ArticleJournal of structural biology: X2020
Validation tests for cryo-EM maps using an independent particle set.
Article in Journal of structural biology: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rescaling FSC curves.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2025Article
- Article
- On bias, variance, overfitting, gold standard and consensus in single-particle analysis by cryo-electron microscopy.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022Article
- A Bayesian approach to extracting free-energy profiles from cryo-electron microscopy experiments.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has revolutionized structural biology by providing 3D density maps of biomolecules at near-atomic resolution. However, map validation is still an open issue. Despite several efforts from the community, it is possible to overfit 3D maps to noisy data. Here, we develop a novel methodology that uses a small independent particle set (not used during the 3D refinement) to validate the maps. The main idea is to monitor how the map probability evolves over the control set during the 3D refinement. The method is complementary to the gold-standard procedure, which generates two reconstructions at each iteration. We low-pass filter the two reconstructions for different frequency cutoffs, and we calculate the probability of each filtered map given the control set. For high-quality maps, the probability should increase as a function of the frequency cutoff and the refinement iteration. We also compute the similarity between the densities of probability distributions of the two reconstructions. As higher frequencies are included, the distributions become more dissimilar. We optimized the BioEM package to perform these calculations, and tested it over systems ranging from quality data to pure noise. Our results show that with our methodology, it possible to discriminate datasets that are constructed from noise particles. We conclude that validation against a control particle set provides a powerful tool to assess the quality of cryo-EM maps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.