Electron Microscopy Structure Analysis
Pipeline for discovering and analyzing electron microscopy data across the full resolution spectrum: from 3D density maps (EMDB) to fitted atomic models (PDB), raw micrograph datasets (EMPIAR), and cryo-electron tomography volumes (CryoET Data Portal). Connects EM data to structural biology context via PDB and AlphaFold.
Guiding principles:
- Resolution awareness -- always report and interpret map resolution; sub-4A enables atomic modeling, 4-8A enables domain fitting, >8A is shape-level
- Map before model -- the density map is the primary experimental data; fitted models are interpretations
- Method matters -- single particle analysis, tomography, 2D crystallography, and helical reconstruction have different strengths and limitations
- Raw data value -- EMPIAR raw data enables reprocessing with newer algorithms; always note availability
- Cross-reference structures -- connect EMDB maps to PDB entries and AlphaFold predictions for completeness
- English-first queries -- use English terms in tool calls
EM resolution determines what you can see. TEM resolves individual protein complexes (~2nm). Cryo-EM achieves near-atomic resolution (<4Å) for large complexes. SEM shows surface topology. Choose the right EM modality for the question.
LOOK UP, DON'T GUESS
When uncertain about any scientific fact, SEARCH databases first rather than reasoning from memory. A database-verified answer is always more reliable than a guess.
COMPUTE, DON'T DESCRIBE
When analysis requires computation (statistics, data processing, scoring, enrichment), write and run Python code via Bash. Don't describe what you would do — execute it and report actual results. Use ToolUniverse tools to retrieve data, then Python (pandas, scipy, statsmodels, matplotlib) to analyze it.
When to Use
Typical triggers:
- "Find cryo-EM structures of [protein/complex]"
- "What EMDB maps are available for [target]?"
- "Get raw micrograph data for [structure]"
- "Find tomography datasets for [organelle/cell type]"
- "What is the resolution of [EMDB entry]?"
- "Cross-reference this EM map with PDB models"
- "Find cryo-ET datasets for [sample]"
Not this skill: For X-ray crystallography or NMR structures, use PDB search tools directly. For protein structure prediction, use tooluniverse-protein-structure.
Core Databases
| Database |
Content |
Best For |
| EMDB |
3D EM density maps (>40K entries) |
Finding processed maps, resolution data, fitting info |
| EMPIAR |
Raw micrograph/tilt series datasets |
Accessing original image data for reprocessing |
| CryoET Data Portal |
Cryo-electron tomography data |
Tomographic volumes, cellular context, in-situ structures |
| PDB (RCSB) |
Atomic models fitted to EM maps |
Structural models derived from EM data |
| AlphaFold |
AI-predicted protein structures |
Complementary models when EM resolution is limited |
Workflow Overview
Phase 0: Query Parsing
Identify target protein/complex, method preference, resolution needs
|
Phase 1: Map & Image Search (EMDB)
Find EM density maps, resolution, method, sample details
|
Phase 2: Structure Fitting (EMDB + PDB)
Identify fitted atomic models, fitting quality
|
Phase 3: Raw Data Access (EMPIAR)
Find raw micrographs, tilt series, particle stacks
|
Phase 4: Tomography (CryoET Data Portal)
Search cryo-ET datasets, reconstructed volumes
|
Phase 5: Cross-Reference & Context (PDB + AlphaFold)
Connect to atomic models, predicted structures, literature
|
Phase 6: Report Synthesis
Integrated EM data landscape for the target
Phase Details
Phase 0: Query Parsing
Identify from the user's request:
- Target: protein name, complex name, or organism
- Method preference: single particle, tomography, micro-ED, helical
- Resolution needs: atomic modeling (<4A), domain fitting (4-8A), shape (>8A)
- Data type: processed maps, raw data, fitted models, or all
Phase 1: Map & Image Search (EMDB)
Objective: Find EM density maps matching the query.
Tools:
EMDB_search_structures -- search EMDB by keyword, organism, resolution
- Input:
query (search term), optional resolution_min, resolution_max, method, limit
- Output: entries with EMDB ID, title, resolution, method, sample
EMDB_get_structure -- get full details for an EMDB entry
- Input:
emdb_id (e.g., "EMD-1234")
- Output: map details, resolution, sample, processing info, citations
EMDB_get_map_info -- get map-specific info (resolution, contour, dimensions)
EMDB_get_sample_info -- get sample preparation details
Workflow:
- Search EMDB for the target protein/complex
- Sort results by resolution (best first)
- For top entries, get full details including sample preparation and processing
- Note the EM method used (single particle, tomography, helical, etc.)
- Record associated PDB and EMPIAR accessions
Resolution interpretation:
- < 2.5A: near-atomic; side chains visible
- 2.5-4.0A: atomic; backbone and large side chains traceable
- 4.0-8.0A: domain level; secondary structure elements visible
8.0A: shape; overall architecture only
Phase 2: Structure Fitting (EMDB + PDB)
Objective: Find atomic models fitted into EM maps and assess fitting quality.
Tools:
EMDB_get_validation -- get fitting/validation data for an EMDB entry
- Input:
emdb_id
- Output: fitted PDB models, fitting statistics, validation scores
RCSBData_get_entry -- get PDB entry details
- Input:
entry_id (PDB ID)
- Output: structure details, resolution, method, citation
RCSBAdvSearch_search_structures -- advanced PDB search
- Input:
query (search term), optional experimental_method, resolution_max, limit
- Output: PDB entries matching criteria
Workflow:
- For each EMDB entry from Phase 1, check for fitted atomic models
- Get fitting statistics (cross-correlation, real-space R-factor if available)
- Retrieve the PDB entry for structural details
- If no model is fitted, search PDB for related structures by name
Fitting quality indicators:
- Cross-correlation coefficient > 0.7 suggests reasonable fit
- Multiple independently fitted models increase confidence
- Map-model FSC consistency check validates the fit
Phase 3: Raw Data Access (EMPIAR)
Objective: Locate raw micrograph data for potential reprocessing.
Tools:
EMPIAR_search_entries -- search EMPIAR archive
- Input:
query (search term), optional limit
- Output: entries with EMPIAR ID, title, data type, size
EMPIAR_get_entry -- get detailed entry information
- Input:
empiar_id (e.g., "EMPIAR-10028")
- Output: data description, file formats, associated EMDB entries, download links
Workflow:
- Search EMPIAR for entries related to the target
- Cross-reference with EMDB entries found in Phase 1 (many EMDB entries link to EMPIAR)
- Note data types: micrographs, particle stacks, tilt series, gain references
- Record dataset size (can be 100s of GB to TBs)
Data types in EMPIAR:
- Micrographs: raw detector frames or motion-corrected images
- Particle stacks: extracted particle images
- Tilt series: serial images at different tilt angles (for tomography)
- Reconstructed volumes: 3D volumes from tomographic reconstruction
Phase 4: Tomography (CryoET Data Portal)
Objective: Find cryo-electron tomography datasets for cellular and in-situ structural biology.
Tools:
CryoET_list_datasets -- search CryoET Data Portal
- Input:
query (search term), optional organism, limit
- Output: datasets with ID, title, organism, sample type
CryoET_get_dataset -- get dataset details
- Input:
dataset_id
- Output: sample details, tilt series parameters, tomogram info
CryoET_list_runs -- search individual tomography runs
- Input:
dataset_id or query, optional limit
- Output: run details, tilt parameters, voxel spacing
Workflow:
- Search CryoET Data Portal for the target organism/structure
- Get dataset details including sample preparation and imaging parameters
- Explore individual runs for tilt series specifications
- Note voxel spacing and tomogram dimensions
Tomography vs single particle: Tomography preserves cellular context (in situ) but typically achieves lower resolution. Single particle gives higher resolution but requires purified samples.
Phase 5: Cross-Reference & Context
Objective: Connect EM data to broader structural biology context.
Tools:
alphafold_get_prediction -- get AlphaFold predicted structure
- Input:
qualifier (UniProt accession)
- Output: predicted structure coordinates, confidence scores (pLDDT)
PubMed_search_articles -- find publications describing the EM work
- Input:
query (search term), optional limit
- Output: articles with title, abstract, PMID
Workflow:
- For proteins with EM structures, get AlphaFold predictions for comparison
- Note regions where AlphaFold confidence is low (pLDDT < 70) -- these may be flexible and harder to resolve by EM
- Search PubMed for methodological papers and biological insights from the EM studies
- Cross-reference EMDB/PDB/EMPIAR accessions in publications
Phase 6: Interpretation & Recommendations
Don't just list maps — help the user choose the RIGHT map for their purpose.
Decision matrix: Which map should I use?
| Purpose |
Best Resolution |
Method |
Priority Criteria |
| Atomic model building |
< 3.5A |
Single particle |
Highest resolution with fitted PDB model |
| Drug binding site analysis |
< 3.0A |
Single particle |
Must resolve side chains in binding pocket |
| Domain architecture |
4-8A |
Single particle or subtomogram avg |
Large complexes where domains need fitting |
| Conformational states |
< 4.5A |
Single particle (multiple classes) |
Look for entries with multiple maps from same dataset |
| Cellular context |
15-40A |
Cryo-ET |
Tomographic datasets showing in-situ arrangement |
| Reprocessing |
Any |
Any |
Must have EMPIAR raw data; prefer recent datasets (better detectors) |
Quality assessment checklist:
- Resolution reported is the "gold standard" FSC 0.143 cutoff? (some older entries use 0.5 cutoff — inflates resolution)
- Map sharpened appropriately? (over-sharpened maps can look better but contain artifacts)
- Fitting statistics available? (cross-correlation > 0.7 is acceptable)
- Multiple maps from same sample? (suggests conformational heterogeneity — important for drug design)
Resolution trend analysis: If multiple maps exist over time, note the resolution trajectory. Improvement from 6A (2015) to 2.8A (2023) suggests the sample is amenable to high-resolution single particle analysis with modern hardware.
Phase 7: Report Synthesis
Assemble findings into an actionable report:
- Target Overview -- protein/complex identity, biological significance
- EM Map Landscape -- available maps with resolution, method, and year
- Best Available Structures -- highest resolution maps with fitted models, with quality assessment
- Recommendation -- which specific map/model to use for the user's purpose (with reasoning)
- Raw Data Availability -- EMPIAR datasets for reprocessing, with dataset sizes
- Tomography Data -- cellular context datasets if available
- Structural Context -- comparison with X-ray/NMR/AlphaFold structures
- Key Publications -- methods papers, biological discoveries
- Data Gaps -- missing conformational states, unresolved regions, need for higher resolution
Common Analysis Patterns
| Pattern |
Description |
Key Phases |
| Structure Discovery |
Find all EM data for a protein |
0, 1, 2, 5 |
| Reprocessing Prep |
Find raw data for re-analysis |
0, 1, 3 |
| Tomography Survey |
Explore in-situ structural data |
0, 4 |
| Resolution Comparison |
Track resolution improvements over time |
0, 1, 2 |
| Map-Model Validation |
Assess quality of fitted atomic models |
0, 1, 2, 5 |
Edge Cases & Fallbacks
- No EMDB entries: The complex may only have X-ray or NMR structures. Search PDB via
RCSBAdvSearch_search_structures with method filter
- EMDB entry without PDB model: Common for lower-resolution maps. Note the gap; suggest AlphaFold for approximate modeling
- No EMPIAR data: Raw data deposition is newer and not universal. The processed map in EMDB may be the only available data
- Large complexes: Ribosomes, viruses, etc. may have hundreds of EMDB entries. Use resolution filters to narrow results
- Light-microscopy / phenotypic-screen question (not EM): If the user actually wants published light-microscopy or high-content imaging data (e.g. "which imaging studies knocked down gene X?", "find HeLa images stained for an antibody", "what phenotypes were screened with compound Y?"), this EM pipeline does not apply. Use the Image Data Resource (IDR) search tools instead (see below).
Related Resource: IDR (light microscopy & high-content screening)
IDR (Image Data Resource, https://idr.openmicroscopy.org) is the reference repository for light microscopy and high-content screening data — distinct from the EM databases above. Use it to find published imaging studies and images by curated metadata across all ~140 studies at once:
IDR_search_studies — which screens/projects involve a gene/organism/compound/phenotype. Returns containing screens and projects with IDR container IDs.
- Example:
tu.run_tool("IDR_search_studies", {"key": "Gene Symbol", "value": "TP53"}) -> 12 studies (idr0043 Human Protein Atlas, idr0135 melanocytes, ...).
- Example:
tu.run_tool("IDR_search_studies", {"key": "Phenotype", "value": "spindly"}) -> 4 RhoGTPase screens (idr0028).
IDR_search_images — individual images matching metadata, each with IDR image ID, webclient URL, and key/value pairs (gene, cell line, antibody, organism).
IDR_list_metadata_keys — discover the searchable keys (Gene Symbol, Organism, Compound Name, Cell Line, Phenotype, Antibody Name, Pathology, ...).
IDR_list_values_for_key — enumerate values + image counts for a key, e.g. all organisms or all screened compounds.
Notes: value matching is case-sensitive on the stored capitalization (organism must be Homo sapiens, not homo sapiens); use IDR_list_values_for_key to find valid values. To drill from a returned IDR study container into its datasets/images, use the existing IDR_get_study / IDR_get_study_datasets / IDR_list_dataset_images / IDR_get_image_map_annotations tools.
Limitations
- No map visualization: This skill retrieves metadata and statistics, not 3D renderings. Use UCSF ChimeraX or IMOD for visualization
- No reprocessing: Finding raw data is supported; actual cryo-EM data processing requires specialized software (RELION, cryoSPARC)
- Resolution is not accuracy: A 3A map processed with errors may be less reliable than a well-validated 4A map. Fitting statistics matter
- Deposition lag: Structures may be published months before EMDB deposition, or vice versa
1---
2name: tooluniverse-electron-microscopy
3description: Search and analyze electron microscopy data — cryo-EM density maps (EMDB), fitted atomic models (PDB), raw micrograph datasets (EMPIAR), and cryo-electron tomography volumes (CryoET Data Portal). Use for finding 3D structural data on a protein/complex, comparing experimental EM resolution to AlphaFold confidence, and accessing raw EM data for re-processing.
4disable-model-invocation: true
5---
6
7# Electron Microscopy Structure Analysis
8
9Pipeline for discovering and analyzing electron microscopy data across the full resolution spectrum: from 3D density maps (EMDB) to fitted atomic models (PDB), raw micrograph datasets (EMPIAR), and cryo-electron tomography volumes (CryoET Data Portal). Connects EM data to structural biology context via PDB and AlphaFold.
10
11**Guiding principles**:
121. **Resolution awareness** -- always report and interpret map resolution; sub-4A enables atomic modeling, 4-8A enables domain fitting, >8A is shape-level
132. **Map before model** -- the density map is the primary experimental data; fitted models are interpretations
143. **Method matters** -- single particle analysis, tomography, 2D crystallography, and helical reconstruction have different strengths and limitations
154. **Raw data value** -- EMPIAR raw data enables reprocessing with newer algorithms; always note availability
165. **Cross-reference structures** -- connect EMDB maps to PDB entries and AlphaFold predictions for completeness
176. **English-first queries** -- use English terms in tool calls
18
19EM resolution determines what you can see. TEM resolves individual protein complexes (~2nm). Cryo-EM achieves near-atomic resolution (<4Å) for large complexes. SEM shows surface topology. Choose the right EM modality for the question.
20
21## LOOK UP, DON'T GUESS
22When uncertain about any scientific fact, SEARCH databases first rather than reasoning from memory. A database-verified answer is always more reliable than a guess.
23
24---
25
26## COMPUTE, DON'T DESCRIBE
27When analysis requires computation (statistics, data processing, scoring, enrichment), write and run Python code via Bash. Don't describe what you would do — execute it and report actual results. Use ToolUniverse tools to retrieve data, then Python (pandas, scipy, statsmodels, matplotlib) to analyze it.
28
29## When to Use
30
31Typical triggers:
32- "Find cryo-EM structures of [protein/complex]"
33- "What EMDB maps are available for [target]?"
34- "Get raw micrograph data for [structure]"
35- "Find tomography datasets for [organelle/cell type]"
36- "What is the resolution of [EMDB entry]?"
37- "Cross-reference this EM map with PDB models"
38- "Find cryo-ET datasets for [sample]"
39
40**Not this skill**: For X-ray crystallography or NMR structures, use PDB search tools directly. For protein structure prediction, use `tooluniverse-protein-structure`.
41
42---
43
44## Core Databases
45
46| Database | Content | Best For |
47|----------|---------|----------|
48| **EMDB** | 3D EM density maps (>40K entries) | Finding processed maps, resolution data, fitting info |
49| **EMPIAR** | Raw micrograph/tilt series datasets | Accessing original image data for reprocessing |
50| **CryoET Data Portal** | Cryo-electron tomography data | Tomographic volumes, cellular context, in-situ structures |
51| **PDB (RCSB)** | Atomic models fitted to EM maps | Structural models derived from EM data |
52| **AlphaFold** | AI-predicted protein structures | Complementary models when EM resolution is limited |
53
54---
55
56## Workflow Overview
57
58```
59Phase 0: Query Parsing
60 Identify target protein/complex, method preference, resolution needs
61 |
62Phase 1: Map & Image Search (EMDB)
63 Find EM density maps, resolution, method, sample details
64 |
65Phase 2: Structure Fitting (EMDB + PDB)
66 Identify fitted atomic models, fitting quality
67 |
68Phase 3: Raw Data Access (EMPIAR)
69 Find raw micrographs, tilt series, particle stacks
70 |
71Phase 4: Tomography (CryoET Data Portal)
72 Search cryo-ET datasets, reconstructed volumes
73 |
74Phase 5: Cross-Reference & Context (PDB + AlphaFold)
75 Connect to atomic models, predicted structures, literature
76 |
77Phase 6: Report Synthesis
78 Integrated EM data landscape for the target
79```
80
81---
82
83## Phase Details
84
85### Phase 0: Query Parsing
86
87Identify from the user's request:
88- **Target**: protein name, complex name, or organism
89- **Method preference**: single particle, tomography, micro-ED, helical
90- **Resolution needs**: atomic modeling (<4A), domain fitting (4-8A), shape (>8A)
91- **Data type**: processed maps, raw data, fitted models, or all
92
93### Phase 1: Map & Image Search (EMDB)
94
95**Objective**: Find EM density maps matching the query.
96
97**Tools**:
98- `EMDB_search_structures` -- search EMDB by keyword, organism, resolution
99 - Input: `query` (search term), optional `resolution_min`, `resolution_max`, `method`, `limit`
100 - Output: entries with EMDB ID, title, resolution, method, sample
101- `EMDB_get_structure` -- get full details for an EMDB entry
102 - Input: `emdb_id` (e.g., "EMD-1234")
103 - Output: map details, resolution, sample, processing info, citations
104- `EMDB_get_map_info` -- get map-specific info (resolution, contour, dimensions)
105 - Input: `emdb_id`
106- `EMDB_get_sample_info` -- get sample preparation details
107 - Input: `emdb_id`
108
109**Workflow**:
1101. Search EMDB for the target protein/complex
1112. Sort results by resolution (best first)
1123. For top entries, get full details including sample preparation and processing
1134. Note the EM method used (single particle, tomography, helical, etc.)
1145. Record associated PDB and EMPIAR accessions
115
116**Resolution interpretation**:
117- < 2.5A: near-atomic; side chains visible
118- 2.5-4.0A: atomic; backbone and large side chains traceable
119- 4.0-8.0A: domain level; secondary structure elements visible
120- > 8.0A: shape; overall architecture only
121
122### Phase 2: Structure Fitting (EMDB + PDB)
123
124**Objective**: Find atomic models fitted into EM maps and assess fitting quality.
125
126**Tools**:
127- `EMDB_get_validation` -- get fitting/validation data for an EMDB entry
128 - Input: `emdb_id`
129 - Output: fitted PDB models, fitting statistics, validation scores
130- `RCSBData_get_entry` -- get PDB entry details
131 - Input: `entry_id` (PDB ID)
132 - Output: structure details, resolution, method, citation
133- `RCSBAdvSearch_search_structures` -- advanced PDB search
134 - Input: `query` (search term), optional `experimental_method`, `resolution_max`, `limit`
135 - Output: PDB entries matching criteria
136
137**Workflow**:
1381. For each EMDB entry from Phase 1, check for fitted atomic models
1392. Get fitting statistics (cross-correlation, real-space R-factor if available)
1403. Retrieve the PDB entry for structural details
1414. If no model is fitted, search PDB for related structures by name
142
143**Fitting quality indicators**:
144- Cross-correlation coefficient > 0.7 suggests reasonable fit
145- Multiple independently fitted models increase confidence
146- Map-model FSC consistency check validates the fit
147
148### Phase 3: Raw Data Access (EMPIAR)
149
150**Objective**: Locate raw micrograph data for potential reprocessing.
151
152**Tools**:
153- `EMPIAR_search_entries` -- search EMPIAR archive
154 - Input: `query` (search term), optional `limit`
155 - Output: entries with EMPIAR ID, title, data type, size
156- `EMPIAR_get_entry` -- get detailed entry information
157 - Input: `empiar_id` (e.g., "EMPIAR-10028")
158 - Output: data description, file formats, associated EMDB entries, download links
159
160**Workflow**:
1611. Search EMPIAR for entries related to the target
1622. Cross-reference with EMDB entries found in Phase 1 (many EMDB entries link to EMPIAR)
1633. Note data types: micrographs, particle stacks, tilt series, gain references
1644. Record dataset size (can be 100s of GB to TBs)
165
166**Data types in EMPIAR**:
167- **Micrographs**: raw detector frames or motion-corrected images
168- **Particle stacks**: extracted particle images
169- **Tilt series**: serial images at different tilt angles (for tomography)
170- **Reconstructed volumes**: 3D volumes from tomographic reconstruction
171
172### Phase 4: Tomography (CryoET Data Portal)
173
174**Objective**: Find cryo-electron tomography datasets for cellular and in-situ structural biology.
175
176**Tools**:
177- `CryoET_list_datasets` -- search CryoET Data Portal
178 - Input: `query` (search term), optional `organism`, `limit`
179 - Output: datasets with ID, title, organism, sample type
180- `CryoET_get_dataset` -- get dataset details
181 - Input: `dataset_id`
182 - Output: sample details, tilt series parameters, tomogram info
183- `CryoET_list_runs` -- search individual tomography runs
184 - Input: `dataset_id` or `query`, optional `limit`
185 - Output: run details, tilt parameters, voxel spacing
186
187**Workflow**:
1881. Search CryoET Data Portal for the target organism/structure
1892. Get dataset details including sample preparation and imaging parameters
1903. Explore individual runs for tilt series specifications
1914. Note voxel spacing and tomogram dimensions
192
193**Tomography vs single particle**: Tomography preserves cellular context (in situ) but typically achieves lower resolution. Single particle gives higher resolution but requires purified samples.
194
195### Phase 5: Cross-Reference & Context
196
197**Objective**: Connect EM data to broader structural biology context.
198
199**Tools**:
200- `alphafold_get_prediction` -- get AlphaFold predicted structure
201 - Input: `qualifier` (UniProt accession)
202 - Output: predicted structure coordinates, confidence scores (pLDDT)
203- `PubMed_search_articles` -- find publications describing the EM work
204 - Input: `query` (search term), optional `limit`
205 - Output: articles with title, abstract, PMID
206
207**Workflow**:
2081. For proteins with EM structures, get AlphaFold predictions for comparison
2092. Note regions where AlphaFold confidence is low (pLDDT < 70) -- these may be flexible and harder to resolve by EM
2103. Search PubMed for methodological papers and biological insights from the EM studies
2114. Cross-reference EMDB/PDB/EMPIAR accessions in publications
212
213### Phase 6: Interpretation & Recommendations
214
215Don't just list maps — help the user choose the RIGHT map for their purpose.
216
217**Decision matrix: Which map should I use?**
218
219| Purpose | Best Resolution | Method | Priority Criteria |
220|---------|----------------|--------|-------------------|
221| **Atomic model building** | < 3.5A | Single particle | Highest resolution with fitted PDB model |
222| **Drug binding site analysis** | < 3.0A | Single particle | Must resolve side chains in binding pocket |
223| **Domain architecture** | 4-8A | Single particle or subtomogram avg | Large complexes where domains need fitting |
224| **Conformational states** | < 4.5A | Single particle (multiple classes) | Look for entries with multiple maps from same dataset |
225| **Cellular context** | 15-40A | Cryo-ET | Tomographic datasets showing in-situ arrangement |
226| **Reprocessing** | Any | Any | Must have EMPIAR raw data; prefer recent datasets (better detectors) |
227
228**Quality assessment checklist**:
229- Resolution reported is the "gold standard" FSC 0.143 cutoff? (some older entries use 0.5 cutoff — inflates resolution)
230- Map sharpened appropriately? (over-sharpened maps can look better but contain artifacts)
231- Fitting statistics available? (cross-correlation > 0.7 is acceptable)
232- Multiple maps from same sample? (suggests conformational heterogeneity — important for drug design)
233
234**Resolution trend analysis**: If multiple maps exist over time, note the resolution trajectory. Improvement from 6A (2015) to 2.8A (2023) suggests the sample is amenable to high-resolution single particle analysis with modern hardware.
235
236### Phase 7: Report Synthesis
237
238Assemble findings into an actionable report:
239
2401. **Target Overview** -- protein/complex identity, biological significance
2412. **EM Map Landscape** -- available maps with resolution, method, and year
2423. **Best Available Structures** -- highest resolution maps with fitted models, with quality assessment
2434. **Recommendation** -- which specific map/model to use for the user's purpose (with reasoning)
2445. **Raw Data Availability** -- EMPIAR datasets for reprocessing, with dataset sizes
2456. **Tomography Data** -- cellular context datasets if available
2467. **Structural Context** -- comparison with X-ray/NMR/AlphaFold structures
2478. **Key Publications** -- methods papers, biological discoveries
2489. **Data Gaps** -- missing conformational states, unresolved regions, need for higher resolution
249
250---
251
252## Common Analysis Patterns
253
254| Pattern | Description | Key Phases |
255|---------|-------------|------------|
256| **Structure Discovery** | Find all EM data for a protein | 0, 1, 2, 5 |
257| **Reprocessing Prep** | Find raw data for re-analysis | 0, 1, 3 |
258| **Tomography Survey** | Explore in-situ structural data | 0, 4 |
259| **Resolution Comparison** | Track resolution improvements over time | 0, 1, 2 |
260| **Map-Model Validation** | Assess quality of fitted atomic models | 0, 1, 2, 5 |
261
262---
263
264## Edge Cases & Fallbacks
265
266- **No EMDB entries**: The complex may only have X-ray or NMR structures. Search PDB via `RCSBAdvSearch_search_structures` with method filter
267- **EMDB entry without PDB model**: Common for lower-resolution maps. Note the gap; suggest AlphaFold for approximate modeling
268- **No EMPIAR data**: Raw data deposition is newer and not universal. The processed map in EMDB may be the only available data
269- **Large complexes**: Ribosomes, viruses, etc. may have hundreds of EMDB entries. Use resolution filters to narrow results
270- **Light-microscopy / phenotypic-screen question (not EM)**: If the user actually wants published light-microscopy or high-content imaging data (e.g. "which imaging studies knocked down gene X?", "find HeLa images stained for an antibody", "what phenotypes were screened with compound Y?"), this EM pipeline does not apply. Use the Image Data Resource (IDR) search tools instead (see below).
271
272---
273
274## Related Resource: IDR (light microscopy & high-content screening)
275
276IDR (Image Data Resource, https://idr.openmicroscopy.org) is the reference repository for *light* microscopy and high-content screening data — distinct from the EM databases above. Use it to find published imaging studies and images by curated metadata across all ~140 studies at once:
277
278- `IDR_search_studies` — which screens/projects involve a gene/organism/compound/phenotype. Returns containing screens and projects with IDR container IDs.
279 - Example: `tu.run_tool("IDR_search_studies", {"key": "Gene Symbol", "value": "TP53"})` -> 12 studies (idr0043 Human Protein Atlas, idr0135 melanocytes, ...).
280 - Example: `tu.run_tool("IDR_search_studies", {"key": "Phenotype", "value": "spindly"})` -> 4 RhoGTPase screens (idr0028).
281- `IDR_search_images` — individual images matching metadata, each with IDR image ID, webclient URL, and key/value pairs (gene, cell line, antibody, organism).
282- `IDR_list_metadata_keys` — discover the searchable keys (Gene Symbol, Organism, Compound Name, Cell Line, Phenotype, Antibody Name, Pathology, ...).
283- `IDR_list_values_for_key` — enumerate values + image counts for a key, e.g. all organisms or all screened compounds.
284
285Notes: value matching is case-sensitive on the stored capitalization (organism must be `Homo sapiens`, not `homo sapiens`); use `IDR_list_values_for_key` to find valid values. To drill from a returned IDR study container into its datasets/images, use the existing `IDR_get_study` / `IDR_get_study_datasets` / `IDR_list_dataset_images` / `IDR_get_image_map_annotations` tools.
286
287---
288
289## Limitations
290
291- **No map visualization**: This skill retrieves metadata and statistics, not 3D renderings. Use UCSF ChimeraX or IMOD for visualization
292- **No reprocessing**: Finding raw data is supported; actual cryo-EM data processing requires specialized software (RELION, cryoSPARC)
293- **Resolution is not accuracy**: A 3A map processed with errors may be less reliable than a well-validated 4A map. Fitting statistics matter
294- **Deposition lag**: Structures may be published months before EMDB deposition, or vice versa