. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jun 16.

Published in final edited form as: Mol Cell. 2026 Feb 24;86(5):834–850.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2026.01.030

Table 2:

Cryo-EM data collection, model refinement and validation statistics

Sample	DNMT3A2/3B3-10n8n10-H3K36me2-dinucleosome							DNMT3A2/3B3-H3K36me2-mononucleosome
Data Statistics
Microscope	Titan Krios							Titan Krios
Voltage (kV)	300							300
Electron exposure (e⁻/Å²)	50							50
Pixel size (Å)	0.828							0.828
Symmetry imposed	C1							C1
FSC threshold	0.143							0.143
Map resolution range (Å)	3–10							3–10
Initial particle projections	349410							1569478
Focus region	Consensus	Upper Nuc. PWWP	Upper Nuc. high res	Lower Nuc.	Upper DNMT	Lower DNMT	Composite	consensus	nucleosome	DNMT	PWWP1	PWWP2	composite
EMD code	71604	71609	71607	71608	71605	71606	72487	71301	71306	71302	71304	71305	72318
Final particle projections	176300	16793	176300	123813	176300	176300	NA	111367	25397	48074	21950	25397	NA
Map resolution (Å)	3.84	4.99	3.28	3.51	4.89	5.51	5.5–3.51	3.63	4.43	6.35	4.91	5.86	6.35–3.63
Model Refinement
PDB code	9Y4P							9Q7U
Model composition
Non-hydrogen atoms	91817							48157
Protein residues	4453							2362
DNA base pairs	321							167
Ligands	4							2
Zn ions	18							9
B factors (Å²)
protein	155.05							145.99
DNA	118.68							153.35
Ligands and Zn	330.17							231.54
Validation
Bond lengths (RMSD Å)	0.007							0.005
Bond angles (RMSD °)	0.627							0.879
MolProbity score	1.75							1.78
Clashscore	7.40							7.16
Rotamer outliers (%)	0.68							0.05
Ramachandran plot
Favored (%)	67.55							94.36
Allowed (%)	5.01							5.64
Disallowed (%)	0							0