- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
by CPMAS Chen 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

I thought I am the only one have this problem. I have encountered the same problem with the newest version of phenix. My installation is on MacOS X 10.6.8. If more information needed, I am happy to provide. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/build/mac-intel-osx-x86_64/../../phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 11, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 146, in run call_back_handler=call_back_handler) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/driver.py", line 1510, in run ncs_manager = self.ncs_manager) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/strategies.py", line 575, in refinement_machine log=log) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/torsion_restraints/torsion_ncs.py", line 884, in fix_rotamer_outliers monitor_clashscore=False) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/real_space.py", line 336, in refine geometry_restraints_manager = geo_box) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/real_space.py", line 250, in __init__ lbfgs_exception_handling_params = lbfgs_exception_handling_params) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/maptbx/real_space_refinement_simple.py", line 137, in __init__ exception_handling_params=lbfgs_exception_handling_params) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/scitbx/lbfgs/__init__.py", line 258, in run log) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/scitbx/lbfgs/__init__.py", line 126, in run_c_plus_plus f, g = target_evaluator.compute_functional_and_gradients() File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/maptbx/real_space_refinement_simple.py", line 193, in compute_functional_and_gradients compute_gradients=True) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/manager.py", line 716, in energies_sites flags=flags, sites_cart=sites_cart, site_labels=site_labels) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/manager.py", line 650, in pair_proxies min_cubicle_edge=self.min_cubicle_edge) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/__init__.py", line 1295, in __init__ shell_asu_tables=shell_asu_tables) RuntimeError: Estimated memory allocation for cubicles exceeds max_number_of_bytes: This may be due to unreasonable parameters: cubicle_edge=5 space_span=(2696.14,2555.98,2650.54) n_cubicles=(540,512,531) max_number_of_bytes=1073741824 > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:07 -0700 > From: Nathaniel Echols <nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] runtime error in phenix.refine > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1PBCCzKPJTMoDsFbsZMSO=SMB_19ns+mfvC3HozuUcBaQ(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Eugene Valkov <eugene.valkov(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in > > phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: > > > > RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: > > ?This may be due to unreasonable parameters: > > ? ?cubicle_edge=5 > > ? ?space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) > > ? ?n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) > > ? ?max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 > > > > Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. > > If I'm interpreting the code correctly, this means that the number of > cubicles will lead to an integer format overflow - which I find hard > to believe if you're using a 64-bit system. Could you please send me > the rest of the error message, along with the output of the command > "boost_adaptbx.show_platform_info"? > > thanks, > Nat > > > -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
by Kay Diederichs 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

"A 64bit operating system" can only run on hardware that supports 64bits. Here, 64bits refers to addresses in memory - arrays larger than 4GB need 64bit addressing because 32bits do not allow high enough numbers to index such arrays. It has nothing to do with the maximum value of an integer - that is set by the programmer. A programmer can (depending on programming language and compiler) usually decide whether integer numbers should be of size 4 bytes or 8 bytes. It is just by coincidence that 8 bytes are 64 bits. Here it seems to me that a 8byte integer would be needed to hold the number of cubicles. best, Kay > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:07 -0700 > From: Nathaniel Echols<nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list<phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] runtime error in phenix.refine > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1PBCCzKPJTMoDsFbsZMSO=SMB_19ns+mfvC3HozuUcBaQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Eugene Valkov<eugene.valkov(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in >> phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: >> >> RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: >> ?This may be due to unreasonable parameters: >> ? ?cubicle_edge=5 >> ? ?space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) >> ? ?n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) >> ? ?max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 >> >> Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. > > If I'm interpreting the code correctly, this means that the number of > cubicles will lead to an integer format overflow - which I find hard > to believe if you're using a 64-bit system. Could you please send me > the rest of the error message, along with the output of the command > "boost_adaptbx.show_platform_info"? > > thanks, > Nat

2 1

MR error when fix one component and search for the other one
by fn1＠rice.edu 13 Jun '12

13 Jun '12

Hi everyone, I am trying to fix one component from the previous MR search and try to search for the other one, euler and frac are taken from the pdb file of the previous run (MR.1.pdb). Here are my input file and error message. Thanks in advance! Fengyun automr { build=false ensemble { ensembleID = "mol1" copies_to_find = 1 coords = in.pdb RMS = 0.85 } ensemble { ensembleID = "mol2" copies_to_find = 0 coords = in.pdb RMS = 0.85 } component { seq_file="mut.seq" component_type = *protein nucleic_acid component_copies = 4 } fixed_ensembles { fixed_ensembleID_list="mol2" fixed_euler_list = 206.66 146.75 96.21 fixed_frac_list = 0.688 1.011 0.005 } } i get the error message like this, ENSEMBLE: mol1 , 1 PDB file(s) ENSEMBLE: mol2 , 1 PDB file(s) Resolution set to 3.5 Specifying composition through protein sequence file /shared.scratch/ni/mut-p222-all/bb-3.5/AutoMR_run_5_/r2/mut.seq 4 Adding Ensemble mol2 as fixed solution with: Euler angles: [206.66, 146.75, 96.21] Coords (orthogonal A): [0.688, 1.011, 0.005] *************ERROR ENDING ******************* **************************************** AutoMR Input failed Python argument types in SOLU.addSOLU_6DIM_ENSE(InputMR_AUTO, str, list, bool, list, float, bool, bool, bool) did not match C++ signature: addSOLU_6DIM_ENSE(phaser::SOLU {lvalue}, std::string, scitbx::vec3<double>, bool, scitbx::vec3<double>, double, bool, bool, bool, bool, scitbx::vec3<double>, double) **************************************** *************ERROR ENDING *******************

2 1

runtime error in phenix.refine
by Eugene Valkov 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: This may be due to unreasonable parameters: cubicle_edge=5 space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. Thanks, Eugene -- Dr Eugene Valkov Division of Structural Studies MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH Email: evalkov(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 402261

3 3

How to run normal mode analysis under command mode?
by fn1＠rice.edu 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

Hi everyone, I'd like to perturb my model with normal mode analysis. Does phenix have a way to do this? Thanks in advance! Fengyun

6 11

Gordon conference - last chance!
by Anastassis Perrakis 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

Dear all, The registration deadline for the Gordon conference on diffraction methods in Structural Biology (15-20 July), is at the end of the week (June 17th). This is you last chance to register and get some of the places left!!! See the program and application information at: http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2012&program=diffrac Ana and Tassos

1 0

Ordered solvent DOD
by YoungJin 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, When you add waters by ordered solvent option, is it possible putting DOD for neutron data? I added normal waters and changed them to DOD by using ReadySet. But wondering if I want to go further refinement with ordered_solvent on, how can I keep adding DOD rather than HOH. Otherwise, do I have to change again by using REadySet? I also tried to change resid name as DOD but didn't help me. Best, Young-Jin

3 2

R/Rfree can not be reproduced
by 周文昌 03 Jun '12

03 Jun '12

Dear all, I had a weird case in which I can not reproduce the R/Rfree value for the same refinement. "same" means I run my refinement first and then I rerun with "phenix.refine *.eff --overwrite". The R/Rfree values for the two cases are different (0.2942/0.3190 vs 0.2942/0.3085). Should not they be the same always? the command I used: 1st. phenix.refine new-unique.mtz model.pdb xray_data.high_resolution=2.7 fix_rotamers=true strategy=individual_adp+individual_sites+tls ../tls_group_selections.params wxc_scale=0.05 refinement.input.xray_data.labels=FP,SIGFP --overwrite 2nd phenix.refine model_refine_001.eff --overwrite thanks, Wenchang

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] SA omit map
by Huang, Raven H 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Hi all, Was the issue of SA omit map debated last July (involving Tiaard Pining, Pavel, and Folmer) resolved in the newer version of Phenix? Specifically, We'd like to generate the same map for a ligand. It is not for the refinement, but for publication (a reviewer asked us to cover the ligand with the map in a figure). Previously, I used cns to do that (sa_omit_map.inp). But we refined our current structures solely in Phenix. If there is a choice, I'd rather not to move everything to cns and set it up just for the sake of generating a omit map. Thanks, Raven ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Raven H. Huang, Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry Center for Biophysics & Computational Biology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 411 Roger Adams Lab., 600 S. Mathews Ave. Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: 217-333-3967; Fax: 217-244-5858

3 3

partial partial occupancy
by Terry Lang 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Hey Everyone, I have partially occupied ligand that I am trying model. The problem is that the ligand is in at least two conformations PLUS there is a side chain that occludes binding part of the time. In other words, I'm aiming for something like: Residue Conf A occ = 60%, Residue Conf B occ = 40%, Ligand Conf A 30%, Ligand Conf B 10%. Phenix is happy having a single conformation below 100% occupancy but seems to force the total sum of multiple occupancy residues to be 100%. Is there a way to turn that off for the ligand? Thanks Terry -- Paula Therese Lang Postdoctoral Scholar Alber Lab UC Berkeley/QB3

2 1