Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Cross-validation tests for cryo-EM maps using an independent particle set

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cryo-EM reconstructions can be cross-validated by watching how their Bayesian posterior behaves over a small withheld particle set.

desk verdict A plausible R-free-like control-set test for cryo-EM maps that deserves a serious referee, but the held-out set is not fully independent because the orientation search uses the map under validation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01054 v1 pith:RWWOSBZ6 submitted 2019-08-02 physics.bio-ph q-bio.BM

Sebastian Ortiz , Luka Stanisic , Boris A Rodriguez , Markus Rampp , Gerhard Hummer , Pilar Cossio This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phq-bio.BM
keywords cryo-EMmapvalidationcross-validationcontrolparticlesetBioEMposterioroverfittingnormalizedJensen-Shannondivergencegold-standardrefinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that cryo-EM reconstructions should be checked against a small control set of particle images withheld from refinement, in the spirit of the R-free test in crystallography. For each gold-standard half-set map, low-pass filtered to several frequency cutoffs, the authors compute a Bayesian posterior probability of the map over the control set. They claim that for genuine maps the cumulative log-posterior increases with the frequency cutoff and with refinement iteration, while for overfitted maps it decreases or stays flat; and that the normalized Jensen-Shannon divergence between the two half-sets' probability distributions grows with frequency only for genuine maps. The authors show the resulting signatures separate three standard cryo-EM systems from two overfitted cases, and that roughly 1000 control particles are enough for the observables to converge. If correct, the protocol supplies a direct raw-data-based map validation that complements the gold-standard FSC.

What carries the argument

The central object is the BioEM posterior probability $P_{m\omega}$: a Bayesian likelihood of a map $m$ given a single particle image $\omega$, with nuisance parameters (center displacement, normalization, offset, noise, orientation, CTF defocus, amplitude, B-factor) integrated out. The cumulative log-posterior over the control set, $\sum_\omega \ln P_{m\omega}/N_\omega - \ln P_{\mathrm{noise}}$, acts as the first test statistic, and the normalized Jensen-Shannon divergence between the posterior distributions of the two half-set reconstructions acts as the second. The integrations are done in two rounds: a coarse all-orientation search selects the best ten orientations per particle, then a fine zoom around those orientations scores each low-pass filtered map. This machinery converts a held-out particle set into a quality ladder: genuine maps climb it as frequencies are added and refinement proceeds, while overfitted maps do not.

What would settle it

Take a deliberately overfitted map and rerun the cross-validation with the control particles' orientations fixed by a reference map unrelated to the refinement, or randomized; if the rising cumulative log-posterior and NJSD signature reappears, the discrimination is an artifact of the orientation search rather than a property of genuine maps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the BioEM posterior, a per-image likelihood of a map integrated over orientation, CTF, displacement, and noise parameters, as a map-quality statistic over an independent particle set, the paper shows that the cumulative log-posterior grows with low-pass frequency cutoff and refinement iteration for the genuine reconstructions of HCN1, TRPV1, and RAG1-RAG2, while it decreases or stays constant for a low-resolution HIV-1 envelope trimer reconstruction and for reconstructions evaluated against pure-noise images. The normalized Jensen-Shannon divergence between the probability distributions of the two gold-standard half-set reconstructions rises with added high frequencies and plateaus for the genuine systems, and the fitted plateau frequency $\gamma$ correlates strongly with the inverse of the FSC resolution ($r^2 = 0.93$, $0.91$, and $0.85$). The authors conclude that withholding a control particle set from refinement makes overfitting detectable and should become standard practice.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the BioEM posterior over the control set measures genuine map quality even though the orientations of the control particles are chosen in a first round using the very reconstruction that is being validated, a fit that could let an overfitted map match noise in the control particles and fake the expected trends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every cryo-EM refinement could carry a small control set, giving an R-free-like, raw-data-based check on map quality at each iteration.
  • The NJSD plateau frequency $\gamma$ tracks the inverse FSC resolution ($r^2 = 0.93$, $0.91$, $0.85$), so resolution information can be extracted from the control set rather than from mask-dependent FSC alone.
  • The cross-validation observables converge with roughly 1000 control particles, so the extra cost of the protocol is small relative to a full refinement.
  • Overfitted reconstructions show up as flat or decreasing cumulative log-posterior and non-monotonic NJSD, catching cases where a gold-standard FSC estimate might still look acceptable.
  • The method generalizes to any posterior probability of a 3D density given particle images, and the authors point toward refining atomic models against the control set as a next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the first round of the posterior calculation selects each control particle's best orientations against the final reconstruction being validated, the control set is not fully independent under the protocol as written; a stricter implementation that fixes orientations from an unrelated reference would test whether the discrimination survives.
  • The strong correlation between $\gamma$ and the inverse FSC resolution suggests the method could be calibrated on a collection of deposited maps into an absolute resolution estimator that does not depend on a mask; the paper does not attempt that calibration.
  • The per-particle probabilities that enter the cumulative log-posterior could be mined for diagnostics: particles where the two half-set reconstructions disagree most are prime candidates for heterogeneity or misassigned defocus, an application the paper does not explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a cross-validation protocol for cryo-EM reconstructions based on a small set of particle images excluded from refinement. For each gold-standard reconstruction, the authors low-pass filter the map at several cutoffs, compute the BioEM posterior probability of each filtered map over the control particles, and monitor the cumulative log-posterior and a normalized Jensen-Shannon divergence (NJSD) between the two half-set reconstructions as functions of frequency cutoff and refinement iteration. They report that for three standard maps (HCN1, TRPV1, RAG1-RAG2) the cumulative log-posterior increases with cutoff and iteration and the NJSD follows an inverse-exponential trend whose scale gamma correlates with the FSC-based resolution, whereas for an HIV-1 envelope trimer map and a synthetic pure-noise control the expected trends fail. The authors conclude that an independent control set is essential for unbiased map validation.

Significance. The proposed tool is a welcome addition to the cryo-EM validation toolbox: it uses raw particle data rather than post-processed maps, is conceptually analogous to R-free, and the authors provide open-source code, a tutorial, and tests on public EMPIAR datasets. If the reported trends are reproducible with truly held-out orientations, the method could provide a practical overfitting diagnostic complementary to the gold-standard FSC. However, the current manuscript's central claim is weakened by a statistical independence gap in the orientation fitting and by the limited evidence for the overfitted category.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods: BioEM algorithm] The cumulative log-posterior reported in Fig. 2 is not a marginal held-out likelihood. In round 1 of the BioEM calculation, the best 10 orientations for each control particle are selected using 'the final reconstruction from the refinement with a broad mask and without low-pass filtering' (Methods, BioEM algorithm), i.e., the map being validated; in round 2, orientations are re-fitted for each low-pass filtered map by zooming around those 10 orientations. Thus the posterior in Eq. (2), which integrates over orientations, is approximated by a profile likelihood in which per-particle orientations are optimized against the control set. For an overfitted map whose high-frequency content is noise, the orientation search can align that noise with the control images, so the observed increase of cumulative log-posterior with kc (or its absence for overfitted maps) may reflect orientation overfitting rather than genuine generalization. Please show that the trends in Figs. 2 and 3 persist when orientations are fixed across all kc, for example by using the orientations produced by the gold-standard RELION refinement of the non-control particles, or by actually marginalizing over orientations.
  2. [Results: Map evidence from the cumulative log-posterior] The evidence for the central discrimination claim rests on only one real overfitted dataset (HIV-ET) and one synthetic pure-noise control. The HIV-ET map is externally controversial (refs. [42,43]), and the pure-noise control is not a reconstruction at all but a set of unrelated Gaussian images evaluated against RAG1-RAG2 maps; its failure is therefore an expected consequence of mismatched data rather than a demonstration of overfitting detection. To support the claim that the method 'discriminates the overfitted sets from the non-overfitted ones,' the authors should include additional known overfitted reconstructions (e.g., maps obtained by refining noise-substituted data or other disputed EMPIAR deposits) and report results over multiple random selections of the control set, with error bars.
  3. [Results: Cross-validation tests versus resolution] The correlation between the fitted frequency gamma and the inverse FSC resolution (Fig. 4, r²=0.93, 0.91, 0.85) is reported without uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures. Each NJSD curve is fitted with three free parameters (A, B, gamma) to only eight cutoff frequencies, so the statistical significance of these correlations is unclear. Please report parameter errors, per-system fits, and the sensitivity of gamma to the fitting model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods: Eq. (3)] The NJSD is defined with probabilities normalized per image such that P1ω + P2ω = 1; this is stated in the text but not in the equation, so consider making the normalization explicit in Eq. (3) to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Figure 2] The gradient color scale from maroon to green over refinement iterations is difficult to read without a legend; adding iteration numbers or a color bar would improve interpretability.
  3. [Supplementary Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'NSJD' should be 'NJSD'.
  4. [Discussion] The claim that the method 'converge[s] over a small particle set, typically only 1000 particles' is supported by a single system (TRPV1) at a single iteration; please either weaken the claim or show convergence for more systems.
  5. [Methods: Low-pass filter] The low-pass filter is implemented as a hard cutoff in Fourier space (Eq. 1); a soft-edged filter or a Butterworth filter might be preferable to avoid Gibbs ringing, and the choice deserves a sentence of justification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-validation observables are empirical and externally benchmarked, and the BioEM self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derivational. The cumulative log-posterior over the control set is computed from the BioEM posterior and compared across frequency cutoffs and refinement iterations; the observed increase for genuine maps and failure for overfitted maps is a measured result on external EMPIAR datasets and synthetic noise, not a quantity forced by the definition of the statistic. The NJSD is a standard divergence computed from the posterior distributions, and the inverse-exponential fit with parameter gamma is a post-hoc empirical description of the curves, not an input from which the trends are derived. The correlation between gamma and FSC resolution is a fit, not a construction. The paper cites BioEM from the same group, but BioEM is an open-source, publicly available code with stated assumptions, so this self-citation is not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified uniqueness or ansatz. The orientation-search protocol in the Methods (round 1 using the final reconstruction and round 2 re-fitting orientations for each filtered map) is a potential statistical-independence concern because orientations are optimized against the map under evaluation, but this is a soundness or validity issue rather than a circularity: no equation reduces to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The discrimination of overfitted versus non-overfitted maps is therefore an empirical benchmark result, not an equivalence to the method's inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the BioEM posterior model, the independence of the control set, and an empirical functional form for the NJSD. No new physical entities are introduced. The gamma, A, and B fit parameters are the main fitted quantities used for the resolution correlation.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (NJSD inverse-exponential scale) = varies by system and iteration, e.g., 0.05-0.1 1/Å
    Fitted to NJSD vs kc curves using -A e^{-kc/gamma}+B (Fig. 3); used in the gamma vs 1/resolution correlation (Fig. 4).
  • A, B (NJSD fit amplitude and offset) = not reported numerically
    Additional parameters of the empirical inverse-exponential fit to NJSD data; required to extract gamma.
  • Number of control particles N_omega = 5000 (standard), 1000 (convergence test)
    Chosen by the authors; convergence shown for TRPV1 at a single iteration/cutoff (Supp Fig 2); affects precision of observables.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BioEM posterior probability (Eq. 2) correctly models the image formation process for each particle given a map, including orientation, defocus, B-factor, noise, etc.
    The entire validation rests on the BioEM likelihood from refs [37,38]; the paper does not re-derive or test this model beyond citing.
  • domain assumption The control particle set is statistically independent of the refinement process.
    By construction (particles removed before RELION), but the orientation search uses the final map (Methods, 'BioEM algorithm'), so independence of the statistic is partial.
  • domain assumption The two gold-standard half-set reconstructions are independent realizations.
    Standard RELION procedure; used to define the NJSD comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The NJSD as a function of kc can be described by -A e^{-kc/gamma}+B.
    Empirical fit used to extract gamma; not derived. The paper notes it cannot be fit for the overfitted systems, which is part of the discriminator.
  • ad hoc to paper Noise particles generated as zero-mean unit-variance Gaussian images represent a 'false control' that mimics overfitting.
    Used as a negative control; the Gaussian noise model is a simplification of real cryo-EM noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-validation tests for cryo-EM maps using an independent particle set." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWWOSBZ6

@misc{pith2026190801054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-validation tests for cryo-EM maps using an independent particle set},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWWOSBZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01054}
}
read the original abstract

Cryo-electron microscopy is a revolutionary technique that can provide 3D density maps at near-atomic resolution. However, map validation is still an open issue in the field. Despite several efforts from the community, it is possible to overfit the reconstructions to noisy data. Here, inspired by modern statistics, we develop a novel methodology that uses a small independent particle set to validate the 3D maps. The main idea is to monitor how the map probability evolves over the control set during the 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 of the refinement iteration. We also compute the similarity between the probability distributions of the two reconstructions. As higher frequencies are added to the maps, more dissimilar are the distributions. We optimized the BioEM software package to perform these calculations, and tested the method on several systems, some which were overfitted. Our results show that our method is able to discriminate the overfitted sets from the non-overfitted ones. We conclude that having a control particle set, not used for the refinement, is essential for cross-validating cryo-EM maps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01054 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-validation protocol for unbiased map validation in cryo-EM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cumulative log-posterior relative to noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized Jensen-Shannon divergence (NJSD) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency γ versus the inverse of the resolution for the standard cryo-EM systems: HCN1, TRPV1 and RAG1-RAG2. The NJSD curves for these systems were fitted to an inverse exponential function −Ae−kc/γ + B. We find large correlations between γ and the inverse of the reso…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cryo-EM enters a new era

    K¨ uhlbrandt, W. Cryo-EM enters a new era. eLife 3, e03678 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Single-Particle Cryo-EM at Crystallographic Resolution

    Cheng, Y. Single-Particle Cryo-EM at Crystallographic Resolution. Cell 161, 450–457 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    & Wolf, M

    Murata, K. & Wolf, M. Cryo-electron microscopy for structural analysis of dynamic biological macromolecules. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1862, 324–334 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    & Cheng, Y

    Wu, S., Armache, J.-P. & Cheng, Y. Single-particle cryo-EM data acqui- sition by using direct electron detection camera. Microscopy 65, 35–41 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    & Henderson, R

    McMullan, G., Faruqi, A. & Henderson, R. Direct Electron Detectors. Methods in Enzymology 579, 1–17 (2016). 16

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    O., Acton, S

    Kervrann, C., Sanchez Sorzano, C. O., Acton, S. T., Olivo-Marin, J.-C. & Unser, M. A Guided Tour of Selected Image Processing and Analysis Methods for Fluorescence and Electron Microscopy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 10, 6–30 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    & Hummer, G

    Cossio, P. & Hummer, G. Likelihood-based structural analysis of elec- tron microscopy images. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 49, 162–168 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Lawson, C. L. et al. EMDataBank.org: unified data resource for Cry- oEM. Nucleic Acids Res 39, D456–D464 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Berman, H. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235–242 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Henderson, R. et al. Outcome of the First Electron Microscopy Valida- tion Task Force Meeting. Structure 20, 205–214 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Scheres, S. H. W. & Chen, S. Prevention of overfitting in cryo-EM structure determination. Nature methods 9, 853 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Sorzano, C. et al. XMIPP: a new generation of an open-source image processing package for electron microscopy. Journal of Structural Biol- ogy 148, 194–204 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Tang, G. et al. EMAN2: An extensible image processing suite for elec- tron microscopy. Journal of Structural Biology 157, 38–46 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Scheres, S. H. W. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. Journal of structural biology 180, 519–530 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    L., Fleet, D

    Punjani, A., Rubinstein, J. L., Fleet, D. J. & Brubaker, M. A. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure de- termination. Nature Methods 14, 290–296 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Saxton, W. O. & Baumeister, W. The correlation averaging of a reg- ularly arranged bacterial cell envelope protein. Journal of Microscopy 127, 127–138 (1982)

    1982

  9. [17]

    & van Heel, M

    Harauz, G. & van Heel, M. Exact Filters for General Geometry Three Dimensional Reconstruction. Optik 78, 6–30 (1986). 17

    1986

  10. [18]

    Rosenthal, P. B. & Rubinstein, J. L. Validating maps from single particle electron cryomicroscopy. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 34, 135–144 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Heymann, J. B. et al. The first single particle analysis Map Challenge: A summary of the assessments. Journal of structural biology 204, 291–300 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    & Schatz, M

    Van Heel, M. & Schatz, M. Fourier shell correlation threshold criteria. Journal of structural biology 151, 250–262 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Sorzano, C. O. S. et al. A review of resolution measures and related aspects in 3D Electron Microscopy. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology 124, 1–30 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Penczek, P. A. Resolution Measures in Molecular Electron Microscopy. Methods in Enzymology 482, 73–100 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    & Chiu, W

    Pintilie, G., Chen, D.-H., Haase-Pettingell, C., King, J. & Chiu, W. Resolution and Probabilistic Models of Components in CryoEM Maps of Mature P22 Bacteriophage. Biophysical Journal 110, 827–839 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Afonine, P. V. et al. New tools for the analysis and validation of cryo-EM maps and atomic models. Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology 74, 814–840 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Ficner, R

    Neumann, P., Dickmanns, A. & Ficner, R. Validating Resolution Rev- olution. Structure 26, 785–795.e4 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Avoiding the pitfalls of single particle cryo-electron mi- croscopy: Einstein from noise

    Henderson, R. Avoiding the pitfalls of single particle cryo-electron mi- croscopy: Einstein from noise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 18037–18041 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    J., Brenner, S

    Shatsky, M., Hall, R. J., Brenner, S. E. & Glaeser, R. M. A method for the alignment of heterogeneous macromolecules from electron mi- croscopy. Journal of structural biology 166, 67–78 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Chen, S. et al. High-resolution noise substitution to measure overfitting and validate resolution in 3D structure determination by single particle electron cryomicroscopy. Ultramicroscopy 135, 24–35 (2013). 18

    2013

  21. [29]

    Afanasyev, P. et al. Single-particle cryo-EM using alignment by classifi- cation (ABC): the structure of Lumbricus terrestris haemoglobin.IUCrJ 4, 678–694 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kucukelbir, A., Sigworth, F. J. & Tagare, H. D. Quantifying the local resolution of cryo-EM density maps. Nature methods 11, 63–5 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Cardone, G., Heymann, J. B. & Steven, A. C. One number does not fit all: mapping local variations in resolution in cryo-EM reconstructions. Journal of structural biology 184, 226–36 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Vargas, J., Melero, R., G´ omez-Blanco, J., Carazo, J. M. & Sorzano, C. O. S. Quantitative analysis of 3D alignment quality: its impact on soft-validation, particle pruning and homogeneity analysis. Scientific Reports 7, 6307 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Vargas, J., Ot´ on, J., Marabini, R., Carazo, J. M. & Sorzano, C. O. S. Particle alignment reliability in single particle electron cryomicroscopy: a general approach. Scientific Reports 6, 21626 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Brown, A. et al. Tools for macromolecular model building and re- finement into electron cryo-microscopy reconstructions. Acta Crystal- lographica Section D Biological Crystallography 71, 136–153 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Avramov, T. K. et al. Deep Learning for Validating and Estimating Resolution of Cryo-Electron Microscopy Density Maps. Molecules 24 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Br¨ unger, A. T. Free R value: a novel statistical quantity for assessing the accuracy of crystal structures. Nature 355, 472–475 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    & Hummer, G

    Cossio, P. & Hummer, G. Bayesian analysis of individual electron mi- croscopy images: Towards structures of dynamic and heterogeneous biomolecular assemblies. Journal of structural biology 184, 427–437 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Cossio, P. et al. BioEM: GPU-accelerated computing of Bayesian infer- ence of electron microscopy images. Computer Physics Communications 210, 163–171 (2017). 19

    2017

  31. [39]

    & Others

    Ru, H. & Others. Molecular Mechanism of V(D)J Recombination from Synaptic RAG1-RAG2 Complex Structures. Cell 163, 1138–1152 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    & MacKinnon, R

    Lee, C.-H. & MacKinnon, R. Structures of the human HCN1 hyperpolarization-activated channel. Cell 168, 111–120 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Structure of the TRPV1 ion channel determined by electron cryo-microscopy

    Liao Maofu, Cao Erhu, Julius David & Cheng Yifan. Structure of the TRPV1 ion channel determined by electron cryo-microscopy. Nature 504, 107 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Mao, Y. et al. Molecular architecture of the uncleaved HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein trimer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 12438–12443 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Structure of trimeric HIV-1 envelope glycoproteins

    Subramaniam, S. Structure of trimeric HIV-1 envelope glycoproteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, E4172–E4174 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    K., Salavert-Torres, J., Kleywegt, G

    Iudin, A., Korir, P. K., Salavert-Torres, J., Kleywegt, G. J. & Patward- han, A. EMPIAR: a public archive for raw electron microscopy image data. Nature Methods 13, 387–388 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    URL https://sites.google.com/site/ rubinsteingroup/home

    Rubinstein Lab. URL https://sites.google.com/site/ rubinsteingroup/home

  38. [46]

    Yershova, A., Jain, S., LaValle, S. M. & Mitchell, J. C. Generating uniform incremental grids on SO(3) using the Hopf fibration. Int. J. Robot. Res. 29, 801–812 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Cossio, P. et al. Bayesian inference of rotor ring stoichiometry from electron microscopy images of archaeal ATP synthase. Microscopy 67, 266–273 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Information theory and statistics

    Kullback, S. Information theory and statistics. (Dover Publications, 1968)

    1968

  41. [49]

    Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy

    Lin, J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 145–151 (1991)

    1991

  42. [50]

    Cover, T. M. & Thomas, J. A. Elements of information theory 2nd edition (2006). 20 Supplementary Information: Cross-validation tests for cryo-EM maps using an independent particle set Sebastian Ortiz1, Luka Stanisic2, Boris A Rodriguez 3, Markus Rampp2, Gerhard Hummer 4,5, and...

    2006 arXiv

  43. [51]

    The following input file is for a subset of particles that have experimental defocus between 1.3 and 1.7µm

    The best orientations for each particle are obtained using the final map from the refinement. The following input file is for a subset of particles that have experimental defocus between 1.3 and 1.7µm. The best 10 orientations for each particle are selected. PIXEL SIZE 1.22 NUMBE...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.