discussion summary for the 2012-13 challenge wah chiu [email protected]

10
Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu [email protected]

Upload: lesley-woods

Post on 19-Jan-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge

Wah [email protected]

Page 2: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Past Challenges

• Particle Picking• Reconstruction Software • Modeling Challenge

Page 3: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Suggested Challenges for Cryo-EM• CTF estimate (determination) 11• Assess quality of micrographs 10• Reconstruction refinement (Quality of the map) 9• Particle picking 9• 2-D Image classification 1• 3-D classification 5• Meta challenge (e.g. CTF) 0• Different teams work on different steps 0• Modeling experimental data 5• Generate experimental and theoretical phantom 0• Biochemical homogeneity 0• Cryo-specimen preparation 3• Challenge in obtaining the best data set 1• Establish intersection points among different softwares 0• Test with published structures (e.g. ATP complex) 0

Page 4: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Practical Consideration for Challenge Events

• Resources available in the community• Interesting, challenging and feasible• Eliminate ego (nameless)• Cash for the winners (Euro or $) from the EM

companies• Publications in respectable journals• Of interest to the community in general

Page 5: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Choice of a Challenge for 2012-13

• CTF estimate (determination) 11• Assess quality of micrographs 10• Reconstruction refinement (Quality of the map) 9• Particle picking 9

Page 6: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Establish a Data Set of ~100 micrographs with different experimental conditions

• Defocus range: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5. 2.0, 3, 5 micron • 200 and 300 kV microscope• “Small” Astigmatism and drift• Variation of defocus within a micrograph due to various reasons• Recording medium: film, CCD, Direct detector• With and without Carbon or graphene film• Size of particles 0.5 -2 MDa • Particle concentration (>50 particles/frame) without C film• Electron dose 20 e/ Å2 per image different defocus• Magnification is chosen to have Sampling: 1.5-2 Å/pixel• Ice thickness (typical for the experiment)• Cumulative Envelope function

Page 7: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Define the FOM

• Determine the defocus U and defocus V and the angle as defined for data interchange

• Two photographs with different defocuses in well-calibrated microscopes to validate the true defocus values in all cases

Page 8: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Specimen choices

• 60S Ribosome (1.6 MDa), 300 kV, CCD, C film: J Frank

• GroEL (800kDa) 200 kV, CCD, DDD, no C film: A Cheng

• Lipid nanodisk (1MDa), 300 & 200 kV, CCD and CMOS, C and graphene: Henning

• Apoferritin (500 kDa) 200 kV, film, no carbon: Richard Henderson

Page 9: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Phases of Task in preparing the Data

• Monthly conference call initiated by J-M Carazo among the experimentalists. (March, April, May) to share progress and hurdles

• Focal pair Data generation and analysis by the suppliers of each of the 4 specimens – June 1, 2012

• Use the J-M Carazo infrastructure to share data• Meet at the Gordon conference to assess the collected

images and to decide the policy for the competition among the community

Page 10: Discussion Summary for the 2012-13 Challenge Wah Chiu wah@bcm.edu

Road Map of Challenges in the Future

• Suggested meeting in US in the winter of 2013 • Financed by HHMI, NIH or NSF