4.7 Article

A Bayesian View on Cryo-EM Structure Determination

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 415, Issue 2, Pages 406-418

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.11.010

Keywords

cryo-electron microscopy; three-dimensional reconstruction; maximum a posteriori estimation

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [BFU2007-62382/BMC, BFU2010-21886/BMC]
  2. National Institutes of Health though the National Center for Research Resources [RR017573]
  3. Medical Research Council (UK)
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A025_1013] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_UP_A025_1013] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three-dimensional (3D) structure determination by single-particle analysis of cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) images requires many parameters to be determined from extremely noisy data. This makes the method prone to overfitting, that is, when structures describe noise rather than signal, in particular near their resolution limit where noise levels are highest. Cryo-EM structures are typically filtered using ad hoc procedures to prevent overfitting, but the tuning of arbitrary parameters may lead to subjectivity in the results. I describe a Bayesian interpretation of cryo-EM structure determination, where smoothness in the reconstructed density is imposed through a Gaussian prior in the Fourier domain. The statistical framework dictates how data and prior knowledge should be combined, so that the optimal 3D linear filter is obtained without the need for arbitrariness and objective resolution estimates may be obtained. Application to experimental data indicates that the statistical approach yields more reliable structures than existing methods and is capable of detecting smaller classes in data sets that contain multiple different structures. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available