Some remarks concerning the influence of electron noise on 3D reconstruction |
| |
Authors: | W. Hoppe R. Hegerl |
| |
Affiliation: | Abteilung für Strukturforschung I, Max-Planck-Institut für Biochemie, D-8033 Martinsried, Fed. Rep. Germany |
| |
Abstract: | In a recent review [1] Saxton has criticized our statement that a “3D reconstruction requires the same integral dose as a conventional 2D micrograph provided the level of significance and the resolution are identical” which has been deduced in a paper on electron noise in 3D reconstruction [2]. He states that this claim has been the subject of “considerable discussion and confusion” and deduces from signal-to-noise considerations that this equivalence “is not borne out”. On the other hand, however, he agrees with our mathematical theory. The differences between Saxton and ourselves arise because he does not use our definition of significance. The comparison between the results of a 3D and a 2D analysis requires that the information delivered from both methods is of the same kind. There is not much sense in comparing directly the density of a 3D reconstruction with that of a projection because they are physically different. If, however, the information is concerned with structure features recognizable from a 3D reconstruction as well as from a projection, the comparison can be made. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|