Abstract:After the recent double revolutions in structural biology, which include the use of direct detectors for cryo‐electron microscopy resulting in a significant improvement in the expected resolution of large macromolecule structures, and the advent of AlphaFold which allows for near‐accurate prediction of any protein structures, the field of structural biology is now pursuing more ambitious targets, including several MDa assemblies. But complex target systems cannot be tackled using a single biophysical technique. The field of integrative structural biology has emerged as a global solution. The aim is to integrate data from multiple complementary techniques to produce a final three‐dimensional model that cannot be obtained from any single technique. The absence of atomic force microscopy data from integrative structural biology platforms is not necessarily due to its nm resolution, as opposed to Å resolution for x‐ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance, or electron microscopy. Rather a significant issue was that the AFM topographic data lacked interpretability. Fortunately, with the introduction of the AFM‐Assembly pipeline and other similar tools, it is now possible to integrate AFM topographic data into integrative modeling platforms. The advantages of single molecule techniques, such as AFM, include the ability to confirm experimentally any assembled molecular models or to produce alternative conformations that mimic the inherent flexibility of large proteins or complexes. The review begins with a brief overview of the historical developments of AFM data in structural biology, followed by an examination of the strengths and limitations of AFM imaging, which have hindered its integration into modern modeling platforms. This review discusses the correction and improvement of AFM topographic images, as well as the principles behind the AFM‐Assembly pipeline. It also presents and discusses a series of challenges that need to be addressed in order to improve the incorporation of AFM data into integrative modeling platform.

Structural highlights of macromolecular complexes and assemblies

Building up complexity in structural biology studies

Frontiers in integrative structural biology: modeling disordered proteins and utilizing in situ data

Integrative modeling meets deep learning: Recent advances in modeling protein assemblies

Overcoming challenges in structural biology with integrative approaches and nanobody-derived technologies

Bonds and Bytes: the Odyssey of Structural Biology

Progress On Modeling Of Protein Structures And Interactions

Mapping the conformations of biological assemblies

Using Integrative Modeling Platform to compute, validate, and archive a model of a protein complex structure

Cross-linking mass spectrometry discovers, evaluates, and corroborates structures and protein–protein interactions in the human cell

Principles and Overview of Sampling Methods for Modeling Macromolecular Structure and Dynamics

Predictive modeling and cryo-EM: A synergistic approach to modeling macromolecular structure

Structural biology and bioinformatics in drug design: opportunities and challenges for target identification and lead discovery

Structural biology: Gaining atomic level insight into the biological function of macromolecules

Perspectives Toward an Integrative Structural Biology Pipeline With Atomic Force Microscopy Topographic Images

Exploring protein structural ensembles: Integration of sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling methods

Advancing Molecular Dynamics: Toward Standardization, Integration, and Data Accessibility in Structural Biology

Macromolecular Protein Complexes III: Structure and Function

Super-Resolution Microscopy as a Versatile Tool in Probing Molecular Assembly

Structural dynamics of the human COP9 signalosome revealed by cross-linking mass spectrometry and integrative modeling

Soft X‐ray tomograms provide a structural basis for whole‐cell modeling