<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-forward-container"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:AllowPNG/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
          style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
          "Times New Roman",serif">Dear All,</span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
          style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
          "Times New Roman",serif">Much misunderstanding
          persists on the relatively straightforward
          issue of the FSC... </span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
          style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
          "Times New Roman",serif">1) In the first place:
          please do read the primary
          literature rather than relying on second-hand or third-hand
          references where
          errors/misunderstanding have accumulated. The first mention in
          the literature of
          the "Fourier Shell Correlation" is in "George Harauz and Marin
          van Heel, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
              style="mso-bidi-font-style:
              normal">Exact filters for general geometry three
              dimensional reconstruction</i></b>,
          Optik 73 (1986) 146-156."<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span>The
          how
          and why of the FSC normalization of the amplitudes is
          explicitly described in
          the original paper(s). (You can find more in Wikipedia:
          "Fourier Shell
          Correlation"). </span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"
        style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
        normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
          style="font-size:
          12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">2) Now
          about the consequences of
          that normalization: Any filtering that does not zero a
          specific spatial frequency
          will affect the nominator and the denominator of the FSC
          equation in exactly the
          same way!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span>This is
          independent of whether
          3D reconstruction #1, or #2, (or both #1 and #2) is/are
          filtered or not. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This
          means that filtering of the maps will NOT
          affect the FSC!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span>I
          actually have written a
          paper about it (Marin van Heel: <b
            style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
              style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Unveiling ribosomal
              structures: the final
              phases</i></b>. Current Opinions in Structural Biology 10
          (2000) 259-264, ask me
          for a pdf if you have trouble finding it). Quoting from this
          paper: “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
              style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The
              bottom line … is that there is no wrong way of filtering
              the data, as its
              information content is not normally affected. The one and
              only thing one can do
              wrong is to interpret the map incorrectly</i>.</b>”</span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"
        style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
        normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
          style="font-size:
          12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> 3)
          Thus, the fact that you don’t see
          certain details in the map for a given level of the FSC curve
          probably says more
          about your representation choices than about the map. Low-pass
          filtering a map
          to the 0.5 value of the FSC as a way to avoid “over
          interpretation” is in
          general a bad idea. You would probably be killing (the
          visibility of) the high-res
          info as a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, relying
          entirely on black-box
          programs that in some mysterious way boost the visibility of
          high-res noise beyond
          any reasonable FSC value can equally be a bad idea. Please do
          keep in mind that the
          final interpretation of your map is your own responsibility!</span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"
        style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
        normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
          style="font-size:
          12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> Cheers,</span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"
        style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
        normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
          style="font-size:
          12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> Marin</span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
          style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
          "Times New Roman",serif"> </span><br>
      </p>
      -------- Forwarded Message --------
      <table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
        cellpadding="0" border="0">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
            </th>
            <td>Re: [ccpem] Minimum standards for FSC reporting?</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
            <td>Fri, 26 May 2017 23:08:34 -0400</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
            <td>Jillian Chase <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM"><jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM></a></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
            </th>
            <td>Jillian Chase <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM"><jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM></a></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
            <td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CCPEM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">CCPEM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a></td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
      <br>
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div>Hi John,</div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
      </div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature">Thanks for your reply. It is possible
        that I was viewing the unsharpened map. I imported that map into
        relion for targeted post-processing based on threshold values
        from viewing map in chimera, resulting in a more reasonable 4A.
        I'll double check which I imported. </div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
      </div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature">Still puzzling though: the cryosparc
        map wth post processing in relion shows more side chain density
        than what I see with identical particle set processed in
        entirety in relion. I've been using a hybrid of both programs to
        generate best maps possible. Has anyone done more quantitative
        tests using both programs that may have some input?</div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
      </div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature">Thanks again,</div>
      <div id="AppleMailSignature">Jillian<br>
        <br>
        Sent from my iPhone</div>
      <div><br>
        On May 26, 2017, at 10:22 PM, John Rubinstein <<a
          href="mailto:john.rubinstein@utoronto.ca"
          moz-do-not-send="true">john.rubinstein@utoronto.ca</a>>
        wrote:<br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div>
          <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
            charset=utf-8">
          Hi Jillian,
          <div class=""><br class="">
          </div>
          <div class="">Recently in our group one cryoSPARC users was
            accidentally downloading structures from the experiments
            overview page rather than getting the sharpened final maps
            from the experiment details page. The maps from the
            experiments overview page can be selected for further
            processing but are not sharpened and will look worse than
            expected for their resolution. Is it possible you’ve been
            looking at the unsharpened maps?</div>
          <div class=""><br class="">
          </div>
          <div class="">Best wishes,</div>
          <div class="">John</div>
          <div class=""><br class="">
            <div class="">
              <div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal;
                orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
                text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
                word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
                word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
                -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
                <div class="">
                  <div class="">-- </div>
                  <div class="">John Rubinstein</div>
                  <div class="">Molecular Medicine Program</div>
                  <div class="">The Hospital for Sick Children Research
                    Institute</div>
                  <div class="">686 Bay Street, Rm. 20-9705</div>
                  <div class="">Toronto, ON</div>
                  <div class="">Canada</div>
                  <div class="">M5G 0A4</div>
                  <div class="">Tel: (+001) 416-813-7255</div>
                  <div class="">Fax: (+001) 416-813-5022</div>
                  <div class=""><a
                      href="http://www.sickkids.ca/research/rubinstein"
                      class="" moz-do-not-send="true">www.sickkids.ca/research/rubinstein</a></div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br class="">
            <div>
              <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                <div class="">On May 26, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Jillian Chase
                  <<a href="mailto:jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM"
                    class="" moz-do-not-send="true">jillian.d.chase@GMAIL.COM</a>>
                  wrote:</div>
                <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
                <div class="">
                  <div class="">Hi,<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    I've also noticed significantly higher FSC
                    resolution estimates with cryosparc vs relion, which
                    do not seem realistic upon inspection. (IE: a 4A
                    relion postprocessed map looks much different than a
                    4A cryosparc map). Has anyone noticed as well? How
                    are you handling?<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    Best,<br class="">
                    Jillian<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    Sent from my iPhone<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    <blockquote type="cite" class="">On May 26, 2017, at
                      8:47 PM, Oliver Clarke <<a
                        href="mailto:olibclarke@GMAIL.COM" class=""
                        moz-do-not-send="true">olibclarke@GMAIL.COM</a>>
                      wrote:<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Hi all,<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Ive seen several high-impact cryoEM structures
                      recently with "headline" global FSC resolutions
                      that do not seem plausible based on inspection of
                      the map.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      In each case, the resolution was based on results
                      out of relion_postprocess, but no details were
                      given about mask calculation or the volume of the
                      mask compared to the model, and only the final map
                      was deposited, not the half maps (so checking
                      workings was not possible).<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      I think that at a bare minimum, reporting either
                      the volume of the mask compared to the volume of
                      the map at the suggested contour level, or simply
                      displaying an overlay of the mask on the model,
                      should be mandatory (as should deposition of
                      unfiltered half maps to facilitate recalculation
                      of the FSC). <br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Without knowledge of the mask, the FSC is
                      meaningless, particularly if the author has chosen
                      to use relion_postprocess as a "black box", and
                      has chosen to automatically generate a mask based
                      on an initial threshold without subsequently
                      inspecting it.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      (There have also been a couple of structures using
                      the pymol 'carve' option in extremely misleading
                      ways without disclosing its use or the map contour
                      level, but that is a rant for another day!)<br
                        class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Thoughts/debate welcome! :)<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Cheers<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Oli<br class="">
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br class="">
          </div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>