ArticleJournal of structural biology2021
Assessment of scoring functions to rank the quality of 3D subtomogram clusters from cryo-electron tomography.
Article in Journal of structural biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cryo-electron tomography provides the opportunity for unsupervised discovery of endogenous complexes in situ. This process usually requires particle picking, clustering and alignment of subtomograms to produce an average structure of the complex. When applied to heterogeneous samples, template-free clustering and alignment of subtomograms can potentially lead to the discovery of structures for unknown endogenous complexes. However, such methods require scoring functions to measure and accurately rank the quality of aligned subtomogram clusters, which can be compromised by contaminations from misclassified complexes and alignment errors. Here, we provide the first study to assess the effectiveness of more than 15 scoring functions for evaluating the quality of subtomogram clusters, which differ in the amount of structural misalignments and contaminations due to misclassified complexes. We assessed both experimental and simulated subtomograms as ground truth data sets. Our analysis showed that the robustness of scoring functions varies largely. Most scores were sensitive to the signal-to-noise ratio of subtomograms and often required Gaussian filtering as preprocessing for improved performance. Two scoring functions, Spectral SNR-based Fourier Shell Correlation and Pearson Correlation in the Fourier domain with missing wedge correction, showed a robust ranking of subtomogram clusters without any preprocessing and irrespective of SNR levels of subtomograms. Of these two scoring functions, Spectral SNR-based Fourier Shell Correlation was fastest to compute and is a better choice for handling large numbers of subtomograms. Our results provide a guidance for choosing an accurate scoring function for template-free approaches to detect complexes from heterogeneous samples.
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.