Our ability to optically interrogate nanoscopic objects is controlled by the difference between their extinction cross sections and the diffraction-limited area to which light can be confined in the far field. We show that a partially transmissive spatial mask placed near the back focal plane of a high numerical aperture microscope objective enhances the extinction contrast of a scatterer near an interface by approximately T-1/2, where T is the transmissivity of the mask. Numerical-aperture-based differentiation of background from scattered light represents a general approach to increasing extinction contrast and enables routine label-free imaging down to the single-molecule level.
Our ability to optically interrogate nanoscopic objects is controlled by the difference between their extinction cross sections and the diffraction-limited area to which light can be confined in the far field. We show that a partially transmissive spatial mask placed near the back focal plane of a high numerical aperture microscope objective enhances the extinction contrast of a scatterer near an interface by approximately T-1/2, where T is the transmissivity of the mask. Numerical-aperture-based differentiation of background from scattered light represents a general approach to increasing extinction contrast and enables routine label-free imaging down to the single-molecule level.
Ultrasensitive
optical microscopy
has transformed our ability to investigate structure and dynamics
on microscopic and nanoscopic length scales.[1−3] Among the many
available contrast mechanisms, fluorescence microscopy has been the
method of choice for the detection and imaging of single molecules,
due to the extremely high achievable imaging contrast and the ability
to specifically label macromolecules of interest.[4−6] Imaging nonfluorescent
species at comparable sensitivity levels, however, remains challenging
due to the difficulty associated with differentiating light that has
interacted with the object of interest from any background.[7] Recently, resonant detection of single molecules
has been reported using a number of approaches,[8−10] while nonresonant
detection and imaging has been demonstrated by interferometric scattering
microscopy (iSCAT).[11,12]Extinction detection in
its most traditional implementation relies
on the difference in light transmitted by a sample in the presence
and absence of the object of interest. It has been shown that in extreme
cases a single molecule[8] or even an atom
can be detected in this fashion.[13] For
a single molecule under ambient conditions, the interference contrast
in transmission amounts to a few parts per million, calling for sophisticated
noise suppression since any noise sources must be reduced accordingly.[8] The interferometric contrast increases when the
experiment is performed in reflection at the expense of a reduction
in the detected photon flux, leading to an identical signal-to-noise
ratio when using the same incident light intensity, extinction cross
section, and integration time for shot-noise-limited detection.[14,15] For an extinction experiment performed in a reflective arrangement
as in iSCAT, the detected light intensity can be written aswhere Einc denotes
the incident electric field, r2 the reflectivity
of the sample or interface, s the scattering amplitude
of the object of interest, and ϕ the phase difference between
scattered and reflected fields at the detector. For weak scatterers,
|s|2 becomes negligible compared to the
other contributions, reducing the iSCAT contrast, defined as the ratio
of the detected light intensities in the presence, Idet, and absence, Ibkg, of
a scatterer toFor extinction detection in biologically
compatible environments,
the ratio between the reflectivity, usually determined by the refractive
indices of a standard microscope cover glass (n =
1.52) and water (n = 1.33), combined with the extinction
cross sections of single proteins, results in iSCAT contrasts on the
order of 0.4%/MDa of molecular mass for illumination in the near-ultraviolet.[11,12] The shot-noise-induced background fluctuation as a percentage of
the detected signal for a shot-noise-limited experiment is given by
√N/N, where N is the number of detected photelectrons per pixel. Detecting signals
that amount to 0.1% or less of the background light therefore requires
detection of 108 photoelectrons for a signal-to-noise ratio
of 10 even for a perfectly executed experiment where shot-noise-induced
fluctuations of the background are the only noise source. From an
imaging perspective, this is experimentally challenging, since almost
all commercially available digital cameras do not possess full well
capacities beyond 105 photoelectrons, requiring significant
temporal and spatial averaging to detect the required number of photons.[16] Furthermore, the strong focus dependence of
the iSCAT signal caused by Gouy phase contributions to ϕ[17] makes it difficult to determine the correct
focus position and thus visualize weak scatterers, such as single
proteins, since they are usually revealed only in postprocessing of
the acquired data.An attractive approach to enhance the contrast
of weak scatterers
would thus involve reducing the reflectivity of the interface, as
can be immediately seen from eq . In principle, this could be achieved by appropriately coating
the substrate surface, although the scope here is limited due to residual
reflections from lenses within microscope objectives and the cost
associated with specifically coated substrates. An alternative route
to improving the ratio between scattered and background or reflected
light involves taking advantage of the different directionalities
of illumination and scattered light in a combination of dark-field
and interference reflection microscopy (Figure ).[18] As has been
shown previously,[19−21] a point source near a refractive index interface
radiates the majority of photons into the higher index material in
directions associated with a high numerical aperture of the collecting
lens (Figure a). At
the same time, wide-field illumination in optical microscopes is usually
achieved by focusing an incident beam into the back focal plane of
the imaging objective, which requires the use of only a very low numerical
aperture. As a result, it is possible to very effectively discriminate
between scattered and illumination light, suppressing the illumination
light by more than 7 orders of magnitude with little loss in the detection
efficiency of scattered light for point-like scatterers.[22]
Figure 1
Concept and experimental realization of numerical aperture-filtered
interferometric scattering microscopy (iSCAT). (a) Emission pattern
of a nanoscopic scatterer at a glass–water interface emerging
from the back aperture of a high-numerical-aperture (1.42) microscope
objective for circularly polarized illumination.[19] The semitransparent circle indicates the region occupied
by a partial reflector shown in the schematic experimental setup in
(b). Here, a single-mode fiber-coupled diode laser is loosely focused
with a wide-field lens (WFL) into the back focal plane (BFP) of an
oil immersion objective (OBJ). The partial reflector (PR) couples
illumination light in and out of the inverted microscope and attenuates
the reflected light before being imaged onto the camera (CMOS) by
another lens (L). (c) Emission density as a function of numerical
aperture, with the gray area indicating the region attenuated by the
partial reflector.
Concept and experimental realization of numerical aperture-filtered
interferometric scattering microscopy (iSCAT). (a) Emission pattern
of a nanoscopic scatterer at a glass–water interface emerging
from the back aperture of a high-numerical-aperture (1.42) microscope
objective for circularly polarized illumination.[19] The semitransparent circle indicates the region occupied
by a partial reflector shown in the schematic experimental setup in
(b). Here, a single-mode fiber-coupled diode laser is loosely focused
with a wide-field lens (WFL) into the back focal plane (BFP) of an
oil immersion objective (OBJ). The partial reflector (PR) couples
illumination light in and out of the inverted microscope and attenuates
the reflected light before being imaged onto the camera (CMOS) by
another lens (L). (c) Emission density as a function of numerical
aperture, with the gray area indicating the region attenuated by the
partial reflector.In its simplest implementation,
such an approach uses a small reflective
mirror near the back aperture of the imaging objective to efficiently
couple the illumination light in and out of the microscope (Figure b), which for a fully
reflective mirror leads to efficient dark-field imaging.[23] If the mirror, however, consists of a thin metallic
layer coated onto a glass window, a fraction of the illumination light
reflected by the glass–water interface will pass through the
reflective layer and reach the camera together with any scattered
light collected by the objective, which transmits through the mirror
largely unaffected.The effect of the partial reflector is to
reduce the background
light intensity reaching the detector, thereby increasing the interferometric
contrast.[24,25] The degree of attenuation can be tailored
to the incident light intensity and camera properties by simply changing
the thickness of the metallic layer. The reduction in scattered light
detection caused by this experimental arrangement, however, amounts
to only 11.3% when using an oil immersion objective with an 8.52 mm
diameter back aperture in combination with a 3.5 mm diameter partially
reflective mirror (Figure c).[22] As a result, the partial
reflector selectively attenuates reflected over scattered light for
scatterers near the interface.To illustrate the effect of numerical
aperture filtering on the
interference contrast, we begin by comparing images of a bare microscope
cover glass immersed in water acquired with a simple iSCAT microscope[12] (Figure a,b) with the setup shown in Figure b using a partial reflector (Figure c,d), which transmits approximately
1% of the returning reflection from the cover glass. For standard
iSCAT imaging, the image of a loosely focused beam (4 μm full
width at half-maximum) reflecting off the surface of the cover glass
appears largely featureless. Scattering contrast caused by cover glass
roughness on the order of 2–4% of the total detected light
intensity becomes visible only after division by a median image removing
illumination inhomogeneities.[15] Use of
the spatial mask on the other hand enhances the scattering contrast
by approximately a factor of 10 (Figure d), making it already visible in the raw
camera image (Figure c).
Figure 2
Effect of a partial reflector on iSCAT contrast. (a) Raw reflection
image of a microscope cover glass covered by water upon illumination
with a 445 nm laser using a combination of a polarizing beam splitter
and quarter wave plate to separate incident from reflected and scattered
light. (b) The same image as in (a) after division by a median image
produced while laterally translating the sample.[15] (c, d) Equivalent images taken with the setup shown in Figure detailed in the Experimental Section. To generate comparable images,
we used a 100-fold longer exposure time for (c) compared to (a), while
(a) represents the average of 100 consecutive images. In this way,
the total number of incident and detected photons is identical for
(a) and (c). Scale bars: 1 μm.
Effect of a partial reflector on iSCAT contrast. (a) Raw reflection
image of a microscope cover glass covered by water upon illumination
with a 445 nm laser using a combination of a polarizing beam splitter
and quarter wave plate to separate incident from reflected and scattered
light. (b) The same image as in (a) after division by a median image
produced while laterally translating the sample.[15] (c, d) Equivalent images taken with the setup shown in Figure detailed in the Experimental Section. To generate comparable images,
we used a 100-fold longer exposure time for (c) compared to (a), while
(a) represents the average of 100 consecutive images. In this way,
the total number of incident and detected photons is identical for
(a) and (c). Scale bars: 1 μm.We remark that use of the mask with shot-noise-limited sensitivity
does not improve the signal-to-noise ratio of interferometric scattering
detection, as it increases the scattering contrast at the expense
of the detected photon flux. Given that the mask reduces the incident
light intensity on the camera 100-fold, the shot-noise-induced background
fluctuations for the same exposure time and incident light intensity
increase by √100 = 10, which matches the ratio between the
observed scattering contrasts. For shot-noise-limited detection of
the same incident photon flux over the same integration time, any
illumination and detection approach, including transmission, will
thus yield similar signal-to-noise ratios.The increased scattering
contrast enabled by the partial reflector
at the expense of the total detected photon flux, however, has two
important consequences. First, it enables the use of both high-speed
and high-quantum-efficiency cameras with low full well capacities,
enabling optimal use of the incident and scattered photons, without
having to resort to large magnifications or temporal averaging.[16] In addition, surface roughness of the microscope
cover glass becomes visible in single images acquired using standard
digital cameras with full well capacities on the order of a few 104 photoelectrons, leading to shot-noise-induced fluctuations
on the order of <1% root mean squared (RMS). As a result, the enhanced
contrast simplifies the otherwise challenging task of determining
optimal focusing conditions for label-free iSCAT, which is best performed
in the absence of any strong scatterers on an ideally defect-free
surface.The remaining challenge associated with detecting very
weak scatterers
such as unlabeled single proteins with iSCAT is that the respective
signals are significantly smaller than those produced by the rough
cover glass substrate, requiring efficient background removal.[11,12] In a simple landing assay, where single molecules bind to and unbind
from a surface, individual events can be revealed by subtracting images
prior to a binding event from those following it. An intrinsic problem
that arises, however, is that the precise binding time cannot be controlled
and may thus occur during a single camera exposure. If individual,
subsequent frames are subtracted, this can lead to significant blurring
of the perceived iSCAT contrast, limiting the precision of the extinction
contrast measurement.To avoid such inaccuracies, we found it
optimal to design the transmissivity
of the mask such as to reach near saturation of the imaging camera
when using the highest desirable incident power at the fastest possible
read-out speed for our field of view (5 × 5 μm). In principle,
a lower transmissivity can be used to increase the interferometric
contrast further, although too low transmissivities increase relative
contributions from background light, such as residual reflections
from the objective, which can reduce the interferometric contrast.The apparent temporal oversampling inherent to our approach enables
us to precisely determine individual (un)binding events in time. To
achieve this, we record an iSCAT movie (Supplementary Movie 1) at the highest frame rate enabled by our camera before
applying the following image processing routine: two sequential batches
of N images are averaged together to produce two
images, the former (x̅1) corresponding
to an average of the images i through N, and the latter (x̅2) corresponding
to an average of the images i + N through 2N. Both averages are then normalized by
dividing each pixel value by the mean pixel value of the image to
avoid effects caused by slow laser intensity fluctuations. In order
to reveal binding events, we then compute x̅2/ x̅1 to produce a
ratiometric image. This routine is then repeated across the entire
recorded frame stack one frame at a time, meaning that the next ratiometric
image is produced by starting at frame i + 1, i + 2, etc. In this way we generate a new movie consisting
of the resulting ratiometric images (Figure a and Supplementary Movie 2). This approach reveals the maximum contrast value of the
scatterer, which occurs at the point when the binding event is directly
at the midpoint between the two frame batches. Although we are able
to precisely determine the timing of binding events, the temporal
resolution is inherently limited by the size of the frame bin used,
in this case 7 Hz.
Figure 3
Ratiometric
iSCAT imaging for detection of weak scatterers. (a)
Concept of iSCAT ratiometric imaging dividing averages of consecutively
recorded images. (b) Resulting ratiometric image using N = 100, revealing the binding of HSP16.5 to a bare cover glass surface.
Incident power density: 45 kW/cm2; exposure time: 1.4 ms;
frame rate: 700 Hz; 2 × 2 pixel binning; HSP16.5 monomer concentration:
240 nM; scale bar: 1 μm. (c) iSCAT contrast as a function of
frame number dividing the two sets of averaged frames used for ratiometric
imaging in (a). (d) Histogram of signal contrasts for 1083 events.
Ratiometric
iSCAT imaging for detection of weak scatterers. (a)
Concept of iSCAT ratiometric imaging dividing averages of consecutively
recorded images. (b) Resulting ratiometric image using N = 100, revealing the binding of HSP16.5 to a bare cover glass surface.
Incident power density: 45 kW/cm2; exposure time: 1.4 ms;
frame rate: 700 Hz; 2 × 2 pixel binning; HSP16.5 monomer concentration:
240 nM; scale bar: 1 μm. (c) iSCAT contrast as a function of
frame number dividing the two sets of averaged frames used for ratiometric
imaging in (a). (d) Histogram of signal contrasts for 1083 events.For a simple single-molecule binding
assay, the resulting ratiometric
images invariably exhibit a range of scattering contrasts (Figure b) due to the random
binding events in time. This is true even for a highly uniform sample,
in our case the small heat-shock protein from Methanocalcocuccus
janaschii HSP16.5, which forms a 24-mer with a total molecular
mass of 396 kDa.[26] The accurate scattering
contrast for each event is revealed when the binding event coincides
precisely with the midpoint marking the division between the two frame
batches (Figure c).
The resulting movie thus appears to show objects slowly appearing
and disappearing (Supplementary Movie 2). Given that our image analysis approach can be easily implemented
for video rate imaging, single-molecule binding events become visible
in real time upon using the data processing approach described above,
further simplifying label-free single-molecule detection. Importantly,
the use of a running image ratio removes the necessity for extreme
control of sample drift, which is required for a static approach.The associated contrast histogram exhibits a Poissonian distribution
as expected for a shot-noise-limited detection process (Figure d). The average contrast amounts
to 0.94 ± 0.12%, slightly lower than what we would expect based
on previous measurements of myosin 5a binding to actin (1.4%)[11] given the T–1/2 scaling, which is reasonable given that the two assays differ considerably.
We would expect the shot-noise-limited error on the contrast to be
on the order of ±0.06%, although the baseline noise we observed
with no protein present was closer to ±0.07%. The apparent discrepancy
is likely a result of the appearance of background features caused
by sample drift, laser noise and extended Airy rings from wide-field
illumination.The simplicity afforded by the partial reflector
comes at the price
of some disadvantages compared to previous implementations of iSCAT,
in particular those based on rapid beam scanning.[11,16] We found that the imaging background caused by cover glass roughness
is relatively enhanced compared to scatterers bound to the surface,
likely due to the exclusion of low-frequency components by the partial
reflector, which can be seen in the comparison of Figure b and d. Using effectively
wide-field illumination also leads to extended Airy rings visible
in Figure a, which
cause significant image distortions for larger scatterers, such as
gold nanoparticles or microtubules (Supplementary
Figure 1). Structures that do not behave as point scatterers
will not necessarily scatter preferentially into angles associated
exclusively with high numerical apertures. Therefore, the extended
ringing seen in Supplementary Figure 1 normal
to the axis of the microtubule could be a result of the exclusion
of these lower spatial frequencies by the partial reflector. Despite
this, we still observe a contrast enhancement relative to conventional
iSCAT illumination.[27]The main benefit
of our approach is for point-like scatterers,
which otherwise require detection of large numbers of photoelectrons
and need to be detected above the glass background. For large, non-point-like
scatterers, the partial reflector can be simply replaced with a beamsplitter,
returning to standard iSCAT mode.[27] Furthermore,
focusing the illumination light into the back focal plane of the objective
results in an effectively collimated beam traveling through the sample,
thus maintaining a high power density along the optical axis. This
increases imaging background from light scattered by species diffusing
in solution when compared with an approach where a beam is comparatively
tightly focused.[16] Finally, the ultimate
sensitivity for the setup shown in Figure b was limited by the appearance of background
features we believe to be originating from laser noise, either caused
by freqency or beam pointing fluctuations and sample drift as mentioned
above (Supplementary Movie 2).Many
of these shortcomings can be addressed by combining the concepts
presented here with the original illumination approach used by iSCAT
(Figure a).[15,16] Placing the partial reflector in an image plane in the detection
channel enables direct access to the back focal plane of the objective
and thereby optimizes the attenuation of the scanned illumination
beam. This approach produces iSCAT images of unlabeled proteins with
unprecedented clarity, albeit at the expense of increased experimental
complexity compared to the setup shown in Figure b. For a 396 kDa protein recorded at 3.3
Hz, we find a signal-to-noise ratio of 23 defined as R/σ, where R is the ratiometric intensity and
σ the RMS fluctuations of the background. In particular, scanning
a focused illumination beam reduces extended diffraction rings and
imaging background caused by diffusing scatterers and laser noise
(Figure b). Using
this approach, we found the label-free imaging sensitivity of iSCAT
to be exclusively limited by sample drift, which causes features from
glass roughness to bleed into the ratiometric images (Figure c). The interference contrast
for HSP16.5 slightly decreases compared to wide-field illumination
(Figure c) due to
an increase in background light caused by the use of a collimated
rather than a focused beam in the back focal plane of the objective.
Figure 4
Numerical-aperture
filtered iSCAT using rapid beam scanning. (a)
Experimental setup based on acousto-optic (AOD) scanning of a collimated
beam using a telecentric imaging setup (TL1/2). The combination of
a λ/4 waveplate (QWP) and polarizing beam splitter (PBS) separates
incident from scattered and reflected light. Two lenses (L1/2) create
an image of the back focal plane of the microscope objective (OBJ)
where the partial reflector (PR) attenuates the back-reflected beam
while leaving scattered light effectively unchanged. A final lens
(L3) forms an image on the CMOS camera. Using a 3.5 mm diameter partial
reflector together with a 1 mm diameter collimated illumination beam
provides a good compromise between confocal sectioning and background
attenuation. (b) Resulting ratiometric image using N = 150 revealing the binding of HSP16.5 to a bare cover glass surface.
The weak bright features are caused by proteins unbinding from the
surface. Incident power density: 150 kW/cm2; exposure time:
1.9 ms; frame rate: 500 Hz; 3 × 3 pixel binning; HSP16.5 monomer
concentration: 240 nM; scale bar: 1 μm. (c) Image cross section
from the dashed white line shown in (b).
Numerical-aperture
filtered iSCAT using rapid beam scanning. (a)
Experimental setup based on acousto-optic (AOD) scanning of a collimated
beam using a telecentric imaging setup (TL1/2). The combination of
a λ/4 waveplate (QWP) and polarizing beam splitter (PBS) separates
incident from scattered and reflected light. Two lenses (L1/2) create
an image of the back focal plane of the microscope objective (OBJ)
where the partial reflector (PR) attenuates the back-reflected beam
while leaving scattered light effectively unchanged. A final lens
(L3) forms an image on the CMOS camera. Using a 3.5 mm diameter partial
reflector together with a 1 mm diameter collimated illumination beam
provides a good compromise between confocal sectioning and background
attenuation. (b) Resulting ratiometric image using N = 150 revealing the binding of HSP16.5 to a bare cover glass surface.
The weak bright features are caused by proteins unbinding from the
surface. Incident power density: 150 kW/cm2; exposure time:
1.9 ms; frame rate: 500 Hz; 3 × 3 pixel binning; HSP16.5 monomer
concentration: 240 nM; scale bar: 1 μm. (c) Image cross section
from the dashed white line shown in (b).The presented approach allows for facile label-free single-molecule
detection with almost any inverted light microscope equipped with
a digital camera and a high numerical aperture oil immersion lens.
Coupling illumination light in and out of the imaging path can be
easily miniaturized,[28] paving the way for
widespread adoption not only on custom-built but also on commercial
microscopes. The reduction of light intensity reaching the imaging
camera enables use of essentially any digital camera, without requirement
for high full well capacity or low read noise. We also found that
the use of the spatial mask allowed for large fields of view up to
20 × 20 μm without requiring any beam scanning (Supplementary Figure 2).In addition to
these simplifications, we have shown that the partial
reflector can be used to increase the interferometric contrast in
a more standard iSCAT experimental arrangement. This primarily enables
the use of higher incident powers without suffering from camera saturation
or having to resort to inefficient, expensive, and complex cameras
or large magnifications that are incompatible with commercial microscopes.
Since the ultimate limits for iSCAT detection and imaging are defined
by shot-noise-induced background fluctuations, higher incident powers
automatically translate into higher detection sensitivity and precision.
The possibility of some increases in incident power density, given
that phototoxicity and heating are of little consequence for single-molecule
binding assays, together with increased temporal averaging as enabled
by more stable experimental setups[29] should
lead to improved detection sensitivities and precision down to a few
kDa s–1 without the need for the development of
completely new camera technologies, thereby paving the way toward
single-molecule mass spectrometry in solution and robust label-free
single-molecule detection and imaging using iSCAT.
Experimental
Section
The experimental setup used for collecting the data
shown in Figure is
similar to that
reported previously[12] apart from the fact
that illumination light is separated from scattered and reflected
light by our partially reflective mirror rather than a beamsplitter.
Briefly, we loosely focus the output of a fiber-coupled 445 nm diode
laser (Lasertack) into the back focal plane of an oil immersion objective
(Olympus, 1.42 NA, 60×) and couple it in and out of the imaging
path using our partial reflector that is evaporated onto a thin glass
window placed 2 cm from the entrance pupil of the objective. A 600
mm focal length lens images scattered and reflected light onto a CMOS
camera (Point Grey GS3-U3-23S6M-C) at 200× magnification. The
focus position was stabilized with an active feedback loop. The partially
reflective mirror consists of a 82 nm thick silver layer of 3.5 mm
diameter evaporated onto a 3 mm thick glass window. We emphasize that
in the experiments reported here we used a circular mask, which results
in an elliptical attenuation when placed at 45 deg (Figure b), but found the influence
of an elliptical over a spherical mask in terms of the image quality
negligible as evidenced by the comparison of Figures a and 4b. The experimental
setup used for Figure is identical to the one described in detail[15] except for the introduction of the partial reflector, an intermediate
image plane, and use of the CMOS camera identified above.
Authors: J Ortega Arroyo; J Andrecka; K M Spillane; N Billington; Y Takagi; J R Sellers; P Kukura Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Anna E C Meijering; Andreas S Biebricher; Gerrit Sitters; Ineke Brouwer; Erwin J G Peterman; Gijs J L Wuite; Iddo Heller Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Gavin Young; Nikolas Hundt; Daniel Cole; Adam Fineberg; Joanna Andrecka; Andrew Tyler; Anna Olerinyova; Ayla Ansari; Erik G Marklund; Miranda P Collier; Shane A Chandler; Olga Tkachenko; Joel Allen; Max Crispin; Neil Billington; Yasuharu Takagi; James R Sellers; Cédric Eichmann; Philipp Selenko; Lukas Frey; Roland Riek; Martin R Galpin; Weston B Struwe; Justin L P Benesch; Philipp Kukura Journal: Science Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jingwei Zeng; Ana Filipa Santos; Aamir S Mukadam; Mariana Osswald; David A Jacques; Claire F Dickson; Stephen H McLaughlin; Christopher M Johnson; Leo Kiss; Jakub Luptak; Nadine Renner; Marina Vaysburd; William A McEwan; Eurico Morais-de-Sá; Dean Clift; Leo C James Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 15.369