Heymann J Bernard
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 50 South Dr, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
AIMS Biophys. 2015;2(1):21-35. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.1.21.
Validation is a necessity to trust the structures solved by electron microscopy by single particle techniques. The impressive achievements in single particle reconstruction fuel its expansion beyond a small community of image processing experts. This poses the risk of inappropriate data processing with dubious results. Nowhere is it more clearly illustrated than in the recovery of a reference density map from pure noise aligned to that map-a phantom in the noise. Appropriate use of existing validating methods such as resolution-limited alignment and the processing of independent data sets ("gold standard") avoid this pitfall. However, these methods can be undermined by biases introduced in various subtle ways. How can we test that a map is a coherent structure present in the images selected from the micrographs? In stead of viewing the phantom emerging from noise as a cautionary tale, it should be used as a defining baseline. Any map is always recoverable from noise images, provided a sufficient number of images are aligned and used in reconstruction. However, with smaller numbers of images, the expected coherence in the real particle images should yield better reconstructions than equivalent numbers of noise or background images, even without masking or imposing resolution limits as potential biases. The validation test proposed is therefore a simple alignment of a limited number of micrograph and noise images against the final reconstruction as reference, demonstrating that the micrograph images yield a better reconstruction. I examine synthetic cases to relate the resolution of a reconstruction to the alignment error as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio. I also administered the test to real cases of publicly available data. Adopting such a test can aid the microscopist in assessing the usefulness of the micrographs taken before committing to lengthy processing with questionable outcomes.
验证是信任通过单颗粒技术利用电子显微镜解析出的结构的必要条件。单颗粒重构所取得的令人瞩目的成就推动其发展,不再局限于一小群图像处理专家的圈子。这带来了数据处理不当且结果存疑的风险。在从与该图谱对齐的纯噪声中恢复参考密度图(即噪声中的幻象)的过程中,这种情况体现得最为明显。恰当地使用现有的验证方法,如分辨率受限对齐和独立数据集处理(“黄金标准”),可避免此陷阱。然而,这些方法可能会受到以各种微妙方式引入的偏差的影响。我们如何检验一幅图谱是从显微照片中选取的图像里存在的连贯结构呢?不应将从噪声中出现的幻象视为一个警示故事,而应将其用作一个定义性的基线。只要对齐并用于重构的图像数量足够,任何图谱总能从噪声图像中恢复出来。然而,对于数量较少的图像,真实颗粒图像中预期的连贯性应能产生比等量噪声或背景图像更好的重构结果,即使不进行掩膜或施加分辨率限制作为潜在偏差。因此,所提出的验证测试是将有限数量的显微照片和噪声图像与最终重构结果进行简单对齐作为参考,以证明显微照片图像能产生更好的重构效果。我研究了合成案例,以将重构的分辨率与作为信噪比函数的对齐误差联系起来。我还将该测试应用于公开可用数据的实际案例。采用这样的测试有助于显微镜工作者在投入可能产生可疑结果的冗长处理之前,评估所拍摄显微照片的有用性。