Streaky 3D refinements for a small protein

Hi everyone,

I am processing a small protein, about 61 kDa. I have a reasonably good number of particles and some promising 2D classes, but I have noticed that some of the apparent top/bottom views pick up a fair amount of noise (attached), even after tightening the circular mask parameters.


So far I have tried adjusting the number of iterations, force max over poses/shifts, clamp solvent, and enforce negativity, using a bigger box six=ze based on some recommendations I have come across in this forum. My ab initio classes actually look fairly decent. I followed the HR-HAIR workflow from Oliver Clarke | bioRxiv included those results below as well. I tested runs with about 5–8 classes.

Where things start to fall apart is after that step. My downstream 3D refinements become very noisy, look overfit, and develop a streaky appearance. I have tried Homo Refinement settings(results attached below), described in the same paper, as well as Hetero Refinement against junk classes, and I also tested a soft static mask, and NU-refinement.

At this point, I honestly feel like the ab initio models look better than the later refinement jobs, which makes me think I may be pushing the data in the wrong direction after the initial reconstruction stage.



I have learned a lot from reading through this forum, and many of the tips here have already helped me get this far. I would really appreciate any advice on what to try next, especially for improving refinement quality and avoiding the noisy/streaky reconstructions. I am happy to provide more details about my workflow, parameters, or intermediate results if that would help!

limit the low-pass filter at NU-refine step to 6Å or 8Å? obviously global reassignment of euler angles is not working despite a quality reference. any other indicators of where things go awry by revisiting the log? you’re not refining higher order parameters are you? 60kDa is a challenge but you’re halfway there.

Thank you for your feeback! I have attached a snippet from a NU-refine job where I used the default CS parameters except turn refine_gs_resplit on. I will limit the LP filter as well and try.

Can I ask what you mean by ‘higher order parameters’? And is there anything specific that should stand out when I check the log?
Thanks again!

Don’t refine CS spherical aberration, 3rd order or 4th order, astigmatism etc.

Check the log to see (relative to comparators if you have them) whether the alignment and angular assignment and quality of model improves per iteration as expected. Check the beginning for box size and pixel size. Check the iteration 0 of the reference model to see if it’s VERY blobular (you want some features/shape to drive alignment/assignment)