- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Twin Law question
by Young-Jin Cho 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Dear Phenix users, Thanks in advance to answer my question. As my recent data did not give me perfect statistics, I was wondering what the problem was (one of things is ice ring though). When I ran Xtriage with my struggling current data set and looked like I got twinned data. I reran PHASER as was suggested and confirmed that current space group is right. My question is now how I can handle this problem. First, as was recommended I input twin_law, however not all the cases (I have a couple of data sets) were working. One favorite(!) error message was as following: "Map type 'Fc' not supported for twinned structures. Allowed types: Fo-Fc, Fobs-Fobs-Fmodel, 2mFo-DFc, 2mFobs-DFmodel, mFo-DFc, mFobs-DFmodel, gradient, m_gradient." I got this from both GUI and shell environment. . 1. Now from now on, whenever I want to phenix.refine, should I include twin_law command such as 'twin_law=-h,l,k'? 2. In this case, what do I expect to see such as lowering Rfree or else? If it doesn't help lowering Rfree, what to do next? 3. Do I have to report I did with twinlaw option in case of preparing a paper or presentation? I mean I also heard that if one got twinned data, they re-collected data. How much can I convince my refinement is OK with twined data? Additionally, I checked other data, and applied twin_law but the result R/Rfree were exactly same as the one I refined without twin_law option, it this normal case? With many thanks in advance, Young-Jin Cho

3 2

maximum allowable B-factor value
by Christian Roth 27 Oct '10

27 Oct '10

Dear all, I did a refinement run with a built in ligand. Within the ligand the B-factor jumps between two connected atoms from 60 up ~110, which is i think a bit too much. Is there a way to restrain the B-factors that they could not jump so much. I would accept negative difference density for the atom. Maybe the ligand is a bit degraded. Best regards Christian @Pavel Tanks for your suggestions with occupancy refinement and B-factors. -- Christian Roth Institut für Bioanalytische Chemie Biotechnologisch-Biomedizinisches Zentrum Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie Universität Leipzig Deutscher Platz 5 04103 Leipzig Telefon: +49 (0)341 97 31316 Fax: +49 (0)341 97 31319

2 3

Re: [phenixbb] Sigma-A vs Resolution plot
by Bryan Lepore 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > the plot "Sigma-A vs Resolution" will be available in the next PHENIX > nightly build: Looks nice - I greatly appreciate this - thanks Pavel, Nat, anyone else I forgot. -Bryan

1 0

nightly builds
by Bryan Lepore 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

is it me, or was there just a dev-562? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHENIX: Python-based Hierarchical ENvironment for Integrated Xtallography Version: dev Release tag: 562 Platform: intel-linux-2.6 linux User: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- but latest is : dev-555 2010-10-10 successful cctbx, cci_apps, phaser, phenix, misc docs; changelog

2 1

R-free problem with phenix.refine
by Vinson LIANG 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

Dear all, Recently I deposited a structure to PDB. However, I was told >> The R value of SF check are different from your reported value. >> >> R work in SF check = 0.2859 >> your reported R work = 0.1474 >> Also there are no R free flags in your sending files, but you reported R >> free value in your all deposition. So, I rerun my deposited file with phenix.refine, and it gave a R-work=0.1475, R-free=0.1742. However, when I tried to run the same file with refmac5, error came with "Free R label has not been set". I guess phenix.refine gives Rree-R label that other program could not recognize. Could anyone please help me to solve this problem? Thank you very much in advance. I don't know why structure refined with phenix.refine has such problem. I wish this problem will disappear in the future, since I so like phenix.refine. Best, Vinson,Liang

4 7

refine : peculiar TLS tensors
by Bryan Lepore 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

[ phenix 1.6.4-486 ] [ ALSO : tlsanl, refmac, etc. from ccp4 6.1.3 ] [ molscript/povscript ] the one-liner : i have some TLS tensors that sometimes do not compare at all well with refmac/anisoanl tensors. sometimes, the principal axes of a TLS tensor refines *very* far away from the center of mass(=center of reaction), or the axes from tlsanl are exceptionally small as if not scaled properly. the eigenvalues are really small too. see [*] for troubleshooting and strategy used. i suspect i am missing something. i also understand this might not be a phenix question. -bryan [*] i compared another .def that gave sensible TLS results with a different dataset/model, and my {} are all good AFAIK. anisoanl/refmac/parvati results are reasonable. the phenix refinement appears well behaved. these are all using tlsextract to get the eigenvalues/origins, and molscript to check the axes/centers of mass. input B factors are Beq unless i made an error. the tls group selections can vary - however, simple groups also can give these results. in general, using strategy (excerpt) : refine { strategy = *individual_sites individual_sites_real_space rigid_body \ *individual_adp group_adp *tls *occupancies *group_anomalous sites { individual = None torsion_angles = None rigid_body = None } adp { individual { isotropic = None anisotropic = None } group_adp_refinement_mode = *one_adp_group_per_residue \ two_adp_groups_per_residue group_selection group = None tls = "chain A and (resid 1:41 or resid 42:159 or resid 195:237 or resid 263:420)" tls = "chain A and resid 160:194" tls = "chain A and resid 245:252" } [...cut off ... ] example output of an ill-behaved S tensor from tlsanl : SCREW ROTATION AXIS ABSOLUTE POSITION (A) PITCH (A) X Y Z 1 70.667 154.197 308.627 -144.435 2 977.334 819.588******** 6222.947 3 640.7191431.084 471.341 269.382

3 5

maps : sigma-a
by Lepore, Bryan 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

how might one start to go about getting phenix to automatically write out the value of sigma_A vs. resolution? e.g. when making maps, to get that nice table in Randy Read's SIGMAA program output of ln(sigma_A) vs. resolution. -bryan

4 6

Bad ligand parameters
by Joe Krahn 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

I found that residue TRS has different dihedral target angles for the three hydroxyl oxygens, which are actually all equivalent. They have a periodicity of 1, but should have a periodicity of 3. What is the best way to handle such discrepancies? Most ligand parameters are probably auto-generated based on a reference structure, and there is probably a lot of conformation bias. In this case, it seems that parameterization should have been able to detect symmetry. It would be nice if parameters could include information about whether a human has done any validation. Actually, a ligand Wiki might be nice, where people can easily put comments, even if they are not sure about how to improve the parameters. Joe Krahn

9 13

refine : a priori TLS tensor eigenvalues
by Bryan Lepore 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

[ phenix 1.6.4-486 ] i gather that phenix.refine will not take a priori refined TLS tensor eigenvalues - either from input or from the pdb header. is this right? -bryan

2 3

Joint X-ray/Neutron Refinement
by Louis Lazar 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

Hello, Sorry for reposting, I am trying to get a better response with a more detailed subject line. I am seeing an internal error while trying to conduct joint x-ray/neutron refinement, and any help with the issue below would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance: ================================ ADP refinement=============================== Traceback (most recent call last): File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 11, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 89, in run call_back_handler=call_back_handler) File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix/phenix/refinement/driver.py", line 1182, in run call_back_handler = call_back_handler) File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix/phenix/refinement/strategies.py", line 735, in refinement_machine h_params = h_params) File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/adp_refinement.py", line 192, in __init__ all_params = all_params) File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/adp_refinement.py", line 216, in refine_adp model.set_refine_individual_adp() File "/sware/phenix-1.6.4-486/linux64/phenix-1.6.4-486/cctbx_project/mmtbx/model.py", line 1035, in set_refine_individual_adp iselection = selection_iso.iselection()) RuntimeError: cctbx InternalError: /net/anaconda/scratch1/phenix/phenix-1.6.4-486/cctbx_project/cctbx/xray/scatterer_flags.h(417): CCTBX_ASSERT(f.use_u_iso()) failure. This error occurs during the 2nd macro cycle of refinement using this general command: phenix.refine model.pdb data_xray.hkl neutron_data.file_name=data_neutron.hkl input.xray_data.labels=FOBSx input.neutron_data.labels=FOBSn Thanks again. Regards, Louis

2 1