4.4 Article

FIRT: Filtered iterative reconstruction technique with information restoration

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 195, 期 1, 页码 49-61

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2016.04.015

关键词

Algebra reconstruction technique; Electron tomography; Filtered iterative reconstruction technique; Information restoration; Nonlinear diffusion filter

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB08030202]
  2. National Basic Research Program (973 Program) of Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2014CB910700]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61232001, 61472397, 61502455, 31470037, 31100617]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electron tomography (ET) combining subsequent sub-volume averaging has been becoming a unique way to study the in situ 3D structures of macromolecular complexes. However, information missing in electron tomography due to limited angular sampling is still the bottleneck in high-resolution electron tomography application. Here, based on the understanding of smooth nature of biological specimen, we present a new iterative image reconstruction algorithm, FIRT (filtered iterative reconstruction technique) for electron tomography by combining the algebra reconstruction technique (ART) and the nonlinear diffusion (ND) filter technique. Using both simulated and experimental data, in comparison to ART and weight back projection method, we proved that FIRT could generate a better reconstruction with reduced ray artifacts and significant improved correlation with the ground truth and partially restore the information at the non-sampled angular region, which was proved by investigating the 900 re-projection and by the cross-validation method. This new algorithm will be subsequently useful in the future for both cellular and molecular ET with better quality and improved structural details. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据