[3dem] [ccpem] Differences EM CP maps vs Xray ED Maps

Wed Nov 15 10:31:40 PST 2023

Dear Rasmus,

I am not really harsh on Harold Erickson. He is an open-minded scientist
and that work was good for its time,  When I called him a few years ago on
the issue there was absolutely no problem in discussing the matter and he
even remembered that we had spoken about it in 1977 during an EMBO EM
school in Basel (when I was still writing my 1978 paper). The problem with
such early papers is that science insights change and the approximations
made by Erickson and Klug had their limitations. In my 1978 paper on
partial coherence the REAL and  the IMAGINARY parts of the complex object
transmittance are treated fully independent. In fact the theory applies to
light microscopy as well as electron microscopy and to other imaging
systems. If any real criticism is appropriate here, that would apply to the
later generations of researchers who just take over the old formulas
without thinking about their meaning.

Adding two more cents

Marin

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:01 AM Schroeder, Rasmus <
rasmus.schroeder at bioquant.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

> Dear Marin - and all others here,
>
> I would not be so harsh with that paper from 1971, there is always a
> certain level of experimental data, and - as far as I understand it - at
> that time and resolution level obtainable it looked as if amplitude and
> phase potentials could be identical.
>
> As you point out correctly, this is not the case, and I may add a study we
> did many, many years ago looking into the CTF for an energy filtered TEM
> (Angert et al., Ultramicroscopy 81 (2000) 203-222).
> Here a correct CTF needs to include yet another cos-term ….. and the zeros
> in the experimental and theoretical CTF only fit, if an additional
> cos-contrast (amplitude contrast produced by the energy filter) is added …
> (And yes, I apologize for the quality of the data, but it was the best we
> managed to get with that very old hardware at that time …)
>
> And I may add a bit of relief to all here: Do not get too excited that
> nobody uses this additional cos-term at present. The explanation is simple:
> Nobody cares for the extra bit of very low resolution data when fitting a
> CTF going out to better than a few Angstroms ….. But the problem with the
> density and the phase at “zero” remains ….
>
> My 2 cent ….
>
> Best,
>
> Rasmus
>
>
> On 15. Oct 2023, at 22:22, Marin van Heel <marin.vanheel at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Unfortunately, a fundamental mistake has been made in the much-cited
> paper by Erickson and Klug [Erickson & Klug 1971] more than 50 years ago.
>  They assumed that the EM *amplitude contrast* of the (stained )
> biological object to be *proportional* to the *phase contrast* of the
> same object over all spatial frequencies. If that were indeed the case, one
> single transfer function would suffice to describe how the linear imaging
> device would generate an output image. In reality, however, the *amplitude
> contrast* and *phase contrast* two *separate properties* of the *complex
> transmission function* of the object, and these are associated with
> different physical properties [Van Heel 1978] . The problem is that that
> proportionality error has crept into almost all popular CTF determination
> programs where, say, 10% or 15% amplitude contrast is suggested ab initio.
> Any percentage of amplitude contrast erroneously causes the average density
> of the cryo-EM 3D reconstruction to deviate from *zero*. Any
> phase-contrast image must yield a *zero average* as it should be for any
> phase contrast image where what is measured is the *difference* in *phase*
> between any point in the back focal plane of the system with respect to the
> *phase* at the origin!  That thus means that the *phase* at the origin
> must be *zero*.  (*Zero* being the average density over the image around
> which the phase information is modulated) . Adding a *cosine* component
> to  the CTF (a *sine*) will shift the zeroes of the CTF and therewith
> shift the defocus values found in most programs (no longer the real
> defocus!). That makes such results no longer comparable  to each other
> and will also complicate any comparison with zero-average density maps in
> X-ray crystallography.
>
> Two more cents added!
>
> Marin
>
> Erickson HP, Klug A (1971). Measurement and Compensation of Defocusing and
> Aberrations by Fourier Processing of Electron Micrographs. Phil. Trans. R.
> Soc. Lond. B. 261; 105-118.
>
> van Heel, M. (1978). On the imaging of relatively strong objects in
> partially coherent illumination in optics and electron optics. Optik. 49,
> 389–408.
>
> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/2014-July/003454.html
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 10:01 AM Guillaume Gaullier <
> guillaume.gaullier at kemi.uu.se> wrote:
>
>> Hello Bernhard,
>>
>> According to PDB/EMDB validation reports, this spike in the voxel values
>> histogram is caused by masking. One validation report I have says "A spike
>> in this graph at zero usually indicates that the volume has been masked".
>> You can probably also find this note in validation reports of released
>> PDB/EMDB entries.
>>
>> Opening a map from 3D refinement and one of the two half-maps from the
>> same job seems to confirm this. The map’s histogram shows this spike at
>> zero, but the half-map’s histogram doesn’t. Half-maps are never filtered
>> nor masked, whereas the main map is masked (in cryoSPARC this is done by
>> default, unless one turns off automatic masking and doesn’t provide any
>> mask). See the attached histograms.
>>
>> The fact that there is no absolute scale for contour level in cryoEM maps
>> is indeed annoying (I would like to compare maps without worrying that
>> maybe I chose inadequate contour levels). My understanding is that it is
>> caused at least in part by the fact that the size of the box enclosing the
>> particle is arbitrary. Different amounts of low-value voxels between
>> different maps give them different voxel value histograms, therefore
>> choosing a contour level in terms of a certain number of standard
>> deviations above the mean produces different results with different maps.
>> Electron density maps from crystallography don’t have this variability
>> because the box always spans a full unit cell, without this variable
>> padding around the region of high density.
>> At least this is how I understand Tom Goddard’s explanation in this
>> discussion from last month on the chimerax-users list:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mail.cgl.ucsf.edu/mailman/archives/list/chimerax-users@cgl.ucsf.edu/thread/3RNL6ODNP6QAL3BTHIPPQS2VE2B2YSVO/__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c2nkzPEaw$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mail.cgl.ucsf.edu/mailman/archives/list/chimerax-users@cgl.ucsf.edu/thread/3RNL6ODNP6QAL3BTHIPPQS2VE2B2YSVO/__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbMPdEMJ_w$>
>> Maybe there are other reasons adding to this.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2023, at 13:05, <Nonameavailable> <br at RUPPWEB.ORG> wrote:
>>
>> Dear EM Experts,
>>
>> Some of my crystallographer colleagues and I wonder about the
>> fundamentally different appearance of density histograms in EM Coulomb
>> potential maps vs the X-ray Electron density maps. Here is the question:
>>
>> “What I've noticed is that they are on different scales. That is
>> understandable, a e/A^3 is different than V. But there are papers showing
>> that these values are somewhat proportional to each other for lower
>> resolutions. But the other thing that I have noticed is that electron
>> density maps have close to normally distributed value distributions,
>> whereas cryoEM maps have a sharp spike and a very long tail. As a result,
>> an electron density blob in an X-ray map looks nice somewhere around
>> 3sigma, whereas for cryoEM it's sometime 10sigma, 17sigma, 20sigma, all
>> over the place. I'm thinking of using thresholds based on percentiles
>> rather than sigmas, but my main question is: shouldn't the values on cryoEM
>> maps be also approximately normally distributed? what is the cause of this
>> non-normality? sharpening? the raw experimental data themselves?”
>>
>> And here a potential partial answer:
>>
>> “In cryo-EM, there is no absolute scaling, which means that density
>> values can vary significantly. This variability can explain why you
>> consistently encounter different sigma values. I can confirm that the
>> density value distribution behaves as you described, and I have also
>> observed this. However, I cannot provide a definitive answer as to why this
>> occurs. My best guess is that it may be related to B factor weighting in
>> motion correction, but I cannot provide a conclusive explanation, I'm
>> afraid.”
>>
>> What are we missing here?
>>
>> Thx, BR
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a. D)
>> K.k. Hofkristallamt
>> CA 92084 San Diego
>> 001 (925) 209-7429
>> +43 (676) 571-0536
>> br at ruppweb.org
>> hofkristallamt at gmail.com
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ruppweb.org/__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c3gKGLHbg$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ruppweb.org/__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbMv8ZhPSQ$>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> All models are wrong but some are useful
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c3xIWD9bA$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbPaA6gqVQ$>
>>
>>
>> VARNING: Klicka inte på länkar och öppna inte bilagor om du inte känner
>> igen avsändaren och vet att innehållet är säkert.
>> CAUTION: Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognise
>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>> <xray.png><EM.png>
>>
>>
>> <Screenshot 2023-10-15 at 14.22.31.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär
>> det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi gör
>> det kan du läsa här: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c3EbSFdQA$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbP9uI9duw$>
>>
>> E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal
>> data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c1RR9R_1Q$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbNcWzUBIQ$>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1__;!!Mih3wA!FI-OB9gpGdZ8ETsmFzwYiA4Er_hpgXluakXf-dLn0fGt3FcpPi8_BlVy3x1_AdgoDEBR513wfXuFgA5aJWpX_c3xIWD9bA$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1__;!!Mih3wA!BGIjNxSHKX_ICKU_6CFanyPV1Mdi8YchWr8HV5aQnLt4dvOJSmWTZyuazSRj4rRmTlL8O2gx5mA3rFLt4AbnqbPaA6gqVQ$>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 3dem mailing list
> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem
>
>
> --
> ############################################################
>
> Rasmus R. Schroeder
>
> Cryo Electron Microscopy
> Heidelberg University / Medical Faculty
> BioQuant, Im Neuenheimer Feld 267
> 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
>
> Tel. +49-(0)6221-5451350
> e-mail  rasmus.schroeder at bioquant.uni-heidelberg.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> 3dem mailing list
> 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu
> https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/attachments/20231115/1b02e406/attachment-0001.html>