<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Frank, <br>
<br>
- I tend to call it "isotropic atomic displacement parameters" and
"anisotropic atomic displacement parameters", correspondingly
"isotropic ADP" and "anisotropic ADP", which is also consistent with:<br>
J. Appl. Cryst. (2002). 35, 477-480 <br>
On the handling of atomic anisotropic displacement parameters<br>
R. W. Grosse-Kunstleve and P. D. Adams<br>
<br>
- What you wrote below can be boiled down to the question: "Are very
tight restraints equivalent to constraints?". A few years ago I tried
to see if refinement of individual coordinates with very tight
restraints can approach rigid body refinement. The answer I got was
"no". Of course one needs to keep in mind that it might all be
dependent on particular implementation, minimizers, and other
technicalities. I don't know what mathematics says here.<br>
<br>
- I would just take whole PDB and re-refine it alternative options at
appropriate resolutions (for example, use iso- or anisotropic ADP for
model at resolution between 1.2 and 2.0A) and see how the best choice
correlates with model/data characteristics. I'm sure there will be
dependencies allowing you to get some empirical rules. However, I'm
sure there will be a number of exceptions, where only trying
appropriate options will bring you the definitive answer.<br>
<br>
- Using TLS is another branch of this story. The total atomic B-factors
can be presented at least as a sum of three contributions:<br>
<br>
Utotal = Ulocal + Utls + Ucryst<br>
<br>
where <br>
- Utotal is the total ADP, <br>
- Ulocal reflects the local atomic vibration (also named as
residual B) and should obey Hirshfeld's rigid bond criteria (F.L.
Hirshfeld. Acta Cryst. (1976). A32, 239-244.
"Can X-ray data distinguish bonding effects from vibrational
smearing?");<br>
- Ucryst reflects global lattice vibrations (Ucryst is determined
and refined at anisotropic scaling),<br>
- Utls reflects global motion (which can be further subdivided into
the motion of the molecule as a whole and into the motion of its
domains). <br>
<br>
Obviously, the presence of global motion is not the function of data
resolution (in sense that a molecule does not "know" about your
crystallographic experiment and its resolution), so ideally you need
always model it (= you need always use TLS). However this faces a
number of technical problems currently making it impossible:<br>
- robust and reliable choice of TLS groups;<br>
- robust and reliable separation of Utls and *anisotropic* Ulocal. A
first attempt is described here: P. Afonine & A. Urzhumtsev.
(2007). CCP4 Newsletter on Protein Crystallography. 45.
Contribution 6. "On determination of T matrix in TLS modeling";<br>
- not to mention a strong correlations of parameters which potentially
may lead to troubles in optimization flow;<br>
- ... and many other...<br>
<br>
Phenix.refine has a pretty sophisticated algorithm of combined TLS
refinement which is outlined at slides #28-32:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cci.lbl.gov/~afonine/aca2008_knoxville_neutron/">http://cci.lbl.gov/~afonine/aca2008_knoxville_neutron/</a><br>
<br>
Pavel.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/11/2008 9:08 AM, Frank von Delft wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49414900.2050107@sgc.ox.ac.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Question at large: do any formalisms exist, or are any envisioned, that
deal with this question more rigorously? E.g. in principle everything
is always ADP, but as resolution decreases, the restraints are tightened
accordingly, so that there is an appropriately refined continuum from
fully ADP @ 1A to isotropic @ 2A to TLS only @ 3A?
I know for a fact I've heard about this somewhere, but can't remember where.
phx.
that in principle always refine ADP for everything, but tighten the
restraints automatically,
Pavel Afonine wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Gerwald,
from what I recall is if you refine anisotropic ADP at "too low"
resolution in other refinement programs, they were often stopping
complaining about non-positive definite U or unstable refinement. This
seemed to me the main technical limit.
In phenix.refine this does not happen but it doesn't mean that refining
anisotropic ADP at "too low" resolution will yield meaningful results.
I'm not sure that there is an exact resolution borderline for doing (or
not doing) individual anisotropic ADP refinement. From my experience,
I've never seen a case at ~1.5A and higher where switching from iso- to
anisotropic model was not good. Then this question transforms into "at
which resolution you start refining waters as anisotropic?"... A very
rough number I would say is 1.2-1.1A and higher.
In-between 1.5 and 1.7 (1.8A) is a "gray zone", where it is very likely
that anisotropic ADP refinement will result in over-fitting, however
there is a chance that it might still be valid.
Summarizing, if I have a data at resolution between between 1.5 and 1.8A
resolution, I just try two refinements: in one refining isotropic and in
another refining anisotropic ADPs. Rfree is your best friend here (and
Rfree-Rwork). In my opinion, this is the most robust and cheep way to
get the answer.
Cheers,
Pavel.
On 12/11/2008 7:48 AM, gerwald jogl wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi All,
I was wondering if there is information/recommendations out there for
the resolution required to refine individual anisotropic adps. I think
the recommendation for shelx is at least 1.5 A resolution.
In addition, is phenix set up and would it make sense to combine tls
with individiual anisotropic adps?
All comments welcome,
Gerwald
_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org">phenixbb@phenix-online.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb">http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org">phenixbb@phenix-online.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb">http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org">phenixbb@phenix-online.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb">http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>