Accurate flexible refinement of atomic models against mediumresolution cryoEM maps using damped dynamics
Abstract
Background
Dramatic progress has recently been made in cryoelectron microscopy technologies, which now make possible the reconstruction of a growing number of biomolecular structures to nearatomic resolution. However, the need persists for fitting and refinement approaches that address those cases that require modeling assistance.
Methods
In this paper, we describe algorithms to optimize the performance of such mediumresolution refinement methods. These algorithms aim to automatically optimize the parameters that define the density shape of the flexibly fitted model, as well as the timedependent damper cutoff distance. Atomic distance constraints can be prescribed for cases where extra containment of parts of the structure is helpful, such as in regions where the density map is poorly defined. Also, we propose a simple stopping criterion that estimates the probable onset of overfitting during the simulation.
Results
The new set of algorithms produce more accurate fitting and refinement results, and yield a faster rate of convergence of the trajectory toward the fitted conformation. The latter is also more reliable due to the overfitting warning provided to the user.
Conclusions
The algorithms described here were implemented in the new DampedDynamics Flexible Fitting simulation tool “DDforge” in the Situs package.
Keywords
Electronmicroscopy map Density fitting Conformational change Protein flexibility Damped dynamicsBackground
Over the last few years, experimental techniques for cryoelectron microscopy (cryoEM) have evolved dramatically, making it possible for some structures to be solved at nearatomic resolution (See e.g. refs. [1, 2, 3, 4] for reviews.). However, a significant number of structures still defy EM reconstructions at that resolution level. Also, during a typical cryoEM workflow, resolution normally increases over time, from a rather low value, as the quality and quantity of the images improves. These considerations indicate that there is still a need to be able to obtain atomic models from cryoEM maps having medium resolutions, in the range of 5–10 Å.
Despite the undeniable successes of these methods, they still suffer from one or more weaknesses, including: high complexity (time and algorithmic), potentially insufficient sampling of the conformational space, restrictions in the degrees of freedom (DOFs) (such as using rigid domains), requirement of significant user intervention, and even unnaturalness of the resulting deformations.
DDFF attempts to address these issues by using an idea quite different from those of the other proposals: damped dynamics [5]. Damped dynamics operates in generalized coordinates (positional and internal coordinates) and avoids harmonic potentials by using dampers (shock absorbers) between pairs of atoms.
One of the key improvements proposed in the present paper over the original DDFF is particularly beneficial to the mediumresolution range (5 to 10 Å): the optimization of parameters used in the computation of the modelinduced map. These parameters are the width of the Gaussian kernel with which the atomic model is convolved, and the density threshold value to be used after convolution. Together, the new methods yield an accurate force field that attracts the atomic model to unoccupied regions of the EM map.
A second new feature that is unique to the current “DDforge” implementation described below is the ability for the user to impose distance constraints between specified pairs of pseudoatoms. We show an example of this to help preserve the overall shape of βsheets.
A third new feature is a streamlined scheme to continuously adjust the cutoff distance d_{cut} between pseudoatoms to be connected by dampers. The new scheme is the result of a rationale that yields an updated d_{cut} at each time step, in terms of the previous one and the ratio of the previous and current RMS velocities. As a result, the convergence rate of the DDforge trajectories is significantly improved.
Lastly, we propose a simple mechanism to guard against overfitting. This consists in estimating characteristic saturation times of the overlap function via a continually updated exponential regression.
Methods
Our force field relies on a simulated modelinduced map that is matched with the experimental EM map. After a preliminary rigidbody fit, the force field is applied to the damped dynamics of coarsegrained side chains to guide the atomic model towards unoccupied regions of the experimental target map [5]. The matching of the modelinduced map with the experimental map is therefore an important aspect in the accurate refinement of the structure.
Optimization of parameters for the modelinduced map
A second parameter which we optimize in the new DDforge is the threshold T to be applied after Gaussian kernel convolution. In the original DDFF engine, we implemented two options to determine the threshold T: (a) so that the volume within the isosurface of mean value matches the corresponding volume in the EM map; or (b) so that, after rescaling, the integral and maximum coincide with the respective values for the EM map. In the new approach, we merge these two alternatives into one. In this way, by considering σ as an extra unknown, we can have all three quantities match: volume, integral, and maximum. Actually, the maximum density (which is sensitive to outliers) was replaced by a more stable value: the 95% quantile. Likewise, the mean value for the isosurface was replaced by the threshold.
where V denotes the volume, I the integral, and Q the 95% quantile, subindex 1 corresponding to the EM map and subindex 2 to the modelinduced map. The quantities on the right side of the equations are computed directly from the EM map. The scaling factor a is to be solved for as well, along with σ and T. Note that a does not enter into the first equation since the volume does not depend on the scaling.
where Q_{2} depends on σ and T, while g depends only on σ. We now have two equations, 7 and 8, in the two unknowns σ and T. The algorithm to solve them proceeds iteratively between these two equations: for each value of σ (starting, for instance, with \(\sigma _{0}=R/(2\sqrt {3})\)), build the modelinduced map g, and compute T using Eq. 7. With this T, go to Eq. 8 and make one NewtonRaphson step on σ. With this updated σ, go back to Eq. 7 to get a new value of T, and continue in this way till convergence. In our examples, the number of iterations needed was very small (5 or 6), and the compute time was about a second, even for the largest structures that we considered.
Distance constraints
where the h_{α} are Lagrange multipliers and \(Q^{(m)}_{j}\) is the force field in generalized coordinates.
where the derivatives \(\frac {\partial \mathbf {{r}}_{k}}{\partial q_{i}}\) constitute the entries of the socalled Wilson’s matrix [22], and can be computed directly from the geometry of the current conformation of the model.
Scheme to optimize the dampers’ cutoff distance
where A is the number of pseudoatoms in the structure.
The idea is to adjust d_{cut} in such a way as to try to keep v constant. As the trajectory progresses, this will make d_{cut} gradually decrease. This decrease is allowed until d_{cut} reaches max{7Å,2σ} (which ensures a minimum of connectivity to preserve the structural integrity of the model), after which point it is kept constant, with the ensuing decrease of v.
This is the optimal way to update d_{cut} based on the ratio ρ of the current and previous velocities.
Stopping criterion
Overfitting is always a concern in flexiblefitting methods. In general, it is difficult to give an objective criterion in this regard. However, the fact that our method furnishes a whole trajectory of conformations—rather than a single one—provides us with a way to determine a “safe” final conformation. We do this by resorting to the plot of the overlap evolution, shown in the figures for each of our examples. The idea is that the start of the “saturation” of the graph can be considered as a warning time, after which any additional refinement is likely to lead to overfitting.
Sidechain optimization
DDforge includes an option to optimize the sidechain conformations along the trajectory. This step can help to escape from wrong sidechain geometries that could occur if they were simply evolved from their initial conformations, and it also compensates for the inaccuracy introduced by the reducedresidue model. The sidechain optimization (which in our examples was done for each conformation written out to disk) is performed by the SCWRL4 method [23], which uses an efficient treedecomposition algorithm that furnishes the best sidechain conformations for each given backbone geometry by minimizing a simplified atomic force field on a rotamer library.
Results
We describe several simulated and experimental cases with the main purpose of illustrating the advantage of the new features introduced in the present work. Sidechain optimization was used in all cases except thermosome, since in this case the focus was on modeling the considerable largescale deformations between the atomic model and the EM map.
Validation test: lactoferrin
To demonstrate the level of accuracy achievable by means of the new features described in the previous section, we consider the simulated case of lactoferrin. This is an ironbinding protein that undergoes a large conformational change of about 8Å RMSD where three rigid domains rotate about hinge axes. Due to the piecewiserigid motion, the system is a standard for testing rigidbody modeling techniques [24], but the highly localized flexibility—present only in the hinge regions between rigid domains—creates a formidable challenge for many flexible refinement methods.

Simulated map to 7Å resolution;

Simulated map to 15Å resolution;

Atomic model fully flexible;

Atomic model with helices and βstrands rigid.
In the fully flexible case, the number of free variables was 1888, while the number was 1266 when keeping helices and strands rigid.
RMSDs, in Å, for the flexible fitting of lactoferrin by various methods
DDforge  

R  fully flexible  H+S rigid  IMF  CGS  VQ 
7  0.65  0.58  —  —  — 
15  1.04  0.89  0.98  1.89^{a}  2.72 
Even though we are mostly interested in the 5–10 Å resolution range, we wanted to compare the performance of our method with the lactoferrin results reported in ref. [28], with RMSDs of 1.89Å and 2.72Å reported for two flexible fitting methods. The rigidbody Iterative Modular Fitting (IMF) method was found to surpass the flexible methods, with an RMSD of 0.98Å. Volkmann [28] concludes that 5Å resolution is needed for a flexiblefitting approach (namely MDFF [12]) to yield better results than IMF. We note from Table 1, however, that DDforge matches the accuracy of IMF at 15Å resolution. One should consider that IMF is a piecewiserigid method for which lactoferrin’s piecewiserigid motion is obviously well suited by design. DDforge, by contrast, is a truly flexible refinement that can handle longerrange deformations (see below), but it handles even the special case of lactoferrin’s piecewiserigid motion well.
The runtime for this case, on a desktop computer with a 4 GHz Intel Core i7 processor and 32 GB of RAM, running on a single core, was about 9 min or 11 min, with or without sidechain optimization, respectively. These timings will vary depending on parameters used and on the number of conformations saved (since the sidechain optimization is performed for each saved conformation), so they should be taken only as a guideline.
Figure 4c and d show the evolution of the overlap and RMSD with respect to the target, for the allflexible fitting into the 7Å map: the overlap increases from 78% to 95%, while the RMSD decreases from 8.1Å to 0.65Å. These RMSD values are caused by rigid motions of domains and by their internal flexible refinement.
Tests with experimental EM maps
Thermosome
For this case, we kept the helices and βstrands rigid, with which the number of free variables was 12,664. (A fully flexible model would have had 22,360 free variables.) The atomic structure was initially positioned by eye in the EM map. Figure 5c shows the evolution of the overlap with the EM map: it increases from 29% to 64%. A movie of this trajectory is available as Additional file 1. The runtime for this case was about 5 h (with no sidechain optimization).
Actin filament with MyBPC bound
The total number of residues in this structure was 6284. As with thermosome, helices and βstrands were kept rigid, making the number of free variables 12,198. Also, for this case distance constraints were imposed between adjacent endpoints of βstrands in the C0 and C1 domains, to help preserve their structure. The total number of such constraints was 280.
Figure 6c shows the evolution of the overlap along the trajectory, going from 66% to 78%. A movie of this trajectory is available as Additional file 2. The runtime for this case was about 10 h, including the sidechain optimization at each saved conformation.
Figure 1 compares the fitting results described above (using the simultaneous optimization of kernel width σ and density threshold T in DDforge) with those obtained with the original DDFF which used \(\sigma =R/(2\sqrt {3})\) and equated only the volumes of both maps to determine T. (R is the userspecified resolution of EM map.) The improvement of the fitting in the regions indicated by arrows is noteworthy.
GroEL: stability test
GroEL is another ringlike chaperonin whose tetradecameric crystal structure exhibits D _{7} symmetry (PDB code 1xck). As target EM map we used the 6Å resolution variant (EMDB code 1081). Since, for this case, the atomic structure and the map are expected to represent the same conformation, the main purpose of this test was to ascertain the stability of the DDFF approach: the fitted conformation should have, at most, a small deviation from the starting atomic structure due to any residual small differences between the crystallographic and iceembedded EM specimens.
The total number of residues in the atomic structure was 7336. As before, helices and βstrands were kept rigid, with which the number of free variables was 9876. No distance constraints were imposed. The starting conformation was obtained by rigidbody fitting. The runtime for this case was 11 h (including the sidechain optimization step).
The final conformation of the trajectory was determined according to the stopping criterion described in the “Methods” Section. That final conformation had a C_{α} RMSD of 1.8Å relative to the starting conformation. This is entirely consistent with previous results obtained by other methods [32], providing further support to the suggestion that such an RMSD value corresponds mostly to the intrinsic discrepancy between the structures, and only marginally to any potential instability of the fitting method.
Comparison with the original DDFF
Here we provide a brief comparison between results obtained with the new DDforge and the original DDFF. The refinement runs for the thermosome and GroEL cases actually required the new DDforge approach whose improved simulated maps (Fig. 2) enable the convergence of ringlike structures. DDFF data was available, however, for comparing the lactoferrin and actin systems mentioned above.
The original DDFF run on lactoferrin took 22 min, as compared with 9.4 min of DDforge (both done on the 7Å map, without the sidechain optimization, and with fully flexible backbone). This translates into a factor 2.34 speedup. The RMS deviation between the resulting conformations (at the same overlap level) was 0.74Å. It is also interesting to compare the RMS deviations between each of the resulting conformations (original and DDforge) and the atomic structure used to make the simulated target map: the DDforge one was 0.65Å (as indicated in Table 1), whereas the original one was 0.73Å. Naturally, it only makes sense to pay attention to such small differences when considering simulated cases such as this. In real cases such as the actin complex, the difference is much more significant (Fig. 1).
The actin timings were 9 h for DDforge versus 22 h for DDFF (without performing the sidechain optimization), which means a factor 2.4 speedup. The difference in the resulting conformations is shown in Fig. 1; the corresponding RMS deviation was 1.9Å.
Discussion
It may be useful to recall here that DDforge works in generalized coordinates (internal coordinates—torsion angles— and global position coordinates of each chain), and thus preserves the covalent bond geometry of the structure (except for the torsions). In addition, the side chains can optionally be energyminimized by means of the SCWRL4 method. This is generally useful in all cases (not only for highresolution maps) mainly because it helps to resolve possible “locks” in the trajectory, and not only because we may want to look at the detailed conformation of the side chains.
The use of dampers to maintain the overall assembly of the molecule allows it to model arbitrarily large conformational changes in a natural way. A demonstration of the sensibility of the deformations generated by DDforge is provided by the lactoferrin test case above, for which previous flexiblefitting approaches would degrade the RMSD from the target conformation, relative to a rigidbody fitting of subdomains. The fact that we can obtain results comparable to the residual crystallographic discrepancy suggests that DDforge can handle both rigid and flexible refinement with high accuracy.
Another example of the ability of DDforge to handle large conformational changes in a sensible way is the thermosome. This structure has a high degree of symmetry (imposed during the map reconstruction [30]), but this symmetry was not utilized during our simulations: all the chains were treated independently of one another, and no distance constraints were imposed.
Regarding efficiency, a comparison of runtimes with the original version of the code yielded a factor 2.3 speedup for the trajectory to reach the same overlap values. This can be attributed to the new scheme to update the dampers’ cutoff distance along the trajectory. The runtimes for the new version of the code, reported earlier, vary from a few minutes to 11 h, and depend not only on the size of the structures, but also on their specific geometries and parameters that affect the speed of the trajectory. Thus, even though thermosome is the largest system, it took less compute time than GroEL and the actin complex. These timings are considerably less than benchmarks reported for the NAMD molecular dynamics program used in MDFF [33]. A comparably sized F1ATPase system (92,224 atoms) at 100 ns simulation time would take 14–100 days of compute time even on a much more powerful 24core machine, depending on its GPU configuration.
Conclusions
We have developed a flexible refinement strategy termed DDforge that is well suited to handle the larger, higherresolution maps that have become common in recent years.
Significant new features in our implementation include the simultaneous optimization of both the convolution kernel width σ and the density threshold T, by equating three quantities of the EM and synthetic maps: integral, 95% quantile, and volume; the ability for the user to define distance constraints on the model, which are useful to preserve shapes in regions where the density is not well defined; a streamlined approach to update, at every time step, the cutoff length of dampers, ensuring that the speed of the trajectory is optimal and thereby shortening the compute time; and a practical scheme to signal a point in the trajectory where overfitting is likely to start.
The application of DDforge to the recent actin data demonstrates the effect of optimizing the kernel width and density threshold to generate appropriate model maps at each step. Figure 1 contrasts the results obtained by using the original approach (fixed σ) with those using the optimized values. As with thermosome, the helical symmetry of this complex was not imposed in our calculations.
The stability of the DDforge approach was verified on the GroEL test case. This used a 6Å resolution EM map, and the drift from the initial to the final conformations was of only 1.8Å RMSD, which previous results suggest is mostly due to the intrinsic discrepancy between the atomic model and the EM map [32].
We should point out that our approach can be applied in other settings as well, such as transition pathways and homology/loop modeling. These involve straightforward modifications in the definition of the force field: instead of being generated by a map, the forces are defined simply to be proportional to the distance between each atom in the origin structure and the corresponding atom in the target structure.
The DDforge method will be made available in version 3.0 of the Situs EM fitting and interpretation package (http://situs.biomachina.org), where it fills a void for a refinement tool applicable to mediumresolution maps with discernible internal (secondary structure) features. But DDforge does not attempt to deal with atomicresolution maps, for which other existing tools coming from crystallography are undoubtedly more suitable. Plans for future work include extending the new capability of kernelwidth optimization to allow for inhomogeneous [34] and anisotropic [35, 36] resolution across the map, and to allow for inhomogeneous convolution that characterizes stability and disorder of particular side chains [37]. Likewise, we are envisioning possible ways to make our approach immune to regions of density not accounted for by the atomic model. Currently, these extra densities need to be removed prior to the simulation.
Notes
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by NIH grant R01GM62968 and the ODU Batten Endowment (to W.W.), and by AHA GrantinAid 16GRNT31220040 (to V.G.). The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
Atomic models and maps used for testing are available on the public databanks (PDB [38] and EMDB [39]), except for those of actin, which were produced very recently, and are available from the authors on reasonable request. The software will be available as part of the upcoming release of the Situs package, at http://situs.biomachina.org . All results are presented in the main text and additional files.
Authors’ contributions
JK Developed the methods, programmed computer software, ran the test cases, and wrote the manuscript. VG Provided the actin filament cryoEM map and feedback on the performance of the methods. WW Provided the web dissemination framework, prepared the software release, and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary material
References
 1.Bai X, McMullan G, Scheres SHW. How cryoEM is revolutionizing structural biology. Trends Biochem Sci. 2015; 40(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2014.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 2.Nogales E, Scheres SW. CryoEM: A unique tool for the visualization of macromolecular complexity. Mol Cell. 2015; 58(4):677–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.Jonić S. Cryoelectron microscopy analysis of structurally heterogeneous macromolecular complexes. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2016; 14:385–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2016.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 4.White HE, Ignatiou A, Clare DK, Orlova EV. Structural study of heterogeneous biological samples by cryoelectron microscopy and image processing. BioMed Res Int. 2017; 2017:1032432. https://doi.org/doi:10.1155/2017/1032432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 5.Kovacs JA, Yeager M, Abagyan R. Dampeddynamics flexible fitting. Biophys J. 2008; 95(7):3192–3207. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.108.132357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 6.Schröder GF, Brunger AT, Levitt M. Combining efficient conformational sampling with a deformable elastic network model facilitates structure refinement at low resolution. Structure. 2007; 15(12):1630–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2007.09.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 7.Gorba C, Miyashita O, Tama F. Normalmode flexible fitting of highresolution structure of biological molecules toward onedimensional lowresolution data. Biophys J. 2008; 94(5):1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.107.122218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.Zheng W. Accurate flexible fitting of highresolution protein structures into cryoelectron microscopy maps using coarsegrained pseudoenergy minimization. Biophys J. 2011; 100(2):478–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2010.12.3680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 9.LópezBlanco JR, Chacón P. iMODFIT: Efficient and robust flexible fitting based on vibrational analysis in internal coordinates. J Struct Biol. 2013; 184(2):261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2013.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.LópezBlanco JR, Ritchie D, Chacón P. Towards a multicomponent cryoEM density flexible fitting tool. Biophys J. 2017; 112(3):575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2016.11.3094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.Orzechowski M, Tama F. Flexible fitting of highresolution Xray structures into cryoelectron microscopy maps using biased molecular dynamics simulations. Biophys J. 2008; 95(12):5692–5705. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.108.139451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 12.Trabuco LG, Villa E, Mitra K, Frank J, Schulten K. Flexible fitting of atomic structures into electron microscopy maps using molecular dynamics. Structure. 2008; 16(5):673–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2008.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 13.Grubisic I, Shokhirev MN, Orzechowski M, Miyashita O, Tama F. Biased coarsegrained molecular dynamics simulation approach for flexible fitting of Xray structure into cryo electron microscopy maps. J Struct Biol. 2010; 169(1):95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2009.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.Miyashita O, Kobayashi C, Mori T, Sugita Y, Tama F. Flexible fitting to cryoEM density map using ensemble molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Chem. 2017; 38(16):1447–1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 15.Abeysinghe SS, Baker ML, Chiu W, Ju T. Semiisometric registration of line features for flexible fitting of protein structures. Comput Graph Forum. 2010; 29(7):2243–2252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678659.2010.01813.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 16.Dou H, Baker ML, Ju T. Graphbased deformable matching of 3D line with application in protein fitting. Vis Comput. 2015; 31(6):967–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003710151115x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.Dou H, Burrows DW, Baker ML, Ju T. Flexible fitting of atomic models into cryoEM density maps guided by helix correspondences. Biophys J. 2017; 112(12):2479–2493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2017.04.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.de Vries SJ, Zacharias M. ATTRACTEM: A new method for the computational assembly of large molecular machines using cryoEM maps. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(12):49733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.DiMaio F, Song Y, Li X, Brunner MJ, Xu C, Conticello V, Egelman E, Marlovits TC, Cheng Y, Baker D. Atomicaccuracy models from 4.5Å cryoelectron microscopy data with densityguided iterative local refinement. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(4):361–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 20.Blau C, Lindahl E. Allatom ensemble refinement to cryoEM densities with a bayesian measure of goodnessoffit. Biophys J. 2017; 112(3 Suppl 1):575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2016.11.3095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Wriggers W. Conventions and workflows for using Situs. Acta Cryst D. 2012; 68(Pt 4):344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Wilson JEB, Decius JC, Cross PC. Molecular Vibrations—The Theory of Infrared and Raman Vibrational Spectra. New York: McGrawHill; 1955.Google Scholar
 23.Krivov GG, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL. Improved prediction of protein sidechain conformations with SCWRL4. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinforma. 2009; 77(4):778–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 24.Wriggers W, Schulten K. Protein domain movements: Detection of rigid domains and visualization of effective rotations in comparisons of atomic coordinates. Proteins Struc Funct Genet. 1997; 29:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.Norris GE, Anderson BF, Baker EN. Molecular replacement solution of the structure of apolactoferrin, a protein displaying largescale conformational change. Acta Cryst B. 1991; 47(6):998–1004. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108768191008418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.Haridas M, Anderson BF, Baker EN. Structure of human diferric lactoferrin refined at 2.2 Å resolution. Acta Cryst D. 1995; 51(5):629–646. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444994013521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 27.Anderson BF, Baker HM, Norris GE, Rumball SV, Baker EN. Apolactoferrin structure demonstrates ligandinduced conformational change in transferrins. Nature. 1990; 344:784–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 28.Volkmann N. Protein Conformational Dynamics In: Han K, Zhang X, Yang M, editors. Cham: Springer: 2014. p. 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319029702_6, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9783319029702_6/fulltext.html.Google Scholar
 29.Ditzel L, Löwe J, Stock D, Stetter KO, Huber H, Huber R, Steinbacher S. Crystal structure of the thermosome, the archaeal chaperonin and homolog of CCT. Cell. 1998; 93(1):125–138. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/S00928674(00)811526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 30.Clare DK, Stagg S, Quispe J, Farr GW, Horwich AL, Saibil HR. Multiple states of a nucleotidebound group 2 chaperonin. Structure. 2008; 16(4):528–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2008.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.Harris SP, Belknap B, Van Sciver RE, White HD, Galkin VE. C0 and C1 Nterminal Ig domains of myosin binding protein C exert different effects on thin filament activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016; 113(6):1558–1563. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518891113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 32.Wriggers W, He J. Numerical geometry of map and model assessment. J Struct Biol. 2015; 192(2):255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2015.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.Kinghorn D. NAMD Molecular Dynamics Performance on NVIDIA GTX 1080 and 1070 GPU. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/NAMDMolecularDynamicsPerformanceonNVIDIAGTX1080and1070GPU815/ Accessed: 26 Feb 2018.
 34.Kucukelbir A, Sigworth FJ, Tagare HD. Quantifying the local resolution of cryoEM density maps. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(1):63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 35.Afanasyev P, SeerLinnemayr C, Ravelli RBG, Matadeen R, De Carlo S, Alewijnse B, Portugal RV, Pannu NS, Schatz M, van Heel M. Singleparticle cryoEM using alignment by classification (ABC): the structure of Lumbricus terrestris haemoglobin. IUCrJ. 2017; 4(5):678–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 36.Tan YZ, Baldwin PR, Davis JH, Williamson JR, Potter CS, Carragher B, Lyumkis D. Addressing preferred specimen orientation in singleparticle cryoEM through tilting. Nat Methods. 2017; 14:793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.Hryc CF, Chen DH, Afonine PV, Jakana J, Wang Z, HaasePettingell C, Jiang W, Adams PD, King JA, Schmid MF, Chiu W. Accurate model annotation of a nearatomic resolution cryoEM map. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; 114(12):3103–3108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1621152114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000; 28:235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 39.Electron Microscopy Data Bank. http://www.emdatabank.org/.
 40.Jolley CC, Wells SA, Fromme P, Thorpe MF. Fitting lowresolution cryoEM maps of proteins using constrained geometric simulations. Biophys J. 2008; 94:1613–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 41.Wriggers W, Birmanns S. Using Situs for flexible and rigidbody fitting of multiresolution singlemolecule data. J Struct Biol. 2001; 133:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.