research papers
Anomalous SAXS at P12 beamline EMBL Hamburg: instrumentation and applications
aEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Hamburg Outstation c/o DESY, Notkestrasse 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany, bCenter for Data and Computing in Natural Science, University of Hamburg, Bundesstrasse 43, 20146 Hamburg, Germany, cNovartis, Novartis Campus, Fabrikstrasse 2, 4056 Basel, Switzerland, and dInstitute of Physical Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Grindelallee 117, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
*Correspondence e-mail: agruzinov@embl-hamburg.de, svergun@embl-hamburg.de
Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is an established method for studying nanostructured systems and in particular biological macromolecules in solution. To obtain element-specific information about the sample, anomalous SAXS (ASAXS) exploits changes of the scattering properties of selected atoms when the energy of the incident X-rays is close to the binding energy of their electrons. While ASAXS is widely applied to condensed matter and inorganic systems, its use for biological macromolecules is challenging because of the weak anomalous effect. Biological objects are often only available in small quantities and are prone to radiation damage, which makes biological ASAXS measurements very challenging. The BioSAXS beamline P12 operated by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) at the PETRA III storage ring (DESY, Hamburg) is dedicated to studies of weakly scattering objects. Here, recent developments at P12 allowing for ASAXS measurements are presented. The beamline control, data acquisition and data reduction pipeline of the beamline were adapted to conduct ASAXS experiments. Modelling tools were developed to compute ASAXS patterns from atomic models, which can be used to analyze the data and to help designing appropriate data collection strategies. These developments are illustrated with ASAXS experiments on different model systems performed at the P12 beamline.
Keywords: ASAXS; biological SAXS; metalloproteins; gold nanoparticles; anomalous scattering; beamline development.
1. Introduction
Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is a powerful method to study macromolecular solutions. SAXS is commonly used to probe the folding state, interactions and flexibility of proteins, structures of macromolecular complexes, and the structural responses to variation in external conditions, yielding low resolution information on the size and shape of the particles (Svergun et al., 2013; Schroer & Svergun, 2018). In a SAXS experiment, the sample is illuminated by a monochromatic X-ray beam and the scattered X-ray photons are collected as a function of the scattering angle as a two-dimensional image. Such two-dimensional images are typically isotropic and azimuthally averaged to obtain the intensity I versus s = , where λ is the wavelength of the incoming radiation of energy E and 2θ is the scattering angle. The resulting one-dimensional scattering pattern can then be analyzed to extract structural information on the sample at the nanometre scale.
At a fundamental level, the interaction of X-rays with the sample effects in Thomson scattering from electrons. The electrons excited by the incoming X-rays become a secondary source of electromagnetic waves and emit photons with the same energy as the incident ones. The radiation emitted by these secondary sources in turn interfere in a constructive way and an interference pattern is recorded that contains information about the electron density distribution in the sample. For a particle with known atomic structure one can calculate the isotropic SAXS intensity using the Debye formula (Debye, 1915),
where N is the number of atoms within the particle, fi and fj are the scattering amplitudes from the ith and jth atom, respectively, and rij is the Euclidian distance between these two atoms.
When the energy of the incoming X-rays is close to the binding energy of a core electron in an atom, the electron can be ejected, and an outer shell electron can fill the vacancy within the inner shell, emitting a fluorescence X-ray photon. As a consequence, the scattering amplitude of the resonant atom changes at the X-ray E, f(s, E), is expressed as
leading to changes of the resulting scattering pattern of the entire object. Anomalous SAXS (ASAXS) exploits these element-specific changes to gain information on the distribution of the resonant atoms within the sample. The X-ray scattering factor of an atom as a function of photon energyHere, f0(s) is the far from the and f′ and f′′ are the energy-specific correction terms, which become significant contributors to the atomic scattering amplitude if E is close to an X-ray of the atom (Fig. 1). These corrections are calculated from absorption or fluorescence measurements for a particular sample (Evans & Pettifer, 2001). If this is not possible, theoretical values for different atoms can be found in the literature (Cromer & Liberman, 1981; Cromer & Mann, 1968).
By collecting several SAXS patterns at different X-ray energies (wavelengths) close to the ), where the signal is amplified due to the repeating intermolecular distances within the crystal. Less frequent are ASAXS experiments on biological molecules due to the usually rather weak anomalous effect.
the differences in the scattering patterns arising from variations in the scattering factor of the resonant atom can be detected. Analysis of these differences provides information on the distribution of atoms of interest. is widely exploited in macromolecular crystallography for experimental phase determination (Hendrickson & Ogata, 1997Instead, ASAXS is employed for studying materials with high scattering contrast, such as alloys or glasses (Hoell et al., 2014; Tuaev et al., 2013; Tatchev et al., 2011). In particular, ASAXS was used to determine the nanostructure, spatial arrangement and the concentration of calcium in nanoparticles embedded in a silicate glass matrix (Hoell et al., 2014). The number of publications mentioning `ASAXS' are shown in Fig. S1 of the supporting information.
Pioneering ASAXS experiments on weakly scattering samples such as soft matter and biological macromolecules in solution at very high concentration were performed in the 1980s (Stuhrmann, 1980, 1981a,b; Miake-Lye et al., 1983). However, ASAXS on biological samples remains challenging due to multiple reasons: (i) these samples are largely composed of lightweight atoms without absorption edges in the hard X-ray regime, (ii) the SAXS signal is usually rather weak, the ASAXS signal even weaker, (iii) samples are often limited in quantity and (iv) are sensitive to radiation damage (Jeffries et al., 2015). These experimental limitations can explain the relatively few examples of biological ASAXS studies published over the last decades, while standard biological SAXS on macromolecules has been attracting a growing number of users (Schroer & Svergun, 2018).
Despite these challenges, ASAXS can be successfully applied to study systems with sufficient numbers of anomalous atoms. It was used, for example, to describe the counter-ion distribution around DNA and other biopolymers in solutions such as polyaspartic acid, chondroitin sulfate, hyaluronic acid (Pabit et al., 2010; Horkay et al., 2018) and micelles (Sztucki et al., 2011, 2012; Jusufi et al., 2012). ASAXS was also employed to characterize the core of micelles formed by bromine-containing block copolymers (Akiba et al., 2012). The ASAXS approach was used on platinum-containing hydrogels, where the contribution of the different components could be separated, and the size distribution of the platinum particles as well as the internal structure of the polymer complexes were obtained (Svergun et al., 2001). Other examples of biological ASAXS include the determination of the terbium ion distribution in centrifugally oriented acetylcholine receptor-enriched membranes (Lee et al., 2009) and the characterization of the ionic environment surrounding protein–spherical nucleic acid conjugates used in DNA-driven crystal engineering strategies (Krishnamoorthy et al., 2018). To utilize the effect, nanoparticle labelling can be employed to determine intramolecular distances with relatively good precision without significantly altering the structure of the molecule under investigation (Zettl et al., 2016).
Several examples of distance determination within a biological macromolecule using only a few resonant atoms have been reported (Stuhrmann & Notbohm, 1981; Meisburger et al., 2015; Makowski, 2010). However, to cope with the weak anomalous signal protein concentrations up to 350 mg ml−1 were utilized, two orders of magnitude higher than those employed in standard biological SAXS measurements.
ASAXS is often performed around the absorption edges of metals due to the accessibility of these energies on the modern synchrotron sources and can be interesting for the study of large metalloproteins complexes. Metals play an important role in biochemistry, in particular in catalysis. In vitro metal ions bind to the protein sites based on the Irving–Williams series, suggesting that the metal–protein complexes' stability decreases, depending on which ion is introduced (Irving & Williams, 1953). The relative abundance of the inorganic elements generally present in enzymes is depicted in Fig. S2 of the supporting information. Here, magnesium is the most abundant metal but its of 1.3 keV is below the available range on most of the SAXS beamlines. Moreover, this would require extremely thin sample capillary wall thicknesses to reduce the X-ray absorption to an acceptable level.
Another application of metals in biochemistry is, for example, the usage of large molecules such as apoferritin as containers for metal binding, uptake and further delivery into the cell. Apoferritin can store about 4500 iron atoms in Fe3+ state as a mineral. Giving its storage properties, ferritin is utilized as potential drug nanocarrier (Wang et al., 2019) and as a nanocage for growing small monodisperse nanoparticles (Kasyutich et al., 2010). Such nanocontainers can be produced in large quantities and have a high number of metal atoms inside, making them suitable for ASAXS to gain insights into these medically important objects.
To measure the unique structural information provided by ASAXS on biologically relevant solutions, including also pharmaceutical molecules, the aforementioned limitations of this technique need to be adequately addressed. Here, we describe the effort to develop a reliable ASAXS environment at the P12 BioSAXS beamline. This work capitalizes on the energy tunability of the beamline and its merits for the data collection of biological samples including low instrumental background, beam stability, automated
and data processing. Procedures to reliably collect scattering data at different energies close to the were developed together with data analysis algorithms allowing to correct for and to extract the anomalous signal. A number of tools were developed for (i) computation of the ASAXS signal from atomic models (existing or expected), (ii) facilitating the design of the actual experiment and (iii) data analysis. The full workflow to perform ASAXS experiments at P12 is described here. Its application is further illustrated with the experiments and analysis on several test samples containing different anomalously scattering atoms.2. The ASAXS experiment
2.1. SAXS data collection at the P12 beamline
The P12 beamline operated by the EMBL and located at the PETRA III storage ring (DESY, Hamburg, Germany) is dedicated to, and optimized for, biological SAXS. The instrumental background is reduced by using scatterless slits and an in-vacuum flow-through capillary, allowing to collect the weak scattering signal of proteins in solution (Blanchet, Spilotros et al., 2015). Scattered photons are collected on a hybrid photon-counting Pilatus 6M detector (DECTRIS, Villigen, Switzerland) (Broennimann et al., 2006). Different sample-to-detector distances (from 1.6 to 6 m) can be used to cover different ranges of scattering angles. The transmitted beam intensity is measured by a diode mounted in the beamstop (Blanchet, Hermes et al., 2015) and used to normalize the scattering pattern.
An automatic sample changer (Round et al., 2015) allows sample loading to the measurement cell, flow the sample in the cell during exposure, and clean and dry the cell in between measurements (Graewert et al., 2015; Hajizadeh et al., 2018). The SAXS data analysis pipeline SASFLOW generates a table with the main SAXS-derived structural parameters such as overall shape and characteristic size, i.e. Rg and maximal shape size Dmax, volume and molecular weight, as well as three-dimensional low resolution bead models within minutes after data collection (Franke et al., 2012).
Samples are generally measured in between two corresponding buffers such that the background scattering can be accurately determined and subtracted from the scattering of the sample to isolate the contribution of the pure solute. Scattering from the empty capillary and pure water is collected for absolute calibration of the beamline intensity, or, alternatively, a protein sample of known molecular weight and concentration is collected for the relative calibration. In addition, for ASAXS data collection, an additional sample is typically measured which does not contain the anomalously scattering atoms. This way the impact of a possible change in the beamline background after energy adjustment can be evaluated and ensured that no bias is introduced by these changes for the ASAXS data analysis.
2.2. Energy adjustment
Anomalous SAXS involves repetitive measurements at different energies close to the f(s, E) of the resonant atoms varies mostly within a few eV at the and ASAXS requires accurate selection of the incoming X-ray energy. P12 is equipped with a double-crystal monochromator (DCM) with Si(111) crystals, which allows for energy selections between 4000 and 20000 eV (λ = 0.06–0.3 nm) (Blanchet, Spilotros et al., 2015). Si(111) crystals offer energy resolution (Δλ/λ) of 10−4, which is sufficient for typical ASAXS measurements (Sztucki et al., 2010).
of the resonant atom. The scattering amplitudeThe calibration of the monochromator and the adjustment of the energy are implemented in a set of Python scripts accessible through the beamline graphical user interface (Hajizadeh et al., 2018) (see details in Section S3).
A list of chemical elements with absorption edges between 3500 and 20000 eV is presented in Table 1 of Section S4 of the supporting information. Absorption edges in the range 6000–20000 eV can be utilized at the P12 beamline. The lower part of the monochromator energy spectrum is not fully accessible due to absorption by a safety vacuum window and the sample cell.
2.3. Experimental parameters
2.3.1. Data collection
Two alternative approaches can be employed for ASAXS data collection. In the first approach, the sample flows through the cell while the different beam energies are set and multiple SAXS patterns are collected. This mode of measurement is rather fast, and allows to collect SAXS patterns at 20 different energies within 3 min. This approach is, however, limited to radiation-resistant samples or may be utilized for fast initial assessments.
For radiation-sensitive solutes another method of measurement is needed, where fresh samples are loaded for each energy. In practice, the beamline is set at the first energy, samples, buffer, and potential additional standard sample are measured, then this procedure is repeated for each energy. The best data collection procedure is chosen on a case-to-case basis. The samples can be measured first in the fast mode with 15–20 energy points to help select the most suitable energies, that will be used for the second mode of data collection.
In the present study, all samples were measured in a flow-through capillary of 0.9 mm diameter (Schroer et al., 2018) using a robotic sample changer and a sample-to-detector distance of 3.1 m. The intensity of the incoming beam has been estimated by measuring the scattering from a thin foil positioned on the beam path upstream of the sample cell and the intensity of the transmitted beam by the active beamstop (Blanchet, Hermes et al., 2015). These two intensities are later used to obtain the absorption spectra.
The fluorescence signal at and above the edge is isotropic and results in a background increase in the SAXS image. By estimating the background change in the SAXS data, fluorescence spectra can be determined (see automatic fluorescence constant detection described in Section S5 of the supporting information). Absorption or fluorescence spectra can be used for the calculation of experimental values of anomalous corrections f′ and f′′ using the program CHOOCH (Evans & Pettifer, 2001).
To calibrate the collected data frames, empty capillary, water and protein solutions without anomalous atoms (using for example bovine serum albumin or lysozyme) are measured at each energy. Specifically developed ASAXS Python scripts running within the BECQUEREL beamline control software (Hajizadeh et al., 2018) allow the beamline users to queue measurements of the samples and standards for all energies so that the data collection can run in a fully automated mode.
2.3.2. Sample preparation
Tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (TTAB) powder was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (product number T4762). Solutions were prepared at concentrations above the TTAB M, using MilliQ water (Millipore, Massachusetts, USA). Energies near the bromine K-edge (13474 eV) were used. Measurements were made in the fast mode, i.e. using continuous flow of the solution in the capillary with simultaneous change of energy during data collection.
(c.m.c.) of 50 mNanoparticles with 10 nm average diameter gold core, covered with silica, were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich and used as is (product number 747564, with reported 9–12 nm core diameter and 18–22 nm silica shell thickness). In addition, gold nanoparticles of radius R = 4.1 nm with a low size polydispersity (ΔR/R = 11%) coated with α-methoxypoly(ethylene glycol)-ω-(11-mercaptoundecanoate) (PEGMUA) ligands of two molecular weights (2 kDa, 5 kDa) were synthesized according to the procedure described by Schulz et al. (2013, 2016). Concentration series made from both types of sample systems show no aggregation. The gold nanoparticle solutions were measured at energies close to the LIII of gold (11919 eV).
2.4. ASAXS data reduction and analysis
2.4.1. Initial data reduction
The calibration of the angular axis was made by the powder diffraction pattern of silver behenate measured at a defined energy (for example at the edge of the element of interest). For each energy, the angular scale was appropriately adjusted to take into account the change in the wavelength, and the recorded intensities of the SAXS signal were scaled according to the procedure described by Zettl et al. (2016). Initial data reduction including the s-range adjustment and normalization to the transmitted beam for absolute intensity at each energy was incorporated into the SASFLOW pipeline used routinely at the P12 beamline (Franke et al., 2012).
2.4.2. Fluorescence background correction
In conventional SAXS, the scattering form factor of the solute is obtained by subtracting the SAXS pattern collected on the buffer from the data collected on the sample, thus subtracting the contribution from the buffer surrounding the solute and also the instrument background, e.g. the scattering from the measurement cell. In the case of anomalous SAXS, at the energies close to and above the fluorescence photons are produced resulting in a constant offset in the SAXS curves. The fluorescence contribution can be difficult to evaluate and sometimes impossible to accurately subtract as it comes from the anomalously scattering atoms in the sample, which are not necessarily present in the buffer. Reliable fluorescence correction can be made by using a fluorescence detector built into the measurement setup. Data analysis should be processed only after fluorescence correction of the initial data.
Fluorescence contributes to the integrated scattering curves as the constant uniform energy-dependent background that usually manifests in `undersubtraction' in resulting buffer-subtracted scattering curves [Fig. 2(a)]. Due to the intrinsic resolution limit of the monochromator (typically several eV), a constant term correction, which includes mainly fluorescence and Raman scattering, has to be taken into account when considering the data not only above the but already starting from energies slightly below the Generally speaking, such a constant contribution accounts for the angle-independent fluctuation scattering, resonant Raman scattering and fluorescence effects.
Optional automatic estimation of the constant energy-dependent shift of the scattering intensity in buffer-subtracted scattering curves due to the onset of the fluorescence was implemented in the data processing pipeline for a rapid assessment of the data quality of the data.
As can be seen in Fig. 2(b), the constant term is close to zero at some energies (e.g. at 13440 eV). In the vicinity of the abortion edge [dashed red line in Fig. 2(b)] the constant is much larger mainly due to the onset of fluorescence. Such an approximate estimate of fluorescence contribution should be used with caution; however, it allows one to quickly assess the position of the of the element under investigation solely from the buffer-subtracted scattering curves. Details of the automatic fluorescence constant background estimation can be found in Section S5.
2.5. ASAXS data analysis
2.5.1. ASAXS decomposition
The SAXS intensity at energy E over the range of scatting vector s reads as (Stuhrmann, 1980, 1981b)
where F0 2(s) is the non-resonant scattering intensity far from the v0 2(s) the intensity from the spatial distribution of anomalous atoms, and F0(s)v0(s) is the cross-term represented as a product of non-resonant and amplitudes. While F0 2(s) corresponds to the Fourier transform of scattering length density, and thus the electron density contribution from the entire particle, v0 2(s) is related solely to the length density and reflects the distribution of the anomalously scattering atoms. For ASAXS experiments, SAXS curves are collected at different energies close to the respective where the variation of f′ and f′′ are large, such that the non-resonant, resonant and cross term intensity can be determined.
If at least three energy measurements are performed, the system of linear equations (3) can be solved (Sztucki et al., 2012) to extract the intensity term v0 2(s). Further energy points can be measured to provide more stable results of this decomposition. A recent approach was developed to analyze ASAXS from two-phase alloys which discusses more thoroughly the problem of ill-posed systems of linear equations (Goerigk, 2018).
The contribution f′ has a jump at the edge, while f′′ before and after the changes weakly and monotonically with the energy (cf. Fig. 1). Therefore, another approach is to neglect f′′ in equation (3) and use only the energies below the A quadratic approximation for the dependence of I(E, f′) at different energies and fixed s yields to
where the coefficients are equal to the corresponding scattering parts of decomposition: a = v0 2(s), b = F0(s)v0(s), c = F0 2(s) (Ballauff & Jusufi, 2006).
The matrix decomposition method (3) has the advantage of using all measured energies whereas the parabola method (4) only exploits energies below the Additionally, equation (4) is only usable near and below K-edges. Only in those cases is f′′ close to zero. At LIII edges, f′′ cannot be neglected.
2.5.2. Impact of the on the apparent radius of gyration
The single particle intensity after spherical averaging can be expressed using the Guinier approximation for small s as
where Rg is the of the particle and I(0) is the Rg depends on the electron density distribution within the particle – it is related to the shape and provides an indication of the particle compactness. Rg can also be assessed from the particle distance distribution function p(r) as
The function p(r) is the distribution of distances between volume elements inside the particle weighted by their excess scattering densities and it is related to the scattering intensity I(s) by an inverse Fourier transform,
Generally, Rg of a solid sphere is smaller than that of a spherical shell with the same outer radius because of a reduced contribution of smaller intraparticle distances in the latter case. In the case of the scattering length density of the anomalous atoms decreases at their absorption edges, thus decreasing the contribution of these atoms to the scattering pattern and to the corresponding distance distribution. When the anomalous atoms are distributed mostly at the periphery of the particle, their distances from the origin are on average larger. At the edge, with the decrease of contribution from these larger distances, the apparent Rg decreases. When the anomalous atoms are distributed in the core, then the relative contribution of smaller distances will be smaller and the apparent will increase. Therefore, plotting the computed Rg versus the X-ray energy yields an immediate information on the overall distribution of the anomalous atoms within the particle.
3. ASAXS curves computation
3.1. Core-shell spherical model
The solution SAXS profiles of macromolecules with known atomic structure can be computed and used to fit to experimental data using the program CRYSOL from the ATSAS package (Svergun et al., 1995). CRYSOL utilizes spherical harmonics, which significantly reduces the calculation time compared with the Debye formula.
In the CRYSOL, anomalous correction factors f′ and f′′ that were calculated using the approach described by Cromer & Liberman (1970, 1981) are added to the absorbing atom's X-ray scattering form factor as described by equation (2). For more details of the method implementation, refer to Manalastas-Cantos et al. (2021).
mode ofComputation of packmol software based on the concept of packing optimization such that each type molecule must satisfy spatial constraints and the distance between atoms of different molecules must be greater than some specified tolerance (Martínez et al., 2009).
curves from atomic structure and the decomposition procedures were first tested using a simple model. Scattering curves were computed from artificially constructed spheres with gold core and silica shell. These spheres were generated using theThe sphere was modelled as a gold core with a radius of 5 nm and a 37 nm-thick silica shell. Based on the allocated volume, 36928 gold atoms (hexagonal packing) were used for the core and 4665627 silica molecules for the shell with a total number of 1.4 × 107 atoms. The model PDB file was used by CRYSOL to compute the scattering curves at the energies of 11000, 11500, 11700, 11800, 11850, 11900, 11919 (edge), 11925, 11950, 12050 and 12100 eV.
Energies below the (a). The gyration radii Rg around the of gold are shown in Fig. 3(b). The intensity (anomalous term) reflects the scattering from a sphere with radius of 5 nm which is in perfect agreement with the core size of the model.
were selected to estimate the anomalous contribution from the matrix decomposition method. The resulting scattering curves and the variation are shown in Fig. 3Rg appears to have a maximum at the (ΔRg = Redge − Rfar = 0.123 nm). This is explained by the decrease of the small distances' contribution by anomalous gold at the Contrast of the gold core decreases in the vicinity of the [Fig. 3(c)]. The increase of the apparent Rg in the vicinity of the reveals that the anomalous atoms are distributed inside the gold core as described in Section 2.5.2.
3.2. Computation of ASAXS curves from atomic structures
ASAXS on biological macromolecules is notoriously difficult due to the weak anomalous signal and possible radiation damage. To have a better idea of the applicability of ASAXS, theoretical anomalous effects have been computed from high-resolution models from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) (https://www.rcsb.org/). A screening was first conducted to identify entries containing atoms whose absorption edges can be accessible for X-ray experiments (e.g. iron, cobalt, zinc, gold etc.). These entries were selected using the freely available pypdb toolkit (Gilpin, 2015). About 30% of all PDB entries contain elements whose can be accessed on the P12 beamline (a full summary is available in Table 2 in Section S6).
In order to estimate the CRYSOL to compute SAXS curves with and without anomalous corrections. The computed curve with the maximum anomalous effect (i.e. at the absorption edge) was divided by the one without the effect to determine the percentage of the ASAXS signal at the as a function of s.
effects, we have screened the PDB for the number of metal ions and used an empiric approach. For each metal ion, we usedGold atoms were used for a first example. Due to the limited number of entries (107) this example allows for a rapid computation and overview of the statistical results (Fig. 4). For each protein, the angular position where the difference between energies at and off the resonance is maximal was determined.
Fig. 4(a) shows the distribution of the number of gold atoms in gold-containing PDB structures. The majority of gold-containing high-resolution structures contain less than ten gold atoms. After computing the ratio of the scattering curves at and far from the resonance energy, the intensity variation and the position of the maximum variation can be determined [Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)]. The difference was distributed in two parts: one is up to 4 nm−1, i.e. within a typical range of SAXS measurements, and the wide-angle part [Fig. 4(b)]. The contribution of the anomalous atoms produces the average percentage of intensity difference of around 10% [Fig. 4(c)]. This emphasizes the need of reliable intensity correction and low background of the instrument to obtain measurable differences in the scattering curves. Fig. 4(d) demonstrates that the maximum intensity difference versus percentage of the anomalous atoms increases linearly in the beginning, but tends to show saturation for larger numbers of gold atoms in the structure.
The same approach was used with zinc- and iron-containing PDB files (16125 and 9226 entries, respectively), that are among the most abundant atoms with the edges accessible at the P12 beamline. The zinc- and iron-containing structures show the same trend as for gold atoms (Fig. 5). Interestingly, the main difference in the scattering intensity is located between 2 and 5 nm−1 for both cases, which is a typical SAXS range measured on many SAXS instruments. Most of the iron-containing structures displayed the largest differences at the very small angles (up to 0.5 nm−1).
In order to estimate the sample concentration required to detect the anomalous signals, data were simulated using CRYSOL and IMSIM (Franke et al., 2020). Fig. 6 displays theoretical ASAXS patterns computed from calcium-liganded parvalbumin (Miake-Lye et al., 1983) (PDB: 4cpv) where terbium atoms (absorption edge 7514 eV) were introduced in place of two calcium atoms (two atoms with about 1.2 nm separation in the structure). The difference curves were obtained by subtracting the scattering signal at the from one far from the The scattering signal from proteins at different concentrations as well as the buffer signal was modelled using program IMSIM. One can see that the actual difference in scattering intensity stays rather small even for a protein concentration of 10 mg ml−1.
Based on an absolute intensity estimation from a typical 12 photons s−1 and 1 s exposure time for a parvalbumin solution with molecular weight of 11.8 kDa enriched with two terbium atoms, one needs to have an approximately 10 mg ml−1 solution of protein to be able to reliably distinguish anomalous signal in real experimental settings. In the original study (Miake-Lye et al., 1983) the estimated concentration of the protein of approximately 350 mg ml−1 was used.
of 5 × 10The utilized combination of CRYSOL and IMSIM allows for a rapid assessment of the expected anomalous effect from macromolecular solution. This procedure may be helpful to optimize the experimental parameters for data collection such as exposure time, sample concentration and angular range.
4. Experimental data
4.1. Tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (TTAB)
Tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (TTAB) is a cationic et al., 2012; Sztucki et al., 2011) and is used here as a standard to evaluate the possibilities of the P12 beamline. The measurements were made using simultaneous energy changes and sample flow through the capillary with an overall sample–buffer measurement time of 3 min in total. An X-ray was used to determine the anomalous factors for this sample (Fig. 7).
which assembles into micelles. The positive charges of the trimethylammonium heads are screened by bromine ions. Conducting ASAXS at the bromine edge allows one to study the counter ion distribution around the micelles. This system has been measured on other SAXS instruments (JusufiThe measured ASAXS curves were decomposed into energy-independent SAXS terms using equation (3). The resulting anomalous signals were averaged to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Although it is reported that 50 mM TTAB has a significant the anomalous effect in the is weak compared with that in the form factor (Sztucki et al., 2012). High concentrated samples of 50 mM (17 mg ml−1) were used to obtain better statistics for the decomposition procedure.
The anomalous and non-anomalous components of the TTAB-Br micelles scattering computed using the matrix decomposition method are shown in Fig. 8(a); the pair distance distribution function of the anomalous component is typical for a hollow particle displaying a broad peak around 3.6 nm and with maximum size of 6.2 nm. These values are in good agreement with the radius of the shell, 3.1 nm, determined by Sztucki et al. (2010) based on a direct fitting of the data with the form factor of a hollow sphere. The pair distance distribution function of the non-anomalous component is typical for a particle with different contrasts with respect to the outer solution; hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails of molecules are self-organizing to micelles (Svergun et al., 1995).
For this sample the scattering density of the core (formed by the surfactant) is lower than that of the solvent (water), while the scattering density of the bromine atom moiety is higher than that of water. As a consequence, the measured SAXS curves have a characteristic downturn at smaller scattering angles (which normally points to repulsive interparticle structure factors but in this particular case it is caused by the particular scattering length distribution within the particle). Therefore, for this system, a straightforward use of the Guinier approximation would not have been possible.
Overall, TTAB micelles show a well pronounced
effect corresponding to the bromine ion cloud surrounding the particles. The contribution can be reliably extracted from the series of measurements at different energies and reveals a specific condensation of counter-ions onto the micelle surface.4.2. Gold nanoparticles coated with silica
Gold has a strong scattering contrast in comparison with biological macromolecules and can be used for an illustrative ASAXS example of a core-shell sample. Spherical nanoparticles with a gold core and silica shell were measured at 13 energies from 11000 eV to 12000 eV in the vicinity of the LIII of gold (11919 eV). Fig. 9(a) shows the scattering patterns of the nanoparticles at four selected energies below the The anomalous effect in the scattering patterns is noticeable at a relatively large energy offset from (500 eV).
Fig. 9(b) displays an increase in the apparent Rg at the confirming that gold atoms are located in the particle core. The Rg increase (about 0.29 nm) is very small but clearly detectable and consistent with the expected results from the modelling (see Section 4.1).
4.3. Gold nanoparticles coated with PEG
As another test example, we studied gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) covered with polyethylene glycol (PEG) ligands. In contrast to the previous example, the electron density difference of the organic shell to water is 40 e− nm−3, even weaker than that for proteins in solution (about 90 e− nm−3).
The use of such mixed layers including PEG-based ligands for the functionalization of nanoparticles is a very popular strategy in the context of nanomedicine for improving or enabling various technological or medical applications of nanoparticles. Numerous studies were performed aiming at a detailed understanding of the involved surface chemistry (Kamaly et al., 2012; Suk et al., 2016; Jokerst et al., 2011). The analysis of the organization of the outer PEG layer and PEG layers with introduced molecular modifications by adding ligands to achieve functionality of nanomaterials is therefore of significant practical importance.
It was demonstrated that the thickness of the ligand layer cannot be determined from form factor measurements, because the ligand does not contribute sufficiently to the scattering signal due to its low scattering contrast. It can, however, be obtained by analyzing the SAXS data from concentrated solutions with a sticky hard sphere model, which allows one to indirectly determine the ligand layer size (Schroer et al., 2016; Schulz et al., 2018). The study of the shell at diluted conditions is, however, not possible using this approach. Here, ASAXS was used to determine the difference in the non-resonant (sensitive to gold core and PEGMUA ligand) and the resonant (only sensitive to the gold core) terms. For this, nanoparticles with two different PEGMUA lengths (Mw = 2 kDa; 5 kDa) were studied and the results are presented below.
4.3.1. 2 kDa PEGMUA covered gold nanoparticles
Fig. 10 displays the SAXS curves of AuNPs coated with PEGMUA (2 kDa) at different X-ray energies close to the gold edge. The presence of characteristic minima of the particle form factor reflects a low dispersity of the gold core (R = 4.1 nm; ΔR/R = 11%). The variations upon energy change are rather weak, but the analysis reveals a small yet systematic increase of Rg in the vicinity of the [Fig. 10(b)]. This finding is consistent with the fact that the anomalous gold atoms are forming a gold core, and, more importantly, that the PEGMUA shell does provide a contribution to the scattering signal (for a pure gold core, no such increase would have been observed).
The analysis was performed using the matrix decomposition method on the collected scattering curves in the vicinity of the (c) and the computed p(r) functions do indeed show a difference between the non-resonant and the resonant parts [Fig. 10(d)]. The resonant term, corresponding to the gold core, gives a smaller diameter (Dmax = 10 nm) than the non-resonant term yielding Dmax = 12.5 nm.
The decomposed ASAXS curves are shown in Fig. 104.3.2. 5 kDa PEGMUA covered gold nanoparticles
Even more pronounced changes are obtained for the 5 kDa PEGMUA shell [Fig. 11(a)]. The Rg increase is somewhat more significant in the vicinity of the [Fig. 11(b)] compared with that observed for 2 kDa. For both samples the Rg changes are rather small [ΔRg (2 kDa) = 0.015 nm and ΔRg (5 kDa) = 0.03 nm], but still experimentally detectable.
The decomposed curves for the 5 kDa PEGMUA ligand are displayed in Fig. 11(c). The corresponding pair distance distribution functions p(r) of the non-resonant and resonant term [Fig. 11(d)] reflect a more pronounced ligand layer compared with 2 kDa PEGMUA, as expected for a longer PEGMUA chain.
The computed pair-distance distribution functions p(r) for both samples are compared in Fig. 12. The dotted lines represent the p(r) for the anomalous part (gold core), the solid lines correspond to the non-anomalous scattering from all atoms in the sample far from the (red for 2 kDa PEGMUA and blue for 5 kDa PEGMUA coated gold with approximately the same size of gold core).
The maximum of the p(r) is at the same position for all curves reflecting the effective gold core radius of 4.5 nm (resulting from the limited size polydispersity). The maximum dimension of the anomalous curves is around 9 nm, which reflects the gold core diameter. The diameters of the AuNPs are 12.5 nm for the 2 kDa PEG sample and 17 nm for the 5 kDa PEG sample.
The overall shapes of the p(r) functions are rather similar as expected. Differences in the p(r) are seen in the maximum size of the particle Dmax where p(r) tends to zero starting from 10 nm for both cases [Figs. 10(c) and 11(c)]. Those differences are less pronounced for 2 kDa PEG-covered nanoparticles and more noticeable for 5 kDa PEG-covered nanoparticles. Therefore, one can check the variation in Dmax using a statistical approach (Section S7). It is shown that variation of Dmax due to the intensity variations of the initial scattering curves and obtained anomalous and non-anomalous contributions is smaller than its absolute values.
Although the PEGMUA ligands are in a dense brush configuration (Schulz et al., 2018), they do not form a solid shell but the AuNPs' curvature results in a decreasing PEG segment density protruding away from the gold surface. Thus, the difference in Dmax does not directly correspond to the ligand shell thickness.
Overall, our results demonstrate the possibilities of ASAXS to visualize the contribution of the ligand shell at dilute conditions even for weakly scattering ligands and without assuming any specific structural model. Because the scattering of the ligand shell depends on its density and can be modified, for example, by interactions with cations/salts and/or proteins (Kewalramani et al., 2013; Spinozzi et al., 2017), this has potential for the in situ characterization of nanoparticle–matrix interactions.
5. Conclusion
The ASAXS technique was established at the P12 BioSAXS beamline (EMBL, Hamburg) and made available in the frame of the user access program. The relevant procedures and options were incorporated into the beamline control software and the data processing pipeline allowing the preliminary results to be rapidly and automatically calculated and immediately provided to the users.
Several model systems including silica-covered gold nanoparticles and micelles with bromine counter ions were studied with ASAXS to verify and demonstrate the capabilities of the setup. The functionalized nanoparticles are shown to be a suitable model system for the a priori model for data interpretation. The ASAXS option is demonstrated to be a useful tool for further characterization of functionalized nanomaterials for medical, pharmaceutical, and biological applications, offering also advanced possibilities to study biological samples.
experiments. Using ASAXS, one can determine the structural organization of the outer PEG layer of the particles without assuming an6. Related literature
The following references, not cited in the main body of the paper, have been cited in the supporting information: Kikhney et al. (2020); Schöps et al. (2016); Tischer et al. (2007); Waldron et al. (2009); Walker (1996).
Supporting information
Supporting information file. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577521003404/ju5023sup1.pdf
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to, Dr M. Graewert, Dr H. Mertens, and Dr C. Jeffries for discussions and fruitful suggestions as well as Dr S. Fiedler, U. Ristau, D. Schacherer and the EMBL Hamburg Instrumentation group for support. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Funding information
The following funding is acknowledged: DFG grant Nanodrug (GZ: SV 9/5-1); Roentgen-Angstroem Cluster project TT-SAS (BMBF project number 05K16YEA).
References
Akiba, I., Takechi, A., Sakou, M., Handa, M., Shinohara, Y., Amemiya, Y., Yagi, N. & Sakurai, K. (2012). Macromolecules, 45, 6150–6157. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ballauff, M. & Jusufi, A. (2006). Colloid Polym. Sci. 284, 1303–1311. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Blanchet, C. E., Hermes, C., Svergun, D. I. & Fiedler, S. (2015). J. Synchrotron Rad. 22, 461–464. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Blanchet, C. E., Spilotros, A., Schwemmer, F., Graewert, M. A., Kikhney, A., Jeffries, C. M., Franke, D., Mark, D., Zengerle, R., Cipriani, F., Fiedler, S., Roessle, M. & Svergun, D. I. (2015). J. Appl. Cryst. 48, 431–443. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Broennimann, Ch., Eikenberry, E. F., Henrich, B., Horisberger, R., Huelsen, G., Pohl, E., Schmitt, B., Schulze-Briese, C., Suzuki, M., Tomizaki, T., Toyokawa, H. & Wagner, A. (2006). J. Synchrotron Rad. 13, 120–130. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cromer, D. T. & Liberman, D. (1970). J. Chem. Phys. 53, 1891–1898. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Cromer, D. T. & Liberman, D. A. (1981). Acta Cryst. A37, 267–268. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Cromer, D. T. & Mann, J. B. (1968). Acta Cryst. A24, 321–324. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Debye, P. (1915). Ann. Phys. 351, 809–823. CrossRef Google Scholar
Evans, G. & Pettifer, R. F. (2001). J. Appl. Cryst. 34, 82–86. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Franke, D., Hajizadeh, N. R. & Svergun, D. I. (2020). J Appl. Cryst. 53, 536–539. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Franke, D., Kikhney, A. G. & Svergun, D. I. (2012). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 689, 52–59. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Gilpin, W. (2015). Bioinformatics, 32, btv543. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Goerigk, G. J. (2018). Adv. Linear Algebr. Matrix Theory. 08, 64–86. CrossRef Google Scholar
Graewert, M. A., Franke, D., Jeffries, C. M., Blanchet, C. E., Ruskule, D., Kuhle, K., Flieger, A., Schäfer, B., Tartsch, B., Meijers, R. & Svergun, D. I. (2015). Sci. Rep. 5, 10734. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Hajizadeh, N. R., Franke, D. & Svergun, D. I. (2018). J. Synchrotron Rad. 25, 906–914. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Hendrickson, W. A. & Ogata, C. M. (1997). Methods Enzymol. 276, 494–523. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Hoell, A., Varga, Z., Raghuwanshi, V. S., Krumrey, M., Bocker, C. & Rüssel, C. (2014). J. Appl. Cryst. 47, 60–66. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Horkay, F., Basser, P. J., Hecht, A. & Geissler, E. (2018). J. Chem. Phys. 149, 163312. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Irving, H. & Williams, R. J. P. (1953). J. Chem. Soc. 1953, 3192–3210. CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
Jeffries, C. M., Graewert, M. A., Svergun, D. I. & Blanchet, C. E. (2015). J. Synchrotron Rad. 22, 273–279. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Jokerst, J. V., Lobovkina, T., Zare, R. N. & Gambhir, S. S. (2011). Nanomedicine, 6, 715–728. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jusufi, A., Kohlmeyer, A., Sztucki, M., Narayanan, T. & Ballauff, M. (2012). Langmuir, 28, 17632–17641. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kamaly, N., Xiao, Z., Valencia, P. M., Radovic Moreno, A. F. & Farokhzad, O. C. (2012). Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 2971. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Kasyutich, O., Ilari, A., Fiorillo, A., Tatchev, D., Hoell, A. & Ceci, P. (2010). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 3621–3627. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kewalramani, S., Zwanikken, J. W., Macfarlane, R. J., Leung, C. Y., Olvera de la Cruz, M., Mirkin, C. A. & Bedzyk, M. J. (2013). ACS Nano, 7, 11301–11309. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kikhney, A. G., Borges, C. R., Molodenskiy, D. S., Jeffries, C. M. & Svergun, D. I. (2020). Protein Sci. 29, 66–75. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Krishnamoorthy, K., Hoffmann, K., Kewalramani, S., Brodin, J. D., Moreau, L. M., Mirkin, C. A., Olvera De La Cruz, M. & Bedzyk, M. J. (2018). ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 378–386. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lee, T. E., Chuang, A. R., Marek, M. S., Doniach, S. & Fairclough, R. H. (2009). Biophys. J. 96, 2637–2647. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Makowski, L. (2010). J. Struct. Funct. Genomics, 11, 9–19. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Manalastas-Cantos, K., Konarev, P. V., Hajizadeh, N. R., Kikhney, A. G., Petoukhov, M. V., Molodenskiy, D. S., Panjkovich, A., Mertens, H. D. T., Gruzinov, A., Borges, C., Jeffries, C. M., Svergun, D. I. & Franke, D. (2021). J. Appl. Cryst. 54, 343–355. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Martínez, L., Andrade, R., Birgin, E. G. & Martínez, J. M. (2009). J. Comput. Chem. 30, 2157–2164. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Meisburger, S. P., Pabit, S. A. & Pollack, L. (2015). Biophys. J. 108, 2886–2895. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Miake-Lye, R. C., Doniach, S. & Hodgson, K. O. (1983). Biophys. J. 41, 287–292. CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Pabit, S. A., Meisburger, S. P., Li, L., Blose, J. M., Jones, C. D. & Pollack, L. (2010). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 16334–16336. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Round, A., Felisaz, F., Fodinger, L., Gobbo, A., Huet, J., Villard, C., Blanchet, C. E., Pernot, P., McSweeney, S., Roessle, M., Svergun, D. I. & Cipriani, F. (2015). Acta Cryst. D71, 67–75. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Schöps, A., Vagin, P. & Tischer, M. (2016). AIP Conf. Proc. 1741, 020019. Google Scholar
Schroer, M. A., Blanchet, C. E., Gruzinov, A. Y., Gräwert, M. A., Brennich, M. E., Hajizadeh, N. R., Jeffries, C. M. & Svergun, D. I. (2018). J. Synchrotron Rad. 25, 1113–1122. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Schroer, M. A., Schulz, F., Lehmkühler, F., Möller, J., Smith, A. J., Lange, H., Vossmeyer, T. & Grübel, G. (2016). J. Phys. Chem. C, 120, 19856–19861. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Schroer, M. A. & Svergun, D. I. (2018). Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2, 69–79. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Schulz, F., Dahl, G. T., Besztejan, S., Schroer, M. A., Lehmkühler, F., Grübel, G., Vossmeyer, T. & Lange, H. (2016). Langmuir, 32, 7897–7907. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Schulz, F., Möller, J., Lehmkühler, F., Smith, A. J., Vossmeyer, T., Lange, H., Grübel, G. & Schroer, M. A. (2018). Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 35, 1700319. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Schulz, F., Vossmeyer, T., Bastús, N. G. & Weller, H. (2013). Langmuir, 29, 9897–9908. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Spinozzi, F., Ceccone, G., Moretti, P., Campanella, G., Ferrero, C., Combet, S., Ojea-Jimenez, I. & Ghigna, P. (2017). Langmuir, 33, 2248–2256. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stuhrmann, H. B. (1980). Acta Cryst. A36, 996–1001. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Stuhrmann, H. B. (1981a). Q. Rev. Biophys. 14, 433–462. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Stuhrmann, H. B. (1981b). Kristallografiya, 26, 956–964. CAS Google Scholar
Stuhrmann, H. B. & Notbohm, H. (1981). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 78, 6216–6220. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Suk, J. S., Xu, Q., Kim, N., Hanes, J. & Ensign, L. M. (2016). Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 99, 28–51. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Svergun, D., Barberato, C. & Koch, M. H. J. (1995). J. Appl. Cryst. 28, 768–773. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Svergun, D. I. (1992). J. Appl. Cryst. 25, 495–503. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Svergun, D. I., Koch, M. H. J., Timmins, P. A. & May, R. P. (2013). Small Angle X-ray and Neutron Scattering from Solutions of Biological Macromolecules. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Svergun, D. I., Shtykova, V., Kozin, M. B., Volkov, V. V., Konarev, P. V., Dembo, A. T., Shtykova, E. V., Bronshtein, L. M., Chernyshov, D. M., Platonova, O. A., Yakunin, A. N., Valetsky, P. M. & Khokhlov, A. R. (2001). Crystallogr. Rep. 46, 586–595. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Sztucki, M., Di Cola, E. & Narayanan, T. (2010). J. Appl. Cryst. 43, 1479–1487. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sztucki, M., Di Cola, E. & Narayanan, T. (2011). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 272, 012004. CrossRef Google Scholar
Sztucki, M., Di Cola, E. & Narayanan, T. (2012). Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 208, 319–331. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Tatchev, D., Hoell, A., Eichelbaum, M. & Rademann, K. (2011). Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 085702. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Tischer, M., Barthelmess, M., Bräuer, M., Englisch, U., Pflüger, J. & Skupin, J. (2007). AIP Conf. Proc. 879, 343–346. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Tuaev, X., Rudi, S., Petkov, V., Hoell, A. & Strasser, P. (2013). ACS Nano, 7, 5666–5674. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Waldron, K. J., Rutherford, J. C., Ford, D. & Robinson, N. J. (2009). Nature, 460, 823–830. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Walker, R. P. (1996). Proceedings of CERN Accelerator School: Synchrotron Radiation and Free Electron Lasers, 22–27 April 1996, Grenoble, France, pp. 129–190. Google Scholar
Wang, W., Wang, L., Li, G., Zhao, G., Zhao, X. & Wang, H. (2019). Chem. Commun. 55, 12344–12347. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zettl, T., Mathew, R. S., Seifert, S., Harbury, P. A. B., Doniach, S. & Lipfert, J. (2016). Nano Lett. 16, acs.nanolett.6b01160. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.