Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: Cell. 2019 Feb 11;176(6):1490–1501.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.002

Table 1:

Cryo-EM data collection, refinement and validation statistics

Active State: 2:1 complex (EMD-9384) (PDB 6NJ9) Active State: 1:1 complex (EMD-0480) (PDB 6NQA) Poised State (EMD-0468) (PDB 6NOG)
Data collection and processing
Magnification 130,000 130,000 130,000
Voltage (kV) 300 300 300
Electron exposure (e–/Å2) 50 50 50
Defocus range (μm) −1 to −2.5 −1 to −2.5 −1 to −2.5
Pixel size (Å) 0.532 0.532 0.532
Symmetry imposed C2
Initial particle images (no.) 800727 800727 868027
Final particle images (no.) 237780 220681 108658
Map resolution (Å) 2.96 3.54 3.9
 FSC threshold (0.143) (0.143) (0.143)
Refinement
Initial model used (PDB code) 1KX3, 1NW3, 1UBQ 1KX3, 1NW3, 1UBQ 1KX3, 3QOW 1UBQ
Model resolution (Å) 3.2 4.0 4.4
 FSC threshold (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)
Model resolution range (Å) 272.4-3.3 272.4-4.0 272.4-4.4
Map sharpening B factor (Å2) −73 −96.5 −180
Model composition
 Non-hydrogen atoms 15510 15322 14957
 Protein residues 1186 1164 1126
 Nucleotides 292 292 292
 Ligands 1 1 0
B factors (Å2)
 Protein 71.6 72.8 113.1
 Nucleotide 19.47 24.5 134.4
 Ligand 77.42 68.1 -
R.m.s. deviations
 Bond lengths (Å) 0.013 0.007 0.009
 Bond angles (°) 1.04 0.853 1.35
Validation
 MolProbity score 1.46 1.59 1.41
 Clashscore 2.72 4.11 4.29
 Poor rotamers (%) 0.99 0.51 0.94
Ramachandran plot
 Favored (%) 94.08 94.23 96.73
 Allowed (%) 5.92 5.77 3.27
 Disallowed (%) 0 0 0