- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] anomalous difference map calculation
by Ashok Nayak 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

Alexandra Marques <at.marques(a)fct.unl.pt> wrote: >_______________________________________________ >phenixbb mailing list >phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave(a)phenix-online.org

1 0

Failed ADP refinement with active TLS and weight optimization
by Schubert, Carsten [JRDUS] 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

Hi, I am running into some strange issues with regards to ADP refinement especially when I am putting final touches on a structure for PDB submission. The problem manifests itself most prominent in the B-factor refinement of solvent, but also maps are affected and are becoming noisier, so I assume this problem affects the protein as well. I checked this against the current release 1.9 and the latest pre1.10 dev version, both versions show the issue. Refinement protocol includes individual_xyz, individual_adp, TLS and weight optimization. The problem I am running into is that the ADP of waters only changes by a global offset. The problem is tricky to spot but more evident when looking at solvent placed in coot with the default ADP (30). The ADP changes only by a global offset, no individual refinement takes place. Since the protein is refined by TLS the problem is not as evident, but as mentioned the fofc maps get noisier from cycle to cycle even though no manual change to the geometry was performed. To me an indicator that the B-factors are not refined properly. The problem can be circumvented by reverting back to isotropic B-factors and then refine with weight refinement for 5-10 cycles. After that TLS can be switched back on for a final polishing cycle. In stubborn cases I had to randomly assign B-factors close to Wilson-B and refine for more cycles to get out of the hole I refined myself into. Another indicator that something went awry is the weight refinement for the B-factors: ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- R-FACTORS <Bi-Bj> <B> WEIGHT TARGETS work free delta data restr 20.66 26.39 5.73 5.712 67.871 2.160 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 0.030 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 0.125 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 0.500 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 1.000 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 1.500 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 2.000 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 2.500 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 3.000 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 3.500 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 4.000 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 4.500 5.225 20.66 26.38 5.73 5.712 67.871 5.000 5.225 Essentially there is no change in R/Rfree with regards to different weights. I have not figured out the exact time point when this happens during the course of the refinement but it seems to be coupled to using TLS in combination with ADP refinement and during the final stages of the refinement. I can provide data offline to reproduce the issue Cheers, Carsten

2 1

Sulfur SAD
by mohamed noor 07 Aug '15

07 Aug '15

Dear all Would you have some tips on collecting datasets for S-SAD at a 'normal' beamline (tunable from 0.5-2.5 A)? How helpful/important is it to use mini kappa? Thanks.

3 2

fedora 22 phenix 1.9 installation
by Agnieszka Kiliszek 06 Aug '15

06 Aug '15

Dear All, I want to install new phenix 1.9 but I got error: ========================================================================= PHENIX Installation version: 1.9 release tag: 1692 machine type: intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64 source machine type: intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64 OS version: linux user shell: /bin/bash destination: /usr/local ========================================================================= =============================== ERROR =================================== intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64 is not a supported platform, installation aborted use the --try-unsupported option to attempt installation on this platform use the --no-gui option for a core PHENIX installation =============================== ERROR ======================= It looks like I have double x86_64 in the machine type and it doesn't want to install phenix. Using --try-unsupported gives me these: ~/phenix-installer-1.9-1692/bundles/bundle-1.9-1692-intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64.tar.gz neither source nor binary available, exiting installation. In these folder I have file bundle-1.9-1692-intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64.tar.gz so I have changed name to bundle-1.9-1692-intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64.tar.gz but again got error finding installed versions finding binary versions cat: build/intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64/version: No such file or directory no pre-existing binary components detected installing new binary package configuring PHENIX components I checked log and got these: /home/gusia/programy/phenix-installer-1.9-1692/bin/install-from-binary: line 359: /usr/local/phenix-1.9-1692/build/intel-linux-4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64-x86_64/base/bin/python: No such file or directory What can I do to install phenix? Agnieszka

2 2

R vs Geometry (branched off from: [ccp4bb] Rfree at low resolution: how reliable is it, really?)
by Keller, Jacob 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

Dear Crystallographers, In following the thread on Rfree reliability, and in the context of a structure I am currently polishing, I have started to wonder what is the ideal way to weight geometry versus R values. I had always thought the rationalization for using geometric restraints was actually to help R values to decrease eventually, since the truth about one’s protein structure is much more likely to agree with the thousands of molecules already solved than with the particularities of the model one has built or the reflection data under consideration. What happens, though, when one’s R values are, say, 2% or even 5% lower with less weight on geometry? It seems to me that this is a gray area, and it would be great to have some sort of general rule. I know that Phenix has a weight-optimization protocol which uses parallel runs with different weights, but I am curious what method is used to decide which one was best? There may not, however, be such a general rule, since I suppose this question is one we always encounter in science. For example, in fitting a few data points, when does one abandon the use of a linear model in favor of something more sophisticated? Or maybe, indeed, someone *has* discovered some reasonable way of approaching this? All the best, Jacob Keller

1 0

symmetry file for Phenix merging statistics
by Xiao Lei 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

Hi Phenixbb members, I am trying to use "phenix merging statistics" tool, and I have an unmerged sca file from HKL2000, because the unmerged HKL2000 output does not have unit cell information, so I also need to input a symmetry file, how can I find the symmetry file? Is there a way to generate a symmetry file? Thanks ahead. Xiao

2 3

Anisotropic B-factors with Trucated Data
by Keller, Jacob 02 Aug '15

02 Aug '15

Dear Crystallographers, I have a dataset which was artificially truncated at 1.7 Ang by the limitations of our setup, but the resolution is probably 1.5 Ang or so. I would like to try running anisotropic B refinement in Phenix, but am not sure how to tweak to get this to happen. I know about the parameter:measurement ratio concept, but I think it may still be better than isotropic. NB the dataset is also 42% twinned. All the best, Jacob Keller ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller, PhD Looger Lab/HHMI Janelia Research Campus 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147 email: kellerj(a)janelia.hhmi.org *******************************************

3 7

Radiation-sensitive dataset and molecular replacement
by mohamed noor 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

Dear all I have a crystal that diffracted to about 3.5 A for the first 5 degrees and rapidly decayed after that. With xia2, I can get a good dataset to 6 A (CC1/2, I/sigma etc.) using all the frames. I can also process the first good frames with obviously low completeness (20%). As I only want to check if molecular replacement can be done before investing time on experimental phasing (not expecting miracles here and not publishing this yet), should I bother running Phaser? The closest search model only covers about 20 % of the protein with 20 % identity. Thanks.

1 0

Berkeley Server Downtime
by Paul Adams 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

Dear Colleagues, as part of final commissioning of our new building there will be a power outage to the Computational Crystallography Initiative server room. As a result several structural biology web services will be offline for a short while. These include: - The Phenix web site (http://phenix-online.org/) - The DIALS West web site (http://dials.lbl.gov/) - The CCI web site (http://cci.lbl.gov/) - The Structural Biology Technology Portal (http://technology.sbkb.org/) The servers will be shutdown at 5pm Pacific time on Thursday 30th (i.e. tonight). Services should resume by the morning of Friday August 31st. During the downtime bug reports and emails requesting help should be queued and received by us once the servers are back online. We greatly appreciate your understanding, and hope that this doesn’t present too much of an inconvenience. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Division Deputy for Biosciences, Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Laboratory Research Manager, ENIGMA Science Focus Area Building 33, Room 347 Building 80, Room 247 Building 978, Room 4126 Tel: 1-510-486-4225, Fax: 1-510-486-5909 http://cci.lbl.gov/paul Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 33R0345 Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Executive Assistant: Louise Benvenue [ LBenvenue(a)lbl.gov ][ 1-510-495-2506 ] --

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] mr_rosetta pause & resume
by Juergen Koepke 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

Dear Tom, I found in the phenixbb exactly my case discribed as you wrote on July 22nd, 2013 on reply of Morten Grøftehauge: Hi Morten, Yes, you'll need to specify the start_point (otherwise it will start from the beginning considering the solutions you have in the .pkl file along with ones that it finds along the way). I don't know if rosetta3.5 makes a difference in mr_rosetta; I'd be happy to hear from anyone on this. All the best, Tom T but unfortunately after launching the command "phenix.mr_rosetta mr_rosetta_params.eff start_point=rosetta_rescore mr_rosetta_solutions=./rebuild_results.pkl" I get the following error message: Sorry: Unable to create temporary directory MR_ROSETTA_3 Error message is: The directory MR_ROSETTA_3 could not be created (it may already exist) but this looks not logical to me since I am in directory MR_ROSETTA_3 because I want to restart were the program stopped after the crash. Do I have to restart the program from within another directory or what ist the trick? I must admit I first started without the start_point=rosetta_rescore until I realized the program had started my job from the very beginning. Thus i killed the processes again and tried the above with the start_point included. Has my previous attempt already confused something? __________________________________ Dr. Juergen Koepke Project Leader ESFRI-Instruct Core Centre Max-Planck-Inst. of Biophysics Dept. Molecular Membrane Biol. Max-von-Laue Str. 3 D-60438 Frankfurt/Main Germany T: [49] 69 6303 1055 F: [49] 69 6303 1002 C: [49] 151 2263 6736 Email: juergen.koepke(a)biophys.mpg.de URL: https://registration.cc.biophys.mpg.de

2 3