Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301
1.
1. J. Hajdu, “ Single-molecule x-ray diffraction,” Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 569573 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-440X(00)00133-0
2.
2. R. Neutze et al., “ Potential for biomolecular imaging with femtosecond x-ray pulses,” Nature 406, 752757 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35021099
3.
3. K. Gaffney and H. Chapman, “ Imaging atomic structure and dynamics with ultrafast x-ray scattering,” Science 316, 14441448 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1135923
4.
4. M. M. Seibert et al., “ Single Mimivirus particles intercepted and imaged with an x-ray laser,” Nature 470, 7881 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09748
5.
5. G. Huldt, A. Szoke, and J. Hajdu, Struct. Biol. 144, 219 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2003.09.025
6.
6. S. Ikeda and H. Kono, “ Phase retrieval from single biomolecule diffraction pattern,” Opt. Express 20, 3375 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.003375
7.
7. H. Chapman, “ Coherent imaging with x-ray free electron lasers,” in Scattering Methods for Condensed Matter Research: Towards l Applications at Future Sources, Lecture Notes of the 3rd IFF Spring School ( Forschungszentrum Juelich, 2012), Vol. 43.
8.
8. S. Baradaran et al., “ LCLS-II new instruments workshops report,” (2012), see Sec. 4.3.2., p. 60 by Chapman et al. and Sec. 4.3.3., p. 69 by F. R. N. C. Maia et al.
9.
9. S.-K. Son, L. Young, and R. Santra, “ Impact of ultrafast electronic damage in single-particle x-ray imaging experiments,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 033402 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.033402
10.
10. U. Lorenz et al., Phys. Rev. E 86, 051911 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.051911
11.
11. B. Ziaja et al., “ Limitations of coherent diffractive imaging of single objects due to their damage by intense x-ray radiation,” New J. Phys. 14, 115015 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/11/115015
12.
12. S. Schorb et al., “ Size-dependent ultrafast ionization dynamics of nanoscale samples in intense femtosecond x-ray free-electron-laser pulses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 233401 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.233401
13.
13. J. M. Slowik et al., “ Incoherent x-ray scattering in single molecule imaging,” New J. Phys. 16, 073042 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073042
14.
14. A. Mancuso et al., “ Scientific instrument single particles, clusters, and biomolecules (SPB) CDR,” Technical Report No. TR-2011-007, XFEL.EU, 2011.
15.
15. A. Mancuso et al., “ The single particles, clusters and biomolecules (SPB) instrument TDR,” Technical Report No. TR-2013-004, XFEL.EU, 2013.
16.
16. P. Emma et al., “ Femtosecond and subfemtosecond x-ray pulses from a self-amplified spontaneous-emission-based free-electron laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 074801 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.074801
17.
17. P. Emma, M. Borland, and Z. Huang, “ Attosecond x-ray pulses in the LCLS using the slotted foil method,” in Proceedings of the FEL Conference, Trieste, Italy (2004), Paper No. TUBIS01, p. 333.
18.
18. Y. Ding et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 254802 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.254802
19.
19. J. Feldhaus et al., “ Possible application of x-ray optical elements for reducing the spectral bandwidth of an x-ray SASE FEL,” Opt. Commun. 140, 341352 (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0030-4018(97)00163-6
20.
20. J. Amann et al., “ Demonstration of self-seeding in a hard-x-ray free-electron laser,” Nat. Photonics 6, 693698 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2012.180
21.
21. G. Geloni et al., “ Wake monochromator in asymmetric and symmetric Bragg and Laue geometry for self-seeding the European XFEL,” Technical Report No. DESY 13-013, 2013.
22.
22. A. T. Lin and J. M. Dawson, “ High-efficiency free-electron laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 16701673 (1979).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.1670
23.
23. P. Sprangle, C.-M. Tang, and W. M. Manheimer, “ Nonlinear formulation and efficiency enhancement of free-electron lasers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 19321936 (1979).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1932
24.
24. N. Kroll, P. Morton, and M. Rosenbluth, “ Free-electron lasers with variable parameter wigglers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 17, 14361468 (1981).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JQE.1981.1071285
25.
25. T. J. Orzechowski et al., “ High-efficiency extraction of microwave radiation from a tapered-wiggler free-electron laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 21722175 (1986).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2172
26.
26. W. Fawley et al., “ Tapered undulators for SASE FELs,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 483, 537541 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00377-7
27.
27. M. Cornacchia et al., “ Future possibilities of the linac coherent light source,” J. Synchrotron Radiat. 11, 227238 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S090904950400370X
28.
28. X. Wang et al., “ Efficiency and spectrum enhancement in a tapered free-electron laser amplifier,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 154801 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.154801
29.
29. G. Geloni, V. Kocharyan, and E. Saldin, “ Scheme for generation of fully-coherent, TW power level hard X-ray pulses from baseline undulators at the European X-ray FEL,” preprint arXiv:1007.2743 [physics.acc-ph] Report No. DESY 10-108 (2010).
30.
30. G. Geloni, V. Kocharyan, and E. Saldin, “ Production of transform-limited X-ray pulses through self-seeding at the European X-ray FEL,” preprint arXiv:1109.5112 [physics.acc-ph] Report No. DESY 11-165 (2011).
31.
31. W. Fawley et al., “ Toward TW-level LCLS radiation pulses,” in Talk at International FEL Conference, Shanghai, China Report No. DESY 14-137 (2011).
32.
32. J. Wu et al., “ Simulation of the hard x-ray self-seeding FEL at LCLS,” in Talk at International FEL Conference, Shanghai, China (2011).
33.
33. Y. Jiao et al., “ Modeling and multidimensional optimization of a tapered free electron laser,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 15, 050704 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.050704
34.
34. Y. Shvyd'ko and R. Lindberg, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 15, 100702 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.100702
35.
35. H. Sinn et al., “ X-ray optics and beam transport, conceptual design report,” Technical Report No. TR-2011-002, XFEL.EU, 2011.
36.
36. The limitations in aperture arise from (a) the limited length of super-polished mirrors, where 950 mm is already longer than any mirror of that quality that has been delivered to date and (b) the constraint on reflection angle that is limited by the ablation thresholds of suitable mirror coatings.
37.
37. I. Zagorodnov, “ Beam dynamics simulations for XFEL,” (2011), see http://www.desy.de/fel-beam/s2e/.
39.
39. S. Reiche, “ Genesis 1.3: A fully 3d time-dependent FEL simulation code,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 429, 243248 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00114-X
40.
40. S. Serkez et al., “ Perspectives of imaging of single protein molecules with the present design of the European XFEL. Part I. X-ray source, beamline optics and instrument simulations,” preprint arXiv:1407.8450 [physics.acc-ph] (2014).
41.
41. O. Chubar et al., “ Phase analysis and focusing of synchrotron radiation,” Nucl. Instrum Methods Phys. Res. A 435, 495 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00581-1
42.
42. It should be noted that in practice the minimum sample to detector distance is limited to about 130 mm.
43.
43. Moltrans is a in-house DESY code written by E. Weckert. It is available on request to the author.
44.
44. J. Becker et al., “ The single photon sensitivity of the adaptive gain integrating pixel detector,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 694, 82 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2012.08.008
45.
45. N.-T. D. Loh and V. Elser, “ Reconstruction algorithm for single-particle diffraction imaging experiments,” Phys. Rev. E 80, 026705 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.026705
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301
Loading
/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301
2015-04-27
2016-09-27

Abstract

The Single Particles, Clusters and Biomolecules & Serial Femtosecond Crystallography (SPB/SFX) instrument at the European XFEL is located behind the SASE1 undulator and aims to support imaging and structure determination of biological specimen between about 0.1 m and 1 m size. The instrument is designed to work at photon energies from 3 keV up to 16 keV. Here, we propose a cost-effective proof-of-principle experiment, aiming to demonstrate the actual feasibility of a single molecule diffraction experiment at the European XFEL. To this end, we assume self-seeding capabilities at SASE1 and we suggest to make use of the baseline European XFEL accelerator complex—with the addition of a slotted-foil setup—and of the SPB/SFX instrument. As a first step towards the realization of an actual experiment, we developed a complete package of computational tools for start-to-end simulations predicting its performance. Single biomolecule imaging capabilities at the European XFEL can be reached by exploiting special modes of operation of the accelerator complex and of the SASE1 undulator. The output peak power can be increased up to more than 1.5 TW, which allows to relax the requirements on the focusing efficiency of the optics and to reach the required fluence without changing the present design of the SPB/SFX instrument. Explicit simulations are presented using the 15-nm size RNA Polymerase II molecule as a case study. Noisy diffraction patterns were generated and they were processed to generate the 3D intensity distribution. We discuss requirements to the signal-to-background ratio needed to obtain a correct pattern orientation. When these are fulfilled, our results indicate that one can achieve diffraction without destruction with about 0.1 photons per Shannon pixel per shot at 4 Å resolution with 1013 photons in a 4 fs pulse at 4 keV photon energy and in a 0.3 m focus, corresponding to a fluence of 1014 photons/m2. We assume negligible structured background. At this signal level, one needs only about 30 000 diffraction patterns to recover full 3D information. At the highest repetition rate manageable by detectors at European XFEL, one will be able to accumulate these data within a fraction of an hour, even assuming a relatively low hit probability of about a percent.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/1.4919301.html;jsessionid=8f0nHzrkAKmYgKbLaMTtUqRE.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aca/journal/sdy

Most read this month

Article
content/aca/journal/sdy
Journal
5
3
Loading

Most cited this month

+ More - Less
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=sd.aip.org/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aca/journal/sdy/2/4/10.1063/1.4919301'
Right1,Right2,Right3,