PMC:7553147 / 12505-13466 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T15","span":{"begin":318,"end":321},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T16","span":{"begin":390,"end":393},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T17","span":{"begin":475,"end":478},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T18","span":{"begin":554,"end":557},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T19","span":{"begin":721,"end":724},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A15","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T15","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma67847"},{"id":"A16","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T16","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma67847"},{"id":"A17","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T17","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma67847"},{"id":"A18","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T18","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma67847"},{"id":"A19","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T19","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma67847"}],"text":"2.4. Validation and quality analysis  \nTo judge the quality of our structural results, we concentrated here on three of the newest approaches: directional local resolution (Vilas et al., 2020 ▸), Q-score (Pintilie et al., 2020 ▸) and FSC-Q (Ramirez-Aportela, Maluenda et al., 2020 ▸). The first provides a measure of map quality, while the latter two focus on the relationship between the map and the structural model; in other words, how well the model is supported by the map density, without any other complementary piece of information.\nIn terms of map-to-model validation, in Supplementary Figs. S3(a) and S3(b) we present Q-score and FSC-Q metrics, respectively, showing the agreement between the ensemble cryo-EM map and the structural model derived from it. In most areas the agreement is very good, with the exception of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and substantial parts of the N-terminal domain (NTD), as expected from their higher flexibility."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-MONDO","denotations":[{"id":"T12","span":{"begin":913,"end":916},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A12","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T12","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0008449"},{"id":"A13","pred":"mondo_id","subj":"T12","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/MONDO_0018075"}],"text":"2.4. Validation and quality analysis  \nTo judge the quality of our structural results, we concentrated here on three of the newest approaches: directional local resolution (Vilas et al., 2020 ▸), Q-score (Pintilie et al., 2020 ▸) and FSC-Q (Ramirez-Aportela, Maluenda et al., 2020 ▸). The first provides a measure of map quality, while the latter two focus on the relationship between the map and the structural model; in other words, how well the model is supported by the map density, without any other complementary piece of information.\nIn terms of map-to-model validation, in Supplementary Figs. S3(a) and S3(b) we present Q-score and FSC-Q metrics, respectively, showing the agreement between the ensemble cryo-EM map and the structural model derived from it. In most areas the agreement is very good, with the exception of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and substantial parts of the N-terminal domain (NTD), as expected from their higher flexibility."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T75","span":{"begin":305,"end":306},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T76","span":{"begin":352,"end":357},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0009985"},{"id":"T77","span":{"begin":605,"end":606},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T78","span":{"begin":615,"end":616},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001021"}],"text":"2.4. Validation and quality analysis  \nTo judge the quality of our structural results, we concentrated here on three of the newest approaches: directional local resolution (Vilas et al., 2020 ▸), Q-score (Pintilie et al., 2020 ▸) and FSC-Q (Ramirez-Aportela, Maluenda et al., 2020 ▸). The first provides a measure of map quality, while the latter two focus on the relationship between the map and the structural model; in other words, how well the model is supported by the map density, without any other complementary piece of information.\nIn terms of map-to-model validation, in Supplementary Figs. S3(a) and S3(b) we present Q-score and FSC-Q metrics, respectively, showing the agreement between the ensemble cryo-EM map and the structural model derived from it. In most areas the agreement is very good, with the exception of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and substantial parts of the N-terminal domain (NTD), as expected from their higher flexibility."}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T87","span":{"begin":0,"end":4},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T88","span":{"begin":6,"end":39},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T89","span":{"begin":40,"end":285},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T90","span":{"begin":286,"end":541},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T91","span":{"begin":542,"end":601},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T92","span":{"begin":602,"end":766},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T93","span":{"begin":767,"end":961},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"2.4. Validation and quality analysis  \nTo judge the quality of our structural results, we concentrated here on three of the newest approaches: directional local resolution (Vilas et al., 2020 ▸), Q-score (Pintilie et al., 2020 ▸) and FSC-Q (Ramirez-Aportela, Maluenda et al., 2020 ▸). The first provides a measure of map quality, while the latter two focus on the relationship between the map and the structural model; in other words, how well the model is supported by the map density, without any other complementary piece of information.\nIn terms of map-to-model validation, in Supplementary Figs. S3(a) and S3(b) we present Q-score and FSC-Q metrics, respectively, showing the agreement between the ensemble cryo-EM map and the structural model derived from it. In most areas the agreement is very good, with the exception of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and substantial parts of the N-terminal domain (NTD), as expected from their higher flexibility."}