Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 15;38(10):e100886. doi: 10.15252/embj.2018100886

Table 2.

Cryo‐EM data collection, refinement and validation statistics

TssJLM core complex (EMD‐0264) (PDB 6HS7) TssJLM complex (EMD‐0265) TssJLM C1 complex (EMD‐0266) TssJLM base complex (EMD‐0267)
Data collection and processing
 Magnification 120,000× 120,000× 120,000× 120,000×
 Voltage (kV) 200 200 200 200
 Electron exposure (e–/Å2) 120 120 120 120
 Defocus range (μm) 0.4–5 0.4–5 0.4–5 0.4–5
 Pixel size (Å) 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24
 Symmetry imposed C5 C5 C1 C5
 Initial particle images (no.) 167,825 167,825 167,825 167,825
 Final particle images (no.) 36,828 36,828 36,828 36,828
 Map resolution (Å) 4.6 4.9 7.9 17
 FSC threshold 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143
 Map resolution range (Å) 3.9 and 18 Å 3.8–33 Å
Tomography
 Number of grid points
 Voxel size
 Projections
Refinement
 Initial model used (PDB code) 4Y7O
 Model resolution (Å)
 FSC threshold 4.6 Å
 Model resolution range (Å)
 Map sharpening B factor (Å2)
 Model composition
 Non‐hydrogen atoms 52,890
 Protein residues 6,905
 Ligands N/A
 B factors (Å2)
 Protein
 Ligand N/A
 R.m.s. deviations
 Bond lengths (Å) 0.006
 Bond angles (°) 0.989
 Validation
 MolProbity score 1.92
 Clashscore 6.39
 Poor rotamers (%) 0.04
 Ramachandran plot
 Favoured (%) 89.46
 Allowed (%) 10.54
 Disallowed (%) 0