1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering
  4. Volume 21, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering

Volume 21, 2019

Frontiers in Cryo Electron Microscopy of Complex Macromolecular Assemblies

Abstract

In recent years, cryo electron microscopy (cryo-EM) technology has been transformed with the development of better instrumentation, direct electron detectors, improved methods for specimen preparation, and improved software for data analysis. Analyses using single-particle cryo-EM methods have enabled determination of structures of proteins with sizes smaller than 100 kDa and resolutions of ∼2 Å in some cases. The use of electron tomography combined with subvolume averaging is beginning to allow the visualization of macromolecular complexes in their native environment in unprecedented detail. As a result of these advances, solutions to many intractable challenges in structural and cell biology, such as analysis of highly dynamic soluble and membrane-embedded protein complexes or partially ordered protein aggregates, are now within reach. Recent reports of structural studies of G protein–coupled receptors, spliceosomes, and fibrillar specimens illustrate the progress that has been made using cryo-EM methods, and are the main focus of this review.

Keyword(s): cryo electron tomography, cryo-EM, fibril, G protein–coupled receptor, single-particle analysis, spliceosome
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453
2019-06-04
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/bioeng/21/1/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    De Zorzi R, Mi W, Liao M, Walz T 2016. Single-particle electron microscopy in the study of membrane protein structure. Microscopy 65:81–96
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Fernandez-Leiro R, Scheres SHW. 2017. A pipeline approach to single-particle processing in RELION. Acta Crystallogr. D 73:496–502
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Hutchings J, Zanetti G. 2018. Fine details in complex environments: the power of cryo-electron tomography. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 46:807–16
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Koning RI, Koster AJ, Sharp TH 2018. Advances in cryo-electron tomography for biology and medicine. Ann. Anat. 217:82–96
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Renaud JP, Chari A, Ciferri C, Liu WT, Remigy HW et al. 2018. Cryo-EM in drug discovery: achievements, limitations and prospects. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17:471–92
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Cheng Y. 2018. Single-particle cryo-EM—how did it get here and where will it go?. Science 361:876–80
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Bai XC, Yan C, Yang G, Lu P, Ma D et al. 2015. An atomic structure of human γ-secretase. Nature 525:212–17
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Dashti A, Schwander P, Langlois R, Fung R, Li W et al. 2014. Trajectories of the ribosome as a Brownian nanomachine. PNAS 111:17492–97
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Gao Y, Cao E, Julius D, Cheng Y 2016. TRPV1 structures in nanodiscs reveal mechanisms of ligand and lipid action. Nature 534:347–51
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Subramaniam S, Earl LA, Falconieri V, Milne JL, Egelman EH 2016. Resolution advances in cryo-EM enable application to drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 41:194–202
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Zhou A, Rohou A, Schep DG, Bason JV, Montgomery MG et al. 2015. Structure and conformational states of the bovine mitochondrial ATP synthase by cryo-EM. eLife 4:e10180
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Lee JH, Ozorowski G, Ward AB 2016. Cryo-EM structure of a native, fully glycosylated, cleaved HIV-1 envelope trimer. Science 351:1043–48
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Taylor NMI, Manolaridis I, Jackson SM, Kowal J, Stahlberg H, Locher KP 2017. Structure of the human multidrug transporter ABCG2. Nature 546:504–9
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Bottcher B, Kiselev NA, Stel'Mashchuk VY, Perevozchikova NA, Borisov AV, Crowther RA 1997. Three-dimensional structure of infectious bursal disease virus determined by electron cryomicroscopy. J. Virol. 71:325–30
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Conway JF, Cheng N, Zlotnick A, Wingfield PT, Stahl SJ, Steven AC 1997. Visualization of a 4-helix bundle in the hepatitis B virus capsid by cryo-electron microscopy. Nature 386:91–94
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Brown A, Shao S. 2018. Ribosomes and cryo-EM: a duet. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 52:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Amunts A, Brown A, Bai XC, Llacer JL, Hussain T et al. 2014. Structure of the yeast mitochondrial large ribosomal subunit. Science 343:1485–89
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Bartesaghi A, Aguerrebere C, Falconieri V, Banerjee S, Earl LA et al. 2018. Atomic resolution cryo-EM structure of β-galactosidase. Structure 26:848–56
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Tan YZ, Aiyer S, Mietzsch M, Hull JA, McKenna R et al. 2018. Sub-2 Å Ewald curvature corrected structure of an AAV2 capsid variant. Nat. Commun. 9:3628
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Khoshouei M, Radjainia M, Baumeister W, Danev R 2017. Cryo-EM structure of haemoglobin at 3.2 Å determined with the Volta Phase Plate. Nat. Commun. 8:16099
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Merk A, Bartesaghi A, Banerjee S, Falconieri V, Rao P et al. 2016. Breaking cryo-EM resolution barriers to facilitate drug discovery. Cell 165:1698–707
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Banerjee S, Bartesaghi A, Merk A, Rao P, Bulfer SL et al. 2016. 2.3 Å resolution cryo-EM structure of human p97 and mechanism of allosteric inhibition. Science 351:871–75
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Frank J. 2016. Generalized single-particle cryo-EM—a historical perspective. Microscopy 65:3–8
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Duan J, Li Z, Li J, Hulse RE, Santa-Cruz A et al. 2018. Structure of the mammalian TRPM7, a magnesium channel required during embryonic development. PNAS 115:E8201–10
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Hahn A, Vonck J, Mills DJ, Meier T, Kuhlbrandt W 2018. Structure, mechanism, and regulation of the chloroplast ATP synthase. Science 360:eaat4318
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Hulse RE, Li Z, Huang RK, Zhang J, Clapham DE 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the polycystin 2-l1 ion channel. eLife 7:e36931
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Jackson SM, Manolaridis I, Kowal J, Zechner M, Taylor NMI et al. 2018. Structural basis of small-molecule inhibition of human multidrug transporter ABCG2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25:333–40
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Parmar M, Rawson S, Scarff CA, Goldman A, Dafforn TR et al. 2018. Using a SMALP platform to determine a sub-nm single particle cryo-EM membrane protein structure. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1860:378–83
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Qi X, Schmiege P, Coutavas E, Wang J, Li X 2018. Structures of human Patched and its complex with native palmitoylated sonic hedgehog. Nature 560:128–32
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Rheinberger J, Gao X, Schmidpeter PA, Nimigean CM 2018. Ligand discrimination and gating in cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channels from apo and partial agonist-bound cryo-EM structures. eLife 7:e39775
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Yoo J, Wu M, Yin Y, Herzik MA Jr., Lander GC, Lee SY 2018. Cryo-EM structure of a mitochondrial calcium uniporter. Science 361:506–11
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Earl LA, Falconieri V, Milne JL, Subramaniam S 2017. Cryo-EM: beyond the microscope. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 46:71–88
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Fernandez-Leiro R, Scheres SH. 2016. Unravelling biological macromolecules with cryo-electron microscopy. Nature 537:339–46
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Elmlund D, Le SN, Elmlund H 2017. High-resolution cryo-EM: the nuts and bolts. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 46:1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Scheres SH. 2016. Processing of structurally heterogeneous cryo-EM data in RELION. Methods Enzymol 579:125–57
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Frank J. 2017. Time-resolved cryo-electron microscopy: recent progress. J. Struct. Biol. 200:303–6
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Cabra V, Samso M. 2015. Do's and don'ts of cryo-electron microscopy: a primer on sample preparation and high quality data collection for macromolecular 3D reconstruction. J. Vis. Exp. 95:52311
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Chari A, Haselbach D, Kirves JM, Ohmer J, Paknia E et al. 2015. ProteoPlex: stability optimization of macromolecular complexes by sparse-matrix screening of chemical space. Nat. Methods 12:859–65
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Kastner B, Fischer N, Golas MM, Sander B, Dube P et al. 2008. GraFix: sample preparation for single-particle electron cryomicroscopy. Nat. Methods 5:53–55
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Thonghin N, Kargas V, Clews J, Ford RC 2018. Cryo-electron microscopy of membrane proteins. Methods 147:176–86
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Gewering T, Januliene D, Ries AB, Moeller A 2018. Know your detergents: a case study on detergent background in negative stain electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 203:242–46
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Hauer F, Gerle C, Fischer N, Oshima A, Shinzawa-Itoh K et al. 2015. GraDeR: membrane protein complex preparation for single-particle cryo-EM. Structure 23:1769–75
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Tribet C, Audebert R, Popot JL 1996. Amphipols: polymers that keep membrane proteins soluble in aqueous solutions. PNAS 93:15047–50
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Popot JL. 2010. Amphipols, nanodiscs, and fluorinated surfactants: three nonconventional approaches to studying membrane proteins in aqueous solutions. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79:737–75
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Ritchie TK, Grinkova YV, Bayburt TH, Denisov IG, Zolnerciks JK et al. 2009. Reconstitution of membrane proteins in phospholipid bilayer nanodiscs. Methods Enzymol 464:211–31
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Carlson ML, Young JW, Zhao Z, Fabre L, Jun D et al. 2018. The Peptidisc, a simple method for stabilizing membrane proteins in detergent-free solution. eLife 7:e34085
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Tao H, Lee SC, Moeller A, Roy RS, Siu FY et al. 2013. Engineered nanostructured β-sheet peptides protect membrane proteins. Nat. Methods 10:759–61
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Postis V, Rawson S, Mitchell JK, Lee SC, Parslow RA et al. 2015. The use of SMALPs as a novel membrane protein scaffold for structure study by negative stain electron microscopy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1848:496–501
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Dubochet J, Adrian M, Chang JJ, Homo JC, Lepault J et al. 1988. Cryo-electron microscopy of vitrified specimens. Q. Rev. Biophys. 21:129–228
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Dobro MJ, Melanson LA, Jensen GJ, McDowall AW 2010. Plunge freezing for electron cryomicroscopy. Methods Enzymol 481:63–82
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    D'Imprima E, Floris D, Joppe M, Sanchez R, Grininger M, Kuhlbrandt W 2018. The deadly touch: protein denaturation at the water–air interface and how to prevent it. bioRxiv 400432. https://doi.org/10.1101/400432
    [Crossref]
  52. 52.
    Pantelic RS, Suk JW, Magnuson CW, Meyer JC, Wachsmuth P et al. 2011. Graphene: Substrate preparation and introduction. J. Struct. Biol. 174:234–38
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Pantelic RS, Fu W, Schoenenberger C, Henning Stahlberg H 2014. Rendering graphene supports hydrophilic with non-covalent aromatic functionalization for transmission electron microscopy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 104:134103
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Gatsogiannis C, Merino F, Prumbaum D, Roderer D, Leidreiter F et al. 2016. Membrane insertion of a Tc toxin in near-atomic detail. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 23:884–90
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Zhang Z, Chen J. 2016. Atomic structure of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator. Cell 167:1586–97
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Dandey VP, Wei H, Zhang Z, Tan YZ, Acharya P et al. 2018. Spotiton: new features and applications. J. Struct. Biol. 202:161–69
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Glaeser RM, Han BG, Csencsits R, Killilea A, Pulk A, Cate JH 2016. Factors that influence the formation and stability of thin, cryo-EM specimens. Biophys. J. 110:749–55
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Danev R, Buijsse B, Khoshouei M, Plitzko JM, Baumeister W 2014. Volta potential phase plate for in-focus phase contrast transmission electron microscopy. PNAS 111:15635–40
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    McMullan G, Faruqi AR, Henderson R 2016. Direct electron detectors. Methods Enzymol 579:1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Mastronarde DN. 2005. Automated electron microscope tomography using robust prediction of specimen movements. J. Struct. Biol. 152:36–51
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Suloway C, Pulokas J, Fellmann D, Cheng A, Guerra F et al. 2005. Automated molecular microscopy: the new Leginon system. J. Struct. Biol. 151:41–60
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Grant T, Rohou A, Grigorieff N 2018. cisTEM, user-friendly software for single-particle image processing. eLife 7:e35383
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Ludtke SJ. 2016. Single-particle refinement and variability analysis in EMAN2.1. Methods Enzymol 579:159–89
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Punjani A, Rubinstein JL, Fleet DJ, Brubaker MA 2017. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nat. Methods 14:290–96
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Yu L, Franken E, Voigt A, Grollios F, Tiemeijer P, Reyntjens S 2018. On-the-fly image quality evaluation for single-particle analysis cryo-electron microscopy. Microsc. Microanal. 23:Suppl. 1834
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Weis WI, Kobilka BK. 2018. The molecular basis of G protein–coupled receptor activation. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 87:897–919
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Scheerer P, Park JH, Hildebrand PW, Kim YJ, Krauss N et al. 2008. Crystal structure of opsin in its G-protein-interacting conformation. Nature 455:497–502
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Rasmussen SG, DeVree BT, Zou Y, Kruse AC, Chung KY et al. 2011. Crystal structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor–Gs protein complex. Nature 477:549–55
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Chae PS, Rasmussen SG, Rana RR, Gotfryd K, Chandra R et al. 2010. Maltose–neopentyl glycol (MNG) amphiphiles for solubilization, stabilization and crystallization of membrane proteins. Nat. Methods 7:1003–8
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Landau EM, Rosenbusch JP. 1996. Lipidic cubic phases: a novel concept for the crystallization of membrane proteins. PNAS 93:14532–35
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Carpenter B, Nehme R, Warne T, Leslie AG, Tate CG 2016. Structure of the adenosine A2a receptor bound to an engineered G protein. Nature 536:104–7
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Carpenter B, Tate CG. 2016. Engineering a minimal G protein to facilitate crystallisation of G protein–coupled receptors in their active conformation. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 29:583–94
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Liang YL, Khoshouei M, Radjainia M, Zhang Y, Glukhova A et al. 2017. Phase-plate cryo-EM structure of a class B GPCR–G-protein complex. Nature 546:118–23
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Liang YL, Khoshouei M, Glukhova A, Furness SGB, Zhao P et al. 2018. Phase-plate cryo-EM structure of a biased agonist-bound human GLP-1 receptor–Gs complex. Nature 555:121–25
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Zhang Y, Sun B, Feng D, Hu H, Chu M et al. 2017. Cryo-EM structure of the activated GLP-1 receptor in complex with a G protein. Nature 546:248–53
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Garcia-Nafria J, Lee Y, Bai X, Carpenter B, Tate CG 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the adenosine A2A receptor coupled to an engineered heterotrimeric G protein. eLife 7:e35946
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Koehl A, Hu H, Maeda S, Zhang Y, Qu Q et al. 2018. Structure of the micro-opioid receptor–Gi protein complex. Nature 558:547–52
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Draper-Joyce CJ, Khoshouei M, Thal DM, Liang YL, Nguyen ATN et al. 2018. Structure of the adenosine-bound human adenosine A1 receptor–Gi complex. Nature 558:559–63
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Kang Y, Kuybeda O, de Waal PW, Mukherjee S, Van Eps N et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of human rhodopsin bound to an inhibitory G protein. Nature 558:553–58
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Garcia-Nafria J, Nehme R, Edwards PC, Tate CG 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the serotonin 5-HT1B receptor coupled to heterotrimeric Go. Nature 558:620–23
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Liang Y-L, Khoshouei M, Deganutti G, Glukhova A, Koole C et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the active, Gs protein complexed, human CGRP receptor. Nature 561:492–97
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Brody E, Abelson J. 1985. The “spliceosome”: yeast pre-messenger RNA associates with a 40S complex in a splicing-dependent reaction. Science 228:963–67
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Kondo Y, Oubridge C, van Roon AM, Nagai K 2015. Crystal structure of human U1 snRNP, a small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle, reveals the mechanism of 5′ splice site recognition. eLife 4:e04986
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Galej WP, Oubridge C, Newman AJ, Nagai K 2013. Crystal structure of Prp8 reveals active site cavity of the spliceosome. Nature 493:638–43
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Ramakrishnan V. 2002. Ribosome structure and the mechanism of translation. Cell 108:557–72
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Will CL, Lührmann R. 2011. Spliceosome structure and function. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3:a003707
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Galej WP, Nguyen TH, Newman AJ, Nagai K 2014. Structural studies of the spliceosome: zooming into the heart of the machine. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 25:57–66
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Yan C, Wan R, Bai R, Huang G, Shi Y 2017. Structure of a yeast step II catalytically activated spliceosome. Science 355:149–55
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Bertram K, Agafonov DE, Dybkov O, Haselbach D, Leelaram MN et al. 2017. Cryo-EM structure of a pre-catalytic human spliceosome primed for activation. Cell 170:701–13
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Bertram K, Agafonov DE, Liu WT, Dybkov O, Will CL et al. 2017. Cryo-EM structure of a human spliceosome activated for step 2 of splicing. Nature 542:318–23
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Bessonov S, Anokhina M, Krasauskas A, Golas MM, Sander B et al. 2010. Characterization of purified human Bact spliceosomal complexes reveals compositional and morphological changes during spliceosome activation and first step catalysis. RNA 16:2384–403
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Spillantini MG, Schmidt ML, Lee VM, Trojanowski JQ, Jakes R, Goedert M 1997. α-Synuclein in Lewy bodies. Nature 388:839–40
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Glenner GG, Wong CW, Quaranta V, Eanes ED 1984. The amyloid deposits in Alzheimer's disease: their nature and pathogenesis. Appl. Pathol. 2:357–69
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Masters CL, Simms G, Weinman NA, Multhaup G, McDonald BL, Beyreuther K 1985. Amyloid plaque core protein in Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. PNAS 82:4245–49
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Auer S. 2015. Nucleation of polymorphic amyloid fibrils. Biophys. J. 108:1176–86
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Fandrich M, Nystrom S, Nilsson KPR, Bockmann A, LeVine H 3rd, Hammarstrom P 2018. Amyloid fibril polymorphism: a challenge for molecular imaging and therapy. J. Intern. Med. 283:218–37
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Meier BH, Riek R, Bockmann A 2017. Emerging structural understanding of amyloid fibrils by solid-state NMR. Trends Biochem. Sci. 42:777–87
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Close W, Neumann M, Schmidt A, Hora M, Annamalai K et al. 2018. Physical basis of amyloid fibril polymorphism. Nat. Commun. 9:699
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Fitzpatrick AWP, Falcon B, He S, Murzin AG, Murshudov G et al. 2017. Cryo-EM structures of tau filaments from Alzheimer's disease. Nature 547:185–90
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Falcon B, Zhang W, Murzin AG, Murshudov G, Garringer HJ et al. 2018. Structures of filaments from Pick's disease reveal a novel tau protein fold. Nature 561:137–40
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Guerrero-Ferreira R, Taylor NM, Mona D, Ringler P, Lauer ME et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of α-synuclein fibrils. eLife 7:e36402
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Liu J, Bartesaghi A, Borgnia MJ, Sapiro G, Subramaniam S 2008. Molecular architecture of native HIV-1 gp120 trimers. Nature 455:109–13
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Wan W, Briggs JA. 2016. Cryo-electron tomography and subtomogram averaging. Methods Enzymol 579:329–67
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Bartesaghi A, Sprechmann P, Liu J, Randall G, Sapiro G, Subramaniam S 2008. Classification and 3D averaging with missing wedge correction in biological electron tomography. J. Struct. Biol. 162:436–50
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Hartnell LM, Earl LA, Bliss D, Moran A, Subramaniam S 2016. Imaging cellular architecture with 3D SEM. Encyclopedia of Cell Biology RA Bradshaw, PD Stahl pp. 44–50 Waltham, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Hayles MF, de Winter DA, Schneijdenberg CT, Meeldijk JD, Luecken U et al. 2010. The making of frozen-hydrated, vitreous lamellas from cells for cryo-electron microscopy. J. Struct. Biol. 172:180–90
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Oikonomou CM, Jensen GJ. 2017. Cellular electron cryotomography: toward structural biology in situ. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 86:873–96
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Bharat TAM, Kureisaite-Ciziene D, Hardy GG, Yu EW, Devant JM et al. 2017. Structure of the hexagonal surface layer on Caulobacter crescentus cells. Nat. Microbiol. 2:17059
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Schur FK, Obr M, Hagen WJ, Wan W, Jakobi AJ et al. 2016. An atomic model of HIV-1 capsid-SP1 reveals structures regulating assembly and maturation. Science 353:506–8
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Wan W, Kolesnikova L, Clarke M, Koehler A, Noda T et al. 2017. Structure and assembly of the Ebola virus nucleocapsid. Nature 551:394–97
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Turonova B, Schur FKM, Wan W, Briggs JAG 2017. Efficient 3D-CTF correction for cryo-electron tomography using NovaCTF improves subtomogram averaging resolution to 3.4 Å. J. Struct. Biol. 199:187–95
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Wagner JM, Zadrozny KK, Chrustowicz J, Purdy MD, Yeager M et al. 2016. Crystal structure of an HIV assembly and maturation switch. eLife 5:e17063
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Dodonova SO, Aderhold P, Kopp J, Ganeva I, Rohling S et al. 2017. 9 Å structure of the COPI coat reveals that the Arf1 GTPase occupies two contrasting molecular environments. eLife 6:e26691
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Braunger K, Pfeffer S, Shrimal S, Gilmore R, Berninghausen O et al. 2018. Structural basis for coupling protein transport and N-glycosylation at the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum. Science 360:215–19
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Bykov YS, Schaffer M, Dodonova SO, Albert S, Plitzko JM et al. 2017. The structure of the COPI coat determined within the cell. eLife 6:e32493
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Pfeffer S, Dudek J, Schaffer M, Ng BG, Albert S et al. 2017. Dissecting the molecular organization of the translocon-associated protein complex. Nat. Commun. 8:14516
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Albert S, Schaffer M, Beck F, Mosalaganti S, Asano S et al. 2017. Proteasomes tether to two distinct sites at the nuclear pore complex. PNAS 114:13726–31
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Mahamid J, Pfeffer S, Schaffer M, Villa E, Danev R et al. 2016. Visualizing the molecular sociology at the HeLa cell nuclear periphery. Science 351:969–72
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Merk A, Bartesaghi A, Banerjee S, Falconieri V, Rao P et al. 2016. Breaking cryo-EM resolution barriers to facilitate drug discovery. Cell 165:1698–707
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Scapin G, Potter CS, Carragher B 2018. Cryo-EM for small molecules discovery, design, understanding, and application. Cell Chem. Biol. 25:1318–25
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Agafonov DE, Kastner B, Dybkov O, Hofele RV, Liu WT et al. 2016. Molecular architecture of the human U4/U6.U5 tri-snRNP. Science 351:1416–20
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Rauhut R, Fabrizio P, Dybkov O, Hartmuth K, Pena V et al. 2016. Molecular architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae activated spliceosome. Science 353:1399–405
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Wan R, Yan C, Bai R, Huang G, Shi Y 2016. Structure of a yeast catalytic step I spliceosome at 3.4 Å resolution. Science 353:895–904
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Zhang X, Yan C, Hang J, Finci LI, Lei J, Shi Y 2017. An atomic structure of the human spliceosome. Cell 169:918–29
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Yan C, Hang J, Wan R, Huang M, Wong CC, Shi Y 2015. Structure of a yeast spliceosome at 3.6-angstrom resolution. Science 349:1182–91
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Shen H, Li Z, Jiang Y, Pan X, Wu J et al. 2018. Structural basis for the modulation of voltage-gated sodium channels by animal toxins. Science 362:eaau2596
     [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Zhang Z, Toth B, Szollosi A, Chen J, Csanady L 2018. Structure of a TRPM2 channel in complex with Ca2+ explains unique gating regulation. eLife 7:e36409
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Duan J, Li Z, Li J, Santa-Cruz A, Sanchez-Martinez S et al. 2018. Structure of full-length human TRPM4. PNAS 115:2377–82
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Butterwick JA, Del Marmol J, Kim KH, Kahlson MA, Rogow JA et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the insect olfactory receptor Orco. Nature 560:447–52
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    She J, Guo J, Chen Q, Zeng W, Jiang Y, Bai XC 2018. Structural insights into the voltage and phospholipid activation of the mammalian TPC1 channel. Nature 556:130–34
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Baradaran R, Wang C, Siliciano AF, Long SB 2018. Cryo-EM structures of fungal and metazoan mitochondrial calcium uniporters. Nature 559:580–84
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Nguyen NX, Armache JP, Lee C, Yang Y, Zeng W et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of a fungal mitochondrial calcium uniporter. Nature 559:570–74
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Fan C, Choi W, Sun W, Du J, Lu W 2018. Structure of the human lipid-gated cation channel TRPC3. eLife 7:e36852
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Duan J, Li J, Zeng B, Chen GL, Peng X et al. 2018. Structure of the mouse TRPC4 ion channel. Nat. Commun. 9:3102
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Vinayagam D, Mager T, Apelbaum A, Bothe A, Merino F et al. 2018. Electron cryo-microscopy structure of the canonical TRPC4 ion channel. eLife 7:e36615
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Paknejad N, Hite RK. 2018. Structural basis for the regulation of inositol trisphosphate receptors by Ca2+ and IP3. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25:660–68
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Park E, MacKinnon R. 2018. Structure of the CLC-1 chloride channel from Homo sapiens. . eLife 7:e36629
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Lee CH, MacKinnon R. 2018. Activation mechanism of a human SK-calmodulin channel complex elucidated by cryo-EM structures. Science 360:508–13
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Deneka D, Sawicka M, Lam AKM, Paulino C, Dutzler R 2018. Structure of a volume-regulated anion channel of the LRRC8 family. Nature 558:254–59
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Yoder N, Yoshioka C, Gouaux E 2018. Gating mechanisms of acid-sensing ion channels. Nature 555:397–401
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Qian P, Siebert CA, Wang P, Canniffe DP, Hunter CN 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the Blastochloris viridis LH1–RC complex at 2.9 Å. Nature 556:203–8
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Pan X, Ma J, Su X, Cao P, Chang W et al. 2018. Structure of the maize photosystem I supercomplex with light-harvesting complexes I and II. Science 360:1109–13
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Pi X, Tian L, Dai HE, Qin X, Cheng L et al. 2018. Unique organization of photosystem I light-harvesting supercomplex revealed by cryo-EM from a red alga. PNAS 115:4423–28
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Roh SH, Stam NJ, Hryc CF, Couoh-Cardel S, Pintilie G et al. 2018. The 3.5-Å cryoEM structure of nanodisc-reconstituted yeast vacuolar ATPase V0 proton channel. Mol. Cell 69:993–1004
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Srivastava AP, Luo M, Zhou W, Symersky J, Bai D et al. 2018. High-resolution cryo-EM analysis of the yeast ATP synthase in a lipid membrane. Science 360:eaas9699
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Agip AA, Blaza JN, Bridges HR, Viscomi C, Rawson S et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structures of complex I from mouse heart mitochondria in two biochemically defined states. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25:548–56
     [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Yu H, Wu CH, Schut GJ, Haja DK, Zhao G et al. 2018. Structure of an ancient respiratory system. Cell 173:1636–49
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Sun C, Benlekbir S, Venkatakrishnan P, Wang Y, Hong S et al. 2018. Structure of the alternative complex III in a supercomplex with cytochrome oxidase. Nature 557:123–26
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Kim Y, Chen J. 2018. Molecular structure of human P-glycoprotein in the ATP-bound, outward-facing conformation. Science 359:915–19
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Alam A, Kung R, Kowal J, McLeod RA, Tremp N et al. 2018. Structure of a zosuquidar and UIC2-bound human–mouse chimeric ABCB1. PNAS 115:E1973–72
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Phulera S, Zhu H, Yu J, Claxton DP, Yoder N et al. 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the benzodiazepine-sensitive α1β1γ2S tri-heteromeric GABAA receptor in complex with GABA. eLife 7:e39383
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    Walsh RM Jr, Roh SH, Gharpure A, Morales-Perez CL, Teng J, Hibbs RE. 2018. Structural principles of distinct assemblies of the human α4β2 nicotinic receptor. Nature 557:261–65
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Garaeva AA, Oostergetel GT, Gati C, Guskov A, Paulino C, Slotboom DJ 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the human neutral amino acid transporter ASCT2. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25:515–21
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Wild R, Kowal J, Eyring J, Ngwa EM, Aebi M, Locher KP 2018. Structure of the yeast oligosaccharyltransferase complex gives insight into eukaryotic N-glycosylation. Science 359:545–50
     [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Gong X, Qian H, Cao P, Zhao X, Zhou Q et al. 2018. Structural basis for the recognition of Sonic Hedgehog by human Patched1. Science 361:eaas8935
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Ruan J, Xia S, Liu X, Lieberman J, Wu H 2018. Cryo-EM structure of the gasdermin A3 membrane pore. Nature 557:62–67
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453
Loading
Frontiers in Cryo Electron Microscopy of Complex Macromolecular Assemblies
Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 21, 395 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052453
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error