Three-dimensional (3D) visualization of organelles is a paramount task in modern cell biology. Given the scales involved, ranging from tens of nanometers for secretory vesicles to many microns for the cell nucleus, it is challenging to find a single microscopy technique to fit all applications. While modern fluorescence microscopy can span much of the range in terms of resolution, only the labeled molecules appear. The cellular theater remains the realm of electron microscopy. Conventional methods of chemical fixation, plastic embedding, and staining with heavy metals are strongly invasive, so the results may depend on the details of sample preparation. Cryo-EM, on the other hand, is constrained by the need to vitrify the aqueous medium; ice crystals that form diffract the electron illumination, causing contrast artifacts of higher contrast than the organic material of interest.
The past decade has seen a proliferation of EM imaging techniques developed or adapted for cellular studies1. High-pressure freezing combined with iterative focused ion beam (FIB) milling and serial surface imaging using the scanning electron microscope (i.e., FIB-SEM) is currently the method of choice for large specimens2. Cryogenic soft X-ray tomography (cryo-SXT) is suitable for samples of several microns in size, limited by the characteristic absorption length of the soft X-rays in water3,4,5. This scale includes many intact cell types, and the quantitative nature of the X-ray absorption contrast adds an aspect of concentration measurement6 or spectroscopy7. When combined with subtomogram averaging, cryo-transmission electron tomography (cryo-ET), based on phase contrast transmission electron microscopy (TEM), offers the highest resolution for macromolecules or complexes8,9,10. However, it is rare that intact organelles are so regular that they can be averaged whole. Moreover, the conventional mode of wide-field TEM is limited for specimen thickness to a few hundred nanometers by the combination of inelastic scattering (involving energy loss) in the specimen and chromatic aberration in the magnetic objective lens11,12. The large energy spread dictates the use of an energy filter to remove the resulting out-of-focus haze, but the sensitive specimen still suffers radiation damage while the image signal becomes exponentially weaker with increasing thickness.
The alternative imaging mode, scanning transmission EM (STEM), circumvents the need for energy filtering and retains the inelastically scattered electrons for image formation, albeit currently at a lower resolution than for TEM tomography (Figure 1). In fact, no real image is formed. Instead, as in a scanning EM, measurements are made point by point, and the image is assembled by the computer. The magnification is determined only by the size of the scan steps without changing the lens currents. When properly configured, the useful range of specimen thickness for cryo-STEM tomography (CSTET) can reach 1.5 or even 2 µm, though the comfort zone, where the useful signal intensity remains a significant fraction of the illumination, is around 600-900 nm11,13. This is sufficient to see a large fraction of the cytoplasm, and occasionally an edge of the cell nucleus. In practice, we find that vitrification by the standard method of plunging into cryogenic fluid imposes a more severe constraint on thickness than STEM imaging. The goal of this video article is to facilitate the incorporation of CSTET into the tool chest for cell and organelle imaging in research labs and microscopy facilities.
The first challenge is that microscope operations in CSTET are not yet standardized for life science applications in the way that they have been for cryo-TEM tomography. STEM hardware has rarely (if ever) been targeted to the cryo-EM market. However, this is changing with the newest generation of microscopes, and many existing tools can be retrofitted. STEM as a technique has taken off and largely taken over in the materials sciences, where there is also budding interest in cryogenic and low-dose methods14,15. The materials science literature abounds with acronyms BF-STEM, ADF-STEM, HAADF-STEM, 4D-STEM, DPC-STEM, etc., which add to the confusion. We offer here a recommended starting point that, in our collective experience at the Weizmann Institute of Science, provides the most general protocol for useful results based on bright field (BF) STEM imaging16. In no way does it exhaust or even explore the range of possibilities, but it will serve as a basis for further enhancements. While we emphasize cryo-STEM, most of the protocol is equally relevant for room-temperature STEM tomography of plastic-embedded sections.
The essence of STEM is to scan the specimen with a focused electron probe (Figure 1), the illumination cone, and to record signals from the diffraction (scattering) plane in transmission, pixel by pixel, to produce 2D images17,18. Amorphous specimens, including most cellular materials, will produce a diffuse scattering pattern in transmission. The simplest practical STEM configuration is to place a circular detector to record the central disk (i.e., the probe illumination that would be transmitted without a specimen). The specimen scatters electrons away from this illumination cone to the extent that the signal decreases. This produces a BF image-the specimen appears dark on a bright background. An annular detector may also (or instead) be used to detect the scattering from the specimen outside the illumination cone. With the specimen removed, there is no signal. When a specimen is in place, objects appear bright on a dark background in the dark field (DF) image. The nomenclature for STEM (BF, annular dark field [ADF], high-angle annular dark field [HAADF], etc.) refers mainly to the ranges of collection angles for the detectors.
The convergence angle of the illumination represents an essential adaptation of STEM to cellular tomography. When the top priority is high resolution, the convergence angle should be as large as possible. (This is similar to confocal laser scanning microscopy; the resolution is determined by the probe diameter, which scales as the wavelength divided by the numerical aperture. Note that we refer to the half-angle or semi-convergence angle for EM.) When the priority is the depth of field, on the other hand, a compromise in resolution affords a great advantage, as the focused beam remains roughly parallel for a distance equal to twice the wavelength divided by semi-angle squared. Ideally, the entire cell volume remains in focus19. For example, at 300 keV, the electron deBroglie wavelength is 0.002 nm, so a convergence of 1 mrad yields a resolution of 2 nm and a depth of field of 4 microns. Under these conditions, tomography can be performed even without focusing during the data collection process, but only once at the beginning of the acquisition. A conventional tomography-capable STEM can reach a semi-convergence angle of 7 or 8 mrad; therefore, in principle, we could reach a resolution in the order of 0.25 nm, but then with a focal depth of only 62 nm. This is clearly too thin for cellular imaging. More advanced microscopes with three condenser lenses offer continuous adjustment of the semi-convergence angle over a considerable range. With the more traditional two-condenser configuration, the convergence is fixed discretely by the condenser (C2) aperture.
For robust, plastic-embedded samples, one can record a focal series at each tilt and combine them for high resolution20, but for cryogenic specimens, the radiation budget is too severely constrained. Finally, in weighing the advantages of BF or DF imaging, for thick specimens, one should consider the effects of multiple elastic scattering in the specimen. The BF signal is less corrupted by multiple scattering and shows a higher resolution for thick specimens16,21.
A useful rule of thumb has been to set collection angles several times larger than the convergence. The thicker the specimen, the larger the collection disk should be. Too small a disk will provide a low signal intensity; too large a disk will result in poor image contrast, as only the highest-angle scattering will contribute. The collection angles should be optimized for a given sample. The detector angles as a function of (diffraction) camera length must be calibrated independently. They may be displayed conveniently by the microscope software. In practice, a factor of two to five in the ratio of collection to illumination semi-angles, θ to α, respectively (Figure 1), is a recommended starting point for CSTET of cellular specimens.
The following protocol describes STEM tomography operation using the popular SerialEM software for microscope control22,23. SerialEM is not tied to a specific manufacturer, and it is widely used in TEM tomography. Most of the operations in setting up for tomography can be carried over directly from TEM. The SerialEM strategy is to model the scanning system as a camera. This enables the simple crossover from TEM to STEM. One should keep in mind, though, that parameters such as magnification and binning are entirely artificial. The important parameters are the field of view in microns, the number of pixels in the field of view, and the exposure time. The pixel spacing, or sampling, is the linear field divided by the number of pixels, while the dwell time is the number of pixels divided by the exposure time.
The minimum configuration for STEM and CSTET involves three features on the microscope: a scan generator, a STEM detector, and tomography control software. The protocol refers to the nomenclature of FEI/Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS), but the concepts are generic. The proprietary software of TFS has been described in JoVE for TEM24, and the STEM operation is very similar.
We assume that the microscope has been aligned in advance by the service team or experienced staff and that a column alignment can be called up by loading a file. Minor adjustments are called direct alignments and can be stored in so-called FEG registers (TFS microscopes). Direct alignments include rotation center, pivot points, diffraction alignment, and compensation for condenser astigmatism. Adjustments have to be performed iteratively. Note that TFS microscopes implement distinct nanoprobe (nP) and microprobe (µP) modes; for a given condenser aperture, these provide a relatively narrow or wide field of view with parallel illumination in TEM and a more or less convergent (tightly focused) electron beam in STEM, respectively. Other manufacturers use different schemes to cover the range of convergence angles.
Before starting, the field of view, L, and the sampling (pixel width), l, should be chosen, depending on the sample under study. For example, for l = 1 nm/pixel, a 4,000 x 4,000 pixel image that will cover a field of view 4 µm2 should be chosen. The resolution will be, at best, twice the spatial sampling, so 2 nm, and the probe diameter, d, should match that. Calibration of the probe angle is beyond the scope of this protocol, so we assume that a table or a screen reading is available. The probe diameter is approximately the electron wavelength divided by the semi-convergence angle (in radians): d = λ/θ. The wavelength, λ, is 0.002 nm for 300 keV and 0.0025 nm for 200 keV electrons, so θ of 1 mrad will provide a spot diameter of 2 or 2.5 nm, respectively.
The protocol is presented in a progression of increasing complexity. The first task is to produce a STEM image, which depends on the microscope manufacturer's software, and then a tilt series, for which we use SerialEM. Many readers will undoubtedly be familiar with SerialEM, so the more complicated tasks will come naturally. There is no need to follow the procedures strictly. Developments relating to automation may be implemented directly for STEM as well as for TEM. Experienced users will likely invert the protocol, beginning with correlative registration of fluorescence maps and continuing to set up batch tomography. Further details can be found in the extensive documentation and tutorial libraries for SerialEM itself, including a recent JoVE article on the latest developments in automation25.