Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Cryo-EM as a Stochastic Inverse Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that cryo-EM reconstruction is a stochastic inverse problem: the unknown is a probability distribution over molecular conformations, recovered by a Wasserstein gradient flow, and demonstrated on simulated HSP90 data with…

desk verdict A coherent variational framework for cryo-EM as a stochastic inverse problem, with a clean particle gradient flow and a useful MAP connection—but the experiments are synthetic-only and the HSP90 section directly contradicts itself on whether viewing directions were random or fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05541 v1 pith:SSCOIZIX submitted 2025-09-05 stat.ML cs.LGcs.NAmath.NAmath.OCphysics.data-an

Diego Sanchez Espinosa , Erik H Thiede , Yunan Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGcs.NAmath.NAmath.OCphysics.data-an MSC 65M3249Q2265M7565K10
keywords cryo-EMstructuralheterogeneitystochasticinverseproblemWassersteingradientflowparticlemethodpush-forwardmeasuremaximummeandiscrepancy
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 seeks to establish that cryo-EM reconstruction is a stochastic inverse problem over probability measures: the unknown is not a single 3D structure but an entire distribution $\rho_\theta$ over molecular conformations. It formulates reconstruction as the variational problem of minimizing a statistical discrepancy (KL, MMD, or energy distance) between the observed image distribution $\rho_y^\delta$ and the distribution $F(\rho_\theta)$ predicted by pushing a candidate structural distribution through the random imaging operator. The paper shows this variational problem can be solved by a Wasserstein gradient flow, implemented with a particle system, and demonstrates in simulations—including a realistic HSP90 protein with only 3,000 images—that continuous conformational distributions are recoverable. It also shows that established MAP-based cryo-EM pipelines fit within the same framework as discretize-then-optimize limits, and it supplies consistency conditions under which those limits converge to the infinite-dimensional solution. If these claims hold, cryo-EM would gain a way to study continuous protein dynamics rather than discrete classes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the random push-forward operator $F(\rho_\theta) = \int T_{\hat\omega\#}\rho_\theta \, d\mu_\omega(\hat\omega)$, which sends a distribution over structures to the predicted distribution of images by composing each structure with a random rotation, projection, and convolution, then mixing over the law of the noise and geometry. The paper solves the variational problem (2.6) by evolving the structural distribution along the Wasserstein gradient flow, equation (2.10), whose velocity field is the composition of the adjoint Jacobian $\nabla T_\omega^\top$ with the Fréchet derivative of the chosen discrepancy $\delta D/\delta\rho_y$; this flow is simulated by the particle ODE (2.11), with the adjoint-vector product evaluated by reverse-mode automatic differentiation.

What would settle it

Take the simulated HSP90 setup and repeat with images corrupted by an unmodeled contrast transfer function or with orientations drawn from a strongly biased, non-uniform distribution; if the recovered conformational distribution shifts systematically away from the known ground truth, the claim that the flow recovers the true structural distribution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cryo-EM reconstruction is posed as a variational problem over probability measures: minimize $E(\rho_\theta) = D(F(\rho_\theta), \rho_y^\delta)$, where $F$ is the random push-forward of the unknown structural distribution through rotations, projection, and additive noise. The authors show that this objective admits a Wasserstein gradient flow, whose particle discretization gives a deterministic ensemble update for conformational samples. Numerically, the flow recovers continuous conformational distributions—including a simulated HSP90 protein from only 3,000 images, without pre-estimated viewing directions. The paper further shows that common MAP-based pipelines are discretize-then-optimize instances of the same variational problem, and it gives $\Gamma$-convergence conditions under which such schemes converge to the infinite-dimensional optimum as data and particle counts grow.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the observed images really are independent draws from the push-forward of some structural distribution under the known forward model with uniform random rotations and known noise—if that generative model is wrong, the recovered distribution is not guaranteed to match reality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continuous conformational variability, such as hinge bending or domain opening, can in principle be recovered without discrete classification or pre-estimated viewing directions.
  • The particle flow automatically produces samples from the inferred conformational distribution, so downstream quantities such as ensemble averages or approximate free-energy differences follow directly.
  • Because the framework only needs a differentiable simulator of the image-formation process, it transfers to other stochastic inverse problems with random forward operators.
  • MAP-based cryo-EM pipelines are unified with this framework as a discretize-then-optimize limit, and the consistency conditions specify when their output converges to the continuous solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the variational objective is well-behaved, the number of images needed may scale with the intrinsic dimension of the conformational landscape rather than the number of discrete states, which would change how cryo-EM experiments are designed for dynamic proteins.
  • The OTD/DTO distinction suggests a testable benchmark: on the same dataset, a DTO reconstruction and an OTD flow should agree in the large-data limit; discrepancies would localize where the discretization prematurely constrains the solution space.
  • The method's reliance on kernel choices (energy distance versus other MMD kernels) could be probed by varying the kernel and measuring whether the recovered distribution shifts in Wasserstein distance, a sensitivity the paper leaves unexplored.
  • Applying the flow to experimental data will require coupling it to per-image orientation estimation; whether the uniform-rotation assumption can be relaxed to learned pose distributions is a natural untested extension.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates single-particle cryo-EM reconstruction with structural heterogeneity as a stochastic inverse problem over the space of probability measures. The authors model the observed images as an empirical distribution obtained by pushing an unknown distribution over molecular conformations through a random forward operator that includes random rotations, projection, convolution, and Gaussian noise. Reconstruction is posed as a variational problem (Eq. 2.6) minimizing a discrepancy D (KL divergence, MMD, or energy distance) between predicted and observed image distributions, and is solved by a Wasserstein gradient flow (Eq. 2.10), discretized as an interacting particle system (Eq. 2.11). The paper derives a connection between this optimize-then-discretize approach and MAP-based discretize-then-optimize methods (Section 3), including a Gamma-convergence result for the large-data limit and a consistency result for particle discretization. Numerical experiments on a 1D toy problem, a 2D nanocluster model, and a synthetic HSP90 protein with low-dimensional normal-mode dynamics aim to show recovery of continuous conformational distributions from simulated cryo-EM images.

Significance. The core idea of treating the conformational distribution as the object of inference and using gradient flows in Wasserstein space is well motivated and, to my knowledge, a novel combination with the cryo-EM push-forward model and MMD/energy discrepancies. The theoretical contribution includes a clean derivation of how the MAP/RELION-style objective emerges as a DTO discretization of a KL-based variational problem (Section 3.1), and the Gamma-convergence and consistency results (Propositions 3.1-3.3) provide a useful framework, albeit under assumptions that are not verified for the specific objectives used. The particle method is natural and leverages JAX reverse-mode adjoints. However, the numerical validation is entirely synthetic and lacks baselines; more importantly, the viewing-direction contradiction in Section 4.3 undermines the main experimental claim. If these issues are resolved, the paper could be a valuable contribution to continuous-heterogeneity analysis in cryo-EM and to stochastic inverse problems generally.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 (PCA paragraph), §5] There is a direct contradiction about viewing directions in the HSP90 experiment. Section 4.3 states that 'random rotations are drawn from R∼U(SO(3))' for generating the observed images, and Algorithm 4.1 instructs the user to 'Generate random orientations from uniform quaternion distribution' at every iteration; Section 5 advertises as a differentiator that the method 'does not explicitly assume that the viewing direction for each image has been estimated a priori but instead draw it randomly.' Yet the PCA-comparison paragraph in Section 4.3 says: 'To simplify the analysis, we fix the viewing directions throughout the experiment.' If the reported recovery (Fig. 6, energy distances 89.21 to 19.44) was obtained with fixed viewing directions, then the method's advertised ability to handle unknown random rotations is not tested by the main realistic experiment, and the Section 5 claim is unsupported. If the sentence refers only to the PCA diagnostic in Fig. 8, the wording is still misleading and must be corrected. The authors must state unambiguously, for the run that produced Fig. 6, whether the random orientations were drawn per Algorithm 4.1 or fixed, and if fixed, provide an experiment with random rotations to support the central claim.
  2. [§2.5.1, Eq. (2.7), §3.1 Eq. (3.1)] The direction of the KL divergence is inconsistent between the gradient formula and the MAP derivation. Eq. (2.7) defines D_KL(µ||ν); if the variational objective in (2.6) uses D = D_KL(F(ρθ) || ρ^δ_y), then the Fréchet derivative in Section 2.5.1, δD/δρ_y = log(ρ_y/ρ^δ_y) + 1, is correct. However, Section 3.1, Eq. (3.1), defines the objective with D_KL(ρ^δ_y || ρ_y), the reversed direction. The Fréchet derivative of the reversed KL with respect to ρ_y is -ρ^δ_y/ρ_y, not the formula given. This matters for the sign of the particle update (2.11). The numerical experiments in Section 4 state that they 'use the KL divergence (2.7)' but do not specify which argument order is used. The authors must specify the exact functional form used for D in all numerical examples, correct the formula in Section 2.5.1 if needed, and check that the resulting gradient direction is consistent with the reported convergence of the algorithm.
  3. [§2.4, Eq. (2.11), §5] The paper does not provide convergence analysis for the particle gradient flow (2.11), which is the algorithm used in all experiments. Section 2.4 only notes that the empirical measure approximation is subject to 'numerical error, random error and potential (density) estimation error,' and Section 5 explicitly says that 'a comprehensive convergence analysis for the proposed particle method' is future work. For a paper whose main methodological contribution is the OTD approach, the absence of any theoretical guarantee for the discretized gradient flow (in number of particles N, step size Δt, and Monte Carlo samples K for the random rotation) leaves the core numerical scheme unsupported. At minimum, the paper should state this limitation in Section 2 where the method is introduced, and ideally add a convergence result for the linear 1D case (the setting of Section 4.1) to establish consistency of the scheme with the continuous Wasserstein gradient flow.
  4. [§4, abstract] The numerical validation is entirely synthetic and lacks baseline comparisons, error bars, or repeated-seed statistics. The 1D and nanocluster examples are illustrative, but the HSP90 experiment, described as 'realistic,' is the main evidence for the abstract's claim that the method 'demonstrates its ability to recover continuous distributions over structural states.' This claim is weakened by (i) the viewing-direction ambiguity raised above, (ii) the absence of any comparison with existing continuous-heterogeneity methods such as RECOVAR, 3DVA, or cryoDRGN, and (iii) no assessment of sensitivity to the KDE bandwidth, learning rate, or random initial conditions. I recommend adding at least one baseline comparison on the same synthetic data and reporting statistics over multiple random seeds, or tempering the abstract's validation claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, §4.3] The superscript formatting in '104' and '9 × 104' is lost; these should clearly read '10^4' and '9 × 10^4', otherwise the stated sample sizes and iteration counts are implausible.
  2. [§4.3] In the sentence 'In contrast, four our initial guess distribution ρθ', 'four' should be 'for'.
  3. [Eq. (2.9)] The energy distance definition has a formatting error: the expression inside the square root appears to end with a stray vertical bar, and the definition should be checked against standard references to ensure the signs are correct.
  4. [§3.1, after Eq. (3.5)] The statement that Eq. (3.5) is 'precisely [29, Eqn. (2)]' is stronger than what is shown; the derivation involves dropping constants and setting λ = K/N, and RELION's practical objective also contains terms for per-image normalization and the noise model. The equivalence should be qualified as holding after the stated simplifications.
  5. [§3.2, Lemma 3.2] Lemma 3.2 assumes that E is continuous in the weak topology, but the paper does not state whether this continuity holds for the KL or MMD objectives used in the examples; the applicability of the lemma to the numerical settings should be addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variational formulation and gradient-flow derivation are self-contained; the main validity concern is an internal contradiction about viewing directions, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (2.1) defines the forward model, (2.2)-(2.4) define the push-forward map F, (2.6) poses the variational inverse problem, and (2.10)-(2.11) derive the Wasserstein gradient flow and particle update. The numerical experiments generate synthetic data from that same forward model and then optimize the same objective; no parameter is fitted to the target distribution and then reported as an independent prediction, and the reported discrepancies are diagnostics against a known ground truth. The paper cites prior work by the same authors ([31,32,33] for SIP and Wasserstein gradient flow, [46,47] for the ensemble perspective), but these citations support modeling choices and well-posedness assumptions rather than supplying the numerical recovery claim; no load-bearing uniqueness or existence theorem is imported to force the central result. The clearest issue is a correctness/validity problem, not a circularity: Section 4.3 says 'random rotations are drawn from R~U(SO(3))' and Algorithm 4.1 generates random orientations every iteration, yet the PCA paragraph states 'To simplify the analysis, we fix the viewing directions throughout the experiment.' This contradiction undermines the claim that unknown orientations were tested in the HSP90 experiment, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on correctness of the generative forward model, on regularity assumptions for the variational problem, and on a reduced normal-mode representation in the protein experiment. No invented entities are introduced. Free parameters are experimental or algorithmic choices rather than newly postulated physical quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • KDE bandwidth epsilon for the one-dimensional KL experiment = 0.3496 (Silverman rule-of-thumb)
    Used to estimate densities in the KL discrepancy in Section 4.1; the numerical result depends on this data-derived bandwidth.
  • Regularization weight lambda in Eq (3.1) = lambda = K/N
    Introduced in the KL objective and then identified with RELION's regularization; this choice is needed for the MAP equivalence claim.
  • Adam learning rate vector and hyperparameters in Algorithm 4.1 = not reported
    The algorithm defines an eta vector and no values are given in the paper, so the numerical results depend on unreported hand choices.
  • Number of normal modes used for HSP90 in Section 4.3 = 4
    The synthetic protein motion is truncated to four low-frequency modes; the recovered distribution is only about this reduced latent space.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The search domain Omega admits minimizers of E; coercivity and lower semicontinuity are assumed.
    The paper states in Section 2.3 that it assumes such conditions hold for existence of minimizers, without verifying them for KL or MMD on realistic spaces.
  • domain assumption Images are produced by the forward model (2.1) with additive Gaussian noise, uniform random rotations, orthographic projection, and known point-spread convolution.
    The entire inversion is based on this generative model, and all synthetic data are drawn from it; model misspecification is untested.
  • domain assumption The true image distribution is the push-forward F(rho_theta) for some structure distribution rho_theta, as in Eqs (2.2)-(2.4).
    This defines the inverse problem, but identifiability of rho_theta from F(rho_theta) is not established.
  • domain assumption In Proposition 3.1, assumptions A1-A3 hold: joint lower semicontinuity of D, uniform compact sublevel sets, and SLLN convergence of E_N to E.
    These are sufficient conditions for the Gamma-convergence argument but are not proved for the KL or MMD losses on cryo-EM image spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper In Proposition 3.3, E has a unique minimizer and satisfies a Lojasiewicz-type inequality (3.12).
    This strong inequality is assumed to convert value convergence into distribution convergence; no example in the paper is shown to satisfy it.
  • domain assumption HSP90 conformational changes are well approximated by four low-frequency normal modes scaled by the inverse square root of their eigenvalues.
    Used in Section 4.3 to build the synthetic HSP90 test; standard normal mode analysis but a strong simplification of true protein dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cryo-EM as a Stochastic Inverse Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSCOIZIX

@misc{pith2026250905541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cryo-EM as a Stochastic Inverse Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSCOIZIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05541}
}
read the original abstract

Cryo-electron microscopy (Cryo-EM) enables high-resolution imaging of biomolecules, but structural heterogeneity remains a major challenge in 3D reconstruction. Traditional methods assume a discrete set of conformations, limiting their ability to recover continuous structural variability. In this work, we formulate cryo-EM reconstruction as a stochastic inverse problem (SIP) over probability measures, where the observed images are modeled as the push-forward of an unknown distribution over molecular structures via a random forward operator. We pose the reconstruction problem as the minimization of a variational discrepancy between observed and simulated image distributions, using statistical distances such as the KL divergence and the Maximum Mean Discrepancy. The resulting optimization is performed over the space of probability measures via a Wasserstein gradient flow, which we numerically solve using particles to represent and evolve conformational ensembles. We validate our approach using synthetic examples, including a realistic protein model, which demonstrates its ability to recover continuous distributions over structural states. We analyze the connection between our formulation and Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) approaches, which can be interpreted as instances of the discretize-then-optimize (DTO) framework. We further provide a consistency analysis, establishing conditions under which DTO methods, such as MAP estimation, converge to the solution of the underlying infinite-dimensional continuous problem. Beyond cryo-EM, the framework provides a general methodology for solving SIPs involving random forward operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One-dimensional Test System: Comparison among true, estimated, and initial dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the number of iterations (left) and computation time in minutes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heterogeneity in Nanoclusters: Visual comparison between the true images generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heterogeneity in Nanoclusters: The initial parameter distribution (left), the esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations of the 3D structure of protein HSP90 (a) and 2D simulated cryo-EM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cryo-EM synthetic example: Comparison between the true parameter distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of conformational variability along 4 dominant normal modes. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cryo-EM Synthetic Example: Comparison among PCA for the true PCA distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abraham, M

    F. Abraham, M. Behr, and M. Heinkenschloss. The effect of stabilization in finite element methods for the optimal boundary control of the Oseen equations. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , 41(3):229–251, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Bahar, T

    I. Bahar, T. R. Lezon, L.-W. Yang, and E. Eyal. Global dynamics of proteins: bridging between structure and function. Annual Review of Biophysics , 39:23–42, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    P. R. Baldwin, Y. Z. Tan, E. T. Eng, W. J. Rice, A. J. Noble, C. J. Negro, M. A. Cianfrocco, C. S. Potter, and B. Carragher. Big data in cryoEM: automated collection, processing and accessibility of EM data. Current Opinion in Microbiology , 43:1–8, 2018. Environmental Microbiology * The New Microscopy

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    A. Braides. A handbook of Γ-convergence. In Handbook of Differential Equations: stationary partial differential equations, volume 3, pages 101–213. Elsevier, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Breidt, T

    J. Breidt, T. Butler, and D. Estep. A measure-theoretic computational method for inverse sensitivity problems I: Method and analysis. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 49(5):1836–1859, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Burkardt, M

    J. Burkardt, M. Gunzburger, and J. Peterson. Insensitive functionals, inconsistent gradients, spuri- ous minima, and regularized functionals in flow optimization problems. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics , 16(3):171–185, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Butler and D

    T. Butler and D. Estep. A numerical method for solving a stochastic inverse problem for parameters. Annals of Nuclear Energy , 52:86–94, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Butler, D

    T. Butler, D. Estep, and J. Sandelin. A computational measure theoretic approach to inverse sensitivity problems II: A posteriori error analysis. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 50(1):22–45, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Butler, D

    T. Butler, D. Estep, S. Tavener, C. Dawson, and J. J. Westerink. A measure-theoretic computational method for inverse sensitivity problems III: Multiple quantities of interest. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 2(1):174–202, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Callaway

    E. Callaway. The revolution will not be crystallized: a new method sweeps through structural biology. Nature, 525(7568):172–174, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Carragher, Y

    B. Carragher, Y. Cheng, A. Frost, R. M. Glaeser, G. C. Lander, E. Nogales, and H.-W. Wang. Current outcomes when optimizing ‘standard’ sample preparation for single-particle cryo-EM. Journal of microscopy, 276(1):39–45, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Y.-C. Chen. A tutorial on kernel density estimation and recent advances, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Chothia and A

    C. Chothia and A. M. Lesk. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. The EMBO Journal , 5(4):823–826, 1986

    1986

  7. [15]

    Cryojax documentation

    CryoJAX Developers. Cryojax documentation. https://github.com/your-library-link, 2025. Accessed: This manuscript is for review purposes only. 24 DIEGO S. ESPINOSA, ERIK H. THIEDE, YUNAN YANG 2025-03-24

    2025

  8. [16]

    K. A. Dill and J. L. MacCallum. The protein-folding problem, 50 years on. Science, 338(6110):1042– 1046, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    R. M. Dudley. Real analysis and probability. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Faruqi and R

    A. Faruqi and R. Henderson. Electronic detectors for electron microscopy. Current Opinion in Struc- tural Biology, 17(5):549–555, 2007. Carbohydrates and glycoconjugates / Biophysical methods

    2007

  11. [19]

    J. Frank. Three-Dimensional Electron Microscopy of Macromolecular Assemblies: Visualization of Biological Molecules in Their Native State . Oxford University Press, 03 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Frank and A

    J. Frank and A. Ourmazd. Continuous changes in structure mapped by manifold embedding of single- particle data in cryo-EM. Methods, 100:61–67, 2016. Single Particle Cryo-EM, from sample to reconstruction

    2016

  13. [21]

    M. A. Gilles and A. Singer. Cryo-EM heterogeneity analysis using regularized covariance estimation and kernel regression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(9):e2419140122, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    R. M. Glaeser. How good can cryo-EM become? Nature Methods, 13(1):28–32, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    D. S. Goodsell and A. J. Olson. Structural symmetry and protein function. Annual Review of Bio- physics and Biomolecular Structure , 29:105 – 153, 2000. Cited by: 778

    2000

  16. [24]

    W. W. Hager. Runge-Kutta methods in optimal control and the transformed adjoint system. Nu- merische Mathematik, 87(2):247–282, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Haliloglu, I

    T. Haliloglu, I. Bahar, and B. Erman. Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:3090– 3093, Oct 1997

    1997

  18. [26]

    Henderson

    R. Henderson. The potential and limitations of neutrons, electrons and x-rays for atomic resolution microscopy of unstained biological molecules. Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics , 28(2):171–193, 1995

    1995

  19. [27]

    J. R. Horn and B. K. Shoichet. Allosteric inhibition through core disruption. Journal of Molecular Biology, 336(5):1283–1291, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Jamali, L

    K. Jamali, L. K¨ all, R. Zhang, A. Brown, D. Kimanius, and S. H. W. Scheres. Automated model building and protein identification in cryo-EM maps. Nature, 628(8007):450–457, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Kimanius, L

    D. Kimanius, L. Dong, G. Sharov, T. Nakane, and S. H. Scheres. New tools for automated cryo-EM single-particle analysis in RELION-4.0. Biochemical Journal, 478(24):4169–4185, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    K¨ uhlbrandt

    W. K¨ uhlbrandt. The resolution revolution. Science, 343(6178):1443–1444, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Q. Li, M. Oprea, L. Wang, and Y. Yang. Stochastic Inverse Problem: stability, regularization and Wasserstein gradient flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00229 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Q. Li, M. Oprea, L. Wang, and Y. Yang. Inverse problems over probability measure space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18999, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Q. Li, L. Wang, and Y. Yang. Differential Equation–Constrained Optimization with Stochasticity. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 12(2):549–578, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Moscovich, A

    A. Moscovich, A. Halevi, J. And´ en, and A. Singer. Cryo-EM reconstruction of continuous heterogeneity by Laplacian spectral volumes. Inverse Problems, 36(2):024003, jan 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Nakane, A

    T. Nakane, A. Kotecha, A. Sente, G. McMullan, S. Masiulis, P. M. G. E. Brown, I. T. Grigoras, L. Malinauskaite, T. Malinauskas, J. Miehling, T. Ucha´ nski, L. Yu, D. Karia, E. V. Pechnikova, E. de Jong, J. Keizer, M. Bischoff, J. McCormack, P. Tiemeijer, S. W. Hardwick, D. Y. ...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Punjani and D

    A. Punjani and D. J. Fleet. 3D variability analysis: Resolving continuous flexibility and discrete heterogeneity from single particle cryo-EM. Journal of structural biology , 213(2):107702, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Punjani, J

    A. Punjani, J. L. Rubinstein, D. J. Fleet, and M. A. Brubaker. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination. Nature Methods, 14(3):290–296, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Punjani, H

    A. Punjani, H. Zhang, and D. J. Fleet. Non-uniform refinement: adaptive regularization improves single-particle cryo-EM reconstruction. Nature Methods, 17(12):1214–1221, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    S. H. Scheres. A Bayesian view on cryo-EM structure determination. Journal of Molecular Biology , 415(2):406–418, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    S. H. Scheres. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. Journal of Structural Biology , 180(3):519–530, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Sejdinovic, B

    D. Sejdinovic, B. Sriperumbudur, A. Gretton, and K. Fukumizu. Equivalence of distance-based and RKHS-based statistics in hypothesis testing. The Annals of Statistics , 41(5), Oct. 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    A. K. Shiau, S. F. Harris, D. R. Southworth, and D. A. Agard. Structural analysis of E. coli hsp90 reveals dramatic nucleotide-dependent conformational rearrangements.Cell, 127(2):329–340, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    F. J. Sigworth. Principles of cryo-EM single-particle image processing. Microscopy, 65(1):57–67, 12 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    A. M. Stuart. Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective. Acta numerica, 19:451–559, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Subramaniam, W

    S. Subramaniam, W. K¨ uhlbrandt, and R. Henderson. CryoEM atIUCrJ: a new era. IUCrJ, 3(1):3–7, Jan 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    W. S. Tang, D. Silva-S´ anchez, J. Giraldo-Barreto, B. Carpenter, S. M. Hanson, A. H. Barnett, E. H. Thiede, and P. Cossio. Ensemble Reweighting Using Cryo-EM Particle Images. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B , 127(24):5410–5421, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    W. S. Tang, E. D. Zhong, S. M. Hanson, E. H. Thiede, and P. Cossio. Conformational heterogeneity and probability distributions from single-particle cryo-electron microscopy. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 81:102626, 2023. This manuscript is for review purposes only. 25

    2023

  40. [48]

    M. M. Tirion. Large amplitude elastic motions in proteins from a single-parameter, atomic analysis. Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:1905–1908, Aug 1996

    1905

  41. [49]

    A. Uzman. Molecular biology of the cell (4th ed.): Alberts, b., johnson, a., lewis, j., raff, m., roberts, k., and walter, p. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 31(4):212–214, 2003

    2003

  42. [50]

    Vadeboncoeur, M

    A. Vadeboncoeur, M. Girolami, and A. M. Stuart. Efficient Deconvolution in Populational Inverse Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19841 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. M. Krieger, Y. Zhang, C. Kaya, B. Kaynak, K. Mikulska-Ruminska, P. Doruker, H. Li, and I. Bahar. ProDy 2.0: increased scale and scope after 10 years of protein dynamics modelling with python. Bioinformatics, 37(20):3657–3659, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    E. D. Zhong, T. Bepler, B. Berger, and J. H. Davis. CryoDRGN: reconstruction of heterogeneous cryo-EM structures using neural networks. Nature Methods, 18(2):176–185, 2021. This manuscript is for review purposes only

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.