Outcomes of the EMDataResource cryo-EM Ligand Modeling Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EMDataResource Ligand Model Challenge aimed to assess the reliability and reproducibility of modeling ligands bound to protein and protein–nucleic acid complexes in cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM) maps determined at near-atomic (1.9–2.5 Å) resolution. Three published maps were selected as targets: Escherichia coli beta-galactosidase with inhibitor, SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase with covalently bound nucleotide analog and SARS-CoV-2 virus ion channel ORF3a with bound lipid. Sixty-one models were submitted from 17 independent research groups, each with supporting workflow details. The quality of submitted ligand models and surrounding atoms were analyzed by visual inspection and quantification of local map quality, model-to-map fit, geometry, energetics and contact scores. A composite rather than a single score was needed to assess macromolecule+ligand model quality. These observations lead us to recommend best practices for assessing cryo-EM structures of liganded macromolecules reported at near-atomic resolution. The EMDataResource Ligand Model Challenge aimed at assessing the reliability and reproducibility of modeling ligands bound to protein and protein–nucleic acid complexes in cryo-EM maps determined at near-atomic resolution. This analysis presents the results and recommends best practices for assessing cryo-EM structures of liganded macromolecules.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".