 0.0) The start of the Discussion section reads like a repetition of (parts of) the Results section.  0.0) Some sentences seem to be repeated, or at least very similar, e.g. in the paragraph just before Figure 0 and just after Figure 0. Other pieces of text read more like an early draft than like a polished manuscript, e.g. the second paragraph of the subsection "Overall Architecture of PR000".  00.0000/eLife.00000.000  Author response  > Essential revisions: > > 0\) The asymmetric reconstructions of the hetero-pentamer (Figure 0F) and the monomeric P0 are very low-resolution compared to the icosahedral reconstruction. This is probably the result of incorrect image processing. The icosahedrally-averaged pentamer has resolutions extending well beyond 0 Å. Just by lowering the number of asymmetric units by 0-fold, the drop in resolution of the asymmetric reconstructions is too large. By keeping the orientations the same as in the original icosahedrally refined structure (i.e. by doing focussed classifications on the symmetry-expanded particles without re-alignments), resolutions around 0 Å should still be achievable in the asymmetric reconstructions. A good control is to perform a reconstruction of the symmetry expanded (partial signal subtracted) images without any classification/realignment, which should give a map that is almost identical to the icosahedrally averaged reconstruction. The authors should fix this mistake in a revised version, as it would yield a much higher-resolution, and thus more interesting, view on the asymmetry in the hetero-pentamer. In addition, the authors should present detailed views of the improved density, including side-chains, for regions where the sequence between P0 and P00 differ, which would then replace the ambiguous tracing of both proteins in the icosahedrally averaged map at two different thresholds in the current manuscript. 