- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

How to turn off mask optimization
by Schubert, Carsten [PRDUS] 26 May '10

26 May '10

Hi, Is there a way to turn off the mask optimization step in 393? I tried 'main.optimize_mask = False' but that does not work. The program spends a substantial amount of time in repeated mask optimizations and I am trying to shave off a couple minutes for each run... Cheers, Carsten

2 3

Autobuild submitted jobs
by Mark A Saper 26 May '10

26 May '10

Dear Tom and colleagues, We're running Autobuild composite omit on a large cluster, each node has 8 processors. Autobuild submits jobs with the "run_command". And it appears that each of those jobs submit other jobs. Are the latter jobs necessary? That is, are there situtations where they wouldn't be submitted as separate jobs but run as subprocesses? Currently nodes in our cluster don't have capability of qsubing new jobs, but we are in the process of changing this. Thanks, Mark _________________________________ Mark A. Saper, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biological Chemistry University of Michigan Biophysics, 3040 Chemistry Building 930 N University Ave Ann Arbor MI 48109-1055 U.S.A. saper(a)umich.edu phone (734) 764-3353 fax (734) 764-3323 http://www.biochem.med.umich.edu/?q=saper http://www.strucbio.umich.edu/

2 1

atom selection syntax for ALT atoms?
by Scott Classen 25 May '10

25 May '10

This is the selection for the atom I'm interested in: atom_selection_2 = "name OE1 and chain A and resname GLU and resseq 160" I want to try a refinement with an alternate conformation at GLU160 . Can someone please help me with the proper syntax. Thanks, Scott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Scott Classen, Ph.D. SIBYLS Beamline 12.3.1 http://bl1231.als.lbl.gov Advanced Light Source Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Rd MS6R2100 Berkeley, CA 94720 C) 510.206.4418 O) 510.495.2697 Beamline) 510.495.2134 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

PDB Deposition Question
by Alexander Hirschi 25 May '10

25 May '10

Hi all - I refined a structure using Phenix 1.4-3 and now I need to submit it to the PDB. When I try to run sfcheck on the .mtz that Phenix generated, sfcheck can't read the file. I also tried to convert the .mtz to .cns using phenix.reflection_file_converter. This time, sfcheck could "not find IOBS or FOBS in your file". Any advice would be greatly appreciated. -Alex

4 4

Installation problem, please help
by Tiberman Danny 24 May '10

24 May '10

Hello, while trying to install I get the following Error message: "======================================================================== Installing from binary bundle ========================================================================== bundle file: bundle-1.6.1-357-intel-linux-2.6-x86_64.tar.gz PHENIX installation source directory set to: /root/phenix-installer-1.6.1-357 PHENIX installation target directory <PHENIX_LOC > set to: /usr/local/phenix-1.6.1-357 PHENIX installation build directory set to: <PHENIX_LOC > /build/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 PHENIX temporary build directory set to: build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/monst/tmp PHENIX installation log directory set to: build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/monst/log ==== warning: "/usr/local/phenix-1.6.1-357" already exists ==== ==== warning: cannot determine installation time-stamp, proceeding ==== installing binary components removing existing files in build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/monst/tmp/binary finding installed versions finding binary versions binary components up-to-date the binary package will not be installed setting environment configuring PHENIX components /root/phenix-installer-1.6.1-357/bin/install-from-binary: line 347: 19650 Floating point exception$PHENIX_BUILD/base/bin/python $PHENIX_LOC/cctbx_project/libtbx/configure.py --current_working_directory="$PHENIX_BUILD" $PHENIX_COMPONENTS >>$PHENIX_LOG/binary.log 2>&1 Error configuring: see /root/phenix-installer-1.6.1-357/build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/monst/log/binary.log for details" Thanks

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] Restraining altloc related atoms during refinement
by John Pascal 20 May '10

20 May '10

>I have my doubts about supporting NCS restraints of alternative >conformations; the two seem to be mutually exclusive. But maybe >I don't understand your situtation. Here are some more details on the refinement situation: it is possible for a piece of duplex DNA to be positioned in two conformations in the crystal, and it appears that both conformations are occupied with roughly the same occupancy. The sequence is not completely palindromic, so at some positions a different base is present depending on the random orientation of the DNA. However, the phosphate and ribose atoms occupy the same positions regardless of the orientation, and I want to enforce this. >I can see that NCS restraints of backbone atoms only are useful, >even if the residue names are different. >The trouble is that atoms in two chains need to be matched >unambiguously while allowing for chain breaks. >I could try to simply remove the requirement that the residue names >have to match and go by residue sequence number + insertion code >only. Would that work in your case? Yes, that sounds like it would work. >A potential downside is that people have to be careful >excluding non-matching sidechain atoms. Perhaps it could be that there is an override option after an error message. Thanks for your help. -John -- John Pascal, PhD ph 215.503.4596 Assistant Professor fx 215.923.2117 Thomas Jefferson University Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street, BLSB 804 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 ----- Forwarded message from John.Pascal(a)mail.jci.tju.edu ----- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:54:33 -0400 From: John Pascal <John.Pascal(a)mail.jci.tju.edu> Reply-To: John Pascal <John.Pascal(a)mail.jci.tju.edu> Subject: Restraining altloc related atoms during refinement To: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Hello All, I would like to restrain the positions of ribose/phosphate atoms of altloc 'A' to the positions of those in altloc 'B'. Problem is, altloc A and altloc B are different residue types, so phenix.refine exits stating that there are no common atoms when I enter the following NCS-type restraint: selection: chain I and altloc A and resid 1 and (phosphate or ribose) restrain: chain I and altloc B and resid 1 and (phosphate or ribose) I am using the phenix GUI. Is there a better place to enter this type of restraint (rather than NCS) that does not care if a P atom is from a Cd or from a Gd residue type? thanks. Best, John -- John Pascal, PhD ph 215.503.4596 Assistant Professor fx 215.923.2117 Thomas Jefferson University Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street, BLSB 804 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ----- End forwarded message ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

2 1

Restraining altloc related atoms during refinement
by John Pascal 20 May '10

20 May '10

Hello All, I would like to restrain the positions of ribose/phosphate atoms of altloc 'A' to the positions of those in altloc 'B'. Problem is, altloc A and altloc B are different residue types, so phenix.refine exits stating that there are no common atoms when I enter the following NCS-type restraint: selection: chain I and altloc A and resid 1 and (phosphate or ribose) restrain: chain I and altloc B and resid 1 and (phosphate or ribose) I am using the phenix GUI. Is there a better place to enter this type of restraint (rather than NCS) that does not care if a P atom is from a Cd or from a Gd residue type? thanks. Best, John -- John Pascal, PhD ph 215.503.4596 Assistant Professor fx 215.923.2117 Thomas Jefferson University Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street, BLSB 804 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] all reflections are equal, but some more than others
by Frank von Delft 20 May '10

20 May '10

Are you sure? It's the sigma estimation he talked about, and that does assume it's the same foe both strong and weak, doesn't it? ----- Reply message ----- From: "Phil Evans" <pre(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 21:22 Subject: [phenixbb] all reflections are equal, but some more than others To: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> If by "scaling" you mean scaling unmerged observations together, I don't think it is right that it assumes a unimodal intensity distribution. In refinement I believe the underlying distributions are assumed to be unimodal, but in data reduction scaling there is no such assumption. That scaling just assumes that the experiment (mainly the diffraction geometry) can be parameterised in such a way that reflections close together in reciprocal space and in measurement time have similar and parameterisable scales. This is independent of the intensity distribution. Phil On 19 May 2010, at 08:44, esko.oksanen(a)helsinki.fi wrote: > Frank, > > Having had a case of such hectic pseudosymmetry, it turns out that the problem originates already from the scaling that assumes a unimodal intensity distribution. The weak reflections then have their sigmas heavily overestimated and the strong ones overestimated. I had to scale the weak and strong reflections separately and ridig-body refine against the weak ones... Of course this type of problem has little to do with issue of treating negative intensities. > > Esko > > Quoting "Frank von Delft" <frank.vondelft(a)sgc.ox.ac.uk>: > >> The philosophical arguments are fine, but is Pavel not justified in asking for real cases where it matters? It's not like he hasn't spent time thinking about it, and it's not like the whole phenix community isn't sitting in his ear about their own favourite missing fix. >> >> I suppose what comes to mind is a case with hectic pseudotranslation causing half the reflections to be systematically almost but not quite zero. But then again, I understand that even if you don't toss the weak ones out, current algorithms don't deal with this well anyway, so it needs special treatment (for now: refine in smaller cell, then rigid-body refine in super-cell). >> >> phx. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18/05/2010 18:33, Ed Pozharski wrote: >>> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 16:20 -0700, Peter Zwart wrote: >>> >>>> You make it sound like it is a bad thing. The effect of restraint >>>> weights (ADP, geometry) has most likely a much bigger impact on the >>>> final structure then a small fraction of smallish intensities (*) >>>> >>> Peter, >>> >>> I think discarding data has to be justified. Two points: >>> >>> 1. The fraction of negative intensities is not necessarily small. It >>> depends on resolution cutoff (and you make an excellent point about >>> PTS), but looking at scalepack log-files I can tell that in my hands the >>> fraction is often 10% or more (DISCLAIMER: I belong to I/sigma=1 >>> resolution cutoff cult). >>> >>> 2. Just because these reflections are weak does not mean that they are >>> insignificant. Their contribution to the maps may be small (now I fear >>> another round of "fill-in missing Fobs with Fc for map calculation" >>> discussion), but keeping Fc close to zero for these reflections during >>> refinement seems to be just as important as to keep Fc close to whatever >>> values the strong reflections have. >>> >>> The weak reflections are not fundamentally worse than strong(er) >>> reflections in the same resolution range. They are measured with >>> roughly the same precision. Moreover, the practice of setting negative >>> intensities to zero and then ignoring them in refinement discards those >>> that are barely negative and leaves in those that were (quite randomly) >>> barely positive. >>> >>> You are absolutely right that other factors will have impact on the >>> model. But that does not mean that discarding weak data is justified. >>> Crystallographic refinement is a Rube Goldberg machine, and all the >>> components should be as good as we can make them. Perhaps there could >>> be something better than French&Wilson, but discarding negative >>> intensity reflections is hardly the solution. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ed. >>> >>> PS. Personally I have no stake in this, since I always use truncate. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

View DM map from AutoSol gui?
by Francis E Reyes 19 May '10

19 May '10

I'm not a GUI kind of person but today I'm messing around with it. After AutoSol (with build=False... errr AutoBuild unchecked), I have an opportunity to 'View sites and experimental map' in coot or PyMOL. Wouldn't it be more useful if the gui loaded the DM maps as well? F --------------------------------------------- Francis Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 67BA8D5D 8AE2 F2F4 90F7 9640 28BC 686F 78FD 6669 67BA 8D5D

2 3

changing TLS groups mid refinement
by Scott Classen 19 May '10

19 May '10

Hello Phenixers, Are there any considerations to changing TLS groups mid refinement? Can I rest assured that after a few rounds of refinement with the new TLS definitions everything will sort itself out or should I do something drastic, like remove all the ANISOU records, reset B factors to some constant value, and start over? Thanks, Scott

14 34