Back

Preserving Information and Integrity in Cryo-EM: A Fourier-Space Deposition Approach

Otwinowski, Z.; Bromberg, R.; Guo, Y.; Borek, D.

2025-11-28 biophysics
10.1101/2025.11.26.690836 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Current guidelines for depositing cryogenic electron microscopy single particle reconstruction (cryo-EM SPR) data require submission of unfiltered, unmasked, and unsharpened raw half-maps. The Fourier Shell Correlation (FSC) between the half-maps is then used as a proxy for the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to estimate the reconstructions resolution. This policy was introduced to enable independent validation of reported resolutions. Although developed to safeguard data integrity and minimize bias, these guidelines do not account for specific features of modern cryo-EM processing software, in particular weighting schemes that are not retained in half-map depositions and yet in general are necessary to recapitulate resolution estimates. As a results, resolution estimates and other validation statistics based on half-maps FSC may be under- or overestimated. Here, we describe the limitations of the current deposition guidelines and propose an alternative: depositing cryo-EM results in Fourier (reciprocal) space together with the mandatory deposit of molecular masks or their descriptors. This approach addresses the current limitations, preserves critical information from the reconstruction process, and better supports downstream analyses. HighlightsO_LIReciprocal-space deposition to preserve signal and uncertainty estimates. C_LIO_LIMandatory molecular masks deposition for accurate and unbiased FSC validation. C_LIO_LILimitations of half-map-based Fourier Shell Coefficients. C_LIO_LIThe difference maps can be calculated. C_LI Graphical abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=137 SRC="FIGDIR/small/690836v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (36K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1a35884org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1086af4org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1a5f118org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@177815a_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.9%
2
Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
Journal of Structural Biology: X
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Microscopy and Microanalysis
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
5
Structure
175 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
IUCrJ
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.7%
8
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.8%
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.0%
10
Nature Protocols
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.0%
11
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 33%
2.5%
12
Journal of Applied Crystallography
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
13
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
15
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.9%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.9%
19
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Biophysical Reports
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
22
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
23
Journal of Molecular Biology
217 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
Methods
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%