Awesome! Such good timing, I can use it today 😁😁 what's your opinion on CTF, better with or without?

Editors are also responsible. Anecdotally I have heard and experienced situations where reviewers provide very strong advice against publishing in current forms, yet this is ignored.

I guess… situations like this are where I really miss seeing the peer review file. Just baffling that this made the cut at Structure

My first thought is masked versus unmasked.

Oh that's surprising. So no sig. improvement in reconstruction quality? Or no sig. improvement in the computational effciency?

Cool work! I'm curious you do 1.5º/2.5º searches - have you (or others) experimented with more course searches initially in a branch&bound manner (to quickly find particles) then do very fine 2DTM searches around these initial hits? I.e. to give finer granularity to improve reconstruction?

What is strange is that standard refinements fail... I suppose these are usually limited to the low-pass filter defined by the current GS-FSC, whereas ab initio uses HR frequencies more quickly (and may be less restricted). Pretty neat stuff Oli!

Very nice - thanks for following up. Intuitively a large particle will have a broader range of alignable frequencies, whereas a small particle will necessarily have less. So it makes sense that using a larger fraction of available frequences for alignment ought to help, as long as the SNR is good.

Very nice. Q, obviously you have more averaging power or twice as much data in HR-HAIR (akin to cisTEM refinement) compared to a normal half-map refinement which fails. If you half the data and re-run HR-HAIR, does it still succeed where normal refinement fails?