Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 13;222(2):e202205096. doi: 10.1083/jcb.202205096

Table 2.

Cryo-EM data collection, refinement, and structure validation

Data collection Microtubule–VASH2–SVBP
Magnification 47,260×
Pixel size (Å) 1.058
Defocus range (µm) −0.6 to −2.2
Voltage (kV) 300
Exposure time (s per frame) 0.2
Number of frames 45
Total dose (e/Å2) 65
Reconstitution (14 protofilaments microtubules)
Box size (pixels) 600
Inter-box distance (Å) 82
Asymmetrical units 1
Micrographs 3,345
Picked filaments 8,987
Initial extracted segments 153,061
Segments after 3D classification 97,645
Resolution after 3D auto-refine (Å) 4.2
Final overall resolution (Å) 3.2
Estimated map sharpening B-factor (Å2) −61.03
Helical rise (Å) 8.99
Helical twist (˚) -25.73
Reconstitution (single protofilament )
Particle after expanding 28× 2,681,616
Particles after 3D classification 682,072
Occupancy (%) 50.87
Resolution map:map FSC = 0.143 (Å) 3.1 (mask: two laterally associated αβ-tubulin heterodimers in complex with VASH2–SVBP)
Estimated map sharpening B-factor (Å2) −112.03
Resolution map:map FSC = 0.143 (Å) 3.7 (mask: VASH2–SVBP)
Atomic model
R.m.s. deviations
Bond lengths (Å) 0.005
Bond angles (˚) 0.835
Validation
Map CC (mask) 0.80
MolProbity clashscore 3.36
Overall score 1.42
Rotamer outliers (%) 0.21
Resolution map:model FSC= 0.5 (Å) 3.4
Ramachandran plot
Favored (%) 96.09
Allowed (%) 3.91
Outliers (%) 0.00