Supplementary Figure 4: Comparison of motion corrections by MotionCor2 and MotionCorr on 3D reconstruction of archaeal 20S proteasome.

(a) Rotationally averaged Fourier power spectrum of image after motion correction by MotionCorr (solid line) and fitted contrast transfer function (dashed line). (b) Rotationally averaged Fourier power spectrum of image after motion correction by MotionCor2 (solid line) and fitted CTF (dashed line). Solid black line in both (a) and (b) indicate cross correlation coefficient between the rotationally averaged Fourier power spectrum of image and fitted CTF. (c) The cross correlation coefficient output from CTFFIND4 was used to assess the Thon ring quality within the resolution range of 10 ∼ 5 Å. Blue and red dots represent cross correlation coefficient of every micrograph after motion correction using MotionCor2 (blue) and MotionCorr (red). Brown dots represent the differences between the two. (d) Histogram of cross correlation coefficients between calculated and simulated Fourier power spectrum of MotionCorr corrected image (red) and MotionCor2 corrected image (blue). The difference, which shows the amount of improvement, is shown in brown. (e) Comparison of motion corrections by MotionCor2 and Unblur. The cross correlation coefficient output from CTFFIND4 calculated within the resolution range of 10 ∼ 5 Å. Blue and red dots represent cross correlation coefficient of every micrograph after motion correction using MotionCor2 (blue) and Unblur (red). Brown dots represent the differences between the two. (f) Histogram of cross correlation coefficients between calculated and simulated Fourier power spectrum of MotionCor2 corrected image (blue) and Unblur corrected image (red). The difference, which shows the amount of improvement, is shown in brown. (g) Selected 2D class averages of 20S proteasome calculated from images after motion correction by MotionCor2.