In the earlier cryoEM studies no intramolecular details were resolved and the rotation of domain 2 was interpreted as a “collapse”. To propose a rotation of domain 2 would have been more plausible but was not suggested. The FRET study (Ramachandran et al. 2005, PNAS) was interpreted in terms of a bending of domain 2 to account for the height change observed by AFM (Czajkowsky et al. 2004, PNAS). Our present cryoEM structure now shows that both interpretations were incorrect. We rewrote the corresponding text passage (Discussion section paragraph three) that now includes a reference to the FRET study. The AFM study had already been cited.