November 2010 - phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Nov 15, 2010 deadline- User proposal submission for Collaborative Crystallography at BCSB
by Banumathi Sankaran 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

> Dear Users, > > The deadline for Jan/Feb 2010 Collaborative > Crystallography proposals will be *Nov 15, 2010. * > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Through the Collaborative Crystallography Program (CC) at the > Advanced Light Source (ALS), scientists can send protein crystals > to Berkeley Center for Structural Biology (BCSB) staff researchers > for data collection and analysis. The CC Program can provide a > number of benefits to researchers: > > * Obtain high quality data and analysis through collaborating with > expert beamline > researchers; > * Rapid turn around on projects; and > * Reduced travel costs. > > To apply, please submit a proposal through the ALS General User > proposal review process for beamtime allocation. Proposals are > reviewed and ranked by the Proposal Study Panel, and beamtime is > allocated accordingly. BCSB staff schedule the CC projects on > Beamlines 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 to fit into the available resources. Only > non-proprietary projects will be accepted. As a condition of > participation, BCSB staff researchers who participate in data > collection and/or analysis must be appropriately acknowledged - > typically being included as authors on publications and in PDB > depositions. Please consult the website for additional information at: > > http://bcsb.als.lbl.gov/wiki/index.php/Collaborative_Crystallography > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > How To Apply: > > To learn more, go to: > > http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/quickguide/becomealsuser.html > > To submit a proposal, go to: http://alsusweb.lbl.gov/. Scroll > down to "*Structural Biology beamlines (includes protein SAXS)*" > and click on "New Proposal." Enter your proposal information, with > attention to the following details: > > * For question 3/First choice, select "5.0.1 > (Monochromatic);" for question 3/Second choice, select "5.0.2 (MAD)." > * Check box (yes) in response to question (7) "Do you want collaborative > crystallography > (beamline 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 only) > * In question 4, please describe a specific research project with a clear > end point. > > In order to request CC time for Jan/Feb 2010 allocation period, > proposals must be submitted by *Nov 15, 2010.* > > The deadline for CC proposals for the time period Mar/April 2010 will be > Jan 15, 2010. > > Regards, > Banumathi Sankaran >

1 1

Fixing a ligand by a symmetry axis
by Simon Kolstoe 04 Nov '10

04 Nov '10

Dear Phenix bb, I have a palindromic ligand bound to my protein that crosses a symmetry axis. Although the head-group that is in close contact with the protein refines beautifully (in phenix..refine version 1.6.4 run from the command line on a mac), the atom closest to the symmetry axis get knocked away from the equivalent atom that it binds to on the other side of the symmetry axis. Is there any way of stopping phenix.refine from refining the atoms closest to the symmetry axis, or should I just manually position the wayward atom in the appropriate orientation prior to my structure deposition? Thanks, Simon

3 5

More trained monkeys please (request for improvements to auto-NCS)
by Kendall Nettles 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Dear PHENIX developers, I am writing to ask about the automated NCS selection procedure. I have a structure with 2 homodimers in the ASU, and there are significant differences in the two monomers that make up teach dimer. When I run automr/autobuild I am very pleased with the result overall, but it does not choose the best NCS groups- it groups all chains to the A chain, instead of one dimer to the other. The result is a helix that is obviously out of place (see attached image). I wonder if this could be fixed by implementing a throw away round of refinement, in order to identify optimal NCS groups? Though it looks like there are only a few areas of significant difference, the structures end up better by grouping one dimer against the other, rather than just the regions that are obviously different. This brings me to my second question. Might it be worthwhile to implement an NCS optimization procedure, which would compare different NCS groups, similarly to the optimize solvents, weights, etc? Kendall Nettles[cid:[email protected].]

1 0

Does phenix have any utility to do the 2mFo-DFc composite omit map calculations?
by zhangh1＠umbc.edu 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Hi, Does phenix have any utility to do the 2mFo-DFc composite omit map calculations (similar to OMIT in CCP4)? Thanks in advance! Hailiang

4 7

phenix.model_vs_data : resolution cutoff from .pdb
by Bryan Lepore 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

[ phenix dev-568 ] TIL using phenix.model_vs_data, if the "REMARK 3" records in .pdb are adjusted e.g. to set a resolution limit, e.g REMARK 3 RESOLUTION RANGE HIGH (ANGSTROMS) : [change to whatever high resolution limit] REMARK 3 RESOLUTION RANGE LOW (ANGSTROMS) : 42.511 phenix.model_vs_data will pick this up and compute the R-factors for that range. Thanks Pavel -bryan

1 0

Riding H
by Jianghai Zhu 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Hi all, If I use the riding H atoms come out of phenix.refine in molprobity, it gives me a decent clash score. But if I strip the H atoms and let molprobity to add H atoms, I get a much worse clash score. I saw the manual of phenix recommends the first method. So what is the cause of the difference here? I know long time ago that phenix and molprobity used different bond length to add the riding H atoms. I don't know what the situation is now. Does phenix.refine refine the riding H atom positions? Thanks. -- Jianghai

4 7

cancel that ...
by Phoebe Rice 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Despite the error messages, it really did make restraints that seem to work. I just didn't realize they'd be in a hidden directory. Can I put in a request for no hidden defaults? They make me feel like a trained monkey. thanks, Phoebe

2 1

error in making links
by Phoebe Rice 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

Hi BB, I wanted to run phenix on a structure from the database with covalent serine-DNA links, 1zr4. The "ready-set" feature to prepare restraints from the pdb link records sounded lovely, but fails with the message "Error interpreting command line argument parament definition: "1ZR4.link.edits" RuntimeError: Unexpected end of input" This happens with either version 1.6.4-486 or a nightly build installed a few weeks ago (phenix 551; installed on 10/7/2010.) Am I asking to much to get nice Ser-DNA links without sweating blood to read the fine print? thanks, Phoebe ===================================== Phoebe A. Rice Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology The University of Chicago phone 773 834 1723 http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alph… http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp

2 1