Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 6.
Published in final edited form as: Structure. 2012 May 10;20(6):1097–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2012.03.022

Table 1.

Matching spliceosomal components into the larger entities that contain them

Spliceosomal components
(small & large)		 wa Top
score		 Number of
poses with
positive
scores
U5 & U4/U6.U5 2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7		 −6847
−4415
−2459
−85		 0
U5 body & U4/U6.U5 2.4 5147 409
U4/U6.U5 & native spliceosome 2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9		 −3869
−2669
−1581
−372		 0
U4/U6.U5 body & native spliceosome 2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9		 4022
4326
4742
5063		 124
164
236
344
BΔU1 (U2.[U4/U6.U5]) & native spliceosome 1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2		 −58605
−56093
−53101
−50365		 0
BΔU1 (U2.[U4/U6.U5]) body & native spliceosome 1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2		 −13208
−11704
−10392
−8856		 0
human C complex (U2/U6.U5) & native spliceosome 2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5		 −5699
−3980
−2188
−1011		 0
Yeast C complex (U2/U6.U5) & native spliceosome 2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6		 −54076
−49628
−44491
−39835		 0
A complex (U1/U2) & spliceosomeΔ[U4.U6/U5] 1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2		 −39503
−35103
−30925
−26298		 0
SF3b & spliceosomeΔ[U4.U6/U5] 2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2		 452
1604
2484
3028		 1
4
8
25
U1 & spliceosomeΔSF3b.[U4.U6/U5] 2.8 3574
2662b 		16068
423b
Weighted matching: U1 & spliceosomeΔSF3b.[U4.U6/U5] 2.8 3976
3784b 		16270
2b
a)

The w predicted from the EM maps resolution is indicated in bold.

b)

Score and rank of the best pose that complies with experimental data (see text).