Cryo-plasma FIB/SEM volume imaging of biological specimens
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This important work presented is of interest to the electron microscopy community, which expanding to more and more cell biologists. The field has long searched for a suitable method to combine the pristine preservation of vitrified samples with a volumetric imaging modality that reveals subcellular architecture at sufficient contrast for ultrastructural analyses, and the authors describe here the use of novel ion beams for imaging cellular samples in three dimensions, concluding that one of the four plasma sources tested produces the highest quality images. This allows them to provide several recommendations for imaging along with software for improving collected images. This approach should be very useful for addressing many biological questions.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Serial focussed ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB/SEM) enables imaging and assessment of subcellular structures on the mesoscale (10 nm to 10 µm). When applied to vitrified samples, serial FIB/SEM is also a means to target specific structures in cells and tissues while maintaining constituents’ hydration shells for in situ structural biology downstream. However, the application of serial FIB/SEM imaging of non-stained cryogenic biological samples is limited due to low contrast, curtaining, and charging artefacts. We address these challenges using a cryogenic plasma FIB/SEM. We evaluated the choice of plasma ion source and imaging regimes to produce high-quality SEM images of a range of different biological samples. Using an automated workflow we produced three-dimensional volumes of bacteria, human cells, and tissue, and calculated estimates for their resolution, typically achieving 20–50 nm. Additionally, a tag-free localisation tool for regions of interest is needed to drive the application of in situ structural biology towards tissue. The combination of serial FIB/SEM with plasma-based ion sources promises a framework for targeting specific features in bulk-frozen samples (>100 µm) to produce lamellae for cryogenic electron tomography.
Article activity feed
-
-
Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The article from Dumoux et al. shows the use of plasma-based focused ion beams for volume imaging on cryo-preserved samples. This exciting application can potentially increase the throughput and quality of the data acquired through serial FIB-SEM tomography on cryo-preserved and unstained biological samples. The article is well-written, and it is easy to follow. I like the structure and the experimental description, but I miss some points in the analyses, without which the conclusions are not adequately supported.
The authors state the following: "the application of serial FIB/SEM imaging of non-stained cryogenic biological samples is limited due to low contrast, curtaining, and charging artefacts. We address these challenges using a cryogenic plasma FIB/SEM (cryo-pFIB/SEM)".
Reading …
Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The article from Dumoux et al. shows the use of plasma-based focused ion beams for volume imaging on cryo-preserved samples. This exciting application can potentially increase the throughput and quality of the data acquired through serial FIB-SEM tomography on cryo-preserved and unstained biological samples. The article is well-written, and it is easy to follow. I like the structure and the experimental description, but I miss some points in the analyses, without which the conclusions are not adequately supported.
The authors state the following: "the application of serial FIB/SEM imaging of non-stained cryogenic biological samples is limited due to low contrast, curtaining, and charging artefacts. We address these challenges using a cryogenic plasma FIB/SEM (cryo-pFIB/SEM)".
Reading the article, I do not find that the challenges are addressed; it appears that some of these are evaluated when the samples are prepared using plasma-based beams. To support the fact that charging, contrast, and curtaining are addressed, a comparison should be made with the current state of the art, or it is otherwise impossible to determine whether these systems bring any advantage.
Charging is an issue that is not described in detail, nor has it been adequately analysed. The effect of using plasma beams is independent of the presented algorithm for charging suppression, which is purely image processing based, although very interesting. Given that the focus of the work is on introducing the benefit of using plasma ion beams (from the title) and given that a great deal of data is presented on the effect of the multiple ion sources, one would expect to have comparable images acquired after the surfaces have been prepared with the different beams. This should also be compared against the current state-of-the-art (gallium) to provide a baseline for different beams' benefits. I realise that this requires access to another microscope and that this also imposes controls on the detector responses on each instrument to have a normalised analysis. Still, it also provides the opportunity to quantify the benefits of each instrumentation.
We have provided a response to the charging comments outlined here in the main rebuttal above. The SEM we used in this study was selected based on its optimal performance at low electron voltages due to its immersion field. The low kV capability is particularly of interest in the case of charging (cross over energy). There is the possibility the interaction of the sample surface with chemically inert or reactive ion species could change the surface potential (either positively or negatively). The Vero cells imaged during a serial pFIB/SEM using nitrogen plasma still exhibit charging as well as the argon plasma we canonically used, suggesting that charging is ion beam independent.
Regarding Gallium, this would require prolonged access to another very bespoke microscope for a like-for-like comparison, and indeed there are studies (e.g. Schertel et al. 2013 and Scher et al, 2021) that show SEM data of cryogenic sample surfaces milled with gallium. Therefore, we consider such a study outside of the scope of this manuscript.
The curtaining scores. This is a good way to explain the problem, though a few aspects need to be validated. For example, curtains appear over time when milling, and it would be useful to understand how different sources behave over time in FIB/SEM tomography sessions. The score is currently done from individual windows milled, which gives a good indication of the performance. However, it would make sense to check that the behaviour remains identical in an imaging setting and with the moving milling windows (or lines). This will show the counteracting effect to the redeposition and etching effect reported when imaging with the E-beam the milled face.
Please see our response in the main rebuttal points.
No detail about the milling resolution has been reported. Since different currents and beams have different cross-sections, it is expected to affect the z-resolution achievable during an imaging session. It would be useful to have a description of the beam cross-sections at the various conditions used and how or whether these interfere with the preparation.
Please see our response in the main rebuttal points.
Contrast. No analysis of plasma FIBs' benefits on image contrast compared to the current state of the art has been provided. Measuring contrast is complex, especially when this value can change in response to the detector settings. Still, attempts can be made to quantify it through the FRC and through the analysis of the image MTF (amplitude and fall off), given that membranes are the only most prominent and visible features in cryoFIB/SEM images of biological samples.
We agree that measuring contrast is complex, and therefore the following parameters as stated on page 6, line 6 to 7 were kept consistent throughout data collection: voltage, current, line integration, exposure, detectors voltage offset and gain. We also decided to keep constant or vary the working distance (focus) in Figure 4 and compared the FRC as well as the contrast. As discussed above, a like-for-like comparison with the state of the art (gallium) is not currently possible, making this experiment/analysis outside the scope of this manuscript.
Figure S4 points out that electrons that hit the sample at normal incidence give better signal/contrast or imaging quality than when the sample is imaged at a tilt. This fact is expected to significantly affect large areas as the collection efficiency will vary across the sample, particularly as regions get further away from the optimal location. The dynamic focusing option available on all SEM will compensate for the focal change but not the collection efficiency. Even though this is a fact, the authors show a loss of resolution, which is not explained by the tilt itself. In particular, the generation of secondary electrons is known to increase with the increased tilt, and to consider that the curtains (that are the prominent feature on the surface) are running along the tilt direction, it would be expected to see no contrast difference between the background and the edge of each curtain as the generation of secondary electrons will increase with tilt for both the edges and the background. Therefore, the contrast should be invariant, at least on the curtains.
Looking at the images presented in the figure, they appear astigmatic and not properly focused when imaged at a tilt. As evidence of this claim, the cellular features do not measure the same, and the sharpness of the edge of the curtains is gone when tilted. This experience comes from improper astigmatism correction, which in turn, in scanning systems, leads to the impossibility of focusing. The tilt correction provides not only dynamic focusing but also corrects for the anisotropy in the sampling due to the tilt. If all imaging is set up correctly, the two images should show the imaged features with the exact sizes regardless of the resolution (which, in the presented case, is sufficient), and the sharpness of the curtain edges should be invariant regardless of the tilt, at least while or where in focus. Only at that point, the comparison will be fair.
Please see our response in the main rebuttal points.
Finally, the resolution measurements presented in the last supplementary figures have no impact or relation to the use of plasma FIB/SEM. It is an effect related to the imaging conditions used in the SEM regardless of the ion beam nature. The distribution of the resolution within images appears predominantly linked to local charging and the local sample composition (from fig8). Given the focus is aimed at introducing or presenting the use of the plasma-based beams the results should be presented in that optic in mind with a comparison between beams.
This figure is to present the absence of degradation in image quality over the dataset. As the stage is moving during the imaging at 90 it would be possible for the focus to be lost throughout a longer data acquisition session. However, this figure demonstrates that the focus is well adjusted throughout the data acquisition. We also considered potential beam damage accumulation which does not seem to be detectable with our method.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The authors present a manuscript highlighting recent advancements in cryo-focused ion beam/scanning electron microscopy (cryo-FIB) using plasma ion sources as an alternative to positively-charged gallium sources for cryo-FIB milling and volumetric SEM (cryo-FIB/SEM) imaging. The authors benchmark several sources of plasma and determine argon gas is the most suitable source for reducing undesirable curtaining effects during milling. The authors demonstrate that milling with an argon source enables volumetric imaging of vitrified cells and tissue with sufficient contrast to gleam biological insight into the spatial localization of organelles and large macromolecular complexes in both vitrified human cells and in high-pressure frozen mouse brain tissue slices. The authors also show that altering the sample angle from 52 to 90 degrees relative to the SEM beam enhances the contrast and resolution of biological features imaged within the vitrified samples. Importantly, the authors also demonstrate that the resolution of SEM images after serial milling with argon and nitrogen plasma sources does not appear to significantly affect resolution, suggesting that resolution does not vary over an acquisition series. Finally, the authors test and apply a neural network-based approach for mitigating image artifacts caused by charging due to SEM imaging of biological features with high lipid content, such as lipid droplets in yeast, thereby increasing the clarity and interpretability of images of samples susceptible to charging.
Strengths and Weaknesses:
The authors do a fantastic job demonstrating the utility of plasma sources for increased contrast of biological features for cryo-FIB/SEM images. However, they do not specifically address the lingering question of whether or not it is possible to use this plasma source cryo-FIB/SEM volumetric imaging for the specific application of localizing features for downstream cryo-ET imaging and structural analyses. As a reader, I was left wondering whether this technique is ideally suited solely for volumetric imaging of cryogenic samples, or if it can be incorporated as a step in the cellular cryo-ET workflow for localization and perhaps structure determination. Another biorxiv paper (doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.01.502333) from the same group establishes a plasma cryo-FIB milling workflow to generate lamella of sufficient quality to elucidate sub-nanometer reconstructions of cellular ribosomes. However, I anticipate the real impact on the field will be from the synergistic benefits of combining both approaches of volumetric cryo-FIB/SEM imaging to localize regions of interest and cryo-ET imaging for high-resolution structural analyses.
Additional experiments were undertaken to demonstrate that serial cryo pFIB/SEM can be used in a variety of correlative imaging workflows, including follow-on cryoET. However, we have yet to carefully determine the consequences for downstream high spatial frequencies of such imaging modalities e.g., for sub volume averaging. The role of the SEM imaging, ion beam damage, etc has yet to be analysed or optimised in detail. This work is outside of the scope of this manuscript.
Another weakness is the lack of demonstration that the contrast gained from plasma cryo-FIB/SEM is sufficient to apply neural network-based approaches for automated segmentation of biological features. The ability to image vitrified samples with enhanced contrast is huge, but our interpretation of these reconstructions is still fundamentally limited in our ability to efficiently analyze subcellular architecture.
We have demonstrated that the segmentation of subcellular features such as mitochondria within a serial pFIB-SEM data set of heart tissue can be automated using SuRVos2 – a neural network based automated segmentation software. These comparisons are included in an additional figure (Figure 11).
-
eLife assessment
This important work presented is of interest to the electron microscopy community, which expanding to more and more cell biologists. The field has long searched for a suitable method to combine the pristine preservation of vitrified samples with a volumetric imaging modality that reveals subcellular architecture at sufficient contrast for ultrastructural analyses, and the authors describe here the use of novel ion beams for imaging cellular samples in three dimensions, concluding that one of the four plasma sources tested produces the highest quality images. This allows them to provide several recommendations for imaging along with software for improving collected images. This approach should be very useful for addressing many biological questions.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The article from Dumoux et al. shows the use of plasma-based focused ion beams for volume imaging on cryo-preserved samples. This exciting application can potentially increase the throughput and quality of the data acquired through serial FIB-SEM tomography on cryo-preserved and unstained biological samples. The article is well-written, and it is easy to follow. I like the structure and the experimental description, but I miss some points in the analyses, without which the conclusions are not adequately supported.
The authors state the following:
"the application of serial FIB/SEM imaging of non-stained cryogenic biological samples is limited due to low contrast, curtaining, and charging artefacts. We address these challenges using a cryogenic plasma FIB/SEM (cryo-pFIB/SEM)".
Reading the article, I do not …Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The article from Dumoux et al. shows the use of plasma-based focused ion beams for volume imaging on cryo-preserved samples. This exciting application can potentially increase the throughput and quality of the data acquired through serial FIB-SEM tomography on cryo-preserved and unstained biological samples. The article is well-written, and it is easy to follow. I like the structure and the experimental description, but I miss some points in the analyses, without which the conclusions are not adequately supported.
The authors state the following:
"the application of serial FIB/SEM imaging of non-stained cryogenic biological samples is limited due to low contrast, curtaining, and charging artefacts. We address these challenges using a cryogenic plasma FIB/SEM (cryo-pFIB/SEM)".
Reading the article, I do not find that the challenges are addressed; it appears that some of these are evaluated when the samples are prepared using plasma-based beams. To support the fact that charging, contrast, and curtaining are addressed, a comparison should be made with the current state of the art, or it is otherwise impossible to determine whether these systems bring any advantage.Charging is an issue that is not described in detail, nor has it been adequately analysed. The effect of using plasma beams is independent of the presented algorithm for charging suppression, which is purely image processing based, although very interesting. Given that the focus of the work is on introducing the benefit of using plasma ion beams (from the title) and given that a great deal of data is presented on the effect of the multiple ion sources, one would expect to have comparable images acquired after the surfaces have been prepared with the different beams. This should also be compared against the current state-of-the-art (gallium) to provide a baseline for different beams' benefits. I realise that this requires access to another microscope and that this also imposes controls on the detector responses on each instrument to have a normalised analysis. Still, it also provides the opportunity to quantify the benefits of each instrumentation.
The curtaining scores. This is a good way to explain the problem, though a few aspects need to be validated. For example, curtains appear over time when milling, and it would be useful to understand how different sources behave over time in FIB/SEM tomography sessions. The score is currently done from individual windows milled, which gives a good indication of the performance. However, it would make sense to check that the behaviour remains identical in an imaging setting and with the moving milling windows (or lines). This will show the counteracting effect to the redeposition and etching effect reported when imaging with the E-beam the milled face.
No detail about the milling resolution has been reported. Since different currents and beams have different cross-sections, it is expected to affect the z-resolution achievable during an imaging session. It would be useful to have a description of the beam cross-sections at the various conditions used and how or whether these interfere with the preparation.
Contrast. No analysis of plasma FIBs' benefits on image contrast compared to the current state of the art has been provided. Measuring contrast is complex, especially when this value can change in response to the detector settings. Still, attempts can be made to quantify it through the FRC and through the analysis of the image MTF (amplitude and fall off), given that membranes are the only most prominent and visible features in cryoFIB/SEM images of biological samples.
Figure S4 points out that electrons that hit the sample at normal incidence give better signal/contrast or imaging quality than when the sample is imaged at a tilt. This fact is expected to significantly affect large areas as the collection efficiency will vary across the sample, particularly as regions get further away from the optimal location. The dynamic focusing option available on all SEM will compensate for the focal change but not the collection efficiency. Even though this is a fact, the authors show a loss of resolution, which is not explained by the tilt itself. In particular, the generation of secondary electrons is known to increase with the increased tilt, and to consider that the curtains (that are the prominent feature on the surface) are running along the tilt direction, it would be expected to see no contrast difference between the background and the edge of each curtain as the generation of secondary electrons will increase with tilt for both the edges and the background. Therefore, the contrast should be invariant, at least on the curtains.
Looking at the images presented in the figure, they appear astigmatic and not properly focused when imaged at a tilt. As evidence of this claim, the cellular features do not measure the same, and the sharpness of the edge of the curtains is gone when tilted. This experience comes from improper astigmatism correction, which in turn, in scanning systems, leads to the impossibility of focusing. The tilt correction provides not only dynamic focusing but also corrects for the anisotropy in the sampling due to the tilt. If all imaging is set up correctly, the two images should show the imaged features with the exact sizes regardless of the resolution (which, in the presented case, is sufficient), and the sharpness of the curtain edges should be invariant regardless of the tilt, at least while or where in focus. Only at that point, the comparison will be fair.
Finally, the resolution measurements presented in the last supplementary figures have no impact or relation to the use of plasma FIB/SEM. It is an effect related to the imaging conditions used in the SEM regardless of the ion beam nature. The distribution of the resolution within images appears predominantly linked to local charging and the local sample composition (from fig8). Given the focus is aimed at introducing or presenting the use of the plasma-based beams the results should be presented in that optic in mind with a comparison between beams.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The authors present a manuscript highlighting recent advancements in cryo-focused ion beam/scanning electron microscopy (cryo-FIB) using plasma ion sources as an alternative to positively-charged gallium sources for cryo-FIB milling and volumetric SEM (cryo-FIB/SEM) imaging. The authors benchmark several sources of plasma and determine argon gas is the most suitable source for reducing undesirable curtaining effects during milling. The authors demonstrate that milling with an argon source enables volumetric imaging of vitrified cells and tissue with sufficient contrast to gleam biological insight into the spatial localization of organelles and large macromolecular complexes in both vitrified human cells and in high-pressure frozen mouse brain tissue slices. The authors also show that altering the sample …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The authors present a manuscript highlighting recent advancements in cryo-focused ion beam/scanning electron microscopy (cryo-FIB) using plasma ion sources as an alternative to positively-charged gallium sources for cryo-FIB milling and volumetric SEM (cryo-FIB/SEM) imaging. The authors benchmark several sources of plasma and determine argon gas is the most suitable source for reducing undesirable curtaining effects during milling. The authors demonstrate that milling with an argon source enables volumetric imaging of vitrified cells and tissue with sufficient contrast to gleam biological insight into the spatial localization of organelles and large macromolecular complexes in both vitrified human cells and in high-pressure frozen mouse brain tissue slices. The authors also show that altering the sample angle from 52 to 90 degrees relative to the SEM beam enhances the contrast and resolution of biological features imaged within the vitrified samples. Importantly, the authors also demonstrate that the resolution of SEM images after serial milling with argon and nitrogen plasma sources does not appear to significantly affect resolution, suggesting that resolution does not vary over an acquisition series. Finally, the authors test and apply a neural network-based approach for mitigating image artifacts caused by charging due to SEM imaging of biological features with high lipid content, such as lipid droplets in yeast, thereby increasing the clarity and interpretability of images of samples susceptible to charging.
Strengths and Weaknesses:
The authors do a fantastic job demonstrating the utility of plasma sources for increased contrast of biological features for cryo-FIB/SEM images. However, they do not specifically address the lingering question of whether or not it is possible to use this plasma source cryo-FIB/SEM volumetric imaging for the specific application of localizing features for downstream cryo-ET imaging and structural analyses. As a reader, I was left wondering whether this technique is ideally suited solely for volumetric imaging of cryogenic samples, or if it can be incorporated as a step in the cellular cryo-ET workflow for localization and perhaps structure determination. Another biorxiv paper (doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.01.502333) from the same group establishes a plasma cryo-FIB milling workflow to generate lamella of sufficient quality to elucidate sub-nanometer reconstructions of cellular ribosomes. However, I anticipate the real impact on the field will be from the synergistic benefits of combining both approaches of volumetric cryo-FIB/SEM imaging to localize regions of interest and cryo-ET imaging for high-resolution structural analyses.Another weakness is the lack of demonstration that the contrast gained from plasma cryo-FIB/SEM is sufficient to apply neural network-based approaches for automated segmentation of biological features. The ability to image vitrified samples with enhanced contrast is huge, but our interpretation of these reconstructions is still fundamentally limited in our ability to efficiently analyze subcellular architecture.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
The authors present analyses of cryo-plasma FIB/SEM hardware for practical use in the field of cell and tissue biology at microscopic resolutions. The results include several practical analyses and considerations for structural biologists when imaging their specimens; details are provided for optimizing imaging parameters and some image processing. Several examples of pFIB-milling cells and tissues are shown. The authors also introduce a method for quantifying curtaining, one of the major artifacts in FIB/SEM imaging, and software for reducing streaking artifacts in images. The analyses in the manuscript appear to come to conclusions that are experimentally justified. I see no major weaknesses in this manuscript.
-
