3.1.1. Rationale and software overview

GoldDigger was created due to the fact that existing cryo-ET tilt-series alignment software perform poorly on cryo-STET datasets. At the time the development of GoldDigger was initiated, the software ClusterAlign was not published yet. We identified two main issues hampering alignment or causing misalignment of cryo-STET tilt-series. The number of detected fiducials is limited especially at high tilt-angles and the fiducials are often incorrectly tracked. This can lead to having to discard entire tilt-series. Also, high throughput data cannot be automatically aligned with tilt-series alignment requiring manual correction which is time-consuming.

GoldDigger solves this by more accurately detecting out-of-focus gold beads, improving the fiducial tracking used to align the tilt-series. Because cryo-STET is used to observe thick specimens, many gold beads can be out-of-focus, especially at high tilts and when high convergence semi-angles are used. High convergence semi-angles allow small probe sizes (sub-nm) for high-resolution studies but have limited depth of focus (few tens of nm).⁽Reference Biskupek, Leschner, Walther and Kaiser ^{25 )} In cryo-STEM, out-of-focus gold beads appear as a blurry spot with a diameter larger than the nominal size of the gold bead.

Moreover, initial raw alignment of cryo-STEM tilt-series often fails especially at high-tilts which makes the tracking of the gold beads from low-tilts to high-tilts difficult. This might be due to the contrast difference between the thick sample and the thin carbon films which support it. At high-tilts, the specimen contours are no longer clearly resolved because of the strong darkening in the image caused by the low number of electrons reaching the STEM detector. This issue becomes even more important on side-entry electron microscopes because of the strong inherent stage instability compared to recent electron microscopes equipped with an autoloader (e.g., TFS Krios and JEOL Cryo ARM). GoldDigger was developed and tested on cryo-STET datasets collected on a side-entry electron microscope ensuring that fiducial tracking does not fail even when the raw tilt-series suffers strong shifts, as it often happens on side-entry cryo-electron microscopes.

The advantage of GoldDigger is how it can detect more fiducials by tracking out-of-focus beads. First, GoldDigger searches for gold beads of different sizes, before merging the different tracks of the detected gold beads. To analyze most of the collected data and tackle the pre-alignment difficulties, GoldDigger proposes an optional pre-alignment step using StackReg,⁽Reference Thévenaz, Ruttimann and Unser ^{26 )} which showed better and more consistent results than any other alignment software we tried, and allowed better subsequent detection of gold beads using the main core of GoldDigger. The different computing steps performed in GoldDigger workflow are presented in a diagram (Figure 1). GoldDigger was developed on Linux, it uses a main bash script which calls different software: MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA), Dynamo,⁽Reference Castaño-Díez, Kudryashev, Arheit and Stahlberg ^{16 )} IMOD⁽Reference Kremer, Mastronarde and McIntosh ^{14 )} and ImageJ⁽Reference Schneider, Rasband and Eliceiri ^{27 )} as well as the relion4_tomo_robot (shortened to R4TR in this work).⁽Reference Pyle ^{17 )} To use GoldDigger, the installation of all auxiliary software is required. GoldDigger is executed by running a bash script which contains all the user-adjustable parameters (among others: gold bead size, raw data path, software paths, enabling/disabling of pre- and post-alignment step) and runs through all processing steps (Figure 1). Details about how to run GoldDigger can be found at https://github.com/CryoSTEM-tools/GoldDigger.

Figure 1.

Diagram of GoldDigger workflow. The whole workflow is performed by a bash script which calls several other software (ImageJ, MATLAB, R4TR, Dynamo, IMOD). The main processing loop is located at the center of the diagram (step 1: detection of the beads in MATLAB using R4TR and Dynamo; step 3: concatenation of the fiducial chains in bash; step 4: merging of the fiducial chains and creation of the final fiducial file in MATLAB; step 5: alignment in IMOD; and step 6: aligned tilt-series computation in IMOD). Two optional steps are displayed on the left-hand side (step 0: pre-alignment step of the raw tilt-series using StackReg in ImageJ) and the right-hand side of the diagram (step 7: post-alignment removal of outlying fiducials in MATLAB).

3.1.2. Detection and merging of different-sized gold beads

The detection of gold beads is performed using R4TR. This software uses Dynamo under MATLAB to robustly find gold beads of a given diameter. The gold beads are detected by means of cross-correlation using the gold bead diameter as an input parameter. The highest peaks of the cross-correlation matrix are selected as they are supposed to indicate the position of the gold beads. The peaks are then indexed to generate fiducial chains using several parameters to discard or retain the peaks (e.g., maximal shift allowed, minimum number of markers per tilt). It outputs an IMOD-compatible coordinate file containing the positions of the gold beads identified on each image of the tilt-series. This coordinate file can be inputted to IMOD to generate a fiducial model which is subsequently used to compute the alignment matrix. The GoldDigger strategy consists of looping the R4TR detection of the gold beads, increasing the given diameter at each step (Figure 1, step 1). This allows cross-correlating the tilt-series with templates of increasing diameters, which finds different sets of gold beads at each round. The multiple IMOD-type coordinate files are then transformed into text files using the model2point command from IMOD (Figure 1, step 2) and subsequently concatenated into a single text file (Figure 1, step 3). Because the detection of the gold beads is looped in the first step of GoldDigger, some gold beads can be detected multiple times. In MATLAB, the coordinates of all detected gold beads are compared to identify and delete the duplicated ones (Figure 1, step 4). Step 4 of GoldDigger is also used to merge the gold bead chains which have been detected during each loop of R4TR. The purpose is to generate longer gold bead chains which are usually associated with better alignment quality. The output of step 4 is a new gold bead coordinate file, exempt of duplicates and containing longer chains, which can be inputted to tiltalign (IMOD command computing the transform matrix to align a tilt-series using the tilt-angles, the orientation of the tilt-axis and the gold bead coordinates) to compute the alignment of the tilt-series (Figure 1, step 5). Finally, a newstack command (IMOD command used to make modifications to a tilt-series, in our case, the modification consists of transforming the tilt-series images using a transformation matrix previously computed with tiltalign) is run to generate the aligned tilt-series (Figure 1, step 6). The final fiducial coordinate file can also be used to align the tilt-series using different software such as TomoAlign which can use the position of the gold beads throughout the tilt-series to measure and compensate the deformation of the sample during data collection.⁽Reference Fernandez, Li, Bharat and Agard ^{28 )} Because motion deformation measurements in TomoAlign must be performed using a maximum of 100 fiducials, the number of fiducials in the final fiducial coordinate file outputted by GoldDigger is by default limited to 100. This is achieved by deleting the fiducials with the shortest fiducial chains as they are more prone to introduce bad fiducial positions during the filling of the fiducial model (the nogaps model generated by tiltalign).

3.1.3. Optional pre- and post-gold bead detection alignment steps

The preliminary optional step of our data processing pipeline is pre-alignment of the tilt-series with StackReg⁽Reference Thévenaz, Ruttimann and Unser ^{26 )} (Figure 1, step 0). The additional pre-alignment step is most useful when the raw tilt series contains large spatial shifts between images, such that R4TR may fail to accurately track the detected gold beads. Pre-alignment of the tilt-series reduces the chance that R4TR will confuse one gold bead with a different bead in the next tilt, resulting in a poor overall alignment. We tried several registration methods (IMOD,⁽Reference Kremer, Mastronarde and McIntosh ^{14 )} AreTomo,⁽Reference Zheng, Wolff, Greenan, Chen, Faas, Bárcena, Koster, Cheng and Agard ^{29 )} and StackReg⁽Reference Thévenaz, Ruttimann and Unser ^{26 )}) and found StackReg gave the best and more consistent results on the test data. The good performance of StackReg for cryo-STET datasets might come from the fact that StackReg uses a coarse-to-fine image registration sequence which is less prone to be trapped into a local optimum. The StackReg alignment should be performed in translation mode since rotations do not need to be computed at this stage. Because the StackReg image registration translates the image frames in relation to one another, the geometric transformation requires access to data beyond the image frame, and the final aligned result will include blank pixels at the border edges. The StackReg result is converted into an IMOD-type transform file. This pre-alignment step must be performed only when fiducial tracking fails on the raw tilt-series as it has a limitation. The pre-aligned tilt-series generated with newstack contains empty border areas corresponding to the applied shifts at the edge of the images. These empty border areas generate NaN errors in R4TR when Dynamo performs the cross-correlation between the tilt-series and the gold bead template. The pre-aligned tilt-series has to be cropped to discard the empty border areas, which reduces the area where gold beads can be detected and tracked. The cropping has to be performed manually. The final aligned tilt-series is generated using the original raw tilt-series as input, the StackReg and GoldDigger alignments being fused together using the xfproduct command (IMOD command merging two transformation matrices into a single one) to avoid introducing multiple interpolations of the data. Using this workflow, the aligned tilt-series has the same size as the raw tilt-series. The limitation of this strategy is then only present during the detection of the beads. This optional pre-alignment is indicated in the diagram (Figure 1, step 0).

The first step of GoldDigger can track a significant amount of gold beads and other features because of the wide diameter search range. On some rare occasions, gold beads or features detected by R4TR were wrongly tracked throughout the tilt-series generating large residuals in the tiltalign step (Figure 1, step 5). The large residuals can be ignored using the robust fitting option in IMOD. However, in TomoAlign the measurement of the sample deformation is based on the position of the gold beads. Because badly tracked fiducials will generate wrong deformations in TomoAlign, we added two optional polishing steps to get rid of the large residual fiducials (Figure 1, step 7). Each polishing step consists in removing the gold beads which residuals are not contained within a certain range around the median value of all residuals. The range corresponds to a multiple of the standard deviation of all residuals and is user-adjustable to fit special requirements. The exclusion of big residuals can be performed in a single step if their residuals are not big, or in two steps if very large residuals are present. The purpose of the two filtering steps is to first exclude the fiducials with a very large residual and then discard the remaining fiducials with more classic residuals (Supplementary Figure S1). To allow this, the range of both filtering steps can be set separately using user-adjustable parameters. The filtering steps are optional and can be skipped. If only one pass of big residual removal is required, then the second filtering step can be skipped. All these parameters need to be set in the bash script.

3.1.4. Results on TS Ec tilt-series

To test the performance of GoldDigger, we used cryo-STET datasets of E. coli cells. We found that GoldDigger improved the tracking of fiducials on cryo-STET datasets, tracking more fiducials (about 50% more) while targeting the gold bead center more precisely, compared to R4TR designed for cryo-ET datasets.

Because GoldDigger step 1 performs several loops of gold bead detection, we first measured the computation time of GoldDigger. To measure the computation time, GoldDigger was run on the cryo-STET datasets using both default and fast R4TR settings (Figure 2). Surprisingly, the default settings tracked fewer gold beads than the fast settings. On average the default settings (Figure 2, orange crosses) tracked 45 gold beads per tilt-series (range of 14–138) and the fast settings (Figure 2, blue circles) tracked 72 gold beads per tilt-series (range of 21–150). The average computation time of the default settings to track the gold beads was 1175 s (295 s to 3030 s) and for the fast settings 296 s (169 s to 520 s). These timing measurements were performed on a server with 13 CPUs (Intel Xeon Gold 6230R @ 2.10 GHz), 225 GB DDR4 memory, and two Tesla T4 GPUs with 16 GB of memory each. One observation is that the computation time is not proportional to the number of detected and tracked gold beads for both default and fast settings. A possible explanation is that the computation time is dependent on how difficult it is to detect and track gold beads, because of low image contrast or thick areas.

Figure 2.

GoldDigger (step 1) computation time. Time to complete step 1 of GoldDigger as a function of the number of detected gold beads. GoldDigger step 1 consists of 10 gold bead detection loops using R4TR. This plot shows the time taken by GoldDigger step 1 to detect and track gold beads using the default (orange crosses) and fast (blue circles) modes of the R4TR software.

The combination of steps 1–4 of the GoldDigger workflow is important as they represent the novelty compared to previous fiducial-based alignment software. To characterize them, the number of tracked fiducials was measured (Table 1). On average, R4TR default tracked 41 (±27) gold beads, R4TR fast tracked 95 (±24) gold beads, GoldDigger default tracked 442 (±183) gold beads, and GoldDigger fast tracked 725 (±235) gold beads (Table 1, R4TR and GoldDigger step 3). Using the default settings, GoldDigger tracked more gold beads than R4TR, which was expected since GoldDigger computes 10 loops of R4TR. These values are valid until step 3 of the GoldDigger workflow as the gold bead chains are not merged yet. After merging, fewer gold beads remained (Table 1, GoldDigger step 4), as on average GoldDigger default tracked 148 (±38) gold beads and GoldDigger fast tracked 204 (±69) gold beads. Fewer gold beads were expected as longer chains were generated. It must be noted that after step 4, the fiducial file outputted by GoldDigger does not contain more than 100 fiducials as this is the limit of TomoAlign.

Table 1.

The number of fiducials tracked on different tilt-series (TS Ec) using R4TR and GoldDigger methods

Note: The columns R4TR default and R4TR fast present the number of fiducials detected using each mode of R4TR. The columns GoldDigger default/fast (step 3) and GoldDigger default/fast (step 4) present the number of fiducials detected using GoldDigger before and after merging the chains, respectively.

A final comparison has been performed, including now ClusterAlign,⁽Reference Seifer and Elbaum ^{18 )} which as previously mentioned was not released yet when the development of GoldDigger was initiated. In this comparison, the number of tracked fiducials per tilt-angle is plotted for each tilt-series (Supplementary Figure S2). As can be observed, the number of tracked fiducials per tilt-angle varies importantly when using R4TR (Supplementary Figure S2, left-hand side panel), as on some tilt-images only a few gold beads have been tracked, especially for the high-tilt ones but also for some images collected at low tilt. Using GoldDigger (Supplementary Figure S2, center panel), much more beads are tracked, more consistently and even the high-tilt images possess several gold beads tracked. Using GoldDigger, there is almost always more than 40 beads tracked per tilt-image. Using ClusterAlign (Supplementary Figure S2, right-hand side panel), the number of beads tracked is quite constant throughout the tilt-series, which must be a characteristic of using gold bead clusters instead of individual gold beads. However, ClusterAlign does not track many gold beads after ±60°. Compared to the developers of ClusterAlign, the tilt schemes of our data collection always go beyond ±60° and often up to ±70°. Our hypothesis explaining why ClusterAlign has difficulties tracking gold bead clusters at such high tilt-angles is that the component of the cluster vectors in the direction perpendicular to the tilt-axis become very small at such high angles, which prevents accurate tracking and identification of the clusters.

The lengths of the fiducial chains were measured to better characterize step 4 of the GoldDigger workflow (Figure 3). Fiducial chain lengths of all datasets are available in Supplementary Figure S3. As can be observed by the shift to the right of the data distribution curve and of the mean line for each dataset, GoldDigger generated longer fiducial chains after merging of the fiducial chains compared to the initial chains tracked by R4TR (Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure S3). GoldDigger fiducial chains were on average 54 and 53% longer than initial R4TR ones (Table 2, default and fast settings, respectively). The fiducial initially detected with R4TR were often tracked on less than half the images constituting the tilt-series (Table 2, R4TR columns, red cells). As a reminder, each tilt-series was composed of between 41 and 45 images. This clearly demonstrates the difficulty in tracking gold beads in cryo-STET datasets and shows the amount of manual intervention one might need to perform to complete the fiducial tracking. Using the R4TR fast mode allowed to track fiducials on slightly more images than the R4TR default mode. After merging the fiducial chains, GoldDigger allowed to generate much longer chains which were often longer than 2/3 of the images of the tilt-series (Table 2, GoldDigger step 4 columns, green cells). These results show that the combination of GoldDigger steps 1, 3, and 4 allowed to tracked more fiducials, which once combined, were tracked on most images of the tilt-series. This allows alignment of cryo-STET tilt-series which otherwise would have needed manual intervention to pick additional fiducials, as it is the case for tilt-series TS Ec002, TS Ec005, and TS Ec007 for which very low number of fiducials were detected and tracked (Table 2 and Supplementary Figure S3). The following part of the alignment is carried out using standard methods (GoldDigger step 5, tiltalign).

Figure 3.

Characterization of gold beads chains. Comparison of the gold bead chain lengths on tilt-series TS 001 using the different fiducial tracking methods: R4TR, GoldDigger step 3 (before merging of the fiducial chains) and step 4 (after merging of the fiducial chains). For each method, the default and fast modes are presented. Each plot consists of three rows. In the first row, the colored curve represents the distribution of the data. In the second row, the boxplot ranges from the position of the 25% quantile to that of the 75% quantile and the thick vertical line corresponds to the mean value of the data. Finally, the third row contains colored dots representing each data point, using the same color as the data distribution in the first row.

Table 2.

Length of fiducial chains tracked using R4TR and GoldDigger methods

Note: The columns R4TR default and R4TR fast present the average length of fiducial chains detected using each mode of R4TR. The columns GoldDigger default/fast (before merge) and GoldDigger default/fast (after merge) present the average length of fiducial chains detected using GoldDigger at step 3 and step 4 of the workflow, respectively. The tilt-series number is indicated in the left-most column and the numbers between brackets represent the total number of tilt-angles. Cells are marked in red when on average the fiducials are tracked on less than half the images of the tilt-series. Cells are marked in green when on average the fiducials are tracked on more than 2/3 the images of the tilt-series.

To verify that merging the fiducial chains effectively performed better detection and tracking, the coordinates of the tracked fiducials were compared to the actual position of the corresponding gold beads. Only fiducials which were tracked by all methods were considered for the analysis to allow a side-by-side comparison of the methods. To present the tracking accuracy of each method, 30 fiducials were randomly selected per tilt-series (Supplementary Figure S4). The first eight fiducials of the cryo-STET dataset TS Ec001 are displayed below (Figure 4). From this small subset, it is visible that, even though not perfect, GoldDigger default and fast tracking methods (Figure 4, second and fourth rows, purple and green circles, respectively) are more accurate than the classic R4TR default and fast methods (Figure 4, first and third rows, orange and red circles, respectively), as the position of the fiducial more often corresponds to the actual center of the gold bead. The same assessment can be made after analyzing the positions of the 30 fiducials extracted from each tilt-series compared to the position of the underlying gold beads (Supplementary Figure S4).

Figure 4.

Comparison of the coordinates of eight fiducials of TS 001 as tracked by R4TR and GoldDigger, and the actual position of the underlying gold bead. Visual comparison of the accuracy of the different fiducial tracking methods (from top to bottom): R4TR default (orange circles), GoldDigger default (purple circles), RATR fast (red circles), and GoldDigger fast (green circles). The columns represent different gold beads.

3.1.5. Additional tests on more challenging data

The E. coli samples used so far were about 600 to 700 nm-thick cells, for which GoldDigger proved to be efficient, generating accurate picking of the gold beads. To test the robustness of GoldDigger even more, we applied it on T. brucei cryo-STET datasets which were collected for a previous study⁽Reference Trépout ^{2 )} (named TS Tb001 to TS Tb012 hereafter). These datasets previously had to be fully manually aligned because the alignment tools available at that time could not accurately pick and track the gold beads in such thick samples (up to 1.6 μm). Because of the cell thickness and the high luminosity and contrasts changes, these datasets are particularly challenging. In these tests, GoldDigger optional step 7 was systematically used as the set of gold beads detected in step 4 and used for alignment in step 5 contained too many outliers which compromised the alignment quality. Two rounds of removing outliers were then processed, which led to much better alignment. However, the alignment quality was still perfectible, as shown by the distorted shape of some gold beads in the 3D reconstruction (Supplementary Figure S5, dotted circles). For these datasets, we do not compare R4TR and GoldDigger as performed in the previous chapters as R4TR failed to pick enough gold beads to compute an alignment (data not shown).

After manual refinement of the gold bead coordinate file generated after step 7 of GoldDigger, we measured how many gold beads were manually deleted or added (Figure 5). For each TS Tb tilt-series, the number of gold beads picked in the GoldDigger-generated file, the number of gold beads after manual modification, and the number of added and deleted gold beads are reported. Each TS Tb tilt-series consists of about 70 images, meaning that 50 fully tracked gold beads would represent a number of 3500 picked gold beads. Values displayed in the first two columns can relate to that, considering that gold beads are rarely tracked on all images. The third column shows the number of added gold beads in positive values (Figure 5, purple histograms) and the number of deleted gold beads in negative values (Figure 5, yellow histograms). The number of added gold beads is often low, representing the equivalent of tracking one single gold bead throughout the whole tilt-series, except for TS Tb010 for which 151 new gold beads were added. Gold beads were added in particular at high tilts which often contained too few gold beads to accurately align the images. The number of deleted gold beads is noticeably higher than that of the added ones, however, deleting gold beads can be very quick as an entire gold bead chain can be deleted in a single click. Gold beads were deleted when their position was off, and entire gold bead tracks were deleted when the track path was obviously wrong. Compared to the total number of gold beads picked, the amount of manual work required to add and delete gold beads is significantly lower. This means that even on challenging tilt-series, GoldDigger can be used to generate a gold bead coordinate file which can be improved with minimal manual work, taking away the lengthy fully manual gold bead picking.

Figure 5.

Manual editing of the GoldDigger-detected gold bead coordinates on TS Tb tilt-series. For each TS Tb tilt-series, three histograms are plotted: (i) the number of gold beads picked by GoldDigger (gray), (ii) the number of gold beads after manual editing (pink), and (iii) a double histogram showing the number of added (purple) and deleted (yellow) gold beads. The number of added gold beads is reported in positive values whereas the number of deleted gold beads is displayed in negative values. The values next to each histogram represent the number of corresponding gold beads. Each tilt-series consists of about 70 images, meaning that 50 fully tracked gold beads would represent a number of 3500 picked gold beads.

To better demonstrate why manual refinement was necessary, 3D reconstruction slices were extracted from a couple of TS Tb datasets (Supplementary Figure S5). The strong reconstruction artifacts present in the 3D reconstructions computed with the raw GoldDigger fiducial coordinates (Supplementary Figure S5A,C, dotted circles) are better observed using a combination of XY, XZ, and YZ slices. After manual correction of the fiducial coordinates, the reconstruction artifacts are much less present if not totally absent (Supplementary Figure S5B,D).

3.2.1. Rationale and software overview

The design for a software such as Checkers comes from the lack of denoising tools for cryo-STET 3D reconstructions such as the deep-learning denoising software found for cryo-ET. Basic filtering can be performed using median or Gaussian 3D filters, Fourier band-pass filters, or more advanced non-anisotropic diffusion and edge-enhancing denoising filters,⁽Reference Moreno, Martínez-Sánchez, Martínez, Garzón and Fernández ^{30 )} but they do not achieve the same denoising quality as what can be achieved with CryoCARE.⁽Reference Buchholz, Jordan, Pigino and Jug ^{19 )} The main obstacle preventing from using CryoCARE on cryo-STET data is the absence of image pairs as available in cryo-ET. Generating the image pairs in cryo-STET is far from being trivial. First, because the data collection of a STEM image takes much longer than that of a transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image, the eventuality of a sample drift during the collection of the image pair would generate artifacts when processed with CryoCARE because the images of the pair would represent slightly different fields of view of the sample. The image pair could be aligned as it is performed with MotionCor2 in cryo-EM but this has some limitations as collecting two cryo-STEM images with reduced electron dose to prevent beam damage would generate low signal-to-noise ratio images, which will be deleterious for the whole downstream processing of the data. Last, an image pair might be created by splitting the dataset by odd-even tilt angles before reconstruction. However, this method has been shown to produce less fine detail and more reconstruction artifacts, both when compared to splitting by movie frames in cryo-ET (Tim-Oliver Buchholtz, Thesis, Figure 2.7)⁽Reference Buchholz ^{31 )} and when compared to splitting by pixels in cryo-STET.⁽Reference Donati, Nilchian, Trépout, Messaoudi, Marco and Unser ^{32 )} Because state-of-the-art denoising software do not exist for cryo-STET data, it creates an important bottleneck in the processing pipeline, reducing the quality and interpretability of 3D reconstructions, and preventing automatic segmentations, which in turn limits our understanding of the structural data.

The novelty of Checkers relies on the creation of an image pair from a single unique image. This is performed by splitting the image into two halves (even/odd pixel split) and then reconstructing the missing pixels in each half using inpainting. This strategy has been designed based on previous expertise with the collection of sparse images which are incomplete and can be reconstructed using different types of algorithms.⁽Reference Trépout ^{24 )} The computing steps performed in Checkers have been summarized in a diagram (Figure 6). As for GoldDigger, Checkers was developed on Linux and it uses a main bash script which calls four software (MATLAB, IMOD,⁽Reference Kremer, Mastronarde and McIntosh ^{14 )} Tomo3D,⁽Reference Agulleiro and Fernandez ^{33 )} and CryoCARE⁽Reference Buchholz, Jordan, Pigino and Jug ^{19 )}). To use Checkers, the installation of auxiliary software is compulsory. Checkers is executed by running a bash script (in the future it will also be present as a Python/Notebook script) and only requires a few input parameters from user parameters (final size of the 3D reconstruction, number of inpainting iterations, data path). The internal parameters of Checkers have been set to provide efficient denoising as tested on different data during development. Details about how to run Checkers can be found at https://github.com/CryoSTEM-tools/Checkers.

Figure 6.

Diagram of Checkers workflow. The whole workflow is performed by a bash script which calls several other software, indicated by their name in the diagram. The input data is the aligned tilt-series. The even/odd pixel split is performed in MATLAB and generates a tilt-series pair. Subsequent inpainting of the paired datasets is performed in MATLAB. Each inpainted dataset is then 3D reconstructed creating a pair of volumes. The volume pair is then inputted in CryoCARE which will extract the training dataset, train the network, and then denoise the data. Checkers output is a single volume with enhanced contrast and reduced noise.

3.2.2. From image to dual-frame movie

The input data of Checkers is an aligned tilt-series. Even though it has not been tested what the effect would be between using Checkers on unaligned data compared to aligned data, using aligned data makes the use of Checkers smoother. It allows the user to use the alignment software of their choice prior to using Checkers. The only requirement is to provide the input data in either mrc or tif format. Any other data format should first be converted into mrc or tif. To better keep track of the different computing steps performed in Checkers, a supplementary figure has been assembled to show the image content during the first two steps, which correspond to the novelty introduced with this software (Supplementary Figure S6). In MATLAB, each individual image of the tilt-series (Supplementary Figure S6, input) is split into two, pixel-wise (Figure 6, step 1). The pixels with even coordinates (2–2, 2–4, …,4–2, 4–4, etc.) are used to create a first new image, while the pixels with odd coordinates (1–1, 1–3, …, 3–1, 3–3, etc.) are used to generate a second new image (Supplementary Figure S6, split even/odd). Note that when splitting the pixels, only half of the pixels are used as one-fourth of the pixels are kept per even or odd image. During testing of the software, using all the pixels, i.e. keeping half of them per even or odd image produced inferior denoising of the data. The reason for this might be that using all the pixels ends up in generating even/odd pair images with such minor differences that efficient denoising with CryoCARE is not achieved. However, we did not investigate this effect further. After splitting the data, inpainting using discrete cosine transforms⁽Reference Garcia ^{34 ,} Reference Wang, Garcia, Liu, de Jeu and Johannes Dolman ^{35 )} is applied to reconstruct the missing pixels (Figure 6, step 2). The gaps introduced by the pixel splitting are filled after inpainting (Supplementary Figure S6, inpainting even/odd). The inpainting procedure performs smoothing of the data, the smoothing factor being iteratively refined when values are missing, as in sparse images. After processing all images of the tilt-series, a pair of new even/odd tilt-series is created and saved as tif files. Two 3D reconstructions are reconstructed using weighted back-projection (WBP) and CTF deconvolution in Tomo3D⁽Reference Agulleiro and Fernandez ^{33 ,} Reference Agulleiro and Fernandez ^{36 ,} Reference Tegunov and Cramer ^{37 )} (Figure 6, step 3). Alternatively, 3D reconstructions can be computed using IMOD, but doing so might result in different denoising results. After this step, the reconstructions are cropped to the dimensions defined by the user. This step is important as the reconstructions should not contain too much bright areas (e.g., empty Quantifoil hole) or too dark areas (e.g., electron-opaque structures) as this will prevent Cryo-CARE from performing accurate denoising. The final step consists of running the whole CryoCARE classic workflow (Figure 6, step 4). The CryoCARE parameters used in Checkers are the same as those found in version 0.3 of CryoCARE. The output of Checkers is the denoised volume with enhanced contrast.

3.2.3. Results

To assess the denoising and contrast improvement of Checkers, it has been tested on a T. brucei cryo-STET dataset TS Tb002. Information about data collection parameters and sub-cellular structures observed by cryo-STET in entire T. brucei cells have been detailed in a previous article.⁽Reference Trépout ^{2 )} In this previous article, the 3D reconstructions were computed using WBP and then filtered using edge-enhancing noise-reduction anisotropic diffusion filter (EED).⁽Reference Moreno, Martínez-Sánchez, Martínez, Garzón and Fernández ^{30 )} In the present work, several reconstruction and filtering methods are compared, including the one used in the original cryo-STET work⁽Reference Trépout ^{2 )} (Figure 7). Wider fields of view of the reconstructions are available in Supplementary Figure S7. All reconstructions were computed in Tomo3D (v2.2).

Figure 7.

Comparing the quality of data computed with various 3D reconstruction and filtering methods. The images show a single Z-slice (2 nm-thick) extracted from the 3D reconstructions (TS Tb002). More information about this cryo-STET dataset of a whole T. brucei cell can be found in a previous work.⁽Reference Trépout ^{2 )} (a) WBP reconstruction. (b) Median-filtered (3px wide, at the level of the tilt-series) WBP reconstruction. (c) Low-pass filtered (radius 0.15, sigma 0.05, at the level of the tilt-series) WBP reconstruction. (d) 10 SIRT iterations reconstruction. (e) 20 SIRT iterations reconstruction. (f) 30 SIRT iterations reconstruction. (g) WBP reconstruction filtered with 10 EED iterations. (h) WBP reconstruction filtered with 20 EED iterations. (i) WBP reconstruction filtered with 30 EED iterations. (j) Checkers reconstruction with 50 inpainting iterations. (k) Checkers reconstruction with 150 inpainting iterations. (l) Checkers reconstruction with 250 inpainting iterations. Scale bar is 400 nm. Note that the images presented in this figure are flipped compared to images of the same dataset presented in Figure 8 because of software having different image coordinate systems (top-left corner VS bottom-left corner).

The reconstructions show different visual contrast and texture: some structures are barely visible in some reconstructions, and strikingly visible in others. During WBP, CTF deconvolution was applied in Tomo3D using default parameters. The classic WBP is as expected the reconstruction which looks the noisiest (Figure 7a). The WBP volume was further filtered using median filtering (IMOD clip command 3 px) and low-pass filtering (IMOD mtfilter command radius 0.15, sigma 0.05). These two filters slightly removed the noise of the WBP reconstruction, increasing the contrast and allowing better visualization of microtubules (Figure 7b,c).

Reconstructions using the simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT) were also computed, using 10, 20, and 30 iterations (Figure 7d–f). In the SIRT reconstructions, the noise is less visible, but the pixels inside the reconstructions have a significant intensity ramp, which is dependent on the sample thickness. At the center of the T. brucei cell, the voxels are particularly dark, whereas around the cell where the ice is thinner, the voxels are brighter. This is a classic problem in SIRT reconstructions when sample thickness varies significantly. This ramp hampers the analysis of the 3D reconstructions, especially of the intracellular elements. When more SIRT iterations are computed the densities are less blurry, as can be seen by the increased visibility of the microtubule lumen (Figure 7d–f, inserts).

Three EED reconstructions were also computed using 10, 20, and 30 iterations (other parameters were set to default) for comparison purposes as they represent what was best achieved in 2020⁽Reference Trépout ^{2 )} (Figure 7g–i, respectively). The EED reconstructions are less noisy than the median or low-pass filtered WBP ones and they do not possess the ramp of the SIRT reconstructions. When more EED iterations were computed, the cellular structures became darker but bright pixels were also generated (Figure 7i, insert).

Finally, three Checkers reconstructions were computed using 50, 150, and 250 iterations of inpainting procedure (Figure 7j–l, respectively). Varying the number of inpainting iterations was to test the effect of the inpainting quality on that of the final 3D reconstruction, but little effect was observed. The Checkers reconstructions outperform any other type of reconstruction. They have much less noise, the cellular structures are much better defined and there is no ramp effect throughout the reconstruction.

In addition to analyzing the visual quality of the different reconstructions, numerical image quality descriptors were also computed to quantify the quality of the reconstructions. In the present study, there was no ground-truth reconstruction which could be used as a reference, thus image quality descriptors such as structure similarity index measurement or peak signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) could not be used. Instead, the SNR was computed on single images/reconstructions using a method⁽Reference Thong, Sim and Phang ^{38 )} previously used in the analysis of electron microscopy images. Instead of computing a single SNR value for the whole image as it is usually performed, it was measured on 50 × 50-pixel patches to better visualize the effect of each reconstruction and filtering method on the cellular structure themselves (Figure 8). As previously mentioned, the classical WBP reconstruction is noisy and this is confirmed by the low SNR values (Figure 8, first row). Median and low-pass filtering help to slightly increase the SNR values, but they still remain quite low. The SIRT reconstructions have strong contrast at the edge of the T. brucei cell, but inside the cell the contrast is very low (Figure 8, second row). This matches the dark areas previously observed inside the cell where cellular structures were barely visible (Figure 7d–f). The three EED reconstructions have high SNRs which increase with the number of computed iterations (Figure 8, third row). These high SNRs probably originate from the aberrant bright pixels generated during filtering, which presence was increased by the number of EED iterations (Figure 7g–i). The three Checkers reconstructions also have high SNR (Figure 8, fourth row), in agreement with the visual high quality of the images (Figure 7j–l). Varying the number of inpainting iterations had an effect on the SNR values, with the reconstruction computed with 150 iterations being the one with the highest SNR values. This analysis confirms that denoising with Checkers allows to substantially increase the SNR of 3D cryo-STET reconstructions and outperforming other existing methods, and greatly improving the visibility of the different cellular structures at the edge of the cells as well as deep inside them where the sample is the thickest.

Figure 8.

Comparing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of data computed with various 3D reconstruction and filtering methods. The heat-map images show the SNR computed on single Z-slices (2 nm-thick) located near the center of the 3D reconstructions. The color-coded SNR value is displayed for each 50 × 50-pixel patch constituting the full image. Next to each reconstruction method, the value given in between brackets corresponds to the average SNR value of all 50 × 50-pixel patches of the entire volume. From left to right and top to bottom the various methods are WBP, median-filtered WBP (3px wide, at the level of the tilt-series), low-pass filtered WBP (radius 0.15, sigma 0.05, at the level of the tilt-series), 10 SIRT iterations, 20 SIRT iterations, 30 SIRT iterations, WBP filtered with 10 EED iterations, WBP filtered with 20 EED iterations, WBP filtered with 30 EED iterations, Checkers with 50 inpainting iterations, Checkers with 150 inpainting iterations and Checkers with 250 inpainting iterations. The top-right gray-scale image is the central Z-slice of a Checkers reconstruction and shows the area on which SNR values were computed.