Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31233977›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2019

In situ structure determination by subtomogram averaging.

Daniel Castaño-Díez, Giulia Zanetti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. State-of-the-Art and Future Directions in Structural Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Methods to Study Poxvirus Structures by Cryo-EM Imaging Modalities.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Molecular architecture of synaptic vesicles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Journal of applied crystallography · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Computational methods forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel Castaño-DíezBioEM Lab, Center for Cellular Imaging and Nanoanalytics, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Mattenstrasse 26, CH-4058, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: daniel.castano@unibas.ch.
Giulia ZanettiInstitute of Structural and Molecular Biology, Birkbeck College, Malet St., London, WC1E 7HX, UK. Electronic address: g.zanetti@mail.cryst.bbk.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryo-tomography and subtomogram averaging are increasingly popular techniques for structural determination of macromolecular complexes in situ. They have the potential to achieve high-resolution views of native complexes, together with the details of their location relative to interacting molecules. The subtomogram averaging (StA) pipelines are well-established, with current developments aiming to optimise each step by reducing manual intervention and user decisions, following similar trends in single-particle approaches that have dramatically increased their popularity. Here, we review the main steps of typical StA workflows. We focus on considerations arising from the fact that the objects of study are embedded within unique crowded environments, and we emphasise those steps where careful decisions need to be made by the user.

Indexed as

Cryoelectron MicroscopyElectron Microscope TomographyImage Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID31233977
PMCPMC7116126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.