Optimising the tilt-increment for in situ cryo-electron tomography

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work addresses a question of practical importance that had never been systematically analysed in the cryo-ET field: when collecting tilt-series data, what is the optimal angular step size between successive tilt images? Due to the upper limit in electron exposure (100 - 150 e⁻/Ų), this question is important, since finer angular sampling improves attainable reconstruction resolution (Crowther criterion) but reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of each individual image, potentially compromising both image quality and the ability to computationally align successive frames. To address this, the authors designed a thorough benchmarking study comparing five tilt increments (1{degree sign}, 2{degree sign}, 3{degree sign}, 5{degree sign}, and 10{degree sign}) while keeping the total dose and tilt range constant. They evaluated the consequences at every stage of the cryo-ET workflow - from raw image quality and tilt-series alignment, through template matching for ribosome detection, to high-resolution subtomogram averaging - with the goal of providing the community with an evidence-based recommendation for data acquisition.

The manuscript is well written, and the experimental design is carefully thought out. The work provides valuable practical insights into cryo-ET data acquisition by demonstrating that balancing two competing demands - sufficient dose per individual tilt image and fine angular sampling - is essential to achieve high-quality tomographic reconstructions. The identification of a practical optimum at 3{degree sign} tilt increment is the key contribution of the work. It will be interesting to see in the future whether this optimum shifts for smaller molecular targets, and how emerging tilt interpolation strategies such as cryoTIGER may interact with the choice of experimental angular increment.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but some aspects of data analysis need to be clarified and/or extended, including:

(1) Line 109: The authors state that the tilt range was kept at {plus minus}60{degree sign} relative to the lamella plane. Assuming a typical lamella pre-tilt of ~10{degree sign}, the absolute stage tilt would approach its mechanical limit. Two clarifications would be appreciated: (a) What was the average pre-tilt across all lamellae? (b) How many dark tilt images, if any, were excluded during tomogram reconstruction?

(2) Line 148: "When analysing tomographic volumes, we found that tomograms from data with a smaller increment displayed higher SNR values (see Fig. 2B)." It would be helpful to specify which comparisons are statistically meaningful (e.g. Mann-Whitney U test?). While the difference between 1{degree sign} and 2{degree sign} appears pronounced, the differences between 2{degree sign}, 3{degree sign}, and 5{degree sign} seem minimal. From my point of view, reporting the mean SNR values +/- standard deviations for each condition would already indicate some significance. Furthermore, since SNR is expected to depend on lamella thickness, it should be clarified whether the average lamella thickness is comparable across the five datasets.

(3) Line 167: "Indeed, the variation in maximum resolution correlates with lamella thickness across all datasets (see Fig. 2F)." The reported R² values of 0.30 (1{degree sign}), 0.38 (2{degree sign}), 0.66 (3{degree sign}), 0.61 (5{degree sign}), and 0.60 (10{degree sign}) reveal a notably weak linear relationship for the finer tilt increments. It is also difficult to assess whether the lamella thickness distributions are comparable across conditions from the current figures - visually, the 1{degree sign} dataset appears to be based on thinner lamellae, while the 10{degree sign} dataset appears to include thicker samples. A histogram of lamella thickness distributions for each condition, provided as supplementary material, would greatly aid interpretation. Given this thickness dependency, reporting mean +/- standard deviation of lamella thickness per condition is highly appreciated.

(4) Figure 4: It should be specified which tomogram subsets were used for the Rosenthal-Henderson analysis, whether lamella thickness was taken into account in the subset selection, and whether ribosomes too close to the lamella edges were excluded. Finally, linear fits should be displayed across the full x-axis range for all tilt increments to facilitate direct visual comparison.

(5) General: Were ribosomes located at the lamella edges excluded from the analysis? As demonstrated in the authors' own prior work (Tuijtel et al., Science Advances, 2024), Ga-FIB milling induces structural damage at the lamella surfaces. To exclude the influence on the STA results, particles near the lamella edges should be removed prior to analysis, and the criteria for this exclusion should be stated explicitly.

The aim of the authors was to provide the cryo-ET community with an evidence-based recommendation for the choice of tilt increment, and they largely succeeded in this goal. The identification of 3{degree sign} as a practical optimum - balancing sufficient dose per tilt image for effective per-particle refinement with fine enough angular sampling for accurate tilt-series alignment - is well supported by the data and consistent across the multiple quality metrics employed. The conclusion that coarser increments (5{degree sign} and 10{degree sign}) compromise tomogram quality, template matching accuracy, and STA resolution is robust and clearly demonstrated. However, the conclusion rests entirely on a single biological system using ribosomes as the sole molecular target, which are exceptionally favourable due to their abundance, size, and electron contrast. Whether the identified optimum holds for smaller, lower-abundance, or lower-contrast targets remains an open question.

In future, it would be particularly interesting to test whether emerging tilt interpolation strategies, such as cryoTIGER, which is particularly intriguing, can effectively compensate for coarser experimental angular sampling in post-processing. Here, the optimal experimental increment may shift, and the interaction between these two approaches represents a promising direction for future work. More broadly, as cryo-ET datasets grow larger and public repositories expand, the practical tradeoffs between acquisition time, data storage, and structural quality identified here will become increasingly relevant to the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The determination of macromolecular structures directly within their native cellular environment is becoming increasingly routine, making standardized data collection strategies essential. In this manuscript, Tuijtel et al. provide a timely and valuable contribution by benchmarking key acquisition parameters and establishing practical guidelines for in situ cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET). Critically, the authors present a systematic framework for optimizing data collection to achieve the highest attainable resolution.

Using Dictyostelium cells as a model system, the authors generate multiple datasets at a constant total dose while varying the tilt increment. They demonstrate that tilt-series acquired with finer increments (1-3 degrees) yield superior alignment accuracy and improved template-matching performance, resulting in higher-quality reconstructions than those collected with coarser increments (5 degrees or above). Furthermore, the authors show that for subtomogram averaging, a 3-degree tilt increment outperforms all other conditions tested, particularly after per-particle refinement as implemented in M.

Overall, the manuscript is clearly written, and the conclusions are well supported by the data presented. I have no major concerns. There are some minor points that the authors should address, including:

(1) The phrase "electron optical density distribution" (line 31, Introduction) should be revised to "electrostatic potential" or "Coulomb potential distribution," which more accurately reflects what is measured in cryo-EM/ET.

(2) The authors state that the maximum tolerable electron dose is approximately 100-150 e⁻/Ų (line 34, Introduction). This is an oversimplification, as bacterial specimens, for example, have been shown to tolerate doses of 200 e⁻/Ų or higher (see Breigel et al., PNAS, 2009; https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0905181106#T1). The statement should be revised to reflect this variability.

(3) Lines 56-57: The authors do not cite their own prior work benchmarking tilt-series acquisition strategies on in vitro samples. This earlier study provides important context and should be referenced and briefly discussed.