Joachim Frank1. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University , New York, New York 10027, United States.
We have evidence
from a number of cryo-EM studies that molecules in
solution exist in a continuous distribution of conformational states,
far larger in number than the discrete ones identified by the standard
methods of maximum likelihood classification such as Relion.[1] This finding, if it holds up, is particularly
interesting when we wish to study a processive molecular machine that
either actively “runs” with the functional ligands and
energy quota (GTP and ATP) supplied or “idles” in the
thermal equilibrium in the absence of ligands, because it promises
the chance to uncover free-energy landscapes and functional pathways
experimentally, without
any model assumptions.Jointly, in collaboration with the group
of Abbas Ourmazd at the
University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, my group has developed a
method for the continuous mapping of states from large number of cryo-EM
single-particle snapshots over the past seven years.[2] Two large data sets presented the opportunity to try out
these new algorithms: one was
a collection of 800000 ribosome images from yeast[3] (though only a fraction was used in this study), and a
collection of images for the calcium release channel from a recent
study,[4] with ∼400000 each in the
presence and absence of ligands.[5] In each
case, the free-energy landscapes obtained from the mapping revealed
detailed information about functional pathways. Other studies, with
other types of molecules, are in progress in several collaborations.Without going into the details, it is quite clear already from
the results that we can anticipate another paradigm shift, toward
routine functional interpretations of the workings of biological molecules
on the basis of experimentally determined energy landscapes. Thus
far, free-energy landscapes have been mainly a theoretical concept
to guide interpretations or MD simulations of biological macromolecules,
but experimental mapping of energy landscapes has been elusive.Going one step further, I would like to express some heretic ideas
spawned by the new findings. In hindsight, after seeing a growing
body of evidence from single-particle cryo-EM of molecules in solution,
I suggest that the idea of “a” molecular structure has
been largely created by X-ray crystallographic practice, but one needs
to see that such a structure is just one selected from numerous states
by the energy minimization implicit in the formation of a crystal.
However, when cryo-EM came along, and with it clear evidence of heterogeneity
in the sample, the idea was again to look—this time by maximum
likelihood methods—for
a small number of distinct structures, still perpetrating the myth
of the existence of fixed structures, albeit now with a few, rather
than one. It is time now to recognize that molecules may as a rule
exhibit a large continuous variation in conformational space and that
gathering information about this continuum should be the true goal
of functionally oriented structure research. Fortunately, we now have
both the tools of imaging entire ensembles of single molecules and
the new tools of analysis for mapping the conformational space occupied
by them in solution.What follows from that is that much of
the data accumulated during
the past five years with the new cameras may contain vastly more mineable
information than has been brought out in reconstructions and atomic
models derived from them. In view of the scarcity and great cost of
electron microscope time, it is imperative that not only reconstructions
but also entire data sets should be shared in the public database.
In this way, much additional
information, now dormant, may be retrieved later when the new mining
tool becomes generally available.
Authors: Ali Dashti; Peter Schwander; Robert Langlois; Russell Fung; Wen Li; Ahmad Hosseinizadeh; Hstau Y Liao; Jesper Pallesen; Gyanesh Sharma; Vera A Stupina; Anne E Simon; Jonathan D Dinman; Joachim Frank; Abbas Ourmazd Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Amédée des Georges; Oliver B Clarke; Ran Zalk; Qi Yuan; Kendall J Condon; Robert A Grassucci; Wayne A Hendrickson; Andrew R Marks; Joachim Frank Journal: Cell Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Joanna Leng; Massa Shoura; Tom C B McLeish; Alan N Real; Mariann Hardey; James McCafferty; Neil A Ranson; Sarah A Harris Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Susanne Hofmann; Dovile Januliene; Ahmad R Mehdipour; Christoph Thomas; Erich Stefan; Stefan Brüchert; Benedikt T Kuhn; Eric R Geertsma; Gerhard Hummer; Robert Tampé; Arne Moeller Journal: Nature Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Tsan-Wen Lu; Phillip C Aoto; Jui-Hung Weng; Cole Nielsen; Jennifer N Cash; James Hall; Ping Zhang; Sanford M Simon; Michael A Cianfrocco; Susan S Taylor Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Mathieu Botte; Dongchun Ni; Stephan Schenck; Iwan Zimmermann; Mohamed Chami; Nicolas Bocquet; Pascal Egloff; Denis Bucher; Matilde Trabuco; Robert K Y Cheng; Janine D Brunner; Markus A Seeger; Henning Stahlberg; Michael Hennig Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 14.919