategy. Thus far, ED data were always acquired after orienting a target crystal along low-index and well recognizable crystallographic axes. This procedure evidently cuts down the number of recorded reflections. Additionally, in low-index in-zone patterns dynamical effects are just maximized by the simultaneous excitation of many, geometrically related reflections.
As an alternative, Kolb and co-workers (15−18) proposed acquiring ED patterns off-zone, after tilting the sample in fixed angular steps around an arbitrary, noncrystallographic axis. In fact, this procedure just mimics data acquisition by a simple monoaxial diffractometer equipped with an area detector. Each single diffraction pattern cannot be easily interpreted alone, but once the angular relationship between the patterns is known, the whole data set can be reconstructed into a 3D volume from which cell parameters, extinction rules, and reflection intensities are conveniently extracted by dedicated software.
Since 2007, the three-dimensional ED method has spread with an exponential trend. Very soon, still in the hand of few specialists, it allowed the structure determination of landmark samples, mostly inorganic, that were considered impracticable for X-ray methods. (19−28) Later, the introduction of ultrafast data acquisition procedures and of more sensitive detectors allowed establishing robust experimental protocols also for organic and metalorganic materials. (29−35) Finally, three-dimensional ED found successful applications for macromolecules (36−45) and other structures of biologic interest. (46−50) The growing attention on three-dimensional ED is confirmed by the number and impact of related publications in the very last year, (51−77) and by the fact that this method has been considered one of the most important recent scientific breakthroughs. (78)
The fast spread-out of the technique without the availability of dedicated instrumentations has brought researchers to develop different experimental set-ups for data acquisition (as will be described in detail in the next section). Consequently, several acronyms are found in the literature, like automated diffraction tomography (ADT), (16) electron diffraction tomography (EDT), (79) single-crystal electron diffraction (SCED), (53) precession-assisted electron diffraction tomography (PEDT), (80) rotation electron diffraction (RED), (81,82) continuous rotation electron diffraction (cRED), (68) and microcrystal electron diffraction (MicroED). (32,38) Nonetheless, we argue that all these variants share the same core concept, i.e., the idea of sampling the whole available three-dimensional reciprocal space by a tilt of the sample around an arbitrary axis. In this Outlook we will therefore use the generic term 3D ED when broadly referring to all of them.
Compared to conventional in-zone ED patterns, the most obvious advantage of 3D ED is that all reflections reachable in the tilt range of the TEM goniometer are sampled, thus maximizing data completeness. All at once, dynamical effects are drastically reduced, because less geometrically related reflections are excited at the same time. In fact, ab initio structure determination by 3D ED data is normally achieved with the same routines developed for X-ray crystallography (83−85) and without any special treatment for multiple scattering. Finally, data acquisition is significantly faster, easier, and more reproducible, allowing sampling many crystals in a short time and working on very beam sensitive materials.
3D ED is conceptually comparable to single-crystal X-ray but allows data collection from much smaller volumes. Typical crystals for 3D ED range from 100 to 10–4 μm3. Even if XFEL radiation allows diffraction data from comparable crystals, the accessibility of dedicated facilities is still rather limited for general users. (86) Moreover, ED can easily access single crystals even in polyphasic mixtures or embedded in a solid matrix (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Examples of crystals suitable for 3D ED data collection. (A) Cu2–xTe nanoplatelets, with lateral size of 100–200 nm and thickness of few tens of nanometers. (B) Submicrometric Eu2Si2O7 grains embedded in a ground mass of nanocrystalline quartz. (C) Submicrometric cronstedtite pyramidal crystals in a focused ion beam (FIB) lamella, sampled from the carbonaceous meteorite Paris. (D) Micrometric pharmaceutical crystal.

X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) is an option for dealing with crystals with a size of few hundreds or few tens of nanometers. This method has also developed into a reliable structure analysis technique in the past decades and is remarkably accurate for what concerns cell and structure refinement. However, XRPD is intrinsically limited by the projection of the information onto one dimension. Systematic and accidental peak overlap is a well-known issue when dealing with structures with long cell parameters or pseudosymmetries. A small crystal size and occurrence of defects result in peak broadening and asymmetry, which in turn emphasize overlapping. Moreover, when the sample of interest is a polyphasic mixture, the XRPD signal is the superposition of reflections from all crystalline components, further hampering any structural interpretation.
In the past years, the potential of electrons for crystallography has become evident due to the outburst of cryo-EM imaging for macromolecule single-particle determination. (87,88) Similarly, 3D ED requires relatively small crystals and can be applied to crystallization products that are considered failures in the eyes of X-ray crystallographers. (31,32) Additionally, ED allows for a better structural resolution and requires an electron dose much lower than any imaging technique, as testified by the successful structure determinations of very beam sensitive materials, (21,26,30,35,46−50,56,68,73) possibly even without the need of cooling down the sample. (24,29,34,55,62)

3D ED requires relatively small crystals and can be applied to crystallization products that are considered failures in the eyes of X-ray crystallographers

2. Data Collection Protocols

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

A 3D ED data set is essentially a sequence of diffraction patterns recorded sequentially at different tilt angles of the TEM goniometer. The tilt axis is the goniometer axis of the TEM stage, and its angular range is limited by the presence of the objective lens pole pieces, so that in a standard setup the tilt range cannot exceed 120° (±60°). Thus, differently from singly-crystal X-ray diffraction, there is an intrinsic limitation to the reciprocal space coverage due to the fact the TEM is primarily built to perform as a microscope and not as a diffractometer.
The simplest data collection strategy consists in a stepwise tilt of the crystal in fixed angular steps, with the acquisition of an ED pattern at each tilt stage (Figure 2A). (15) The reciprocal space reconstructed from the collected patterns allows for a reliable unit cell determination. (16) However, the recorded diffraction intensities suffer from an imprecise integration due to the gap between two sequential positions. (89) This missing wedge can be physically filled by collecting the patterns in precession mode (Figure 2B). In precession electron diffraction, the beam is tilted away from the optical axis and precessed at high speed on a conical surface with the vertex fixed on the sample plane. (90) The beam movement makes the Ewald sphere sweep the reciprocal space around the plane normal to the optical axis. This data collection procedure is often referred to as precession-assisted electron diffraction tomography (PEDT), and it has been the first 3D ED method with a high degree of success for structure determination. (17,18)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Sketches of the four main 3D ED data collection protocols. (A) Simple stepwise acquisition performed with fixed mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) and steady beam (in green). The tilt step is normally 0.5–2°. (B) Stepwise acquisition performed with fixed mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) while the beam is precessing around a conical surface pointed on the sample (green arrow). The Ewald sphere is also precessing (blue cones), and this movement allows a better integration of the Bragg reflection intensities. (C) Stepwise RED acquisition. Large mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) are followed by small beam tilt steps (green arrows) obtained by the deflection coils of the TEM. The beam tilt step may be smaller than 0.1°. (D) Continuous rotation acquisition. The sample is mechanically tilted within the whole goniometer range (brown arrow) while the detector is acquiring a sequence of patterns. The acquisition tilt step is determined by the sum of exposure time (blue) and readout time (yellow). The latter is also responsible for the nonsampled wedges between two consecutive patterns. The beam is stationary during the whole data acquisition, and the main limit is given by the goniometer stability, because the sample tends to shift laterally during the tilt and therefore may go out from the illuminated area. The not sampled missing wedge is exaggerated in the figures and is colored in red. It is the same for all acquisition protocols, as it depends only on the mechanical limit of the TEM goniometer.

An alternative stepwise approach is the so-called rotation electron diffraction (RED), where the missing wedge is filled by fine beam tilt steps achieved using the TEM deflection coils (Figure 2C). (81,82) The angular step is this way reduced to less than 0.1°. A complete RED data collection is implemented by consecutive large mechanical tilts (2–3°), followed every time by a sequence of patterns collected in fine electrical beam tilts. The total number of patterns is on the order of 1000, about 10 times more than in PEDT.
The crystals analyzed in 3D ED are usually smaller than 1 μm; therefore, any mechanical instability of the goniometer can easily bring the crystal out of the illuminated area. In both RED and PEDT, after each mechanical tilt step the crystal position is checked by recording a TEM or STEM image, and if necessary, unwanted sample shifts are corrected by recentering the crystal under the beam. The first 3D ED data collection protocol that appeared in the literature, generally referred as automated diffraction tomography (ADT), is entirely working in STEM mode with a nanosized and adjustable quasiparallel beam. An automatic crystal tracking by STEM imaging allows compensating the mechanical drift through an equivalent shift of the electron beam. (15,91)
The third and most recent approach to 3D ED is based on a continuous data collection while the goniometer is rotating (Figure 2D). (36) In this case the missing wedge is directly sampled by the detector, which is recording the diffracted intensities during the rotation, as it is done in oscillation singly-crystal X-ray diffraction. Differently from X-rays, the rotation never stops during data collection to minimize any mechanical instability. Thus, the relation between the detector exposure and the goniometer rotation speed determines the effective angular step. The continuous data collection relies on the high stability of the goniometer, since crystal recentering is impossible, and on the speed of the detector, which should be fast enough to avoid loss of reciprocal space sampling during readout time. Data collection in continuous rotation is known under different names, as MicroED, (38) IEDT, (89) or cRED. (30) This data collection strategy is the one that guarantees the minimum electron dose on the sample and currently is the one most commonly used for structure determination of beam sensitive materials like small organic molecules, (29−32) proteins, (38−44) and protein fragments. (46−50)
Regardless of the chosen data collection protocol (PEDT, RED, or continuous rotation) the crystal can be illuminated either in selected area mode (SAED) or in parallel nanodiffraction mode (NED). In SAED mode the target area is selected by an SAED diaphragm located in the postsample image plane, and therefore, the illuminated portion of the sample is larger than the area used for collecting diffraction data. If the sample is beam sensitive, the beam damages the whole crystal and not only the area visible inside the SAED aperture. On the contrary, in NED mode the diffracting area is selected by inserting a small presample condenser aperture. The sample is illuminated with a parallel beam having a size in the 50–200 nm range, thus avoiding damaging the part of the crystal which is not diffracting. NED gives full control on the beam diameter used and in principle also allows collecting data on a smaller area with respect to SAED. Consequently it is the method of choice in the case of low crystallinity, high mosaicity, or order–disorder polytypism at the nanoscale. (20,45,58,61,92−95)
PEDT and RED, allowing crystal tracking and recentering in image mode, guarantee that the crystal is always perfectly illuminated up to the tilt limit of the TEM goniometer and therefore always allow the maximum reciprocal space coverage. However, in both cases the crystal is illuminated longer than is strictly required for the diffraction data collection, with an obvious increase of the total electron dose. The continuous rotation method, instead, assures at the same time the maximum speed and the minimum electron dose on the sample. Its implementation has been boosted by the development of radiation hard hybrid detectors that are sensible to single-electron arrivals and are very fast, with negligible readout times. (33,36,96) Exploiting the speed and the sensitivity of such detectors, it is possible to collect a full ED data set in few tens of seconds, with electron doses on the order of 0.01 el s–1 Å–2 and without any reasonable loss of reciprocal space information. However, continuous rotation does not allow crystal tracking and recentering, and therefore the crystal of interest may move out from the illuminated area, especially at high tilt. This may be a serious issue if other crystals or phases are present in the surroundings.
In the case of slow detectors with a long readout time that would be incompatible with a fast continuous data collection, data can be collected in PEDT mode by blanking the beam during the rotation and avoiding any recentering, provided the goniometer is stable. In this way the total dose coincides with the dose of a continuous rotation, and the missing gaps are sampled by precession. (97)
Usually, very sensitive samples are studied in low-temperature conditions. (21,30) However, the high sensitivity of the new hybrid detectors combined with fast rotation or STEM imaging for crystal searching may allow data collection at room temperature before critical sample deterioration. (24,29,55,62)
The speed in data collection introduced by continuous rotation protocols makes 3D ED usable also as an overall sample checking routine for nanocrystalline polyphasic mixtures or assembles. Surveys of continuous data collection have been used for the identification of known and unknown phases (32,92,98) and may foresee possible applications of 3D ED as a quality control technique for chemical synthesis.
All the described 3D ED protocols have in common a proper integration of the reflections over the reciprocal space and a minimization of the dynamical scattering, because reflections are generally collected far from low-index zone axis orientations. Nowadays, several software suites exist for 3D ED data reduction, which allow the accurate refinement of experimental parameters, the reconstruction of the 3D diffraction volume, the 3D visualization of the data set, the determination of cell parameters, and the integration of reflection intensities (Figure 3): ADT3D, (18) EDT-PROCESS, (79) PETS, (73) and RED. (82) Moreover, software developed for X-ray crystallography can be also adapted for the analysis of ED data, like DIALS, (99) MOSFLM, (100) and XDS. (41) 3D ED intensity data can be subsequently used as kinematical “X-ray-like” input for ab initio structure solution via direct methods, charge flipping, simulated annealing, or molecular replacement in almost all possible kinds of crystalline compounds, both organic and inorganic (Figure 4).

3D ED intensity data can be subsequently used as kinematical “X-ray-like” input for ab initio structure solution via direct methods, charge flipping, simulated annealing, or molecular replacement in almost all possible kinds of crystalline compounds, both organic and inorganic

Figure 3

Figure 3. Exemplary diffraction volume of the trigonal mineral franzinite reconstructed from 3D ED data (a = 12.9 Å, c = 26.6 Å). (A) View along a*. (B) View along b*. (C) View along c*. (D) View along the tilt axis of the acquisition. Note that these are projections of a 3D volume and not conventional 2D oriented ED patterns. Cell edges are sketched in yellow. a* vector is in red, b* vector in green, and c* vector in blue. Data resolution is about 0.8 Å. The figure is made by ADT3D software. (18)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Sketch showing some representative structures solved by 3D ED method for different classes of materials. Starting from the upper left and going anticlockwise: the mineral karibibite, (133) a tunnel (Na,Mn)-oxide for electrolytic applications, (124) the aperiodic structure of SrBi7NbO24, (122) the extra-large-pore silicoaluminophosphate ITQ-51, (25) the cobat tetraphosphonate MOF Co-CAU-36, (66) the pharma compound carbamazepine-III, (29) the amyloid core of the Sup35 prion protein, (47) and a new monoclinic polymorph of lysozyme. (45)

3. Dynamical Refinement

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Even if dynamical scattering is significantly reduced in 3D ED data, still a pure kinematical approximation during refinement normally results in high figures of merit, when compared to typical values for X-ray diffraction. Also, the refined structure models are generally less accurate, and there is a limited sensitivity to subtle structural features, like displacement parameters, partial atomic occupancies, and coordinates of light atoms like hydrogen.
An alternative refinement procedure was developed by Palatinus et al. (101,102) In this procedure the model intensities for the least-squares refinement are calculated using the dynamical diffraction theory. (103,104) The calculation of the intensities uses the Bloch-wave formalism, which is well-suited for the intensity calculation in general, off-zone crystal orientations. The input to the refinement procedure is diffracted intensities from a 3D ED data set obtained with beam precession. (17,90) The intensities are extracted frame by frame and are treated separately for each frame. Only reflections sufficiently integrated by the precession are used in the refinement. In addition to structural parameters, the thickness of the crystal is also refined. Attempts to use data collected without beam precession have so far failed.
The dynamical refinement improves the accuracy of the structure parameters typically by a factor of 2–3 when compared to the kinematical refinement. The average error of atomic positions is reduced to about 0.02 Å. (102) Dynamical refinement also allows a more accurate determination of atomic partial occupancies (102,105) and the location of hydrogen atoms in organic, organometallic, and even inorganic materials (Figure 5A). (56,95,105) Thanks to this enhanced sensitivity, the dynamical refinement also allows for the discrimination of atomic species with close scattering powers, like in the alloy Ni8Ti5, (106) and for the investigation of positional and occupational disorder in layered materials. (107)

Figure 5

Figure 5. Hydrogen atoms localization by 3D ED. (A) Perspective view of the Co1.13Al2P4O20H11.74 structure (105) with a superimposed difference potential map showing maxima at the positions of the hydrogen atoms. Isosurface levels are at 2σ[ΔV(r)] (light gray) and 3σ[ΔV(r)] (yellow). CoO6, AlO6, and PO4 polyhedra are represented in blue, green, and orange, respectively, while oxygen atoms are in red. This difference potential map enlightening the hydrogen positions is obtained thanks to the use of dynamical refinement. The hydrogen positions (in black) are stable once incorporated to the dynamical refinement. (B) Two adjacent orthocetamol chains (34) with the superimposed difference Fourier map. The maximum residual potential (in blue and yellow) corresponds to the hydrogen atom responsible for the intermolecular bonding. Carbon atoms are drawn in brown, oxygen atoms in red, and nitrogen atoms in gray.

An important feature of dynamical refinement is its strong sensitivity to the absolute configuration of noncentrosymmetric crystal structures. The correct absolute structure can be determined unambiguously not only in inorganic materials with heavy scatterers (102,108) but also in organic materials and pharmaceuticals. (73)
The calculations involving dynamical diffraction theory are much more computationally demanding than the ones necessary with a kinematical approximation. Therefore, the computing time needed for the dynamical refinement is longer than the time for the kinematical refinement and may reach several hours per refinement cycle for large structures. The computing time becomes prohibitively large for macromolecular structures, and therefore no dynamical refinement of a macromolecular crystal structure has been performed so far.

4. Applications in Materials Sciences

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The main strength of ED is evidently the ability of performing single-crystal diffraction on areas of few hundreds or few tens of nanometers. The probe size is eventually limited by the convergence and the coherence of the beam, which may introduce distortions in the recorded patterns. Thus far, the smallest beam size reported for 3D ED is about 30–50 nm when working in NED mode with a small condenser aperture. (15,18)
3D ED is therefore the technique of choice for the analysis of nanocrystalline mixtures, where XRPD interpretation is hampered by the overlapping signals from multiple different phases. 3D ED allows a first screening of the sample through the analysis of several single crystal grains, with a time frame of a few minutes per sampled spot. (92,98) Even faster automated systems, able to perform multiple data acquisitions from different areas of the sample, have been recently proposed. (53,109) Cell parameters can be coupled with chemical information obtained by electron-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX or EDS), allowing unequivocal recognition of all the phases already reported in crystallographic databases. Additionally, if unknown or unrecognized phases are identified, a more accurate analysis of 3D ED data should provide ab initio their structure determination. Remarkably, such an analytical protocol can be performed on extremely small sample batches, which cannot be conveniently prepared for XFEL, or even for conventional XRPD. Moreover, 3D ED screening does not destroy the sample, thus allowing future further investigations on the same batch or even on exactly the already analyzed crystal grains.
It is worth mentioning that structural complexity does not appear to be a real limit, at least for inorganic materials. For example, the intermetallic quasicrystal approximant Al77Rh15Ru8 (110) and the mineral charoite (20) were solved despite their asymmetric units containing 78 and 90 atoms, respectively. Also, electrons are more sensitive to light atoms, and therefore, they are able to locate more easily species like lithium (18,111) and possibly hydrogen. (56,95,105)

electrons are more sensitive to light atoms, and therefore, they are able to locate more easily species like lithium and possibly hydrogen

3D ED is rather efficient also for the characterization of materials with pervasive disorder. The small probe size allows spotting locally ordered sample areas (92−94) and single crystal individua in twinned samples. (60,112) This ability is particularly crucial for materials where different order–disorder sequences may arise due to modifications in structural packing. (20,61,95) Additionally, recent studies quantitatively correlated 3D diffuse scattering features with structural disorder. (58,113−115)

4.1. Functional Materials

Thanks to the high sampling resolution, 3D ED allows collecting structural data from single nanoparticles, nanowires, or nanodevices. Birkel et al. (19) in one of the first pioneering papers determined the structure of a new Zn1+xSb phase obtained as 50 nm particles in a yield containing also ZnSb impurities. More recently, Willhammar et al. (116) and Mugnaioli et al. (60) analyzed the structure modulations in plasmonic Cu2–xTe particles combining 3D ED and high-resolution TEM and STEM imaging. Baraldi et al. (117) performed the structure determination of a new Eu2Si2O7 phase recovered as nanoprecipitates inside a quartz matrix. Mayence et al. (118) also proposed the application of 3D ED for the study of twinned metallic particle seeds.
3D ED is an extremely promising technique for the structure determination of functional layered oxides, even if characterized by disorder (119,120) or incommensurate modulations. (64,80,121,122) 3D ED was also used for the analysis of structure modifications caused by the thermal annealing of Ni/Au electrodes, (123) and for the study of materials engineered for electrochemical applications. (59,111,124) In this regard, Karakulina et al. (57) performed the first in situ charge/discharge experiment on a (Li)FePO4 electrode.
Another application for 3D ED resides in the structure analysis of epitaxial thin films. In addition to their intrinsically small diffracting volume, these films are clamped onto a thick crystalline substrate that significantly complicates their analysis by X-ray diffraction and limits the number of measurable reflections. 3D ED was recently used for the characterization of the multiferroic compound Bi3(Mn,Fe)4O11 (28) and the antiferromagnetic compound CuMnAs. (65) Additionally, 3D ED allows a straight comparison between the structure of the known bulk material and the one observed in thin films. (125) A very promising application of dynamical refinements is foreseen for such cases where the main goal is to point out subtle structural changes. Steciuk et al. (76) showed that the structure of a thin film of CaTiO3 grown on SrTiO3 can be refined even in the presence of twinning and that the evolution of the thin film structure as a function of the distance from the substrate may also be observed.
The 3D ED ability of analyzing single components in a nanocrystalline mixture was also applied for the study of HP syntheses (126,127) and metallic alloys. (51) 3D ED is also a powerful instrument for the characterization of intermediate synthetic snapshots, to follow a specific reaction pathway. (128,129)

4.2. Minerals

Several mineral species can be found only in the form of nanocrystals inside complex polyphasic parageneses. Moreover, many of them show polytypism, disorder, and twinning at a very fine scale, possibly associated with pseudosymmetry and severe peak overlap in XRPD. For such samples, 3D ED looks like the only technique able to deliver comprehensive structural information. This technique has already allowed the structure determination of several minerals that have been recognized for decades but whose structures were still lacking because no crystal suitable for single-crystal X-ray diffraction actually exists. (74,75,130−133) Charoite (20) and denisovite (94) embody two emblematic cases which highlight the strengths of the 3D ED method. These extremely complex minerals appear only as submicrometric fibers, typically made of different polytypic sequences stacked one next to the other in areas of few unit cell repetitions.
3D ED is also a valid option for the study of alteration products, (134) biomineralizations, (135) metamict minerals, (136) and first nucleating crystalline seeds. In this regard, it allowed the structure characterization of several hydrated and dehydrated CaCO3 cryptocrystalline polymorphs. (61,77,137) Dynamical refinement also allowed a reliable refinement of Mg/Fe partial occupancies in orthopyroxene. (102) Additionally, meteorites (138) and rocks formed at nonequilibrated and extreme conditions, like seismogenic mirror faults and shock-metamorphic impactites, typically host polyphasic grains and cryptocrystalline matrices and therefore constitute ideal candidates for the 3D ED method. (139)
3D ED is also an excellent option for the study of recovered samples from experimental mineralogy and petrology, typically consisting of small yields and nanocrystalline polyphasic assemblies. (72,92,140−142) Finally, a recent study showed interesting applications of 3D ED for the characterization of archeological finds. (69)

4.3. Porous Materials

Zeolites and other inorganic molecular sieves are optimal targets for the 3D ED method. They usually consist of rather complex 3D frameworks, associated with long cell parameters that produce XRPD peak overlap already at medium resolution. Additionally, they are typically electron beam sensitive and difficult to study by means of high-resolution TEM imaging. New frameworks are continuously engineered to tune chemical and physical properties, which are mostly structure-dependent. Still, it is not always possible to grow single crystals for X-ray diffraction, and therefore, 3D ED has quickly become one of the reference techniques for the structure determination of molecular sieves, (22,25,27,63,70,143−146) also in the presence of polyphasic mixtures. (98) In addition to the structure determination of the framework, there is a large interest in locating templates or extra molecules hosted inside cavities (66,147) and in properly modeling the polytypic disorder in the framework. (54,58)
Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), (21,56,62,66,68,112) covalent organic frameworks (COFs), (148) and hybrid layered compounds (149) are porous materials whose structures rely on organic linkers. They are generally developed to extend the typical pore size of conventional inorganic zeolites. In cases where single crystals could not be grown, 3D ED proved a robust protocol also for the structure investigation for such hybrid and organic compounds. All kinds of porous materials may suffer fast deterioration under the electron beam, but cooling the sample at liquid N2 temperature (21,22,148) and collecting data in fast continuous mode (68,70,145) generally allow a complete and reliable data acquisition.

4.4. Aperiodic Materials

Aperiodic materials are a specific class of materials that exhibit long-range order but cannot be described within a 3D periodic system. Periodicity can be recovered by using a crystallographic description in a higher dimensional space. (150,151) Although not common, aperiodic structures appear in all classes of materials. In the most simple cases, incommensurately modulated phases have only one modulation vector, and only one extra dimension (3 + 1)D is sufficient to describe their system. Their diffraction patterns combine strong “main” reflections related to the average cell with much weaker “satellite” reflections related to the periodic perturbation (the modulation), which can be found in irrational positions with respect to the average cell. This makes them very difficult to identify and to analyze when only powder diffraction data is available. For this reason, incommensurately modulated structures have been the subject of study by 3D ED methods from the early days. (23) Following this work, Boullay et al. (80) and Steciuk et al. (64,122) deduced the incommensurately modulated structures of several Aurivillius related compounds in the system Bi5Nb3O15–ABi2Nb2O9 (A = Ba, Sr, and Pb). Buixaderas et al. (52) analyzed the temperature-dependent structural changes of the tetragonal-tungsten–bronze type compound Sr0.35Ba0.69Nb2O6.04. Lanza et al. (74) determined and refined the natural modulated structure of the mineral daliranite (PbHgAs2S5). Recently the dynamical refinement was generalized to the case of modulated structures and applied to deduce the structure of Hf3Ta2O11. (67)
Another level of complexity can be found in structures that need the application of a (3 + 2)D superspace. The first incommensurately modulated structure solved by 3D ED methods was actually the two-dimensionally modulated structure of tricopper silicide-germanide. (23) The same need applies to composite structures that can be seen as the imbrication of two distinct 3D average cells, whose coexistence induces a periodical perturbation of both systems. When stabilized in the form of thin films, such a system represents a challenge that only 3D ED can elucidate thanks to the possibility to map reciprocal space from nanosized areas. (152)
Lastly, quasicrystals are aperiodic materials characterized by the presence of forbidden rotational symmetries (5-, 8-, 10-, or 12-fold) that require the use of either (3 + 2)D or (3 + 3)D superspace groups and for which the structure determination from diffraction data is extremely rare. To date, no quasicrystalline material has been solved using 3D ED, but this method has been successfully applied for the study of 3D periodic “approximants” of quasicrystals. (110,153)

5. Applications in Life Sciences

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

In most current TEM applications to life sciences, the diffracted electrons are refocused into an image by the electromagnetic lenses. Recently, the method achieved spectacular breakthroughs culminating in the award of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Henderson, Frank, and Dubochet for the development of the cryo-EM method. (87,88) A remarkable advantage of cryo-EM is that frozen samples, vitrified at liquid nitrogen temperature, can be studied without the need of growing crystals and in their native, hydrated environment, while the low temperature reduces the effects of radiation damage.
The study of 2D protein crystals by directly measuring the diffracted intensities, i.e., by ED, was surely a scientific focus at the end of the past century. (154−156) Gonen et al. (12) were able to solve and refine AQP0 junctions at 1.9 Å resolution, and preliminary, low-resolution determinations of 3D structures were also attempted. (157) However, the structural study of proteins by electron diffraction lost most of its luster until recently, when 3D crystals definitely became the object of study. (36−45) Such renewed interest was fueled by technical developments and insights.
First, experimental evidence indicated that dynamical scattering affects ED data from 3D protein crystals to a far lesser extent (41,42) than anticipated by theoretical considerations. (158,159) Also, a significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio is expected in ED, as predicted by first principles calculations. (160) Thus, even when technology would allow the development of the ideal electron microscope, measuring in diffraction mode will still result in significantly better data. The improved signal comes at a price, though: the crystallographic phase information, which is lost in diffraction, has to be reconstructed a posteriori.
A biological or pharmaceutical sample can tolerate only a limited electron dose, before radiation damage destroys its functional structure. (161−163) This implies that data are limited by counting statistics. The advent of direct electron detectors (164) was essential for cryo-EM imaging. Such detectors have been successfully used also for ED, (49) but they are not always suited for measuring electron diffraction, because of their inadequate dynamic range and radiation hardness. On the other hand, conventional detectors for ED, like CCD and CMOS, quantify electrons indirectly from the release of photons emitted when high-energy electrons hit a phosphor.
New-generation hybrid pixel detectors are more sensitive as their pixels count electrons directly and without readout noise. (29,33,36,96,165) These detectors are based on the charge separation within a semiconductor upon absorption of the full energy of the incident diffracted electrons. Hybrid pixel detectors can reach count rates higher than 108 electron hits per second per pixel, without readout noise. Their data accuracy is entirely determined by quantization—counting statistics—of the high-energy electrons, while their readout speed, of 1000 frames per second and higher, allows full data sets to be collected in just a handful of seconds. Hybrid detectors have recently become available commercially and are quickly becoming standard retrofits to existing TEMs in many electron crystallography laboratories.
Current applications of ED in life sciences are mainly found in the crystallographic structure determination of “small-molecule” organic compounds and proteins. Although peptides and proteins are both polyamino acids, from a crystallographic, methodological, and experimental perspective, peptides—and protein fragments in general—are closer to crystals of anhydrous organic compounds. In particular, peptides allow collecting diffraction data up to atomic resolution, and therefore, their structure determination can be often achieved ab initio by direct methods.

5.1. Small-Molecule Organic Compounds: Pharmaceuticals and Peptides

Nowadays, different kinds of spectroscopic methods, and in particular NMR, allow an easy determination of the molecule connectivity for crystalline and noncrystalline organic materials. Still, many molecular compounds can pack into different polymorphic arrangements, which in turn have different physical, chemical, and therapeutic properties. A comprehensive structure determination, including polymorphism, requires therefore diffraction data, which are normally obtained by X-ray methods. In this perspective, 3D ED allows structure analysis of single, far smaller crystalline domains. This ability allows structure determination without the need for growing large coherent crystals, as required for X-ray diffraction, a procedure that may be time-consuming, complicated, or even fully unfeasible for certain pharmaceutical compounds or biological derivates. (31,32)
The main difficulty, when working with ED on organics, is that such compounds quickly get damaged by the electron beam. Cryo-plunging or just cooling the sample at liquid N2 temperature is a common experimental procedure for slowing down the crystal deterioration induced by the electron beam. (31,32,46−50) On the other hand, when nano- or microcrystals of peptides and other organic compounds do not contain much disordered bulk solvent, their preservation in the vacuum of the microscope is relatively straightforward, and they can even be measured at ambient temperature if a sufficiently sensitive detector is available. (29,55) At any rate, continuous rotation 3D ED would be the method of choice for data acquisition to minimize the total electron dose on the sample. (36,38,40,89)
In addition to cryo-cooling, the limitations on data quality imposed by radiation sensitivity can be mitigated by the implementation of serial crystallography data collection strategies, in which many individual, static nanocrystals are illuminated to destruction. (53,109,166,167) A second way for lessening the drawback of beam damage is to diffract from somewhat larger crystals. This will partially compromise data quality by increasing the dynamical scattering contribution, but for organics, such an effect only becomes important beyond a crystal thickness of about 100 nm. (24,160)
When data resolution is around 1 Å or better, phase determination can normally be obtained ab initio by direct methods. (29,31,32,34,35,47) In certain cases, even hydrogen atoms can be spotted directly in the potential map after ab initio phasing (Figure 5B) (34,46) or can be determined after treatment for dynamical effects. (35,105) If data to such a resolution are not available, global optimization methods like simulated annealing can be still successful, given the limitation that they rely on the a priori knowledge of the molecular compound. (55) 3D ED was already successfully employed for unveiling the structure of unknown pharmaceuticals (34) and protein fragments (46−49) that could not be addressed by X-ray methods because they could not be grown in large crystals, and in certain cases even for determining their absolute configuration. (73)
Dynamical diffraction will hamper proper structure refinement and validation. For very high-quality X-ray data of small organic molecular compounds, the refinement residual R1 can be as low as 2.5%, while samples with R1 values close to 5% and goodness-of-fit (GooF) values close to 1 are generally considered good. For ED data taken from crystals thicker than 100 nm, typical refinement statistics range from 18% to 40% in R1, and GooF ranges from 1.4 to 2.8. (31,32) These relatively poor statistics reveal significant inadequacies of the kinematical diffraction approximation, which prevents a confident validation of fine details in the atomic structures of unknown compounds.
Systematic deviations in the measured data due to dynamical diffraction can be reduced by including the effects of dynamical scattering in the crystal refinement. For instance, full unrestrained dynamical refinement of the paracetamol structure, based on 3D ED data taken from a 90 nm thick crystal, allowed a R1 of 9% and a GooF of 2.5. (105) A statistical correction for dynamical scattering allowed instead the refinement of C16O5H18 and C18O6N2S2H16 structures up to a R1 of 12% and a GooF of 0.9, starting from data collected on crystals with thicknesses of about 100–200 nm. (35) Both approaches were shown to be sensitive to hydrogen atom positions.
Hence, current approaches in 3D ED allow confident ab initio structure determination using single submicrometer crystals. Also, methods for dealing with the adverse effects of dynamical diffraction are now quickly progressing toward full and unrestrained refinement of hydrogen atoms and toward the reliable identification of atomic species, alternate and partial occupied positions, and anisotropic displacement parameters.

methods for dealing with the adverse effects of dynamical diffraction are now quickly progressing toward full and unrestrained refinement of hydrogen atoms and toward the reliable identification of atomic species, alternate and partial occupied positions, and anisotropic displacement parameters

5.2. Proteins

Protein crystals contain 50% of disordered matter on average. Mostly, this is water located between the globular protein molecules, but crystals of membrane proteins also contain substantial amounts of disordered detergent. Moreover, water is volatile under the TEM vacuum, and its loss definitely compromises the crystallinity of the sample. Therefore, protein crystals must be vitrified and kept frozen to allow their study by cryo-EM or ED. Also, the relatively large unit cell, combined with a high amount of disordered volume, compromises the resolution and intensity of the Bragg reflections of protein crystals.
Collecting diffraction data by rotating the crystal around a random axis normal to the beam has been the standard approach in X-ray protein crystallography over the past four decades. (168) All recent attempts to collect 3D ED data were then performed with a similar experimental setup. The continuous rotation method, where a series of diffraction patterns are collected while the crystal is continuously rotated between subsequent exposures, is the most common approach for ED data collection. (36,38,40) Recently Lanza et al. (45) showed that it is also possible to acquire data stepwise by a precession-assisted nanobeam, while crystal tracking is done in STEM imaging mode. The main advantage of employing a nanobeam is that a small portion of the crystal is illuminated per time, allowing the sampling of smaller features and exploiting more efficiently the protein diffracting volume.
The first protein structure successfully determined was the most common tetragonal polymorph of lysozyme. (37,38) Later, Gonen and co-workers also succeeded in the structure determination of a number of protein species, with resolution below 2.0 Å. (42) They also showed that is possible to obtain information about the binding interactions between a small-molecule inhibitor and the surrounding HIV-1 Gag. (43)
Meanwhile, Yonekura et al. (39) demonstrated the advantage of energy-filtering ED data for a better definition of charged amino acid residues and metals. Xu et al. (44) stressed the improvement in the potential map definition derived by data redundancy. Eventually Lanza et al. (45) reported a polymorphic form of lysozyme that was also independently discovered with powder X-ray diffraction (169) but could be solved only by 3D ED. The same authors also showed how 3D ED and microfocused X-ray diffraction can be coupled for following protein crystallogenesis and growth.
Protein crystals hardly ever diffract to a resolution that is sufficiently high for phasing by direct methods, so other phasing methods are required. Crystallographic phasing by imaging has been successful for two-dimensional, (156) but so far not for three-dimensional, protein crystals. To date, most proteins determined by 3D ED data are proteins whose crystal structure was known from previous X-ray analyses. This is related with the fact that, at present, there is no satisfactory way of determining the phases of protein ED data other than molecular replacement, which is a very robust phasing method when the atomic structure of a similar molecule is available. Still, independent validation methods are evidently required. A potential validation is obtained removing parts of the model and checking if difference Fourier mapping reveals residual density corresponding to the missing parts. Nevertheless, for this procedure it is essential that an independent model is used and that no refinement was done before the difference Fourier mapping.
Undoubtedly, unmodeled dynamical scattering contributes to reduce accuracy and worsen agreement factors. Protein structures are currently too complex for a full dynamical refinement, (101,102,105) but recently a statistical correction for estimating dynamical scattering has been proposed. (35) This procedure allows a small, but significant, improvement of the models. For instance, in the case of lysozyme nanocrystals, this statistical correction resulted in a reduction of Rcomplete from 29% to 26%. (35,41)
We conclude that the electron diffraction of protein crystals may yield structural information that is almost as good as what can be achieved with X-ray diffraction, while requiring diffracted volumes that can be reduced by up to 6 orders of magnitude. However, several theoretical and experimental problems remain to be fully answered, and for general applications it will be indispensable to develop alternative phasing methods that do not rely on molecular replacement.

6. Outlook

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This paper outlines the strengths of electron crystallography for the analysis of nanocrystalline materials and the advances this technique experienced in the past decade. The impressive numbers of crystal structures determined by 3D ED in any domain of materials and life sciences testify to how advanced and powerful this method has become by now.
Robust and reliable protocols have been developed for ED data acquisition based on different approaches: sequential stage tilt with electron beam precession, combined stage-beam tilt, and continuous stage rotation. A common line for the data processing has been established using either dedicated programs for electron diffraction or modified X-ray packages. Most existing structure analysis and phase retrieval methods were successfully tested with 3D ED data. Meanwhile, the amount of structures characterized by 3D ED is continuously growing, including new complex material systems like proteins.
Taken together, 3D ED is rapidly gaining ground. The remaining steps concern the availability of dedicated instruments optimized for 3D ED. TEM is designed as imaging instruments, and their illumination systems and sample stages are not part of an electron diffractometer, which should provide 3D ED data on nanocrystals of any beam sensitivity. The mechanical stability of the sample stages should be improved to reduce the sample movement during tilt. The instruments should be equipped with single-electron detectors for diffraction, and the illumination system should provide parallel nanobeams smaller than 100 nm. The crystal search should be completely automatized with the possibility of performing ED in low dose conditions. Once such instruments will be available, 3D ED will be the gold standard every time the grain size goes beyond the micron size.
The overview that is provided in this Outlook aims to inform the research community beyond the current users of the method. Thereby, we encourage the outreach of 3D ED toward new materials and new scientific topics, and we foster cooperation among diverse research fields, such as materials and life sciences.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Enrico Mugnaioli - Center for Nanotechnology Innovation@NEST, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Piazza S. Silvestro 12, 56127 Pisa, Italy
    • Tatiana E. Gorelik - University of Ulm, Central Facility for Electron Microscopy, Electron Microscopy Group of Materials Science (EMMS), Albert Einstein Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany
    • Ute Kolb - Institut für Anorganische Chemie und Analytische Chemie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Duesbergweg 10-14, 55128 Mainz, GermanyInstitut für Angewandte Geowissenschaften, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstraße 9, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
    • Lukas Palatinus - Department of Structure Analysis, Institute of Physics of the CAS, Na Slovance 2, 182 21 Prague 8, Czechia
    • Philippe Boullay - CRISMAT, Normandie Université, ENSICAEN, UNICAEN, CNRS UMR 6508, 6 Bd Maréchal Juin, F-14050 Cedex Caen, FranceOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2867-8986
    • Sven Hovmöller - Inorganic and Structural Chemistry, Department of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
    • Jan Pieter Abrahams - Center for Cellular Imaging and NanoAnalytics (C−CINA), Biozentrum, Basel University, Mattenstrasse 26, CH-4058 Basel, SwitzerlandDepartment of Biology and Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), CH-5232 Villigen PSI, SwitzerlandLeiden Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

M.G. and E.M. are grateful to Regione Toscana for funding through the FELIX project (Por CREO FESR 2014-2020 action). T.E.G. is grateful to DFG (DFG) project CRC 1279 for the financial support. U.K. thanks the Stipendienstiftung Rheinland-Pfalz and the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz for research funding.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 169 other publications.

  1. 1
    Belsky, A.; Hellenbrandt, M.; Karen, V. L.; Luksch, P. New developments in the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD): accessibility in support of materials research and design. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2002, 58, 364369,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768102006948
  2. 2
    Downs, R. T.; Hall-Wallace, M. The American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Database. Am. Mineral. 2003, 88, 247250
  3. 3
    Gražulis, S.; Chateigner, D.; Downs, R. T.; Yokochi, A. F. T.; Quiros, M.; Lutterotti, L.; Manakova, E.; Butkus, J.; Moeck, P.; Le Bail, A. Crystallography Open Database – an open-access collection of crystal structures. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 726729,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889809016690
  4. 4
    Groom, C. R.; Bruno, I. J.; Lightfoot, M. P.; Ward, S. C. The Cambridge Structural Database. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci., Cryst. Eng. Mater. 2016, 72, 171179,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052520616003954
  5. 5
    Burley, S. K.; Berman, H. M.; Bhikadiya, C.; Bi, C.; Chen, L.; Di Costanzo, L.; Christie, C.; Dalenberg, K.; Duarte, J. M.; Dutta, S.; Feng, Z.; Ghosh, S.; Goodsell, D. S.; Green, R. K.; Guranović, V.; Guzenko, D.; Hudson, B. P.; Kalro, T.; Liang, Y.; Lowe, R.; Namkoong, H.; Peisach, E.; Periskova, I.; Prlić, A.; Randle, C.; Rose, A.; Rose, P.; Sala, R.; Sekharan, M.; Shao, C.; Tan, L.; Tao, Y.-P.; Valasatava, Y.; Voigt, M.; Westbrook, J.; Woo, J.; Yang, H.; Young, J.; Zhuravleva, M.; Zardecki, C. RCSB Protein Data Bank: biological macromolecular structures enabling research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology and energy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D464D474,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1004
  6. 6
    Cowley, J. M. Electron diffraction techniques; Oxford University Press: New York, 1992; Vols. 1 and 2.
  7. 7
    Dorset, D. L. Structural electron crystallography; Plenum Pres: New York, 1995.
  8. 8
    Dorset, D. L.; Hauptman, H. A. Direct phase determination for quasi-kinematical electron diffraction intensity data from organic microcrystals. Ultramicroscopy 1976, 1, 195201,  DOI: 10.1016/0304-3991(76)90034-6
  9. 9
    Dorset, D. L. Electron crystallography. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 1996, 52, 753769,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768196005599
  10. 10
    Weirich, T. E.; Ramlau, R.; Simon, A.; Hovmöller, S.; Zou, X. A crystal structure determined with 0.02 Å accuracy by electron microscopy. Nature 1996, 382, 144146,  DOI: 10.1038/382144a0
  11. 11
    Weirich, T. E.; Zou, X.; Ramlau, R.; Simon, A.; Cascarano, G. L.; Giacovazzo, C.; Hovmöller, S. Structures of nanometre-size crystals determined from selected-area electron diffraction data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2000, 56, 2935,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767399009605
  12. 12
    Gonen, T.; Cheng, Y.; Sliz, P.; Hiroaki, Y.; Fujiyoshi, Y.; Harrison, S. C.; Walz, T. Lipid-protein interactions in double-layered two-dimensional AQP0 crystals. Nature 2005, 438, 633638,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04321
  13. 13
    Dorset, D. L.; Roth, W. J.; Gilmore, C. J. Electron crystallography of zeolites – the MWW family as a test of direct 3D structure determination. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2005, 61, 516527,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767305024670
  14. 14
    Gemmi, M.; Zou, X.; Hovmöller, S.; Migliori, A.; Vennström, M.; Andersson, Y. Structure of Ti2P solved by three-dimensional electron diffraction data collected with the precession technique and high-resolution electron microscopy. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2003, 59, 117126,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767302022559
  15. 15
    Kolb, U.; Gorelik, T.; Kübel, C.; Otten, M. T.; Hubert, D. Towards automated diffraction tomography: Part I—Data acquisition. Ultramicroscopy 2007, 107, 507513,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.10.007
  16. 16
    Kolb, U.; Gorelik, T.; Otten, M. T. Towards automated diffraction tomography. Part II—Cell parameter determination. Ultramicroscopy 2008, 108, 763772,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2007.12.002
  17. 17
    Mugnaioli, E.; Gorelik, T.; Kolb, U. Ab Initio” structure solution from electron diffraction data obtained by a combination of automated diffraction tomography and precession technique. Ultramicroscopy 2009, 109, 758765,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2009.01.011
  18. 18
    Kolb, U.; Mugnaioli, E.; Gorelik, T. E. Automated electron diffraction tomography – A new tool for nano crystal structure analysis. Cryst. Res. Technol. 2011, 46, 542554,  DOI: 10.1002/crat.201100036
  19. 19
    Birkel, C. S.; Mugnaioli, E.; Gorelik, T.; Kolb, U.; Panthöfer, M.; Tremel, W. Solution synthesis of a new thermoelectric Zn1+xSb nanophase and its structure determination using automated electron diffraction tomography. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 98819889,  DOI: 10.1021/ja1035122
  20. 20
    Rozhdestvenskaya, I.; Mugnaioli, E.; Czank, M.; Depmeier, W.; Kolb, U.; Reinholdt, A.; Weirich, T. The structure of charoite, (K,Sr,Ba,Mn)15–16(Ca,Na)32[(Si70(O,OH)180)](OH,F)4.0·nH2O, solved by conventional and automated electron diffraction. Mineral. Mag. 2010, 74, 159177,  DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2010.074.1.159
  21. 21
    Denysenko, D.; Grzywa, M.; Tonigold, M.; Streppel, B.; Krkljus, I.; Hirscher, M.; Mugnaioli, E.; Kolb, U.; Hanss, J.; Volkmer, D. Elucidating gating effects for hydrogen sorption in MFU-4-type triazolate-based metal–organic frameworks featuring different pore sizes. Chem. - Eur. J. 2011, 17, 18371848,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201001872
  22. 22
    Jiang, J.; Jorda, J. L.; Yu, J.; Baumes, L. A.; Mugnaioli, E.; Diaz-Cabanas, M. J.; Kolb, U.; Corma, A. Synthesis and structure determination of the hierarchical meso-microporous zeolite ITQ-43. Science 2011, 333, 11311134,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1208652
  23. 23
    Palatinus, L.; Klementová, M.; Dřínek, V.; Jarošova, M.; Petříček, V. An incommensurately modulated structure of η’-phase of Cu3+xSi determined by quantitative electron diffraction tomography. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 50, 37433751,  DOI: 10.1021/ic200102z
  24. 24
    Gorelik, T. E.; van de Streek, J.; Kilbinger, A. F. M.; Brunklaus, G.; Kolb, U. Ab-initio crystal structure analysis and refinement approaches of oligo p-benzamides based on electron diffraction data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2012, 68, 171181,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768112003138
  25. 25
    Martínez-Franco, R.; Moliner, M.; Yun, Y.; Sun, J.; Wan, W.; Zou, X.; Corma, A. Synthesis of an extra-large molecular sieve using proton sponges as organic structure-directing agents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110, 37493754,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1220733110
  26. 26
    Förster, C.; Gorelik, T. E.; Kolb, U.; Ksenofontov, V.; Heinze, K. Crystalline non-equilibrium phase of a cobalt(II) complex with tridentate ligands. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2015, 2015, 920924,  DOI: 10.1002/ejic.201403200
  27. 27
    Guo, P.; Shin, J.; Greenaway, A. G.; Min, J. G.; Su, J.; Choi, H. J.; Liu, L.; Cox, P. A.; Hong, S. B.; Wright, P. A.; Zou, X. A Zeolite Family with expanding structural complexity and embedded isoreticular structures. Nature 2015, 524, 7478,  DOI: 10.1038/nature14575
  28. 28
    Zhang, W.; Li, M.; Chen, A.; Li, L.; Zhu, Y.; Xia, Z.; Lu, P.; Boullay, P.; Wu, L.; Zhu, Y.; MacManus-Driscoll, J. L.; Jia, Q.; Zhou, H.; Narayan, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H. Two-dimensional layered oxide structures tailored by self-assembled layer stacking via interfacial strain. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 1684516851,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b03773
  29. 29
    van Genderen, E.; Clabbers, M. T. B.; Das, P. P.; Stewart, A.; Nederlof, I.; Barentsen, K. C.; Portillo, Q.; Pannu, N. S.; Nicolopoulos, S.; Gruene, T.; Abrahams, J. P. Ab initio structure determination of nanocrystals of organic pharmaceutical compounds by electron diffraction at room temperature using a Timepix quantum area direct electron detector. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv. 2016, 72, 236242,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053273315022500
  30. 30
    Wang, Y.; Takki, S.; Cheung, O.; Xu, H.; Wan, W.; Öhrström, L.; Inge, A. K. Elucidation of the elusive structure and formula of the active pharmaceutical ingredient bismuth subgallate by continuous rotation electron diffraction. Chem. Commun. 2017, 53, 70187021,  DOI: 10.1039/C7CC03180G
  31. 31
    Gruene, T.; Wennmacher, J. T. C.; Zaubitzer, C.; Holstein, J. J.; Heidler, J.; Fecteau-Lefebvre, A.; De Carlo, S.; Müller, E.; Goldie, K. N.; Regeni, I.; Li, T.; Santiso-Quinones, G.; Steinfeld, G.; Handschin, S.; van Genderen, E.; van Bokhoven, J. A.; Clever, G. H.; Pantelic, R. Rapid structure determination of microcrystalline molecular compounds using electron diffraction. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 1631316317,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201811318
  32. 32
    Jones, C. G.; Martynowycz, M. W.; Hattne, J.; Fulton, T. J.; Stoltz, B. M.; Rodriguez, J. A.; Nelson, H. M.; Gonen, T. The cryoEM method MicroED as a powerful tool for small molecule structure determination. ACS Cent. Sci. 2018, 4, 15871592,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00760
  33. 33
    Tinti, G.; Fröjdh, E.; van Genderen, E.; Gruene, T.; Schmitt, B.; de Winter, D. A. M.; Weckhuysen, B. M.; Abrahams, J. P. Electron crystallography with the EIGER detector. IUCrJ 2018, 5, 190199,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052252518000945
  34. 34
    Andrusenko, I.; Hamilton, V.; Mugnaioli, E.; Lanza, A.; Hall, C.; Potticary, J.; Hall, S. R.; Gemmi, M. The crystal structure of orthocetamol solved by 3D electron diffraction. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, in press. DOI: 10.1002/anie.201904564 .
  35. 35
    Clabbers, M. T. B.; Gruene, T.; van Genderen, E.; Abrahams, J. P. Reducing dynamical electron scattering reveals hydrogen atoms. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv. 2019, 75, 8293,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053273318013918
  36. 36
    Nederlof, I.; van Genderen, E.; Li, Y.-W.; Abrahams, J. P. A Medipix quantum area detector allows rotation electron diffraction data collection from submicrometre three-dimensional protein crystals. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr. 2013, 69, 12231230,  DOI: 10.1107/S0907444913009700
  37. 37
    Shi, D.; Nannenga, B. L.; Iadanza, M. G.; Gonen, T. Three-dimensional electron crystallography of protein microcrystals. eLife 2013, 2, e01345  DOI: 10.7554/eLife.01345
  38. 38
    Nannenga, B. L.; Shi, D.; Leslie, A. G. W.; Gonen, T. High-resolution structure determination by continuous-rotation data collection in MicroED. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 927930,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3043
  39. 39
    Yonekura, K.; Kato, K.; Ogasawara, M.; Tomita, M.; Toyoshima, C. Electron crystallography of ultrathin 3D protein crystals: Atomic model with charges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, 33683373,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1500724112
  40. 40
    Shi, D.; Nannenga, B. L.; De La Cruz, M. J.; Liu, J.; Sawtelle, S.; Calero, G.; Reyes, E. F.; Hattne, J.; Gonen, T. The collection of MicroED data for macromolecular crystallography. Nat. Protoc. 2016, 11, 895904,  DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2016.046
  41. 41
    Clabbers, M. T. B.; van Genderen, E.; Wan, W.; Wiegers, E. L.; Gruene, T.; Abrahams, J. P. Protein structure determination by electron diffraction using a single three-dimensional nanocrystal. Acta Crystallogr. D 2017, 73, 738748,  DOI: 10.1107/S2059798317010348
  42. 42
    de la Cruz, M. J.; Hattne, J.; Shi, D.; Seidler, P.; Rodriguez, J.; Reyes, F. E.; Sawaya, M. R.; Cascio, D.; Weiss, S. C.; Kim, S. K.; Hinck, C. S.; Hinck, A. P.; Calero, G.; Eisenberg, D.; Gonen, T. Atomic-resolution structures from fragmented protein crystals with the cryoEM method MicroED. Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 399402,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4178
  43. 43
    Purdy, M. D.; Shi, D.; Chrustowicz, J.; Hattne, J.; Gonen, T.; Yeager, M. MicroED structures of HIV-1 Gag CTD-SP1 reveal binding interactions with the maturation inhibitor bevirimat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018, 115, 1325813263,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1806806115
  44. 44
    Xu, H.; Lebrette, H.; Yang, T.; Srinivas, V.; Hovmöller, S.; Högbom, M.; Zou, X. A rare lysozyme crystal form solved using highly redundant multiple electron diffraction datasets from micron-sized crystals. Structure 2018, 26, 667675,  DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2018.02.015
  45. 45
    Lanza, A.; Margheritis, E.; Mugnaioli, E.; Cappello, V.; Garau, G.; Gemmi, M. Nanobeam precession-assisted 3D electron diffraction reveals a new polymorph of hen egg-white lysozyme. IUCrJ 2019, 6, 178188,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052252518017657
  46. 46
    Rodriguez, J. A.; Ivanova, M. I.; Sawaya, M. R.; Cascio, D.; Reyes, F. E.; Shi, D.; Sangwan, S.; Guenther, E. L.; Johnson, L. M.; Zhang, M.; Jiang, L.; Arbing, M. A.; Nannenga, B. L.; Hattne, J.; Whitelegge, J.; Brewster, A. S.; Messerschmidt, M.; Boutet, S.; Sauter, N. K.; Gonen, T.; Eisenberg, D. S. Structure of the toxic core of α-synuclein from invisible crystals. Nature 2015, 525, 486490,  DOI: 10.1038/nature15368
  47. 47
    Sawaya, M. R.; Rodriguez, J.; Cascio, D.; Collazo, M. J.; Shi, D.; Reyes, F. E.; Hattne, J.; Gonen, T.; Eisenberg, D. S. Ab initio structure determination from prion nanocrystals at atomic resolution by MicroED. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 1123211236,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1606287113
  48. 48
    Gallagher-Jones, M.; Glynn, C.; Boyer, D. R.; Martynowycz, M. W.; Hernandez, E.; Miao, J.; Zee, C.-T.; Novikova, I. V.; Goldschmidt, L.; McFarlane, H. T.; Helguera, G. F.; Evans, J. E.; Sawaya, M. R.; Cascio, D.; Eisenberg, D. S.; Gonen, T.; Rodriguez, J. A. Sub-ångström cryo-EM structure of a prion protofibril reveals a polar clasp. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2018, 25, 131134,  DOI: 10.1038/s41594-017-0018-0
  49. 49
    Guenther, E. L.; Ge, P.; Trinh, H.; Sawaya, M. R.; Cascio, D.; Boyer, D. R.; Gonen, T.; Zhou, Z. H.; Eisenberg, D. S. Atomic-level evidence for packing and positional amyloid polymorphism by segment from TDP-43 RRM2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2018, 25, 311319,  DOI: 10.1038/s41594-018-0045-5
  50. 50
    Zee, C.-T.; Glynn, C.; Gallagher-Jones, M.; Miao, J.; Santiago, C. G.; Cascio, D.; Gonen, T.; Sawaya, M. R.; Rodriguez, J. A. Homochiral and racemic MicroED structures of a peptide repeat from the ice-nucleation protein InaZ. IUCrJ 2019, 6, 197205,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052252518017621
  51. 51
    Bowden, D.; Krysiak, Y.; Palatinus, L.; Tsivoulas, D.; Plana-Ruiz, S.; Sarakinou, E.; Kolb, U.; Stewart, D.; Preuss, M. A high-strength silicide phase in a stainless steel alloy designed for wear-resistant applications. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1374,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03875-9
  52. 52
    Buixaderas, E.; Kempa, M.; Bovtun, V.; Kadlec, C.; Savinov, M.; Borodavka, F.; Vaněk, P.; Steciuk, G.; Palatinus, L.; Dec, J. Multiple polarization mechanisms across the ferroelectric phase transition of the tetragonal tungsten-bronze Sr0.35Ba0.69Nb2O6.04. Physical Review Materials 2018, 2, 124402,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.2.124402
  53. 53
    Cichocka, M. O.; Ångström, J.; Wang, B.; Zou, X.; Smeets, S. High-throughput continuous rotation electron diffraction data acquisition via software automation. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2018, 51, 16521661,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576718015145
  54. 54
    Cichocka, M. O.; Lorgouilloux, Y.; Smeets, S.; Su, J.; Wan, W.; Caullet, P.; Bats, N.; McCusker, L. B.; Paillaud, J.-L.; Zou, X. Multidimensional disorder in zeolite IM-18 revealed by combining transmission electron microscopy and X-ray powder diffraction analyses. Cryst. Growth Des. 2018, 18, 24412451,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.8b00078
  55. 55
    Das, P. P.; Mugnaioli, E.; Nicolopoulos, S.; Tossi, C.; Gemmi, M.; Galanis, A.; Borodi, G.; Pop, M. M. Crystal structures of two important pharmaceuticals solved by 3D precession electron diffraction tomography. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2018, 22, 13651372,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.8b00149
  56. 56
    Hynek, J.; Brázda, P.; Rohlíček, J.; Londesborough, M. G. S.; Demel, J. Phosphinic acid based linkers: Building blocks in metal–organic framework chemistry. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 50165019,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201800884
  57. 57
    Karakulina, O. M.; Demortière, A.; Dachraoui, W.; Abakumov, A. M.; Hadermann, J. In situ electron diffraction tomography using a liquid-electrochemical transmission electron microscopy cell for crystal structure determination of cathode materials for Li-ion batteries. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 62866291,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b02436
  58. 58
    Krysiak, Y.; Barton, B.; Marler, B.; Neder, R. B.; Kolb, U. Ab initio structure determination and quantitative disorder analysis on nanoparticles by electron diffraction tomography. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv. 2018, 74, 93101,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053273317018277
  59. 59
    Mayorga-Martinez, C. C.; Sofer, Z.; Luxa, J.; Huber, Š.; Sedmidubský, D.; Brázda, P.; Palatinus, L.; Mikulics, M.; Lazar, P.; Medlín, R.; Pumera, M. TaS3 nanofibers: Layered trichalcogenide for high-performance electronic and sensing devices. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 464473,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b06853
  60. 60
    Mugnaioli, E.; Gemmi, M.; Tu, R.; David, J.; Bertoni, G.; Gaspari, R.; De Trizio, L.; Manna, L. Ab initio structure determination of Cu2–xTe plasmonic nanocrystals by precession-assisted electron diffraction tomography and HAADF-STEM imaging. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 57, 1024110248,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.8b01445
  61. 61
    Németh, P.; Mugnaioli, E.; Gemmi, M.; Czuppon, G.; Demény, A.; Spötl, C. A nanocrystalline monoclinic CaCO3 precursor of metastable aragonite. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaau6178  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau6178
  62. 62
    Portolés-Gil, N.; Lanza, A.; Aliaga-Alcalde, N.; Ayllón, J. A.; Gemmi, M.; Mugnaioli, E.; López-Periago, A. M.; Domingo, C. Crystalline curcumin bioMOF obtained by precipitation in supercritical CO2 and structural determination by electron diffraction tomography. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 1230912319,  DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b02738
  63. 63
    Seo, S.; Yang, T.; Shin, J.; Jo, D.; Zou, X.; Hong, S. B. Two aluminophosphate molecular sieves built from pairs of enantiomeric structural building units. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 37273732,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201800791
  64. 64
    Steciuk, G.; Barrier, N.; Pautrat, A.; Boullay, P. Stairlike Aurivillius Phases in the pseudobinary Bi5Nb3O15–ABi2Nb2O9 (A = Ba and Sr) system: A comprehensive analysis using superspace group formalism. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 57, 31073115,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b03026
  65. 65
    Veis, M.; Minár, J.; Steciuk, G.; Palatinus, L.; Rinaldi, C.; Cantoni, M.; Kriegner, D.; Tikuišis, K. K.; Hamrle, J.; Zahradník, M.; Antoš, R.; Železný, J.; Šmejkal, L.; Marti, X.; Wadley, P.; Campion, R. P.; Frontera, C.; Uhlířová, K.; Duchoň, T.; Kužel, P.; Novák, V.; Jungwirth, T.; Výborný, K. Band structure of CuMnAs probed by optical and photoemission spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2018, 97, 125109,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.125109
  66. 66
    Wang, B.; Rhauderwiek, T.; Inge, A. K.; Xu, H.; Yang, T.; Huang, Z.; Stock, N.; Zou, X. A porous cobalt tetraphosphonate metal–organic framework: Accurate structure and guest molecule location determined by continuous-rotation electron diffraction. Chem. - Eur. J. 2018, 24, 1742917433,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201804133
  67. 67
    Wiedemann, D.; Lüdtke, T.; Palatinus, L.; Willinger, E.; Willinger, M. G.; Mühlbauer, M. J.; Lerch, M. At the Gates: The tantalum-rich phase Hf3Ta2O11 and its commensurately modulated structure. Inorg. Chem. 2018, 57, 1443514442,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.8b02642
  68. 68
    Yuan, S.; Qin, J.-S.; Xu, H.-Q.; Su, J.; Rossi, D.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Lollar, C.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, H.-L.; Son, D. H.; Xu, H.; Huang, Z.; Zou, X.; Zhou, H.-C. [Ti8Zr2O12(COO)16] cluster: An ideal inorganic building unit for photoactive metal–organic frameworks. ACS Cent. Sci. 2018, 4, 105111,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00497
  69. 69
    Zacharias, N.; Karavassili, F.; Das, P.; Nicolopoulos, S.; Oikonomou, A.; Galanis, A.; Rauch, E.; Arenal, R.; Portillo, J.; Roque, J.; Casablanca, J.; Margiolaki, I. A novelty for cultural heritage material analysis: transmission electron microscope (TEM) 3D electron diffraction tomography applied to Roman glass tesserae. Microchem. J. 2018, 138, 1925,  DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2017.12.023
  70. 70
    Zhang, C.; Kapaca, E.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Yi, X.; Zheng, A.; Zou, X.; Jiang, J.; Yu, J. An extra-large-pore zeolite with 24 × 8 × 8-ring channels using a structure-directing agent derived from traditional Chinese medicine. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 64866490,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201801386
  71. 71
    Zhou, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Liang, F.; Palatinus, L.; Poupon, M.; Yang, T.; Cong, R.; Lin, Z.; Sun, J. CsSiB3O7: A beryllium-free deep-ultraviolet nonlinear optical material discovered by the combination of electron diffraction and first-principles calculations. Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 22032207,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b00545
  72. 72
    Ångström, J.; Jenei, I. Z.; Spektor, K.; Häussermann, U. Formation of hydrous, pyroxene-related phases from LiAlSiO4 glass in high-pressure hydrothermal environments. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2019, 3, 816,  DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.8b00091
  73. 73
    Brázda, P.; Palatinus, L.; Babor, M. Electron diffraction determines molecular absolute configuration in a pharmaceutical nanocrystal. Science 2019, 364, 667669,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2560
  74. 74
    Lanza, A. E.; Gemmi, M.; Bindi, L.; Mugnaioli, E.; Paar, W. H. Daliranite, PbHgAs2S5: determination of the incommensurately modulated structure and revision of the chemical formula. Acta Crystallogr. B 2019, in press. DOI: 10.1107/S2052520619007340 .
  75. 75
    Rondeau, B.; Devouard, B.; Jacob, D.; Roussel, J.; Stephant, N.; Boulet, C.; Mollé, V.; Corre, M.; Fritsch, E.; Ferraris, C.; Parodi, G. C. Lasnierite, (Ca,Sr)(Mg,Fe)2Al(PO4)3, a new phosphate accompanying lazulite from Mt. Ibity, Madagascar: an example of structural characterization from dynamical refinement of precession electron diffraction data on submicrometre sample. Eur. J. Mineral. 2019, 31, 379388,  DOI: 10.1127/ejm/2019/0031-2817
  76. 76
    Steciuk, G.; David, A.; Petricek, V.; Palatinus, L.; Mercey, B.; Prellier, W.; Pautrat, A.; Boullay, P. Precession electron diffraction tomography on twinned crystals: Application to CaTiO3 thin films. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2019, 52, 626636,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576719005569
  77. 77
    Zou, Z.; Habraken, W. J. E. M.; Matveeva, G.; Jensen, A. C. S.; Bertinetti, L.; Hood, M. A.; Sun, C.; Gilbert, P. U. P. A.; Polishchuk, I.; Pokroy, B.; Mahamid, J.; Politi, Y.; Weiner, S.; Werner, P.; Bette, S.; Dinnebier, R.; Kolb, U.; Zolotoyabko, E.; Fratzl, P. A hydrated crystalline calcium carbonate phase: Calcium carbonate hemihydrate. Science 2019, 363, 396400,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aav0210
  78. 78
    Hand, E.; Vogel, G.; Garber, K.; Kaiser, J.; Servick, K.; Clery, D.; Service, R. F.; Wadman, M. Runners-up. Science 2018, 362, 13461351,  DOI: 10.1126/science.362.6421.1346
  79. 79
    Gemmi, M.; Oleynikov, P. Scanning reciprocal space for solving unknown structures: energy filtered diffraction tomography and rotation diffraction tomography methods. Z. Kristallogr. - Cryst. Mater. 2013, 228, 5158,  DOI: 10.1524/zkri.2013.1559
  80. 80
    Boullay, P.; Palatinus, L.; Barrier, N. Precession electron diffraction tomography for solving complex modulated structures: The case of Bi5Nb3O15. Inorg. Chem. 2013, 52, 61276135,  DOI: 10.1021/ic400529s
  81. 81
    Zhang, D.; Oleynikov, P.; Hovmöller, S.; Zou, X. Collecting 3D electron diffraction data by the rotation method. Z. Kristallogr. 2010, 225, 94102,  DOI: 10.1524/zkri.2010.1202
  82. 82
    Wan, W.; Sun, J.; Su, J.; Hovmöller, S.; Zou, X. Three-dimensional rotation electron diffraction: software RED for automated data collection and data processing. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2013, 46, 18631873,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889813027714
  83. 83
    Palatinus, L.; Chapuis, G. SUPERFLIP – a computer program for the solution of crystal structures by charge flipping in arbitrary dimensions. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2007, 40, 786790,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889807029238
  84. 84
    Sheldrick, G. M. A short history of SHELX. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2008, 64, 112122,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767307043930
  85. 85
    Burla, M. C.; Caliandro, R.; Carrozzini, B.; Cascarano, G. L.; Cuocci, C.; Giacovazzo, C.; Mallamo, M.; Mazzone, A.; Polidori, G. Crystal structure determination and refinement via SIR2014. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48, 306309,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576715001132
  86. 86
    Grimes, J. M.; Hall, D. R.; Ashton, A. W.; Evans, G.; Owen, R. L.; Wagner, A.; McAuley, K. E.; von Delft, F.; Orville, A. M.; Sorensen, T.; Walsh, M. A.; Ginn, H. M.; Stuart, D. I. Where is crystallography going?. Acta Crystallogr. D 2018, 74, 152166,  DOI: 10.1107/S2059798317016709
  87. 87
    Amunts, A.; Brown, A.; Bai, X.-C.; Llácer, J. L.; Hussain, T.; Emsley, P.; Long, F.; Murshudov, G.; Scheres, S. H. W.; Ramakrishnan, V. Structure of the yeast mitochondrial large ribosomal subunit. Science 2014, 343, 14851489,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1249410
  88. 88
    Cheng, Y. Single-particle cryo-EM at crystallographic resolution. Cell 2015, 161, 450457,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.049
  89. 89
    Gemmi, M.; La Placa, M. G. I.; Galanis, A. S.; Rauch, E. F.; Nicolopoulos, S. Fast electron diffraction tomography. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48, 718727,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576715004604
  90. 90
    Vincent, R.; Midgley, P. A. Double conical beam-rocking system for measurement of integrated electron diffraction intensities. Ultramicroscopy 1994, 53, 271282,  DOI: 10.1016/0304-3991(94)90039-6
  91. 91
    Plana-Ruiz, S.; Portillo, J.; Estradé, S.; Peiró, F.; Kolb, U.; Nicolopoulos, S. Quasi-parallel precession diffraction: Alignment method for scanning transmission electron microscopes. Ultramicroscopy 2018, 193, 3951,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.06.005
  92. 92
    Gemmi, M.; Merlini, M.; Palatinus, L.; Fumagalli, P.; Hanfland, M. Electron diffraction determination of 11.5 Å and HySo structures: Candidate water carriers to the Upper Mantle. Am. Am. Mineral. 2016, 101, 26452654,  DOI: 10.2138/am-2016-5722
  93. 93
    Wilke, M.; Kabelitz, A.; Gorelik, T. E.; Guilherme Buzanich, A.; Reinholz, U.; Kolb, U.; Rademann, K.; Emmerling, F. The crystallisation of copper(II) phenylphosphonates. Dalton T. 2016, 45, 1745317463,  DOI: 10.1039/C6DT02904C
  94. 94
    Rozhdestvenskaya, I. V.; Mugnaioli, E.; Schowalter, M.; Schmidt, M. U.; Czank, M.; Depmeier, W.; Rosenauer, A. The structure of denisovite, a fibrous nanocrystalline polytypic disordered ‘very complex’ silicate, studied by a synergistic multi-disciplinary approach employing methods of electron crystallography and X-ray powder diffraction. IUCrJ 2017, 4, 223242,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052252517002585
  95. 95
    Mugnaioli, E.; Gemmi, M. Single-crystal analysis of nanodomains by electron diffraction tomography: mineralogy at the order-disorder borderline. Z. Kristallogr. - Cryst. Mater. 2018, 233, 163178,  DOI: 10.1515/zkri-2017-2130
  96. 96
    Georgieva, D.; Jansen, J.; Sikharulidze, I.; Jiang, L.; Zandbergen, H. W.; Abrahams, J. P. Evaluation of Medipix2 detector for recording electron diffraction data in low dose conditions. J. Instrum. 2011, 6, C01033,  DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/6/01/C01033
  97. 97
    Kodjikian, S.; Klein, H. Low-dose electron diffraction tomography (LD-EDT). Ultramicroscopy 2019, 200, 1219,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.02.010
  98. 98
    Yun, Y.; Wan, W.; Rabbani, F.; Su, J.; Xu, H.; Hovmöller, S.; Johnsson, M.; Zou, X. Phase identification and structure determination from multiphase crystalline powder samples by rotation electron diffraction. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2014, 47, 20482054,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576714023875
  99. 99
    Clabbers, M. T. B.; Gruene, T.; Parkhurst, J. M.; Abrahams, J. P.; Waterman, D. G. Electron diffraction data processing with DIALS. Acta Cryst. D 2018, 74, 506518,  DOI: 10.1107/S2059798318007726
  100. 100
    Nannenga, B. L.; Shi, D.; Hattne, J.; Reyes, F. E.; Gonen, T. Structure of catalase determined by MicroED. eLife 2014, 3, e03600  DOI: 10.7554/eLife.03600
  101. 101
    Palatinus, L.; Petříček, V.; Antunes Corrêa, C. Structure refinement using precession electron diffraction tomography and dynamical diffraction: theory and implementation. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Adv. 2015, 71, 235244,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053273315001266
  102. 102
    Palatinus, L.; Corrêa, C. A.; Steciuk, G.; Jacob, D.; Roussel, P.; Boullay, P.; Klemantová, M.; Gemmi, M.; Kopeček, J.; Domeneghetti, M. C.; Cámara, F.; Petříček, V. Structure refinement using precession electron diffraction tomography and dynamical diffraction: Tests on experimental data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci., Cryst. Eng. Mater. 2015, 71, 740751,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052520615017023
  103. 103
    Hirsch, P.; Howie, A.; Nicholson, R.; Pashley, D.; Whelan, M. Electron microscopy of thin crystals; Robert E. Krieger: Malabar, FL, 1977.
  104. 104
    Zuo, J. M.; Spence, J. C. H. Automated structure factor refinement from convergent-beam patterns. Ultramicroscopy 1991, 35, 185186,  DOI: 10.1016/0304-3991(91)90071-D
  105. 105
    Palatinus, L.; Brázda, P.; Boullay, P.; Perez, O.; Klementová, M.; Petit, S.; Eigner, V.; Zaarour, M.; Mintova, S. Hydrogen positions in single nanocrystals revealed by electron diffraction. Science 2017, 355, 166169,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aak9652
  106. 106
    Klementová, M.; Karlík, M.; Novák, P.; Palatinus, P. Structure determination of a new phase Ni8Ti5 by electron diffraction tomography. Intermetallics 2017, 85, 110116,  DOI: 10.1016/j.intermet.2017.02.003
  107. 107
    Gonano, B.; Breard, Y.; Pelloquin, D.; Caignaert, V.; Perez, O.; Pautrat, A.; Boullay, P.; Bazin, P.; Le Breton, J. M. Combining multiscale approaches for the structure determination of an iron layered oxysulfate: Sr4Fe2.5O7.25(SO4)0.5. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 1524115250,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b02572
  108. 108
    Klementová, M.; Motlochová, M.; Boháček, J.; Kupčík, J.; Palatinus, L.; Pližingrová, E.; Szatmáry, L.; Šubrt, J. Metatitanic acid pseudomorphs after titanyl sulfates: nanostructured sorbents and precursors for crystalline titania with desired particle size and shape. Cryst. Growth Des. 2017, 17, 67626769,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.7b01349
  109. 109
    de la Cruz, M. J.; Martynowycz, M. W.; Hattne, J.; Gonen, T. MicroED data collection with SerialEM. Ultramicroscopy 2019, 201, 7780,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.03.009
  110. 110
    Samuha, S.; Mugnaioli, E.; Grushko, B.; Kolb, U.; Meshi, L. Atomic structure solution of the complex quasicrystal approximant Al77Rh15Ru8 from electron diffraction data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci., Cryst. Eng. Mater. 2014, 70, 9991005,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052520614022033
  111. 111
    Drozhzhin, O. A.; Sumanov, V. D.; Karakulina, O. M.; Abakumov, A. M.; Hadermann, J.; Baranov, A. N.; Stevenson, K. J.; Antipov, E. V. Switching between solid solution and two-phase regimes in the Li1-xFe1-yMnyPO4 cathode materials during lithium (de)insertion: combined PITT, in situ XRPD and electron diffraction tomography study Electrochim. Electrochim. Acta 2016, 191, 149157,  DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2016.01.018
  112. 112
    Feyand, M.; Mugnaioli, E.; Vermoortele, F.; Bueken, B.; Dieterich, J. M.; Reimer, T.; Kolb, U.; de Vos, D.; Stock, N. Automated diffraction tomography for the structure elucidation of twinned, sub-micrometer crystals of a highly porous, catalytically active bismuth metal–organic framework. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 1037310376,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201204963
  113. 113
    Brázda, P.; Palatinus, L.; Drahokoupil, J.; Knížek, K.; Buršík, J. Calcium-induced cation ordering and large resistivity decrease in Pr0.3CoO2. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2016, 96–97, 1016,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jpcs.2016.04.012
  114. 114
    Neagu, A.; Tai, C.-W. Local disorder in Na0.5Bi0.5TiO3-piezoceramic determined by 3D electron diffuse scattering. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12519,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-12801-w
  115. 115
    Zhao, H.; Krysiak, Y.; Hoffmann, K.; Barton, B.; Molina-Luna, L.; Neder, R. B.; Kleebe, H.-J.; Gesing, T. M.; Schneider, H.; Fischer, R. X.; Kolb, U. Elucidating structural order and disorder phenomena in mullite-type Al4B2O9 by automated electron diffraction tomography. J. Solid State Chem. 2017, 249, 114123,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jssc.2017.02.023
  116. 116
    Willhammar, T.; Sentosun, K.; Mourdikoudis, S.; Goris, B.; Kurttepeli, M.; Bercx, M.; Lamoen, D.; Partoens, B.; Pastoriza-Santos, I.; Pérez-Juste, J.; Liz-Marzán, L. M.; Bals, S.; Van Tendeloo, G. Structure and vacancy distribution in copper telluride nanoparticles influence plasmonic activity in the near-infrared. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14925,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14925
  117. 117
    Baraldi, A.; Buffagni, E.; Capelletti, R.; Mazzera, M.; Fasoli, M.; Lauria, A.; Moretti, F.; Vedda, A.; Gemmi, M. Eu incorporation into sol–gel silica for photonic applications: Spectroscopic and TEM evidences of α-quartz and Eu pyrosilicate nanocrystal growth. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 2683126848,  DOI: 10.1021/jp4101174
  118. 118
    Mayence, A.; Wang, D.; Salaz-Alvarez, G.; Oleynikov, P.; Bergström, L. Probing planar defects in nanoparticle superlattices by 3D small-angle electron diffraction tomography and real space imaging. Nanoscale 2014, 6, 1380313808,  DOI: 10.1039/C4NR04156A
  119. 119
    Colmont, M.; Palatinus, L.; Huvé, M.; Kabbour, H.; Saitzek, S.; Djelal, N.; Roussel, P. On the use of dynamical diffraction theory to refine crystal structure from electron diffraction data: Application to KLa5O5(VO4)2, a material with promising luminescent properties. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 22522260,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b02663
  120. 120
    Lepoittevin, C. Structure resolution by electron diffraction tomography of the complex layered iron-rich Fe-2234-type Sr5Fe6O15.4. J. J. Solid State Chem. 2016, 242, 228235,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jssc.2016.08.004
  121. 121
    Rickert, K.; Boullay, P.; Malo, S.; Caignaert, V.; Poeppelmeier, K. R. A rutile chevron modulation in delafossite-like Ga3-xIn3TixO9-x/2. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 44034409,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b00147
  122. 122
    Steciuk, G.; Boullay, P.; Pautrat, A.; Barrier, N.; Caignaert, V.; Palatinus, L. Unusual relaxor ferroelectric behavior in stairlike aurivillius phases. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 88818891,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01373
  123. 123
    David, J.; Rossella, F.; Rocci, M.; Ercolani, D.; Sorba, L.; Beltram, F.; Gemmi, M.; Roddaro, S. Crystal phases in hybrid metal–semiconductor nanowire devices. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 23362341,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b05223
  124. 124
    Mugnaioli, E.; Gemmi, M.; Merlini, M.; Gregorkiewitz, M. (Na,)5[MnO2]13 nanorods: a new tunnel structure for electrode materials determined ab initio and refined through a combination of electron and synchrotron diffraction data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci., Cryst. Eng. Mater. 2016, 72, 893903,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052520616015651
  125. 125
    Rotella, H.; Copie, O.; Steciuk, G.; Ouerdane, H.; Boullay, P.; Roussel, P.; Morales, M.; David, A.; Pautrat, A.; Mercey, B.; Lutterotti, L.; Chateigner, D.; Prellier, W. Structural analysis of strained LaVO3 thin films. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2015, 27, 175001,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/27/17/175001
  126. 126
    Bhat, S.; Wiehl, L.; Molina-Luna, L.; Mugnaioli, E.; Lauterbach, S.; Sicolo, S.; Kroll, P.; Duerrschnabel, M.; Nishiyama, N.; Kolb, U.; Albe, K.; Kleebe, H.-J.; Riedel, R. High-pressure synthesis of novel boron oxynitride B6N4O3 with sphalerite type structure. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 59075914,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01706
  127. 127
    Lepoittevin, C.; Jeanneau, J.; Toulemonde, P.; Sulpice, A.; Núñez-Regueiro, M. Ba19Cr12O45: A high pressure chromate with an original structure solved by electron diffraction tomography and powder X-ray diffraction. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 64046409,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b00481
  128. 128
    Andrusenko, I.; Mugnaioli, E.; Gorelik, T. E.; Koll, D.; Panthöfer, M.; Tremel, W.; Kolb, U. Structure analysis of titanate nanorods by automated electron diffraction tomography. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2011, 67, 218225,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768111014534
  129. 129
    Weber, D.; Huber, M.; Gorelik, T. E.; Abakumov, A. M.; Becker, N.; Niehaus, O.; Schwickert, C.; Culver, S. P.; Boysen, H.; Senyshyn, A.; Pöttgen, R.; Dronskowski, R.; Ressler, T.; Kolb, U.; Lerch, M. Molybdenum oxide nitrides of the Mo2(O,N,□)5 type: On the way to Mo2O5. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 87828792,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b00551
  130. 130
    Gemmi, M.; Campostrini, I.; Demartin, F.; Gorelik, T. E.; Gramaccioli, C. M. Structure of the new mineral sarrabusite, Pb5CuCl4(SeO3)4, solved by manual electron-diffraction tomography. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2012, 68, 1523,  DOI: 10.1107/S010876811104688X
  131. 131
    Plášil, J.; Palatinus, L.; Rohlíček, J.; Houdková, L.; Klementová, M.; Goliáš, V.; Škácha, P. Crystal structure of lead uranyl carbonate mineral widenmannite: Precession electron-diffraction and synchrotron powder-diffraction study. Am. Mineral. 2014, 99, 276282,  DOI: 10.2138/am.2014.4671
  132. 132
    Majzlan, J.; Palatinus, L.; Plášil, J. Crystal structure of Fe2(AsO4)(HAsO4)(OH)(H2O)3, a dehydration product of kaňkite. Eur. J. Mineral. 2016, 28, 6370,  DOI: 10.1127/ejm/2015/0027-2495
  133. 133
    Colombo, F.; Mugnaioli, E.; Vallcorba, O.; Garcia, A.; Goñi, A. R.; Rius, J. Crystal structure determination of karibibite, an Fe3+ arsenite, using electron diffraction tomography. Mineral. Mag. 2017, 81, 11911202,  DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2016.080.159
  134. 134
    Capitani, G. C.; Mugnaioli, E.; Rius, J.; Gentile, P.; Catelani, T.; Lucotti, A.; Kolb, U. The Bi sulfates from the Alfenza Mine, Crodo, Italy: An automatic electron diffraction tomography (ADT) study. Am. Mineral. 2014, 99, 500510,  DOI: 10.2138/am.2014.4446
  135. 135
    Mugnaioli, E.; Reyes-Gasga, J.; Kolb, U.; Hemmerlé, J.; Brès, É. F. Evidence of noncentrosymmetry of human tooth hydroxyapatite crystals. Chem. - Eur. J. 2014, 20, 68496852,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201402275
  136. 136
    Capitani, G. C.; Mugnaioli, E.; Guastoni, A. What is the actual structure of samarskite-(Y)? A TEM investigation of metamict samarskite from the Garnet Codera dike pegmatite (Central Italian Alps). Am. Mineral. 2016, 101, 16791690,  DOI: 10.2138/am-2016-5605
  137. 137
    Mugnaioli, E.; Andrusenko, I.; Schüler, T.; Loges, N.; Dinnebier, R. E.; Panthöfer, M.; Tremel, W.; Kolb, U. Ab initio structure determination of vaterite by automated electron diffraction. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 70417045,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201200845
  138. 138
    Pignatelli, I.; Marrocchi, Y.; Mugnaioli, E.; Bourdelle, F.; Gounelle, M. Mineralogical, crystallographic and redox features of the earliest stages of fluid alteration in CM chondrites. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2017, 209, 106122,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2017.04.017
  139. 139
    Viti, C.; Brogi, A.; Liotta, D.; Mugnaioli, E.; Spiess, R.; Dini, A.; Zucchi, M.; Vannuccini, G. Seismic slip recorded in tourmaline fault mirrors from Elba Island (Italy). J. Struct. Geol. 2016, 86, 112,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.02.013
  140. 140
    Gemmi, M.; Fischer, J.; Merlini, M.; Poli, S.; Fumagalli, P.; Mugnaioli, E.; Kolb, U. A new hydrous Al-bearing pyroxene as a water carrier in subduction zones. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 310, 422428,  DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.019
  141. 141
    Pignatelli, I.; Mugnaioli, E.; Hybler, J.; Mosser-Ruck, R.; Cathelineau, M.; Michau, N. A multi-technique characterization of cronstedtite synthesized by iron-clay interaction in a step-by-step cooling procedure. Clays Clay Miner. 2013, 61, 277289,  DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.2013.0610408
  142. 142
    Koch-Müller, M.; Mugnaioli, E.; Rhede, D.; Speziale, S.; Kolb, U.; Wirth, R. Synthesis of a quenchable high-pressure form of magnetite (h-Fe3O4) with composition Fe1(Fe2+0.75Mg0.26)Fe2(Fe3+0.70Cr0.15Al0.11Si0.04)2O4. Am. Mineral. 2014, 99, 24052415,  DOI: 10.2138/am-2014-4944
  143. 143
    Willhammar, T.; Burton, A. W.; Yun, Y.; Sun, J.; Afeworki, M.; Strohmaier, K. G.; Vroman, H.; Zou, X. EMM-23: A stable high-silica multidimensional zeolite with extra-large trilobe-shaped channels. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1357013573,  DOI: 10.1021/ja507615b
  144. 144
    Jiang, J.; Yun, Y.; Zou, X.; Jorda, J. L.; Corma, A. ITQ-54: a multi-dimensional extra-large pore zeolite with 20 × 14 × 12-ring channels. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6, 480485,  DOI: 10.1039/C4SC02577F
  145. 145
    Simancas, J.; Simancas, R.; Bereciartua, P. J.; Jorda, J. L.; Rey, F.; Corma, A.; Nicolopoulos, S.; Das, P. P.; Gemmi, M.; Mugnaioli, E. Ultrafast electron diffraction tomography for structure determination of the new zeolite ITQ-58. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1011610119,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b06394
  146. 146
    Willhammar, T.; Su, J.; Yun, Y.; Zou, X.; Afeworki, M.; Weston, S. C.; Vroman, H. B.; Lonergan, W. W.; Strohmaier, K. G. High-throughput synthesis and structure of zeolite ZSM-43 with two-directional 8-ring channels. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 88568864,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b00752
  147. 147
    Rius, J.; Mugnaioli, E.; Vallcorba, O.; Kolb, U. Application of δ recycling to electron automated diffraction tomography data from inorganic crystalline nanovolumes. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2013, 69, 396407,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767313009549
  148. 148
    Zhang, Y.-B.; Su, J.; Furukawa, H.; Yun, Y.; Gándara, F.; Duong, A.; Zou, X.; Yaghi, O. M. Single-crystal structure of a covalent organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 1633616339,  DOI: 10.1021/ja409033p
  149. 149
    Bellussi, G.; Montanari, E.; Di Paola, E.; Millini, R.; Carati, A.; Rizzo, C.; O’Neil Parker, W., Jr.; Gemmi, M.; Mugnaioli, E.; Kolb, U.; Zanardi, S. ECS-3: a crystalline hybrid organic–inorganic aluminosilicate with open porosity. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 666669,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201105496
  150. 150
    Janssen, T.; Chapuis, G.; de Boissieu, M. Aperiodic Crystals: from modulated phases to quasicrystals; Oxford University Press: New York, 2007.
  151. 151
    van Smaalen, S. Incommensurate crystallography; Oxford University Press: New York, 2007.
  152. 152
    Li, L.; Boullay, P.; Lu, P.; Wang, X.; Jian, J.; Huang, J.; Gao, X.; Misra, S.; Zhang, W.; Perez, O.; Steciuk, G.; Chen, A.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H. Novel layered supercell structure from Bi2AlMnO6 for multifunctionalities. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 65756582,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b02284
  153. 153
    Singh, D.; Yun, Y.; Wan, W.; Grushko, B.; Zou, X.; Hovmöller, S. A complex pseudo-decagonal quasicrystal approximant, Al37(Co,Ni)15.5, solved by rotation electron diffraction. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2014, 47, 215221,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576713029294
  154. 154
    Henderson, R.; Baldwin, J. M.; Ceska, T. A.; Zemlin, F.; Beckmann, E.; Downing, K. H. Model for the structure of bacteriorhodopsin based on high-resolution electron cryo-microscopy. J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 213, 899929,  DOI: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80271-2
  155. 155
    Kühlbrandt, W.; Wang, D. N.; Fujiyoshi, Y. Atomic model of plant light-harvesting complex by electron crystallography. Nature 1994, 367, 614621,  DOI: 10.1038/367614a0
  156. 156
    Grigorieff, N.; Ceska, T. A.; Downing, K. H.; Baldwin, J. M.; Henderson, R. Electron-crystallographic refinement of the structure of bacteriorhodopsin. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 259, 393421,  DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0328
  157. 157
    Henderson, R.; Unwin, N. T. Three-dimensional model of purple membrane obtained by electron microscopy. Nature 1975, 257, 2832,  DOI: 10.1038/257028a0
  158. 158
    Glaeser, R. M.; Downing, K. H. High-resolution electron crystallography of protein molecules. Ultramicroscopy 1993, 52, 478486,  DOI: 10.1016/0304-3991(93)90064-5
  159. 159
    Subramanian, G.; Basu, S.; Liu, H.; Zuo, J. M.; Spence, J. C. H. Solving protein nanocrystals by cryo-EM diffraction: multiple scattering artifacts. Ultramicroscopy 2015, 148, 8793,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.08.013
  160. 160
    Clabbers, M. T. B.; Abrahams, J. P. Electron diffraction and three-dimensional crystallography for structural biology. Crystallogr. Rev. 2018, 24, 176204,  DOI: 10.1080/0889311X.2018.1446427
  161. 161
    Henderson, R. The potential and limitations of neutrons, electrons and X-rays for atomic resolution microscopy and unstained biological molecules. Q. Rev. Biophys. 1995, 28, 171193,  DOI: 10.1017/S003358350000305X
  162. 162
    Martin, D. C.; Chen, J.; Yang, J.; Drummy, L. F.; Kübel, C. High resolution electron microscopy of ordered polymers and organic molecular crystals: Recent developments and future possibilities. J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2005, 43, 17491778,  DOI: 10.1002/polb.20419
  163. 163
    Kolb, U.; Gorelik, T. E.; Mugnaioli, E.; Stewart, A. Structural characterization of organics using manual and automated electron diffraction. Polym. Rev. 2010, 50, 385409,  DOI: 10.1080/15583724.2010.494238
  164. 164
    Li, X.; Mooney, P.; Zheng, S.; Booth, C. R.; Braunfeld, M. B.; Gubbens, S.; Agard, D. A.; Cheng, Y. Electron counting and beam-induced motion correction enable near-atomic-resolution single-particle cryo-EM. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 584590,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2472
  165. 165
    Llopart, X.; Campbell, M.; Dinapoli, R.; San Segundo, D.; Pernigotti, E. Medipix2: A 64-k pixel readout chip with 55 μm square elements working in single photon counting mode. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 2002, 49, 22792283,  DOI: 10.1109/TNS.2002.803788
  166. 166
    Jiang, L.; Georgieva, D.; Nederlof, I.; Liu, Z.; Abrahams, J. P. Image processing and lattice determination for three-dimensional nanocrystals. Microsc. Microanal. 2011, 17, 879885,  DOI: 10.1017/S1431927611012244
  167. 167
    Smeets, S.; Wan, W. Serial electron crystallography: merging diffraction data through rank aggregation. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2017, 50, 885892,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576717005854
  168. 168
    Arndt, U. W.; Wonacott, A. J. The rotation method in crystallography; Elsevier/North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1977.
  169. 169
    Trampari, S.; Valmas, A.; Logotheti, S.; Saslis, S.; Fili, S.; Spiliopoulou, M.; Beckers, D.; Degen, T.; Nenert, G.; Fitch, A. N.; Calamiotou, M.; Karavassili, F.; Margiolaki, I. J. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2018, 51, 16711683,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576718013936

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 247 publications.

  1. Sergi Plana-Ruiz, Alejandro Gómez-Pérez, Monika Budayova-Spano, Daniel L. Foley, Joaquim Portillo-Serra, Edgar Rauch, Evangelos Grivas, Dominique Housset, Partha Pratim Das, Mitra L. Taheri, Stavros Nicolopoulos, Wai Li Ling. High-Resolution Electron Diffraction of Hydrated Protein Crystals at Room Temperature. ACS Nano 2023, Article ASAP.
  2. Haoyu Liu, Yi Zhou, Jinbiao Guo, Rui Feng, Gaoli Hu, Jiandong Pang, Yao Chen, Osamu Terasaki, Xian-He Bu. Reticular Synthesis of Highly Crystalline Three-Dimensional Mesoporous Covalent–Organic Frameworks for Lipase Inclusion. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145 (42) , 23227-23237. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c07904
  3. Shuxi Wang, Taimin Yang, Khagesh Kumar, Shahriar Namvar, Sungjoon Kim, Alireza Ahmadiparidari, Hessam Shahbazi, Sakshi Singh, Zahra Hemmat, Vikas Berry, Jordi Cabana, Fatemeh Khalili-Araghi, Zhehao Huang, Amin Salehi-Khojin. Thermodynamics and Kinetics in Anisotropic Growth of One-Dimensional Midentropy Nanoribbons. ACS Nano 2023, 17 (15) , 15053-15064. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c04178
  4. Hsin-Yun Chao, Kartik Venkatraman, Saman Moniri, Yongjun Jiang, Xuan Tang, Sheng Dai, Wenpei Gao, Jianwei Miao, Miaofang Chi. In Situ and Emerging Transmission Electron Microscopy for Catalysis Research. Chemical Reviews 2023, 123 (13) , 8347-8394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00880
  5. Mikaela DiBello, Alan R. Healy, Herman Nikolayevskiy, Zhi Xu, Seth B. Herzon. Structure Elucidation of Secondary Metabolites: Current Frontiers and Lingering Pitfalls. Accounts of Chemical Research 2023, 56 (12) , 1656-1668. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.3c00183
  6. Aarya Prabhakaran, Balaji Dhanabalan, Iryna Andrusenko, Andrea Pianetti, Simone Lauciello, Mirko Prato, Sergio Marras, Pavlo Solokha, Mauro Gemmi, Sergio Brovelli, Liberato Manna, Milena P. Arciniegas. Stable Sn-Based Hybrid Perovskite-Related Structures with Tunable Color Coordinates via Organic Cations in Low-Temperature Synthesis. ACS Energy Letters 2023, 8 (6) , 2630-2640. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00791
  7. Michael M. J. Treacy, Martin D. Foster, Keith H. Randall, Michael O’Keeffe. Enumeration of Subperiodic Zeolitic Tetrahedral Frameworks. III. Layers, Rods, Tubes, and Clusters. Crystal Growth & Design 2023, 23 (6) , 4186-4197. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00013
  8. Okba Al Rahal, Benson M. Kariuki, Colan E. Hughes, P. Andrew Williams, Xiaoyan Xu, Simon Gaisford, Dinu Iuga, Kenneth D. M. Harris. Unraveling the Complex Solid-State Phase Transition Behavior of 1-Iodoadamantane, a Material for Which Ostensibly Identical Crystals Undergo Different Transformation Pathways. Crystal Growth & Design 2023, 23 (5) , 3820-3833. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00223
  9. Qiudi Yue, Gwladys Steciuk, Michal Mazur, Jin Zhang, Oleg Petrov, Mariya Shamzhy, Mingxiu Liu, Lukáš Palatinus, Jiří Čejka, Maksym Opanasenko. Catching a New Zeolite as a Transition Material during Deconstruction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145 (16) , 9081-9091. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c00423
  10. Alexander Storm, Janis Köster, Mahdi Ghorbani-Asl, Silvan Kretschmer, Tatiana E. Gorelik, Michael Kiarie Kinyanjui, Arkady V. Krasheninnikov, Ute Kaiser. Electron-Beam- and Thermal-Annealing-Induced Structural Transformations in Few-Layer MnPS3. ACS Nano 2023, 17 (5) , 4250-4260. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c05895
  11. Lorenza Romagnoli, Andrea D’Annibale, Elena Blundo, Atanu Patra, Antonio Polimeni, Daniele Meggiolaro, Iryna Andrusenko, Danilo Marchetti, Mauro Gemmi, Alessandro Latini. 4,4′-(Anthracene-9,10-diylbis(ethyne-2,1-diyl))bis(1-methyl-1-pyridinium) Lead Iodide C30H22N2Pb2I6: A Highly Luminescent, Chemically and Thermally Stable One-Dimensional Hybrid Iodoplumbate. Chemistry of Materials 2023, 35 (4) , 1818-1826. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c03798
  12. Tereza Navrátilová, Ameneh Tatar, Martin Havlík, Jan Hajduch, Michaela Drozdová, Kshitij Gurung, Lukáš Palatinus, Jan Čejka, Jakub Sedláček, Pavel Anzenbacher, Jr., Bohumil Dolenský. Preparation and Characterization of Metalloporphyrin Tröger’s and Spiro-Tröger’s Base Derivatives. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 2022, 87 (22) , 15178-15186. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.2c01716
  13. Jafar Afshani, Ariel Perez Mellor, Thomas Bürgi, Hans Hagemann. Crystallization of SrAl12O19 Nanocrystals from Amorphous Submicrometer Particles. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2022, 126 (45) , 19336-19345. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c04284
  14. Shitao Wu, Junyan Li, Yang Ling, Tu Sun, Yaqi Fan, Jihong Yu, Osamu Terasaki, Yanhang Ma. In Situ Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction for Probing Structural Transformations of Single Nanocrystals. Chemistry of Materials 2022, 34 (18) , 8119-8126. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c01744
  15. Ambarneil Saha, Shervin S. Nia, José A. Rodríguez. Electron Diffraction of 3D Molecular Crystals. Chemical Reviews 2022, 122 (17) , 13883-13914. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00879
  16. Meng Ge, Taimin Yang, Hongyi Xu, Xiaodong Zou, Zhehao Huang. Direct Location of Organic Molecules in Framework Materials by Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2022, 144 (33) , 15165-15174. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c05122
  17. Zhuwen Duan, Naihong Wang, Hao Xu, Peng Wu. Structural Transformation-Involved Synthesis of Nanosized ERI-Type Zeolite and Its Catalytic Property in the MTO Reaction. Inorganic Chemistry 2022, 61 (20) , 8066-8075. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c00914
  18. Jakub Plášil, Gwladys Steciuk, Juraj Majzlan, Radek Škoda, Jan Filip, Martin Petr, Jan Kolařík, Mariana Klementová, Oliver Bähre, Gert Klöß, Ladislav Lapčák. 3D Electron Diffraction as a Powerful Tool to Study the Earliest Nanocrystalline Weathering Products: A Case Study of Uraninite Weathering. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry 2022, 6 (5) , 1250-1258. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00386
  19. Matouš Kloda, Tomáš Plecháček, Soňa Ondrušová, Petr Brázda, Petr Chalupský, Jan Rohlíček, Jan Demel, Jan Hynek. Phosphinate MOFs Formed from Tetratopic Ligands as Proton-Conductive Materials. Inorganic Chemistry 2022, 61 (19) , 7506-7512. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c00194
  20. Ashleigh T. Castner, Hao Su, Erik Svensson Grape, A. Ken Inge, Ben A. Johnson, Mårten S. G. Ahlquist, Sascha Ott. Microscopic Insights into Cation-Coupled Electron Hopping Transport in a Metal–Organic Framework. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2022, 144 (13) , 5910-5920. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c13377
  21. Yi Luo, Wenhua Fu, Bin Wang, Zhiqing Yuan, Junliang Sun, Xiaodong Zou, Weimin Yang. SCM-25: A Zeolite with Ordered Meso-cavities Interconnected by 12 × 12 × 10-Ring Channels Determined by 3D Electron Diffraction. Inorganic Chemistry 2022, 61 (10) , 4371-4377. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c03632
  22. Olivier Perez, Vincent Caignaert, Nahed Sakly, Md Motin Seikh, Philippe Boullay, Vincent Hardy, Bernard Raveau. Composite Spin Chain Structures Built up of Dimeric and Trimeric Polyhedral Units: The Oxides A1+y[(Mn1–xCox)1–z□z]O3 (A = Ca, Sr; x = 3/8). Chemistry of Materials 2022, 34 (5) , 2361-2375. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c04360
  23. Joseph Hitchen, Iryna Andrusenko, Charlie L. Hall, Enrico Mugnaioli, Jason Potticary, Mauro Gemmi, Simon R. Hall. Organic Cocrystals of TCNQ and TCNB Based on an Orthocetamol Backbone Solved by Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction. Crystal Growth & Design 2022, 22 (2) , 1155-1163. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.1c01095
  24. Yi Zhou, Zhuoya Dong, Osamu Terasaki, Yanhang Ma. Electron Microscopy of Nanoporous Crystals. Accounts of Materials Research 2022, 3 (1) , 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1021/accountsmr.1c00216
  25. Stefano Toso, Dmitry Baranov, Cinzia Giannini, Liberato Manna. Structure and Surface Passivation of Ultrathin Cesium Lead Halide Nanoplatelets Revealed by Multilayer Diffraction. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (12) , 20341-20352. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c08636
  26. Danilo Marchetti, Francesca Guagnini, Arianna E. Lanza, Alessandro Pedrini, Lara Righi, Enrico Dalcanale, Mauro Gemmi, Chiara Massera. Combined Approach of Mechanochemistry and Electron Crystallography for the Discovery of 1D and 2D Coordination Polymers. Crystal Growth & Design 2021, 21 (12) , 6660-6664. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.1c01058
  27. Aoon Rizvi, Justin T. Mulvey, Brooke P. Carpenter, Rain Talosig, Joseph P. Patterson. A Close Look at Molecular Self-Assembly with the Transmission Electron Microscope. Chemical Reviews 2021, 121 (22) , 14232-14280. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00189
  28. Francesco Papi, Jason Potticary, Arianna E. Lanza, Simon R. Hall, Mauro Gemmi. Crystal Structure of a Peculiar Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Determined by 3D Electron Diffraction. Crystal Growth & Design 2021, 21 (11) , 6341-6348. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.1c00820
  29. Laura Samperisi, Aleksander Jaworski, Gurpreet Kaur, Karl Petter Lillerud, Xiaodong Zou, Zhehao Huang. Probing Molecular Motions in Metal–Organic Frameworks by Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (43) , 17947-17952. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c08354
  30. Gwladys Steciuk, Boris Kiefer, Wolfgang Hornfeck, Anatoly V. Kasatkin, Jakub Plášil. Molybdenum Disorder in Hydrated Sedovite, Ideally U(MoO4)2·nH2O, a Microporous Nanocrystalline Mineral Characterized by Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction, Density Functional Theory Computations, and Complexity Analysis. Inorganic Chemistry 2021, 60 (20) , 15169-15179. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c01506
  31. Tim Gruene, Enrico Mugnaioli. 3D Electron Diffraction for Chemical Analysis: Instrumentation Developments and Innovative Applications. Chemical Reviews 2021, 121 (19) , 11823-11834. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00207
  32. Michael Elbaum, Shahar Seifer, Lothar Houben, Sharon G. Wolf, Peter Rez. Toward Compositional Contrast by Cryo-STEM. Accounts of Chemical Research 2021, 54 (19) , 3621-3631. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00279
  33. Elina Kapaca, Jiuxing Jiang, Jung Cho, José L. Jordá, María J. Díaz-Cabañas, Xiaodong Zou, Avelino Corma, Tom Willhammar. Synthesis and Structure of a 22 × 12 × 12 Extra-Large Pore Zeolite ITQ-56 Determined by 3D Electron Diffraction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (23) , 8713-8719. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c02654
  34. Xingming Zeng, Lihua Wang, Yi Hu, Bolun Fang, Sadaf Bashir khan, Shern-Long Lee. Dynamics of Supramolecular Crystal Growth at the Liquid–Solid Interface Studied via Scanning Tunneling Microscope and the Avrami Equation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125 (19) , 10451-10457. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c01336
  35. Yaşar Krysiak, Marcel Maslyk, Bruna Nádia Silva, Sergi Plana-Ruiz, Hipassia M. Moura, Erica O. Munsignatti, Viviane S. Vaiss, Ute Kolb, Wolfgang Tremel, Lukáš Palatinus, Alexandre Amaral Leitão, Bernd Marler, Heloise O. Pastore. The Elusive Structure of Magadiite, Solved by 3D Electron Diffraction and Model Building. Chemistry of Materials 2021, 33 (9) , 3207-3219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c00107
  36. Bruno Gonano, Øystein Slagtern Fjellvåg, Gwladys Steciuk, Francois Guillou, Dipankar Saha, Denis Pelloquin, Helmer Fjellvåg. Tuning the Magnetically Segregated Nanolayering in Mn–Ni–As Intermetallics. Chemistry of Materials 2021, 33 (8) , 3002-3010. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c00760
  37. Partha Pratim Das, Iryna Andrusenko, Enrico Mugnaioli, James A. Kaduk, Stavros Nicolopoulos, Mauro Gemmi, Nicholas Charles Boaz, Amy M. Gindhart, Thomas Blanton. Crystal Structure of Linagliptin Hemihydrate Hemiethanolate (C25H28N8O2)2(H2O)(C2H5OH) from 3D Electron Diffraction Data, Rietveld Refinement, and Density Functional Theory Optimization. Crystal Growth & Design 2021, 21 (4) , 2019-2027. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.0c01379
  38. Michihisa Ueda, Tsubasa Aoki, Takayoshi Akiyama, Takayuki Nakamuro, Keitaro Yamashita, Haruaki Yanagisawa, Osamu Nureki, Masahide Kikkawa, Eiichi Nakamura, Takuzo Aida, Yoshimitsu Itoh. Alternating Heterochiral Supramolecular Copolymerization. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (13) , 5121-5126. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c00823
  39. Tom Willhammar, Kazuho Daicho, Duncan N. Johnstone, Kayoko Kobayashi, Yingxin Liu, Paul A. Midgley, Lennart Bergström, Tsuguyuki Saito. Local Crystallinity in Twisted Cellulose Nanofibers. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (2) , 2730-2737. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c08295
  40. Hua Lu, Takayuki Nakamuro, Keitaro Yamashita, Haruaki Yanagisawa, Osamu Nureki, Masahide Kikkawa, Han Gao, Jiangwei Tian, Rui Shang, Eiichi Nakamura. B/N-Doped p-Arylenevinylene Chromophores: Synthesis, Properties, and Microcrystal Electron Crystallographic Study. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (44) , 18990-18996. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c10337
  41. Charlie L. Hall, Rui Guo, Jason Potticary, Matthew E. Cremeens, Stephen D. Warren, Iryna Andrusenko, Mauro Gemmi, Martijn A. Zwijnenburg, Hazel A. Sparkes, Natalie E. Pridmore, Sarah L. Price, Simon R. Hall. Color Differences Highlight Concomitant Polymorphism of Chalcones. Crystal Growth & Design 2020, 20 (10) , 6346-6355. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00285
  42. Enrico Mugnaioli, Arianna E. Lanza, Giorgio Bortolozzi, Lara Righi, Marco Merlini, Valentina Cappello, Lara Marini, Athanassia Athanassiou, Mauro Gemmi. Electron Diffraction on Flash-Frozen Cowlesite Reveals the Structure of the First Two-Dimensional Natural Zeolite. ACS Central Science 2020, 6 (9) , 1578-1586. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.9b01100
  43. Zeger Hens, Jonathan De Roo. Atomically Precise Nanocrystals. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (37) , 15627-15637. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c05082
  44. Peng Cui, Erik Svensson Grape, Peter R. Spackman, Yue Wu, Rob Clowes, Graeme M. Day, A. Ken Inge, Marc A. Little, Andrew I. Cooper. An Expandable Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework Characterized by Three-Dimensional Electron Diffraction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (29) , 12743-12750. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c04885
  45. Victoria Hamilton, Iryna Andrusenko, Jason Potticary, Charlie Hall, Richard Stenner, Enrico Mugnaioli, Arianna E. Lanza, Mauro Gemmi, Simon R. Hall. Racemic Conglomerate Formation via Crystallization of Metaxalone from Volatile Deep Eutectic Solvents. Crystal Growth & Design 2020, 20 (7) , 4731-4739. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00497
  46. Stefano Toso, Quinten A. Akkerman, Beatriz Martín-García, Mirko Prato, Juliette Zito, Ivan Infante, Zhiya Dang, Anna Moliterni, Cinzia Giannini, Eva Bladt, Ivan Lobato, Julien Ramade, Sara Bals, Joka Buha, Davide Spirito, Enrico Mugnaioli, Mauro Gemmi, Liberato Manna. Nanocrystals of Lead Chalcohalides: A Series of Kinetically Trapped Metastable Nanostructures. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (22) , 10198-10211. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c03577
  47. Roman Kaiukov, Guilherme Almeida, Sergio Marras, Zhiya Dang, Dmitry Baranov, Urko Petralanda, Ivan Infante, Enrico Mugnaioli, Andrea Griesi, Luca De Trizio, Mauro Gemmi, Liberato Manna. Cs3Cu4In2Cl13 Nanocrystals: A Perovskite-Related Structure with Inorganic Clusters at A Sites. Inorganic Chemistry 2020, 59 (1) , 548-554. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b02834
  48. Emre Yörük, Holger Klein, Stéphanie Kodjikian. Dose symmetric electron diffraction tomography (DS-EDT): Implementation of a dose-symmetric tomography scheme in 3D electron diffraction. Ultramicroscopy 2024, 255 , 113857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113857
  49. Shunsuke Sasaki, Souvik Giri, Simon J. Cassidy, Sunita Dey, Maria Batuk, Daphne Vandemeulebroucke, Giannantonio Cibin, Ronald I. Smith, Philip Holdship, Clare P. Grey, Joke Hadermann, Simon J. Clarke. Anion redox as a means to derive layered manganese oxychalcogenides with exotic intergrowth structures. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38489-3
  50. Shuting Li, Molly Lightowler, Xiao Ou, Siyong Huang, Yifan Jiang, Xizhen Li, Xiaodong Zou, Hongyi Xu, Ming Lu. Direct structure determination of vemurafenib polymorphism from compact spherulites using 3D electron diffraction. Communications Chemistry 2023, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-022-00804-2
  51. Guojun Zhou, Taimin Yang, Zhehao Huang. Structure determination of a low-crystallinity covalent organic framework by three-dimensional electron diffraction. Communications Chemistry 2023, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-023-00915-4
  52. Shyamapada Nandi, Asma Mansouri, Iurii Dovgaliuk, Philippe Boullay, Gilles Patriarche, Ieuan Cornu, Pierre Florian, Georges Mouchaham, Christian Serre. A robust ultra-microporous cationic aluminum-based metal-organic framework with a flexible tetra-carboxylate linker. Communications Chemistry 2023, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-023-00938-x
  53. Christine Moriscot, Guy Schoehn, Dominique Housset. High pressure freezing and cryo-sectioning can be used for protein structure determination by electron diffraction. Ultramicroscopy 2023, 254 , 113834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113834
  54. Manuel Cordova, Pinelopi Moutzouri, Sten O. Nilsson Lill, Alexander Cousen, Martin Kearns, Stefan T. Norberg, Anna Svensk Ankarberg, James McCabe, Arthur C. Pinon, Staffan Schantz, Lyndon Emsley. Atomic-level structure determination of amorphous molecular solids by NMR. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40853-2
  55. Ella Mara Schmidt, Paul Benjamin Klar, Yaşar Krysiak, Petr Svora, Andrew L. Goodwin, Lukas Palatinus. Quantitative three-dimensional local order analysis of nanomaterials through electron diffraction. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41934-y
  56. Lisa Ghezzi, Enrico Mugnaioli, Natale Perchiazzi, Celia Duce, Chiara Pelosi, Erika Zamponi, Simone Pollastri, Beatrice Campanella, Massimo Onor, Mahmoud Abdellatief, Fabrizio Franceschini, Riccardo Petrini. Hexavalent chromium release over time from a pyrolyzed Cr-bearing tannery sludge. Scientific Reports 2023, 13 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43579-9
  57. Francesco Bertocchi, Danilo Marchetti, Sandra Doria, Mariangela di Donato, Cristina Sissa, Mauro Gemmi, Enrico Dalcanale, Roberta Pinalli, Andrea Lapini. Tuning the Optical Properties Through Hydrogen Bond‐assisted H‐aggregate Formation: The ODIN Case. Chemistry – A European Journal 2023, 18 https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202302619
  58. Koji Yonekura, Saori Maki-Yonekura, Kiyofumi Takaba. Applications and limitations of electron 3D crystallography. Structure 2023, 31 (11) , 1328-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2023.09.007
  59. Tatiana E. Gorelik, Peer Lukat, Christian Kleeberg, Wulf Blankenfeldt, Rolf Mueller. Molecular replacement for small-molecule crystal structure determination from X-ray and electron diffraction data with reduced resolution. Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances 2023, 79 (6) , 504-514. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2053273323008458
  60. Alessandro F. Gualtieri, Daniele Malferrari, Dario Di Giuseppe, Valentina Scognamiglio, Orietta Sala, Magdalena Lassinantti Gualtieri, Danilo Bersani, Laura Fornasini, Enrico Mugnaioli. There is plenty of asbestos at the bottom. The case of magnesite raw material contaminated with asbestos fibres. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 898 , 166275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166275
  61. Aljaž Škrjanc, Dominik Jankovič, Anton Meden, Matjaž Mazaj, Erik Svensson Grape, Martin Gazvoda, Nataša Zabukovec Logar. Carbonyl‐Supported Coordination in Imidazolates: A Platform for Designing Porous Nickel‐Based ZIFs as Heterogeneous Catalysts. Small 2023, 6 https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202305258
  62. Alessandro Pedrini, Danilo Marchetti, Roberta Pinalli, Chiara Massera. Stimuli‐Responsive, Dynamic Supramolecular Organic Frameworks. ChemPlusChem 2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/cplu.202300383
  63. M. Jason de la Cruz, Edward T. Eng. Scaling up cryo-EM for biology and chemistry: The journey from niche technology to mainstream method. Structure 2023, 161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2023.09.009
  64. Amber L. Thompson, Nicholas G. White. Hydrogen atoms in supramolecular chemistry: a structural perspective. Where are they, and why does it matter?. Chemical Society Reviews 2023, 52 (18) , 6254-6269. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CS00516J
  65. Vijay Bhat, Uma Rathore Bhatt. Microsoft Excel powered virtual electron diffraction tube experiment as an enhanced educational tool. Physics Education 2023, 58 (5) , 055015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ace57c
  66. Wenjia Sun, Pohua Chen, Mingxuan Zhang, Jian‐Xin Ma, Junliang Sun. Locating Hydrogen Positions for COF‐300 by Cryo‐3D Electron Diffraction. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 135 (35) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202305985
  67. Wenjia Sun, Pohua Chen, Mingxuan Zhang, Jian‐Xin Ma, Junliang Sun. Locating Hydrogen Positions for COF‐300 by Cryo‐3D Electron Diffraction. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 62 (35) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202305985
  68. David Geoffrey Waterman, Noemi Frisina, C. David Owen, Graeme Winter, Pedro Nunes. A standard data format for 3DED/MicroED. Structure 2023, 5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2023.07.004
  69. Mikkel Herzberg, Toms Rekis, Anders Støttrup Larsen, Ana Gonzalez, Jukka Rantanen, Anders Østergaard Madsen. The structure of magnesium stearate trihydrate determined from a micrometre-sized single crystal using a microfocused synchrotron X-ray beam. Acta Crystallographica Section B Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials 2023, 79 (4) , 330-335. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052520623005607
  70. Khai-Nghi Truong, Sho Ito, Jakub M. Wojciechowski, Christian R. Göb, Christian J. Schürmann, Akihito Yamano, Mark Del Campo, Eiji Okunishi, Yoshitaka Aoyama, Tomohiro Mihira, Naoki Hosogi, Jordi Benet-Buchholz, Eduardo Carmelo Escudero-Adán, Fraser J. White, Joseph D. Ferrara, Robert Bücker. Making the Most of 3D Electron Diffraction: Best Practices to Handle a New Tool. Symmetry 2023, 15 (8) , 1555. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15081555
  71. Samilla B. Rezende, Lucas R. Lima, Maria L. R. Macedo, Octávio L. Franco, Marlon H. Cardoso. Advances in Peptide/Protein Structure Prediction Tools and their Relevance for Structural Biology in the Last Decade. Current Bioinformatics 2023, 18 (7) , 559-575. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574893618666230412080702
  72. Václav Petříček, Lukáš Palatinus, Jakub Plášil, Michal Dušek. Jana2020 – a new version of the crystallographic computing system Jana. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials 2023, 238 (7-8) , 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1515/zkri-2023-0005
  73. Tatiana E. Gorelik, Andreas Ulmer, A. Lennart Schleper, Alexander J.C. Kuehne. Crystal structure of 9,10-bis-((perchloro-phenyl)-ethynyl)anthracene determined from three-dimensional electron diffraction data. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials 2023, 238 (7-8) , 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1515/zkri-2023-0009
  74. Gearóid Liam Mangan, Grigore Moldovan, Andrew Stewart. InFluence: An Open-Source Python Package to Model Images Captured with Direct Electron Detectors. Microscopy and Microanalysis 2023, 29 (4) , 1380-1401. https://doi.org/10.1093/micmic/ozad064
  75. P. Sieger, U. Werthmann, S. Saouane. The polymorph landscape of dabigatran etexilate mesylate: Taking the challenge to bring a metastable polymorph to market. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2023, 186 , 106447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2023.106447
  76. Carlotta Giacobbe, Anna Moliterni, Dario Di Giuseppe, Daniele Malferrari, Jonathan P. Wright, Michele Mattioli, Simona Raneri, Cinzia Giannini, Laura Fornasini, Enrico Mugnaioli, Paolo Ballirano, Alessandro F. Gualtieri. The crystal structure of the killer fibre erionite from Tuzköy (Cappadocia, Turkey). IUCrJ 2023, 10 (4) , 397-410. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252523003500
  77. Sara Passuti, Julien Varignon, Adrian David, Philippe Boullay. Scanning Precession Electron Tomography (SPET) for Structural Analysis of Thin Films along Their Thickness. Symmetry 2023, 15 (7) , 1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071459
  78. Ram Kumar, Yang Song, Anissa Ghoridi, Philippe Boullay, Gwenaelle Rousse, Christel Gervais, Cristina Coelho Diogo, Houria Kabbour, Capucine Sassoye, Patricia Beaunier, Victor Castaing, Bruno Viana, Maria Luisa Ruiz Gonzalez, José Gonzalez Calbet, Christel Laberty‐Robert, David Portehault. Molten Salts‐Driven Discovery of a Polar Mixed‐Anion 3D Framework at the Nanoscale: Zn 4 Si 2 O 7 Cl 2 , Charge Transport and Photoelectrocatalytic Water Splitting. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 135 (26) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202303487
  79. Durga Prasad Karothu, Zainab Alhaddad, Christian R. Göb, Christian J. Schürmann, Robert Bücker, Panče Naumov. Levocetirizin‐Dihydrochlorid: Die Aufklärung einer lang verborgenen Struktur mittels Elektronenbeugung. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 135 (26) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202303761
  80. Durga Prasad Karothu, Zainab Alhaddad, Christian R. Göb, Christian J. Schürmann, Robert Bücker, Panče Naumov. The Elusive Structure of Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Determined by Electron Diffraction. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 62 (26) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202303761
  81. Ram Kumar, Yang Song, Anissa Ghoridi, Philippe Boullay, Gwenaelle Rousse, Christel Gervais, Cristina Coelho Diogo, Houria Kabbour, Capucine Sassoye, Patricia Beaunier, Victor Castaing, Bruno Viana, Maria Luisa Ruiz Gonzalez, José Gonzalez Calbet, Christel Laberty‐Robert, David Portehault. Molten Salts‐Driven Discovery of a Polar Mixed‐Anion 3D Framework at the Nanoscale: Zn 4 Si 2 O 7 Cl 2 , Charge Transport and Photoelectrocatalytic Water Splitting. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 62 (26) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202303487
  82. Chengmin Li, Junyan Li, Yi Zhou, Qing Zhang, Alvaro Mayoral, Gang Li, Osamu Terasaki. Can NbO Keep nbo Topology under Electrons? –Unveiling Novel Aspects of Niobium Monoxide at the Atomic Scale. Chemistry – A European Journal 2023, 29 (33) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202300614
  83. Alireza Sadri, Scott D Findlay. Determining the Projected Crystal Structure from Four-dimensional Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy via the Scattering Matrix. Microscopy and Microanalysis 2023, 29 (3) , 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1093/micmic/ozad018
  84. Zhezhu Lao, Xingpu Zhang, Jiangwei Wang, Jixue Li. Atomistic Evolution of Hf2S/γ′ Interfaces in a Hf-containing Ni-based Single-Crystal Superalloy. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters) 2023, 36 (6) , 1038-1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40195-023-01541-8
  85. Meriem Goudjil, Giovanni Orazio Lepore, Luca Bindi, Enrico Mugnaioli, Tommaso Baroni, Djillali Mezaoui, Paola Bonazzi. Synthesis and characterization of AsO[(W,Mo)O3]13, a new (6)-intergrowth tungsten bronze (ITB). Journal of Solid State Chemistry 2023, 322 , 123987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssc.2023.123987
  86. Paul B. Klar, Yaşar Krysiak, Hongyi Xu, Gwladys Steciuk, Jung Cho, Xiaodong Zou, Lukas Palatinus. Accurate structure models and absolute configuration determination using dynamical effects in continuous-rotation 3D electron diffraction data. Nature Chemistry 2023, 15 (6) , 848-855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-023-01186-1
  87. Kaili Mei, Kejia Zhang, Jungu Xu, Zhengyang Zhou. The Application of 3D-ED to Distinguish the Superstructure of Sr1.2Ca0.8Nb2O7 Ignored in SC-XRD. Crystals 2023, 13 (6) , 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst13060924
  88. Anqi Zheng, Kuibo Yin, Rui Pan, Mingyun Zhu, Yuwei Xiong, Litao Sun. Research Progress on Metal–Organic Frameworks by Advanced Transmission Electron Microscopy. Nanomaterials 2023, 13 (11) , 1742. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano13111742
  89. Jian Wang, Botian Li, Xianxiao Song, Xueyan Liu, Da Xiao, Yichi Zhang, Jundang Liang, Jianhong Xu. One-step preparation of photoresponsive microcapsules based on the interfacial self-assembly of an azopyridine coordination polymer. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 463 , 142403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.142403
  90. James M. Parkhurst, Adam D. Crawshaw, C. Alistair Siebert, Maud Dumoux, C. David Owen, Pedro Nunes, David Waterman, Thomas Glen, David I. Stuart, James H. Naismith, Gwyndaf Evans. Investigation of the milling characteristics of different focused-ion-beam sources assessed by three-dimensional electron diffraction from crystal lamellae. IUCrJ 2023, 10 (3) , 270-287. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252523001902
  91. Petra Simoncic, Eva Romeijn, Eric Hovestreydt, Gunther Steinfeld, Gustavo Santiso-Quiñones, Johannes Merkelbach. Electron crystallography and dedicated electron-diffraction instrumentation. Acta Crystallographica Section E Crystallographic Communications 2023, 79 (5) , 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989023003109
  92. . Serial rotation electron diffraction for rapid phase analysis to accelerate materials development. Nature Chemistry 2023, 456-457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-023-01172-7
  93. Tatiana E. Gorelik, Sàndor L. Bekő, Jaroslav Teteruk, Winfried Heyse, Martin U. Schmidt. Analysis of diffuse scattering in electron diffraction data for the crystal structure determination of Pigment Orange 13, C 32 H 24 Cl 2 N 8 O 2. Acta Crystallographica Section B Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials 2023, 79 (2) , 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052520623000720
  94. Harsh S. Shah, Jiuchuang Yuan, Tian Xie, Zhuocen Yang, Chao Chang, Chandler Greenwell, Qun Zeng, GuangXu Sun, Brandon N. Read, Timothy S. Wilson, Henry U. Valle, Shanming Kuang, Jian Wang, Sivakumar Sekharan, Jessica F. Bruhn. Absolute Configuration Determination of Chiral API Molecules by MicroED Analysis of Cocrystal Powders Formed Based on Cocrystal Propensity Prediction Calculations**. Chemistry – A European Journal 2023, 29 (14) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202203970
  95. Tarik R. Drevon, David G. Waterman, Eugene Krissinel. Dynamical diffraction of high-energy electrons by light-atom structures: a multiple forward scattering interpretation. Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances 2023, 79 (2) , 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2053273322011779
  96. Jana Pilátová, Daria Tashyreva, Jiří Týč, Marie Vancová, Syed Nadeem Hussain Bokhari, Radim Skoupý, Mariana Klementová, Hendrik Küpper, Peter Mojzeš, Julius Lukeš, . Massive Accumulation of Strontium and Barium in Diplonemid Protists. mBio 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03279-22
  97. Jakub Plášil, Anthony R. Kampf, Chi Ma, Joy Desor. Oldsite, K 2 Fe 2+ [(UO 2 )(SO 4 ) 2 ] 2 (H 2 O) 8 , a new uranyl sulfate mineral from Utah, USA: its description and implications for the formation and occurrences of uranyl sulfate minerals. Mineralogical Magazine 2023, 87 (1) , 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2022.106
  98. Yi Luo, Bin Wang, Stef Smeets, Junliang Sun, Weimin Yang, Xiaodong Zou. High-throughput phase elucidation of polycrystalline materials using serial rotation electron diffraction. Nature Chemistry 2023, 524 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-022-01131-8
  99. Simon Payne, Iryna Andrusenko, Francesco Papi, Jason Potticary, Mauro Gemmi, Simon R. Hall. The crystal structure and electronic properties of three novel charge transfer co-crystals TCNQF n –triphenylene ( n = 0, 2, 4). CrystEngComm 2023, 25 (5) , 828-834. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CE01127A
  100. Jian Li, Zihao Rei Gao, Qing-Fang Lin, Chenxu Liu, Fangxin Gao, Cong Lin, Siyao Zhang, Hua Deng, Alvaro Mayoral, Wei Fan, Song Luo, Xiaobo Chen, Hong He, Miguel A. Camblor, Fei-Jian Chen, Jihong Yu. A 3D extra-large-pore zeolite enabled by 1D-to-3D topotactic condensation of a chain silicate. Science 2023, 379 (6629) , 283-287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade1771
Load more citations
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Examples of crystals suitable for 3D ED data collection. (A) Cu2–xTe nanoplatelets, with lateral size of 100–200 nm and thickness of few tens of nanometers. (B) Submicrometric Eu2Si2O7 grains embedded in a ground mass of nanocrystalline quartz. (C) Submicrometric cronstedtite pyramidal crystals in a focused ion beam (FIB) lamella, sampled from the carbonaceous meteorite Paris. (D) Micrometric pharmaceutical crystal.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Sketches of the four main 3D ED data collection protocols. (A) Simple stepwise acquisition performed with fixed mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) and steady beam (in green). The tilt step is normally 0.5–2°. (B) Stepwise acquisition performed with fixed mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) while the beam is precessing around a conical surface pointed on the sample (green arrow). The Ewald sphere is also precessing (blue cones), and this movement allows a better integration of the Bragg reflection intensities. (C) Stepwise RED acquisition. Large mechanical tilt steps (brown arrows) are followed by small beam tilt steps (green arrows) obtained by the deflection coils of the TEM. The beam tilt step may be smaller than 0.1°. (D) Continuous rotation acquisition. The sample is mechanically tilted within the whole goniometer range (brown arrow) while the detector is acquiring a sequence of patterns. The acquisition tilt step is determined by the sum of exposure time (blue) and readout time (yellow). The latter is also responsible for the nonsampled wedges between two consecutive patterns. The beam is stationary during the whole data acquisition, and the main limit is given by the goniometer stability, because the sample tends to shift laterally during the tilt and therefore may go out from the illuminated area. The not sampled missing wedge is exaggerated in the figures and is colored in red. It is the same for all acquisition protocols, as it depends only on the mechanical limit of the TEM goniometer.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Exemplary diffraction volume of the trigonal mineral franzinite reconstructed from 3D ED data (a = 12.9 Å, c = 26.6 Å). (A) View along a*. (B) View along b*. (C) View along c*. (D) View along the tilt axis of the acquisition. Note that these are projections of a 3D volume and not conventional 2D oriented ED patterns. Cell edges are sketched in yellow. a* vector is in red, b* vector in green, and c* vector in blue. Data resolution is about 0.8 Å. The figure is made by ADT3D software. (18)

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Sketch showing some representative structures solved by 3D ED method for different classes of materials. Starting from the upper left and going anticlockwise: the mineral karibibite, (133) a tunnel (Na,Mn)-oxide for electrolytic applications, (124) the aperiodic structure of SrBi7NbO24, (122) the extra-large-pore silicoaluminophosphate ITQ-51, (25) the cobat tetraphosphonate MOF Co-CAU-36, (66) the pharma compound carbamazepine-III, (29) the amyloid core of the Sup35 prion protein, (47) and a new monoclinic polymorph of lysozyme. (45)

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Hydrogen atoms localization by 3D ED. (A) Perspective view of the Co1.13Al2P4O20H11.74 structure (105) with a superimposed difference potential map showing maxima at the positions of the hydrogen atoms. Isosurface levels are at 2σ[ΔV(r)] (light gray) and 3σ[ΔV(r)] (yellow). CoO6, AlO6, and PO4 polyhedra are represented in blue, green, and orange, respectively, while oxygen atoms are in red. This difference potential map enlightening the hydrogen positions is obtained thanks to the use of dynamical refinement. The hydrogen positions (in black) are stable once incorporated to the dynamical refinement. (B) Two adjacent orthocetamol chains (34) with the superimposed difference Fourier map. The maximum residual potential (in blue and yellow) corresponds to the hydrogen atom responsible for the intermolecular bonding. Carbon atoms are drawn in brown, oxygen atoms in red, and nitrogen atoms in gray.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 169 other publications.

    1. 1
      Belsky, A.; Hellenbrandt, M.; Karen, V. L.; Luksch, P. New developments in the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD): accessibility in support of materials research and design. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2002, 58, 364369,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768102006948
    2. 2
      Downs, R. T.; Hall-Wallace, M. The American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Database. Am. Mineral. 2003, 88, 247250
    3. 3
      Gražulis, S.; Chateigner, D.; Downs, R. T.; Yokochi, A. F. T.; Quiros, M.; Lutterotti, L.; Manakova, E.; Butkus, J.; Moeck, P.; Le Bail, A. Crystallography Open Database – an open-access collection of crystal structures. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 726729,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889809016690
    4. 4
      Groom, C. R.; Bruno, I. J.; Lightfoot, M. P.; Ward, S. C. The Cambridge Structural Database. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci., Cryst. Eng. Mater. 2016, 72, 171179,  DOI: 10.1107/S2052520616003954
    5. 5
      Burley, S. K.; Berman, H. M.; Bhikadiya, C.; Bi, C.; Chen, L.; Di Costanzo, L.; Christie, C.; Dalenberg, K.; Duarte, J. M.; Dutta, S.; Feng, Z.; Ghosh, S.; Goodsell, D. S.; Green, R. K.; Guranović, V.; Guzenko, D.; Hudson, B. P.; Kalro, T.; Liang, Y.; Lowe, R.; Namkoong, H.; Peisach, E.; Periskova, I.; Prlić, A.; Randle, C.; Rose, A.; Rose, P.; Sala, R.; Sekharan, M.; Shao, C.; Tan, L.; Tao, Y.-P.; Valasatava, Y.; Voigt, M.; Westbrook, J.; Woo, J.; Yang, H.; Young, J.; Zhuravleva, M.; Zardecki, C. RCSB Protein Data Bank: biological macromolecular structures enabling research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology and energy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D464D474,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1004
    6. 6
      Cowley, J. M. Electron diffraction techniques; Oxford University Press: New York, 1992; Vols. 1 and 2.
    7. 7
      Dorset, D. L. Structural electron crystallography; Plenum Pres: New York, 1995.
    8. 8
      Dorset, D. L.; Hauptman, H. A. Direct phase determination for quasi-kinematical electron diffraction intensity data from organic microcrystals. Ultramicroscopy 1976, 1, 195201,  DOI: 10.1016/0304-3991(76)90034-6
    9. 9
      Dorset, D. L. Electron crystallography. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 1996, 52, 753769,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108768196005599
    10. 10
      Weirich, T. E.; Ramlau, R.; Simon, A.; Hovmöller, S.; Zou, X. A crystal structure determined with 0.02 Å accuracy by electron microscopy. Nature 1996, 382, 144146,  DOI: 10.1038/382144a0
    11. 11
      Weirich, T. E.; Zou, X.; Ramlau, R.; Simon, A.; Cascarano, G. L.; Giacovazzo, C.; Hovmöller, S. Structures of nanometre-size crystals determined from selected-area electron diffraction data. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2000, 56, 2935,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767399009605
    12. 12
      Gonen, T.; Cheng, Y.; Sliz, P.; Hiroaki, Y.; Fujiyoshi, Y.; Harrison, S. C.; Walz, T. Lipid-protein interactions in double-layered two-dimensional AQP0 crystals. Nature 2005, 438, 633638,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04321
    13. 13
      Dorset, D. L.; Roth, W. J.; Gilmore, C. J. Electron crystallography of zeolites – the MWW family as a test of direct 3D structure determination. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 2005, 61, 516527,  DOI: 10.1107/S0108767305024670