2006
DOI: 10.1560/ijc_46_4_423
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ESR Microscopy and Nanoscopy with “Induction” Detection

Abstract: The current state‐of‐the‐art in the fields of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) micro‐imaging is reviewed. Special attention is given to the uniqueness and the advantages of the conventional “induction” detection method with respect to other emerging sensitive magnetic resonance detection and imaging techniques. Following this, a theoretical description of the factors affecting the sensitivity and resolution in induction detection ESR is provided. Based on the theory, new appro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For macromolecules too large to characterize by NMR or X-ray diffraction, the tertiary structure of proteins (1)(2)(3), nucleic acids (4,5), and biomolecular assemblies (6,7) can be explored by using inductively-detected electron spin resonance (ESR) to measure distances between pairs of attached spin labels (2-5, 7, 8). These studies, however, require bulk quantities of sample (9) and demand multiple experiments with spin labels attached to different locations in the target macromolecule. Mechanical detection and imaging of single-electron spins has been demonstrated, in E centers in gamma-irradiated quartz (10), and it is natural to explore applying magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) (11)(12)(13)(14)(15) to map the locations of individual spin labels attached to a single biomacromolecule.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For macromolecules too large to characterize by NMR or X-ray diffraction, the tertiary structure of proteins (1)(2)(3), nucleic acids (4,5), and biomolecular assemblies (6,7) can be explored by using inductively-detected electron spin resonance (ESR) to measure distances between pairs of attached spin labels (2-5, 7, 8). These studies, however, require bulk quantities of sample (9) and demand multiple experiments with spin labels attached to different locations in the target macromolecule. Mechanical detection and imaging of single-electron spins has been demonstrated, in E centers in gamma-irradiated quartz (10), and it is natural to explore applying magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) (11)(12)(13)(14)(15) to map the locations of individual spin labels attached to a single biomacromolecule.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, a home-built pulsed MW bridge, a home-built high current pulse gradient driver with high voltage pre-regulator, a timing card, a signal digitizer, imaging probes, and a high-homogeneity electromagnet with field-frequency lock. 10,11, 21 In the imaging probe, a double stacked dielectric resonator was nested inside a 3-dimensional set of magnetic field gradient coils. The X gradient coil is a standard Maxwell pair, and the Y, Z gradient coils are of Golay design.…”
Section: Pulsed Esrm System At 15 Ghz and Sub-micron Resolution Omentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample specimens are sealed in a flat or cylindrical holder that is inserted between the resonators for imaging. Further descriptions of the basic instrumentation systems can be found elsewhere, 10,11,22 therefore only key system upgrades will be described here.…”
Section: Pulsed Esrm System At 15 Ghz and Sub-micron Resolution Omentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[17,18] This unique multifunctional sensitivity of the p 1 TAM probe decreases the method invasiveness and will allow for a better correlation of the parameters independent of the distribution of the probe. The demonstrated FT-EPR application can be extended to imaging modalities [19][20][21] taking into account the simple EPR spectrum and long relaxation times of the p 1 TAM probe (Table 1). FT-EPR spectra of 0.2 mM p 1 TAM measured in 150 mM NaCl aqueous solutions at different Na-phosphate buffer concentrations, pH 6.53.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%