- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Sugar refine in phenix
by Jan van Agthoven 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hi everyone, This is a basic question. I would like to refine the sugar ends of my protein. The sugar polymers are made of NAG and BMA and whenever I use phenix.ready_set and subsequently phenix.refine it results in a structure of disconnnected sugar monomers. Indeed the cif file generated by phenix.ready_set does'nt give any geometry constraints for connecting the monomers. How do create a cif file that tells phenix.refine how to refine the sugars? Thanks, Jan

2 4

ligand fitting, density and refinement
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

Hi Huaidong, I'm not quite sure exactly what you did...could you possibly elaborate a little? My confusion comes from two things. First, this phrase: "did the refinement with the output files from ligandfit", is confusing to me because I would not think that you would want to use any output files from ligandfit except for the ligand PDB file. Second, I agree, I can't see why ligandfit would find good density for your ligand if it is not present in a difference map calculated from the original data. All the best, Tom T ________________________________________ From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org [phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org] on behalf of 张怀东 [zhanghuaidong(a)hust.edu.cn] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:11 PM To: PHENIX user mailing list Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Ligandfit_SigmaF_obs Hi,Tom T We followed the instruction after the ligandfit, and did the refinement with the output files from ligandfit. The electron density for the ligand is clear, but in the refinement with the original mtz file, the density is not there. So how to explain the difference? Is this a bug? Thanks! Huaidong > -----原始邮件----- > 发件人: "Terwilliger, Thomas C" <terwilliger(a)lanl.gov> > 发送时间: 2012年11月1日星期四 > 收件人: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > 抄送: > 主题: Re: [phenixbb] Ligandfit_SigmaF_obs > > Hi Ed, > > Yes, good point. I will be changing the way the wizards read in and store reflection data (sometime soon I hope!) and at that point this should be moot because the wizards won't write out dummy intermediate files. > > All the best, > Tom T > > ________________________________________ > From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org [phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org] on behalf of Ed Pozharski [epozh001(a)umaryland.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:44 AM > To: PHENIX user mailing list > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Ligandfit_SigmaF_obs > > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 14:23 +0000, Terwilliger, Thomas C wrote: > > The sigma values are not useful, and are just set to 1.0 in that file. > > Tom, > > I've seen this issue before, and I am just wondering what could be the > rationale to reset sigmas to 1.0? Seems like one would have to code for > this to happen, and even if the sigma values are not used for map > generation, why isn't the column simply omitted but instead replaced > with obviously incorrect values? > > Ed. > > -- > Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy? > Julian, King of Lemurs > > _______________________________________________ > phenixbb mailing list > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > _______________________________________________ > phenixbb mailing list > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

1 0

Ligandfit_SigmaF_obs
by 张怀东 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

Hello, I am a newcomer. I need help. I have done phenix.ligandfit, and the result contained a mtz file named resolve.mtz. While sigma_F_obs in the file are all 1.0. Is there something wrong with the file? Is this a bug? Could I do phenix.refine with the resolve.mtz added R_flag, next? sincerely, Huaidong Zhang

3 4

refining with f' and f" values
by Subhani Bandara 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

Hi Everyone, I have a structure with heavy metals which I would like to refine anomalous scattering factors. I could get the f' and f" values from Autosol, when I gave the atom name and wavelength. But when I ran refinement with anomalous scattering giving .mtz file and pdb file from pHENIX refinement I got the error "Invalid combination-F-obs not anomalous, provide anomalous reflections or fix all f" values. Then I used reflection file editor of GUI to create a mtz file that has anomalous data using the original reflection file and the mtz file of refinement. But still it gives an error. I must be doing something wrong, but cannot figure out what that is. Thanks in advance for any help. Subhani

2 4

Rwork Rfree Bonds Angles
by Hexi Zhang 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

Dear All, During Phenix refinement, it request the Rwork and Rfree graduately decrease (at least no increase). But there is no request that the Bonds (should be RMS?) and the Angles (should also be RMS?) should graduately decrease. Am I right? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Hexi

2 1

"H" atom refining occupancy with previous altconf residue in sequence
by Alexander Scouras 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

After a series of residues (1+) with alternate conformations, the H atom of the next residue seems to lock its occupancy to that of the final conformation of the previous residue. Hence I'm getting several H's with 0.1-0.5 occupancy on single conformation residues, where the entire rest of the residue has occupancy 1. This happens after every altconf series, and showed up in two separate structures I've worked on this week. Within a series of 2+ residues with altconfs, the H's refine correctly with their altconf groups. So it isn't just that all subsequent residue's H's are getting overridden. This behavior seems to have started with 1.8.1-1168, or at least previous refinements of the same structure didn't do this. 64 bit build on Retina MBP running OS X 10.8.2. I couldn't google any reference to this behavior, so assuming it's a new bug I can send along source files. Below I've pasted a couple residues from one of my PDBs. I added a ***** to mark the offending H with the wrong occupancy. -Alex Scouras ATOM 668 N CMET A 29 -17.970 6.464 59.720 0.21 10.72 N ANISOU 668 N CMET A 29 1641 1300 1133 -328 -379 -50 N ATOM 669 CA CMET A 29 -17.578 5.189 60.316 0.21 9.05 C ANISOU 669 CA CMET A 29 1545 882 1012 -248 -350 -140 C ATOM 670 C CMET A 29 -17.248 5.317 61.797 0.21 7.83 C ANISOU 670 C CMET A 29 1363 666 947 173 -134 166 C ATOM 671 O CMET A 29 -17.496 4.395 62.578 0.21 7.92 O ANISOU 671 O CMET A 29 1187 751 1071 371 -145 338 O ATOM 672 CB CMET A 29 -16.376 4.609 59.573 0.21 9.09 C ANISOU 672 CB CMET A 29 1561 834 1059 -243 -283 -203 C ATOM 673 CG CMET A 29 -16.681 4.210 58.145 0.21 9.05 C ANISOU 673 CG CMET A 29 1529 756 1154 -28 -331 -235 C ATOM 674 SD CMET A 29 -18.049 3.042 58.009 0.21 13.05 S ANISOU 674 SD CMET A 29 2356 1325 1279 -218 -284 -50 S ATOM 675 CE CMET A 29 -17.505 1.757 59.124 0.21 12.06 C ANISOU 675 CE CMET A 29 1866 1485 1232 -630 -667 420 C ATOM 676 H CMET A 29 -17.333 6.878 59.318 0.21 12.87 H ATOM 677 HA CMET A 29 -18.320 4.557 60.216 0.21 10.86 H ATOM 678 HB2CMET A 29 -15.671 5.275 59.551 0.21 10.91 H ATOM 679 HB3CMET A 29 -16.069 3.819 60.044 0.21 10.91 H ATOM 680 HG2CMET A 29 -16.916 5.004 57.640 0.21 10.86 H ATOM 681 HG3CMET A 29 -15.894 3.794 57.761 0.21 10.86 H ATOM 682 HE1CMET A 29 -18.164 1.059 59.140 0.21 14.48 H ATOM 683 HE2CMET A 29 -16.666 1.409 58.813 0.21 14.48 H ATOM 684 HE3CMET A 29 -17.401 2.130 60.002 0.21 14.48 H ATOM 685 N MET A 30 -16.667 6.445 62.187 1.00 6.77 N ANISOU 685 N MET A 30 1361 564 647 -30 -56 18 N ATOM 686 CA MET A 30 -16.416 6.699 63.606 1.00 7.66 C ANISOU 686 CA MET A 30 1362 946 601 -42 -173 2 C ATOM 687 C MET A 30 -17.759 6.724 64.367 1.00 7.62 C ANISOU 687 C MET A 30 1310 944 641 -9 -24 -22 C ATOM 688 O MET A 30 -17.852 6.212 65.486 1.00 9.05 O ANISOU 688 O MET A 30 1571 1151 718 84 98 231 O ATOM 689 CB MET A 30 -15.620 7.987 63.790 1.00 7.65 C ANISOU 689 CB MET A 30 1299 894 714 26 -120 -166 C ATOM 690 CG MET A 30 -14.229 7.965 63.231 1.00 8.62 C ANISOU 690 CG MET A 30 1464 1072 741 31 -163 -10 C ATOM 691 SD MET A 30 -13.130 6.745 64.006 1.00 9.04 S ANISOU 691 SD MET A 30 1555 961 919 105 -180 -94 S ATOM 692 CE MET A 30 -12.812 7.527 65.563 1.00 9.77 C ANISOU 692 CE MET A 30 1540 1284 889 150 -190 -62 C ATOM 693 H MET A 30 -16.395 7.062 61.653 0.21 8.12 H ***** ATOM 694 HA MET A 30 -15.872 5.965 63.962 1.00 9.19 H ATOM 695 HB2 MET A 30 -16.099 8.709 63.352 1.00 9.18 H ATOM 696 HB3 MET A 30 -15.550 8.173 64.739 1.00 9.18 H ATOM 697 HG2 MET A 30 -14.278 7.758 62.284 1.00 10.35 H ATOM 698 HG3 MET A 30 -13.831 8.840 63.354 1.00 10.35 H ATOM 699 HE1 MET A 30 -12.228 6.968 66.079 1.00 11.73 H ATOM 700 HE2 MET A 30 -12.397 8.378 65.406 1.00 11.73 H ATOM 701 HE3 MET A 30 -13.644 7.648 66.026 1.00 11.73 H

4 10

Re: [phenixbb] Troublesome molecular replacement
by Yuri 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

Nat, Just a few simple thoughts: --1) Are you certain about the space group, and did you try letting --Phaser pick one for you? (It sounds like you did, but I can't tell --from your description.) I searched for a solution in all possible space groups in P 4. I thought I was certain of the space group, but maybe not... --2) How much refinement did you run to get an R-free of 42$, and did --you already try running AutoBuild with rebuild-in-place turned off? --Refinement alone may not have the radius of convergence you need. True, I only did a couple of rounds of rebuild/refine --3) What is the sequence identity? My model is a point-mutant of the crystal. --4) Are you using the latest version of Phenix? Phaser has had TNCS --support for almost a year now but I keep hearing from people who are --using ancient versions... I am using the latest official PHENIX built. --- -- Yuri Pompeu

2 1

Troublesome molecular replacement
by Yuri 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

Dear community, I recently collected on a crystal that diffracted pretty well to 2.0 A. It indexes and scales fairly well in P 4 21 2 with cell dimensions 100, 100, 200. This would predict 4 molecules/ASU. I found a MR solution in P 41 21 2 but it does not refine very well Rfree =42%. Xtriage detects strong peaks at 0,0,0.25 for Translational NCS. Any suggestions on how to go about this one? Thanks -- Yuri Pompeu

2 1

autobuilding homomers
by Ingemar Andre 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

I have a question about the proper procedure for building homomers. My test case is a trimeric coiled-coil with 3-fold symmetry (trimer in assymetric unit). My input model is a trimer with three chains (A,B,C) with identical sequence. If I run phenix autobuild (rebuild_in_place=False) with this model I get a structure with decent R/Rfree. However, there are some issues: 1) Helix 1 consists of chain A in the output structure. There is a jump in the sequence number for chain A at the end. However, disregarding this chain break the full sequence is correct for helix 1. 2) Helix 2 consists of chain B + C in the output structure. The chain B has the correct sequence for helix 2. Chain C has partly the right sequence for helix 2. 3) Helix 3 consists of chain C in the output structure. Chain C has partly the correct sequence for helix 3. Lots jumps in the sequence numbering. GIven that I know its has three subunits with identical sequences I gather it should be possible to have autobuild generate structures with three chains with identical sequences. I have tested a few things. With and without giving it the sequence file corresponding to the sequence of a monomer. With and without enforcing ncs based on the input model (find_ncs=False input_ncs_file=find_ncs.ncs_spec). I am never able to build sequence-symmetric structures with rebuild_in_place=False for any homomer I have tried to build. I have limited experience with phenix so it is likely I am missing something obvious. In any case, I would appreciate your input on this. Best regards, Ingemar

3 3

Parallella
by Morten Groftehauge 27 Oct '12

27 Oct '12

Hi guys, So the Parallella project seems like it is going forward (with the smaller processor first off) http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adapteva/parallella-a-supercomputer-for… I figure that phenix would have problems with low amount of RAM but are there other reasons that Phenix and Parallella might not play well together? Supposedly ships in May, btw. Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

2 1