<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Helvetica;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-NL" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Hi Alexis,</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">You bring up an interesting point.</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">My understanding is that Wilson statistics assumes (and is strictly valid only for) independent and
uniformly distributed (= random) atoms. This is why I think that Wilson statistics as derived in the original paper are primarily valid in the high-resolution (better than 3Å) part of the Wilson/Guinier plot. </span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">At lower resolution, in particular at those spatial frequencies corresponding to repetitive features
in real-space, i.e. the regular path proteins (secondary structure), and nucleic acids (base stacking) follow in 3D space & (ordered) solvent give rise to characteristic features in the pair-distribution function. This is what you typically see in a “Guinier
plot”: this plot is in principle a (rotationally averaged) representation of the texture of the macromolecule and will contain characteristic deviations from the exponential (or linear in log-plot) decay expected from Wilson statistics, because at some resolution/spatial
frequencies the arrangement of atoms is not random. This is true regardless of whether you consider X-ray or EM experiments. This is also a reason why I think B-factor estimations if performed including these regions are systematically off; the R^2 of linear
regression will be poor. Once you are moving to higher resolution, let us say 3.0 Å and beyond, a protein structure can very well be considered as a collection of randomly distributed atoms and here Wilson statistics hold and the slope gives the B-factor.
If you do a fit in this region of a Guinier plot, e.g. for high-resolution ApoF structures, the fit will be very good.</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Regarding Carlos Oscar’s statement that the fall-off is “arbitrary depending on its shape”, I do not
necessarily agree but I guess the point he is trying to make is that the radially averaged fall-off will be modulated by these effect (e.g. secondary structure) and this could be considered a “fingerprint” of the protein in question. In practice, when radially
averaging over the entire structure, the fall-off, including deviations from Wilson statistics, will be very similar for most proteins unless they are e.g. all-alpha, all-beta or contain significant amount of nucleic acids as e.g. ribosomes.</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">This aside: Could it be that the difference you observe comes from the fact that in your simulated
model you do not account for solvent? If you make a thought experiment and place your protein in a “vacuum” then this would lead to an overestimation of “contrast” at the molecule surface compared to the situation where you have solvent. Taking this to your
simulated structure factor, the calculated structure factor would be expected to be systematically larger than the observed structure factor amplitude in regions where in the real situation bulk solvent is having noticeable effect (e.g. 5Å and below). </span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">If in your case you have derived your B_ideal from a fit in this region (e.g. 20 – 4 Å), than the calculated
fall-off would probably be steeper than the observed amplitude fall-off. If you have fit in the high-resolution region then this should have no effect.</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Not sure if it helps.</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Best,</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Arjen</span><span style="font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">3dem <3dem-bounces@ncmir.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Alexis Rohou <a.rohou@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, 27 August 2020 at 07:06<br>
<b>To: </b>Carlos Oscar Sorzano <coss@cnb.csic.es><br>
<b>Cc: </b>3dem <3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [3dem] what is the ideal B factor?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Thank you Carlos Oscar for summarizing your work so succinctly!
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I just would like to pick up on your concluding sentence:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">In conclusion, from my point of view, there is not an optimal decay valid for all proteins, but it depends on each specific protein. And the shape of the decay is not a straight line, but arbitrary depending on
its shape.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">If your point of view is correct, this implies that ResLog plots and the resulting B factors should not be compared to each other if they were obtained from images of different proteins. This would be quite a
departure from the field's consensus. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Alexis<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:32 AM Carlos Oscar Sorzano <<a href="mailto:coss@cnb.csic.es">coss@cnb.csic.es</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">Dear Alexis and all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">as a very condensed summary of what Jose Luis Vilas and us showed in the paper you have mentioned below is that:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">1. the Fourier spectrum of a single atom is expected to decay in amplitude with frequency (the only way it can be flat is that it is infinitely thin). This is well known and comes from the electron atomic scattering factors.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">2. the Fourier spectrum of a collection of atoms is mostly determined by the shape of that collection, more than on the specific nature of the atoms being involved (we performed extremely harsh modifications to the atoms and the
decay did not change significantly).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">3. the reasons normally argued to make the spectrum flat, do not apply to macromolecules and the reason why B-factor sharpening produces "nice" structures is mostly a visualization reason (higher amplitudes at high frequencies
result in sharper edges whose isosurfaces are easier to track and fit with an atomic model).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">Because of 2, the decay of the radial average of the Fourier transform of a macromolecule cannot be expected to follow any particular shape (for instance, a straight line) a priori, that we can estimate its slope (also a priori)
and force our 3D reconstruction to follow that slope. In that regard the question of what is the expected slope is ill-posed. From my point of view, the amplitude correction is much more meaningful when performed in the spirit of LocScale of Jakobi and Sachse.
You fit an atomic model to the map, then convert it into a map, estimate its decay and force the map to follow this decay. In this way, the shape of the collection of atoms (and their nature) is explicitly taken into account. This process can be performed
iteratively (with the corrected map, you may refine the atomic model, refine the map amplitudes again, ...). I also like the idea that this process is performed locally.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">If we do not want to wait for the atomic model to make the amplitude correction, we have devised an alternative based on the local resolution (E. Ramirez-Aportela, J.L.Vilas, A. Glukhova, R. Melero, P. Conesa, M. Martinez, D. Maluenda,
J. Mota, A. Jimenez, J. Vargas, R. Marabini, P.M. Sexton, J.M. Carazo, C.O.S. Sorzano. Automatic local resolution-based sharpening of cryo-EM maps. Bioinformatics 36: 765-772 (2020)). There is no guarantee that it will follow the correct decay, but in practice
we have observed that it normally approximates the correct decay quite closely (there are some examples of this in the paper).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">The procedure above of local correction based on local resolution is local and it does not require an the atomic model. If we still want to do a global correction without an atomic model, procedures like the one of phenix (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2018/06/00/ic5102/ic5102.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!Rn8ptfdW3i-ZJAsyJRtf84MeTMX0gbKZxAVhSD_WbmT6PxiAn3RA49bpffFudf71Mg$" target="_blank">https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2018/06/00/ic5102/ic5102.pdf</a>)
provides some clue based on the maximum continuity of the isosurface.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">Finally, we found that a combination of DeepRes (E. Ramírez-Aportela, J. Mota, P. Conesa, J.M. Carazo, C.O.S. Sorzano. DeepRes: A New Deep Learning and aspect-based Local Resolution Method for Electron Microscopy Maps . IUCR J
6: 1054-1063 (2019)) and BlocRes (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847713002086__;!!Mih3wA!Rn8ptfdW3i-ZJAsyJRtf84MeTMX0gbKZxAVhSD_WbmT6PxiAn3RA49bpffHaOthRoQ$" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847713002086</a>)
could help to find a B-factor that does not result in overfitting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">In conclusion, from my point of view, there is not an optimal decay valid for all proteins, but it depends on each specific protein. And the shape of the decay is not a straight line, but arbitrary depending on its shape.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">I hope these reflections helped a bit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt">Cheers, Carlos Oscar<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On 8/26/20 7:05 AM, Alexis Rohou wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
I hope you may be able to help me get my head around something.<br>
<br>
When considering the radially-averaged amplitudes of an ideal 3D protein structure, the expectation (as laid out in Fig1 of Rosenthal & Henderson, 2003 (PMID: 14568533), among others) is that in the Wilson-statistics regime (q > 0.1 Å^-1, let’s say), amplitudes
will decay in a Gaussian manner, or linearly when plotted on a log scale against q^2, reflecting the decay of structure factors.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
This expectation is certainly met when simulating maps from PDB files, as described nicely for example by Carlos Oscar Sorzano and colleagues recently (Vilas et al., 2020, PMID: 31911170). Let’s call the rate of decay of this ideal curve B_ideal, the “ideal”
B factor.<br>
<br>
Assuming for a moment that noise has a flat spectrum (reasonable so long as shot noise is dominant), one may follow in Rosenthal & Henderson’s footsteps and draw a horizontal line on our plot to represent the noise floor. As more averaging is carried out, the
noise floor is lowered relative to our protein’s amplitude profile. As more particles are averaged (without error, let’s say) the intersection between the protein’s ideal radial amplitude profile and the noise floor moves to higher and higher frequencies.<br>
<br>
This is the basis for the so-called ResLog plots, where one charts the resolution as a function of the number of averaged particles. The slope of the ResLog plot is related to the slope of the radial amplitude profile of the protein. Assuming no additional
sources of errors (i.e. ideal instrument and no processing errors), B_ideal (the slope of the ideal protein amplitude profile) can be computed from the slope of the ResLog plot via B_ideal = 2.0/slope.<br>
<br>
Now, to my question. By looking at the slope of a schematic Guinier plot generated using Wilson statistics and atomic scattering factors for electrons, I estimated a B_ideal of approximately 50 Å^2 (decay of ~ 1.37 natural log in amplitude over 0.1 Å^-2). The
problem is that recent high-resolution studies have reported ResLog-estimated B factors of 32.5 Å^2 (Nakane et al., 2020) and 36 Å^2 (Yip et al., 2020), leading me to wonder what is wrong in the above model.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
I see several possibilities:<br>
<br>
(1) B_ideal is actually significantly less than 50 Å^2. This would be consistent with the empirical observation that “flattening” maps’ amplitude spectrum (i.e. assuming B-ideal = 0 Å^2) gives very nice maps. Either:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">a. I mis-estimated B_ideal when reading the simulated amplitude spectrum plot. Has anyone done this (i.e. fit a B factor to a simulated map’s amplitude spectrum, or to a simulated spectrum)? What did you find?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">b. The simulations using atomic scattering factors and Wilson statistics do not correctly capture the actual amplitude profile of proteins, which is actually much flatter than the atomic scattering factors
suggest.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">(2) B_ideal actually is ~ 50 Å^2, but the assumption of a flat noise spectrum is wrong. I guess that if the true noise spectrum were also decaying at a function of q^2, this would cause the ResLog plot to report
“too small” a B factor<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
What do you think? <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Alexis<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="margin-left:36.0pt">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:36.0pt">3dem mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:36.0pt"><a href="mailto:3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu" target="_blank">3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin-left:36.0pt"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=XYzUhXBD2cD-CornpT4QE19xOJBbRy-TBPLK0X9U2o8&r=D1ILr-LNOMGqt1qo-zsdtVsmr4I50KRZdcn6bv1MFNw&m=cIQ9kDZ2XD1GyeGVoYRZijEGtEi7t5R_FnZ8g1qbHl0&s=geo8EXc_Gnz8XpAmgRX12qTby_h7HIC3ar4LnxfFpSY&e=" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>