August 2009 - phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] phenix.automr ensemble/component question
by Thomas C. Terwilliger 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

Hi Scott, Your first command looks good to me. It is saying that the composition of the crystal is 2 copies of each chain: component_1.component_copies=2 component_2.component_copies=2 and you want to search for 2 copies of each of your search models: ensemble_1.copies_to_find=2 ensemble_2.copies_to_find=2 All the best, Tom T > Hi Phenixers, > > I'm a bit confused about the proper syntax for my phenix.automr job. > This is probably a simple concept, but I'm running on 3 hours of sleep > as my kid was up all night, and my synapses aren't working so good. > > I expect 2 copies of my protein per AU > > My protein is composed of two domains > > I have a single PDB search model for each domain > > is either of these commands correct? > > phenix.automr data=mydata.sca \ > ensemble_1.coords=domain1.pdb \ > ensemble_1.identity=95 \ > ensemble_1.copies_to_find=2 \ > component_1.mass=40579 \ > component_1.component_copies=2 \ > ensemble_2.coords=domain2.pdb \ > ensemble_2.identity=95 \ > ensemble_2.copies_to_find=2 \ > component_2.mass=13410 \ > component_2.component_copies=2 > > > or > > > phenix.automr data=mydata.sca \ > ensemble_1.coords=domain1.pdb \ > ensemble_1.identity=95 \ > ensemble_1.copies_to_find=1 \ > component_1.mass=40579 \ > component_1.component_copies=2 \ > ensemble_2.coords=domain2.pdb \ > ensemble_2.identity=95 \ > ensemble_2.copies_to_find=1 \ > component_2.mass=13410 \ > component_2.component_copies=2 > > > essentially I'm not really using an ensemble of search models, I only > have a single PDB for each domain. So should ensemble_1.copies_to_find > and ensemble_2.copies_to_find be set to 1 or 2? > > > Thanks, > Scott > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Scott Classen, Ph.D. > SIBYLS Beamline 12.3.1 > http://bl1231.als.lbl.gov > Advanced Light Source > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > 1 Cyclotron Rd > MS6R2100 > Berkeley, CA 94720 > C) 510.206.4418 > O) 510.495.2697 > Beamline) 510.495.2134 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > phenixbb mailing list > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >

2 2

Re: [phenixbb] sigma cutoff
by Kay Diederichs 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

> > > Hi, > > According to the Phenix manual, phenix.refine uses no sigma cutoff by > default. Since I haven't changed this manually, why do I see in my pdb > file MIN(FOBS/SIGMA_FOBS) 1.340? > > Thanks for help, > Karolina > > This one I can answer because I asked myself the same question recently. The answer is that Phenix does not impose any sigma cutoff, but rather your data are such that the minimum value of Fobs/Sigma_Fobs is 1.34 . You can verify this for yourself by going through your reflection file, line by line, and calculating Fobs/Sigma_Fobs for each reflection. You will find that all your reflections have a Fobs/Sigma_Fobs larger or equal to 1.34 . So it has nothing to with phenix; phenix just reports a property of your data. An easier way than doing it "manually" is using CCP4 sftools for calculating a new column "ratio", writing out the resulting MTZ file, and looking at this with mtzdmp. HTH, Kay -- Kay Diederichs http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de email: Kay.Diederichs(a)uni-konstanz.de Tel +49 7531 88 4049 Fax 3183 Fachbereich Biologie, Universitaet Konstanz, Box M647, D-78457 Konstanz

2 1

question about composite SA_omit map in phenix
by crystallogrphy 22 Sep '09

22 Sep '09

Hi, I am using molecular replacement to build a model against a 2.2A resolution data set. However, the template model only has 23% sequence identity. First, I use chainsaw in CCP4i to prune all side chain to be poly-Ala except the identical residues. Then I use AutoMR and rigid body refinement, I got Rfree=50%. The continuous electron density is not bad showing second structures. However, the model has some out-of-registration problem, for example, two proline are in a alpha-helix. In other words, it has model bias. I want to use composite SA-omit to get a less model bias map, not a simple composite omit map or a SA_omit map ommiting a part of the region. Does someone know who to do this? Thanks! Qun Wan postdoc fellow Case Western Reserve University

10 19

Specifying the number of processors to run phenix with
by Sam Stampfer 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hi- anyone know how to specify the number of processors to run phenix under in linux? Or how to tell what the default is? I'm running linux (fedora) with 4 processors and can't tell whether phenix is using all of them or not. I do the refinement with .csh files and tried doing "myfile.csh --nproc=4". The file ran but no faster- I can't tell if it is using 4 by default or if that's the incorrect command to specify the use of 4 processors. Thanks for your help! -Sam

3 3

Best first map for RESOLVE after MR
by Peter Grey 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hello all, I try to solve the structure of a big complex at rather low resolution. I have a molecular replacement solution with a partial model from Phaser. I would like to use RESOLVE for density modification. I ask for your advice regarding the first map that should be the input into RESOLVE. Should it be the 2mFo-DFc map directly from Phaser or would it be better to do rigid body refinement in phenix.refine and use the bulk solvent corrected 2mFo-DFc map ? Many thanks in advance for your suggestions, Peter.

3 5

high resolution bin statistics
by Sebastiano Pasqualato 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hi there, i just wanted to know how is determined the number of bins for which the statistics of refinement are given in the header of the pdb refined with phenix.refine, and if there's a way to have more than the number of bins that is default output. For example, what if I'd like to have statistics for the 2.6-2.5 bin, here: REMARK 3 FIT TO DATA USED IN REFINEMENT (IN BINS). REMARK 3 BIN RESOLUTION RANGE COMPL. NWORK NFREE RWORK RFREE REMARK 3 1 32.4159 - 3.9625 0.99 2545 131 0.1921 0.2232 REMARK 3 2 3.9625 - 3.1460 1.00 2447 116 0.1650 0.2289 REMARK 3 3 3.1460 - 2.7486 1.00 2433 121 0.1917 0.2682 REMARK 3 4 2.7486 - 2.4974 1.00 2405 130 0.2244 0.2890 thanks a lot in advance, ciao s -- Sebastiano Pasqualato, PhD IFOM-IEO Campus Dipartimento di Oncologia Sperimentale Istituto Europeo di Oncologia via Adamello, 16 20139 - Milano Italy tel +39 02 9437 5094

2 2

question about kick map
by crystallogrphy 29 Aug '09

29 Aug '09

Hi, I am trying to use kick map to remove model bias with the following script phenix.refine MR.1_refine_data.mtz MR.1_refine_001_refine_001.pdb output.prefix=refine-090828a simulated_annealing=True simulated_annealing.start_temperature=8000 strategy=individual_sites refine.params However, the program says: Sorry: Unknown file format: refine.params I do not understand why the format of refine.params cannot be read, which has the following contents. Does anyone know why? refinement { electron_density_maps { map { mtz_label_amplitudes = 2FOFCWT mtz_label_phases = PH2FOFCWT likelihood_weighted = True obs_factor = 2 calc_factor = 1 kicked= True fill_missing_f_obs_with_weighted_f_model=True } map { mtz_label_amplitudes = FOFCWT mtz_label_phases = PHFOFCWT likelihood_weighted = True obs_factor = 1 calc_factor = 1 kicked= True fill_missing_f_obs_with_weighted_f_model=True } }

3 2

reflection file utility and use of modified phases in refinement
by Engin Ozkan 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Hi everybody, I had some trouble with the reflection file utility today. I've been trying to import Rfree-flag column from one of the mtz's to my combined mtz, and it never does. The R-free flag is always left out of the output even when I have it selected. Have you guys seen this (I'm using 147)? Another question I have is about the output of phenix.autobuild. Phenix.autobuild tells me to use modified phase probabilities (HLAM, etc.) in refinement. I am assuming this is density-modified phases. But I've always thought that this would be bad practice (possibly because of unrealistically high FOMs and possible flattening of loops, etc, but maybe resolve does a better job than, say DM). Any ideas on that one? Thanks, Engin -- Engin Özkan Post-doctoral Scholar Dept of Molecular and Cellular Physiology Howard Hughes Medical Institute Stanford University School of Medicine ph: (650)-498-7111

3 5

Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution
by Gino Cingolani 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Hi Phenix community, I'm tracing a 3.3A averaged electron density map of a large macromolecular complex (~18,500 residues in the asymmetric unit). The map has great continuity and appears quite 'tubular'. While it is easy to interpret in a-helical regions, b-strands are more challenging, as I can't see the 'bump' corresponding to the carbonyl. If I built b-strands into the tubular density, refinement usually 'undoes' them and turns them into pseudo-loops/turns. On the positive side, a related molecule (~70% identical to mine) was solved to 1.9A resolution. So my question is, is there a way in Phenix to use a 'reference model' during refinement to force a given stretch of polypeptide chain to 'stay' b-stranded during refinement? Thanks in advance for the feedback, Gino ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120)

6 7

Re: [phenixbb] Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution
by Gino Cingolani 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Sean, thanks to you and to whoever else responded to my email. Yes, I'd like to get your script. Thanks in advance! Gino ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:35:08 +0100 >From: Wai-Ching Hon <hon(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> >Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution >To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > >Dear Sean, > >That sounds wonderful. Can I have your scripts too? > >many thanks > >waiching. > >Sean Johnson wrote: >> Gino, >> >> My lab recently refined a 3.4 A structure and dealt with similar >> problems. We found that using secondary structure restraints was the >> only effective way to maintain reasonable geometry during refinement. It >> is kind of a daunting task to input all of the definitions by hand, so >> we wrote a couple python scripts that are integrated with PyMol to write >> the appropriate restraint definition files. All you have to do is click >> on the atoms that you want restrained. You are welcome to the scripts if >> you like. Feel free to contact me if you are interested. >> >> Sean Johnson >> >> >> Gino Cingolani wrote: >> >>> Hi Phenix community, >>> >>> I'm tracing a 3.3A averaged electron density map of >>> a large macromolecular complex (~18,500 residues in the asymmetric unit). The map has great continuity and appears quite 'tubular'. While it is easy to interpret in a-helical regions, b-strands are more challenging, as I can't see the 'bump' corresponding to the carbonyl. If I built b-strands into the tubular density, refinement usually 'undoes' them and turns them into pseudo-loops/turns. On the positive side, a related molecule (~70% identical to mine) was solved to 1.9A resolution. So my question is, is there a way in Phenix to use a 'reference model' during refinement to force a given stretch of polypeptide chain to 'stay' b-stranded during refinement? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for the feedback, >>> >>> Gino >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ****************************************************************************** >>> Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. >>> Associate Professor >>> Thomas Jefferson University >>> Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology >>> 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 >>> Philadelphia PA 19107 >>> Office (215) 503 4573 >>> Lab (215) 503 4595 >>> Fax (215) 923 2117 >>> E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu >>> ****************************************************************************** >>> "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" >>> ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") >>> Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> phenixbb mailing list >>> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >>> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >>> >>> >> >> >________________ >hon.vcf (1k bytes) >________________ >_______________________________________________ >phenixbb mailing list >phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

1 0