- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] alternative conformation of residues
by Subhani Bandara 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Hi all, I have a protein where three consecutive amino acids have alternative conformations. I edited the PDB file to have those altloc and made total occupancy of A and B to 1.00. But after refinement both A and B are overlapping and I could see the positive density for one conformation away from that (may be b'se I didn't change coordinates of B conformation). How can I move the B altloc in to the positive density. Do I have to edit the coordinates on PDB and if so how can Ido that? Thanks in advance for any help Subhani

4 3

problems when adding Free_R_flag
by G Y 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Dear experts I use *Reflection file editor* in phenix GUI to generate Free_R_flag in my mtz file. The original input .mtz file contains arrays of FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO and ISYM. I just simply click *COPY ALL ARRAYS* and tag on *Generation R free flags if not already present*, then run the software. The problem is that in the output .mtz from phenix I found the value of F and DANO becomes more or less same for each reflection. This is unreasonable for a reflection file. Phenix changed something on the columns of my .mtz file. How? Why? What should I do to keep my .mtz in correct and unchanged form? Thank you very much for your advice. The columns in the original input .mtz file look like H K L FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO ISYM 0 0 12 319.30 2.64 2.23 5.27 0.00 0 0 16 424.00 3.50 -8.38 7.00 0.00 0 0 20 177.60 1.48 1.77 2.96 0.00 0 0 24 155.10 1.30 3.97 2.61 0.00 0 0 28 195.80 1.64 1.13 3.28 0.00 The output from phenix looks like (FP and DANO become similar in value for each reflection) H K L FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO ISYM FreeRflag 0 0 12 320.41 3.73 318.19 3.73 0.00 0.00 0 0 16 419.81 4.95 428.19 4.95 0.00 0.00 0 0 20 178.48 2.09 176.72 2.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 24 157.09 1.85 153.11 1.85 0.00 0.00 0 0 28 196.37 2.32 195.23 2.32 0.00 0.00

2 1

Computation Crystallography Newsletter
by Nigel Moriarty 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Folks The latest issue of the Computational Crystallography Newsletter is available on-line at http://www.phenix-online.org/newsletter for download. The articles are of general interest to protein crystallographers and are listed below. Enjoy Nigel Moriarty Articles CCTBX tools for derivative-free optimization Short communications phenix.find_alt_orig_sym_mate Using force field generated models in the refinement of crystallographic structures containing carbohydrates Viewing diffraction images in CCTBX On contribution of hydrogen atoms to X-ray scattering -- Nigel W. Moriarty, Ph.D. Building 64R0246B, Physical Biosciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720-8235 Phone : 510-486-5709 Email : NWMoriarty(a)LBL.gov Fax : 510-486-5909 Web : CCI.LBL.gov

1 0

Statistics from 'Scalepack' log file and 'Xtriage' log file
by Zhang yu 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Dear Phenixer, What is the reason for the inconsistent data statistics from 'Scalpack' and 'Xtriage' ? I scaled my data with 'Scalepack' and got the following statistics (take completeness as an example) Shell I/Sigma in resolution shells: Lower Upper % of of reflections with I / Sigma less than limit limit 0 1 2 3 5 10 20 >20 total 40.00 8.93 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.5 22.6 97.3 0.0 97.3 8.93 7.10 0.8 1.7 2.7 4.1 7.1 35.8 99.2 0.0 99.2 7.10 6.20 2.0 4.6 7.6 10.9 18.4 56.6 99.5 0.0 99.5 6.20 5.64 2.9 6.5 11.1 16.3 27.5 65.0 99.0 0.0 99.0 5.64 5.24 4.1 8.2 13.7 19.2 33.0 67.3 97.4 0.0 97.4 5.24 4.93 4.3 9.4 14.8 19.9 33.1 67.6 96.1 0.0 96.1 4.93 4.68 5.2 10.1 15.9 21.8 33.9 67.8 95.6 0.0 95.6 4.68 4.48 5.4 11.2 17.6 24.7 37.8 69.0 94.5 0.0 94.5 4.48 4.31 5.8 11.0 18.1 25.1 39.8 71.2 94.0 0.0 94.0 4.31 4.16 6.4 14.3 23.6 32.7 47.2 73.6 93.7 0.0 93.7 4.16 4.03 8.2 16.7 27.2 36.7 53.0 76.5 93.1 0.0 93.1 4.03 3.91 9.3 20.5 32.4 42.6 57.8 79.1 93.5 0.0 93.5 3.91 3.81 9.6 23.1 37.2 47.7 61.4 81.6 93.6 0.0 93.6 3.81 3.72 11.6 26.5 41.3 51.7 66.1 84.5 92.9 0.0 92.9 3.72 3.63 11.6 30.9 47.8 58.4 71.0 86.5 93.7 0.0 93.7 3.63 3.55 14.9 34.4 50.7 62.0 74.3 88.9 94.5 0.0 94.5 3.55 3.48 15.4 37.1 54.7 64.6 76.2 89.5 93.4 0.0 93.4 3.48 3.42 17.2 41.5 60.1 69.4 79.6 90.8 94.0 0.0 94.0 3.42 3.36 18.3 44.6 62.3 70.9 79.7 89.4 92.1 0.0 92.1 3.36 3.30 20.8 46.9 64.2 71.9 79.7 88.3 90.3 0.0 90.3 All hkl 8.6 19.9 30.0 37.4 48.7 72.4 94.9 0.0 94.9 In summary, the overall completeness is 94.9%, while completeness of the lowest shell is close to 100%, and highest shell is 90.3%. But when I input the *.sca file into 'Xtriage', I got the following statistics (also completeness as an example). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Res. Range | I/sigI>1 | I/sigI>2 | I/sigI>3 | I/sigI>5 | I/sigI>10 | I/sigI>15 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 40.02 - 8.19 | 51.1% | 50.9% | 50.7% | 50.2% | 38.9% | 5.1% | | 8.19 - 6.51 | 50.5% | 49.1% | 47.7% | 45.0% | 27.4% | 3.2% | | 6.51 - 5.69 | 49.0% | 45.7% | 42.9% | 37.1% | 18.0% | 1.4% | | 5.69 - 5.17 | 47.2% | 43.3% | 39.9% | 33.0% | 15.3% | 1.3% | | 5.17 - 4.80 | 45.8% | 41.6% | 38.4% | 31.6% | 14.6% | 1.2% | | 4.80 - 4.52 | 44.4% | 39.7% | 35.9% | 29.1% | 13.5% | 1.1% | | 4.52 - 4.29 | 43.4% | 38.2% | 33.6% | 26.4% | 11.5% | 0.8% | | 4.29 - 4.10 | 41.1% | 34.0% | 29.0% | 21.6% | 9.5% | 0.5% | | 4.10 - 3.95 | 36.1% | 29.2% | 24.6% | 18.5% | 7.6% | 0.3% | | 3.95 - 3.81 | 30.8% | 24.8% | 20.8% | 15.3% | 5.5% | 0.1% | | 3.81 - 3.69 | 27.4% | 21.6% | 17.7% | 12.4% | 3.8% | 0.0% | | 3.69 - 3.59 | 23.8% | 18.7% | 15.2% | 10.2% | 3.0% | 0.1% | | 3.59 - 3.49 | 20.3% | 15.5% | 12.6% | 8.3% | 1.9% | 0.0% | | 3.49 - 3.41 | 17.4% | 12.7% | 10.1% | 6.5% | 1.4% | 0.0% | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, based on statistics from 'Xtriage', the data is quite incomplete, with only ~50% completeness even at lowest resolution shell. I convert the '*sca' into '*.mtz' file with "Reflection editor", and input the '*.mtz file' into 'Xtriage', I got another totally different statistics (completeness as an example) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Res. Range | I/sigI>1 | I/sigI>2 | I/sigI>3 | I/sigI>5 | I/sigI>10 | I/sigI>15 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 39.67 - 8.19 | 96.5% | 96.2% | 95.8% | 94.9% | 74.0% | 10.0% | | 8.19 - 6.51 | 96.3% | 94.4% | 92.1% | 87.3% | 54.5% | 7.0% | | 6.51 - 5.69 | 92.6% | 88.1% | 83.3% | 72.7% | 36.2% | 3.5% | | 5.69 - 5.17 | 88.6% | 83.4% | 77.7% | 64.9% | 30.7% | 3.4% | | 5.17 - 4.80 | 85.6% | 80.0% | 74.8% | 62.3% | 29.4% | 3.3% | | 4.80 - 4.52 | 82.6% | 76.4% | 70.1% | 57.4% | 26.9% | 3.0% | | 4.52 - 4.29 | 80.6% | 73.4% | 65.7% | 52.3% | 23.2% | 2.2% | | 4.29 - 4.10 | 74.4% | 65.2% | 56.6% | 42.7% | 19.5% | 1.3% | | 4.10 - 3.95 | 64.2% | 55.7% | 48.2% | 36.7% | 15.5% | 1.0% | | 3.95 - 3.81 | 55.3% | 47.3% | 40.8% | 30.4% | 11.2% | 0.4% | | 3.81 - 3.69 | 48.7% | 40.9% | 34.7% | 24.8% | 8.1% | 0.2% | | 3.69 - 3.59 | 41.8% | 35.8% | 29.7% | 20.2% | 6.1% | 0.1% | | 3.59 - 3.49 | 35.3% | 29.4% | 24.5% | 16.6% | 4.1% | 0.0% | | 3.49 - 3.41 | 30.1% | 24.1% | 19.8% | 13.2% | 2.9% | 0.0% | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am confused by the inconsistent statistics, could some explain it? Thanks. Yu

4 7

(no subject)
by intekhab alam 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Hi all I have a 3A dataset for a protein-protein complex. I have successfully build the first protein and refined it to R/Rfree 24/28. I can see some density for my second protein but the density is a bit noisy. I have attached the coot image of the density. I want to model the aminoacid having sequence as given peptide: MGKKGKNKKGRGRPGVFRTRGLTDEEYDEFKKRRESRGGKYSIDDYLADREREEELLERDEEEAIFGDGFGLE 1.Based on map features which segemnt should i start with. 2. Is there anyway that i can build the best fit segment of my second protein. I tried autobuild but it failed to build any peptide for my second protein. Your help is highly appreciated. regards -- INTEKHAB ALAM LABORATORY OF STRUCTURAL BIOINFORMATICS KOREA UNIVERSITY, SEOUL

3 2

phenix.ready_set
by Jianghai Zhu 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Hi, I am using phenix.ready_set (version 1.7.3) to add hydrogens to my structure. I found out that it makes a few mistakes when dealing with glycans. It adds hydrogens to C1, O4, O3, O6 even when these atoms have formed covalent bonds with other sugars and residues. Subsequent phenix.refine aborts because of these incorrect hydrogens. However, when I use phenix.reduce directly, all hydrogens are placed correctly. I assume something went wrong in phenix.ready_set. The problem with phenix.reduce is that it doesn't know how to deal with ligand whereas phenix.ready_set does when a cif file is provided. -- Jianghai

5 6

sa_omit map calculation
by Ursula Schulze-Gahmen 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

I want to calculate a sa-omit map around the same small region in the 3 molecules in the au. I have 2 questions: Can I include the 3 regions in the same omit box file? What does the following advice in the manual mean: (Note: be sure to use the weights in both resolve_composite_map.mtz and omit_region.mtz). I am not sure what weights we are talking about? Thanks for any help. Ursula -- Ursula Schulze-Gahmen, Ph.D. Assistant Researcher UC Berkeley, QB3 356 Stanley Hall #3220 Berkeley, CA 94720-3220

2 1

Assigned occupancy refinement
by Fischer 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

Hello PhenixBB, We are interested in refining 3 distinct backbone conformations of a loop (A, B, C). Our crystals are very high resolution and the density is fairly distinct for each of these conformations. In the simplest case - each individual backbone conformation has one residue in two alternative side chain conformations. (A1,A2; B1,B2; C1,C2). We'd like to keep each pair of conformations assigned to the respective loop and then refine all six occupancies. Is there such an option similar to the free parameters in shelx also available in phenix? Thanks, Marcus

2 1

Rosetta Fragment viewer
by 商元 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

Dear all, Is there any program that can view the fragment files generated from Rosetta Fragment library? For example, I want to build a model myself, and I know the secondary structure of the target protein, so I will dock the 9-fragment myself. But, at the first step, I have to choose one fragment from the Rosetta fragment library generated. So, I wish if I can find any program that integrate the 200 9ers at specific position together, and then choose a good model by the shape I wanted. Did anyone here know such a program? Best Regards, Yuan SHANG

1 0

phenix.table_one
by Hasan Demirci 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

Hi, I am running phenix-dev-978 (fedora core 15 installer) version on a quad core intel chip computer. How can I obtain a table without digging a lot of files? When I use command line and try to run phenix.table_one I am getting the following AssertionError message: Is it a mistake in the input files or is it a bug in this version of phenix I am using? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- phenix.table_one f71c_refine_006.pdb outputf71c.mtz note: this is somewhat difficult to configure on the command line at present; you may find it more convenient to use the PHENIX GUI. Attempting to guess labels for outputf71c.mtz... Attempting to guess R-free label for outputf71c.mtz... #Final effective parameters: table_one { structure { name = None pdb_file = "f71c_refine_006.pdb" mtz_file = "outputf71c.mtz" data_labels = "IMEAN_wt30Sapo,SIGIMEAN_wt30Sapo" r_free_flags.label = "FREE" log_file = None cif_file = None cif_directory = None data_type = *xray neutron } processing { parallel = False re_compute_r_factors = False } multiprocessing { enable_multiprocessing = True method = *mp sge nproc = 1 tmp_dir = None } output { directory = "/home/Demircha/Desktop/test" job_title = None show_missing_fields = True format = *txt csv *rtf base_name = "Table1" verbose = "True" text_field_separation = 2 } } #---end Running phenix.model_vs_data for all structures. . . Multiple segs ' ' 12 'A ' 12 Use --do-all to process all residues not in internal library Traceback (most recent call last): File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/build/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/../../phenix/phenix/command_line/table_one.py", line 7, in <module> use_current_directory_if_not_specified=True) File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/phenix/phenix/automation/table_one.py", line 424, in run out=out).collected_stats File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/phenix/phenix/automation/statistics.py", line 173, in __init__ results.append(run_model_vs_data(structure)) File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/phenix/phenix/automation/statistics.py", line 93, in run_model_vs_data log=null_out()) File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/cctbx_project/mmtbx/model_vs_data.py", line 744, in run mmtbx_pdb_file.set_ppf(stop_if_duplicate_labels = False) File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/cctbx_project/mmtbx/utils.py", line 1819, in set_ppf silent=True, File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/elbow/elbow/scripts/elbow_on_pdb_file.py", line 2310, in run model_vs_data=model_vs_data, File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/elbow/elbow/scripts/elbow_on_pdb_file.py", line 732, in elbow_on_pdb_file molecule = extract_polymer_unit(pdb_inp, molecule, code) File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/elbow/elbow/scripts/elbow_on_pdb_file.py", line 213, in extract_polymer_unit if residue_group.resseq.strip() == molecule.GetSequenceID().strip(): continue File "/xsoft/phenix-dev-978/elbow/elbow/chemistry/SimpleMoleculeClass.py", line 1575, in GetSequenceID assert 0 AssertionError

3 2