Assessment of protein–protein interfaces in cryo-EM derived assemblies
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Structures of macromolecular assemblies derived from cryo-EM maps often contain errors that become more abundant with decreasing resolution. Despite efforts in the cryo-EM community to develop metrics for map and atomistic model validation, thus far, no specific scoring metrics have been applied systematically to assess the interface between the assembly subunits. Here, we comprehensively assessed protein–protein interfaces in macromolecular assemblies derived by cryo-EM. To this end, we developed Protein Interface-score (PI-score), a density-independent machine learning-based metric, trained using the features of protein–protein interfaces in crystal structures. We evaluated 5873 interfaces in 1053 PDB-deposited cryo-EM models (including SARS-CoV-2 complexes), as well as the models submitted to CASP13 cryo-EM targets and the EM model challenge. We further inspected the interfaces associated with low-scores and found that some of those, especially in intermediate-to-low resolution (worse than 4 Å) structures, were not captured by density-based assessment scores. A combined score incorporating PI-score and fit-to-density score showed discriminatory power, allowing our method to provide a powerful complementary assessment tool for the ever-increasing number of complexes solved by cryo-EM.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.17.387068: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We used the sklearn Python package with default parameter settings. Pythonsuggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.17.387068: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We used the sklearn Python package with default parameter settings. Pythonsuggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 46 and 47. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-