4.7 Article

AuTom-dualx: a toolkit for fully automatic fiducial marker-based alignment of dual-axis tilt series with simultaneous reconstruction

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 319-328

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty620

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFE0103900, 2017YFA0504702]
  2. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) [FCC/1/1976-04, URF/1/2601-01, URF/1/3007-01, URF/1/3412-01, URF/1/3450-01]
  3. National natural Science Foundation of China [U1611263, U1611261, 61472397, 61502455, 61672493]
  4. Special Program for Applied Research on Super Computation of the NSFC-Guangdong Joint Fund (the second phase)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Dual-axis electron tomography is an important 3D macro-molecular structure reconstruction technology, which can reduce artifacts and suppress the effect of missing wedge. However, the fully automatic data process for dual-axis electron tomography still remains a challenge due to three difficulties: (i) how to track the mass of fiducial markers automatically; (ii) how to integrate the information from the two different tilt series; and (iii) how to cope with the inconsistency between the two different tilt series. Results: Here we develop a toolkit for fully automatic alignment of dual-axis electron tomography, with a simultaneous reconstruction procedure. The proposed toolkit and its workflow carries out the following solutions: (i) fully automatic detection and tracking of fiducial markers under large-field datasets; (ii) automatic combination of two different tilt series and global calibration of projection parameters; and (iii) inconsistency correction based on distortion correction parameters and the consequently simultaneous reconstruction. With all of these features, the presented toolkit can achieve accurate alignment and reconstruction simultaneously and conveniently under a single global coordinate system.

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

4.7
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