↓ Skip to main content

Methods to account for movement and flexibility in cryo-EM data processing

Overview of attention for article published in ImmunoMethods, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methods to account for movement and flexibility in cryo-EM data processing
Published in
ImmunoMethods, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.03.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Rawson, M.G. Iadanza, N.A. Ranson, S.P. Muench

Abstract

Recent advances in direct electron detectors and improved CMOS cameras have been accompanied by the development of a range of software to take advantage of the data they produce. In particular they allow for the correction of two types of motion in cryo electron microscopy samples: motion correction for movements of the sample particles in the ice, and differential masking to account for heterogeneity caused by flexibility within protein complexes. Here we provide several scripts that allow users to move between RELION and standalone motion correction and centring programs. We then compare the computational cost and improvements in data quality with each program. We also describe our masking procedures to account for conformational flexibility. For the different elements of this study we have used three samples; a high symmetry virus, flexible protein complex (∼1MDa) and a relatively small protein complex (∼550kDa), to benchmark four widely available motion correction packages. Using these as test cases we demonstrate how motion correction and differential masking, as well as an additional particle re-centring protocol can improve final reconstructions when used within the RELION image-processing package.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 24%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 15%
Computer Science 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Chemistry 5 4%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,747,916
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from ImmunoMethods
#1,825
of 2,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,197
of 314,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ImmunoMethods
#30
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,514 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.