- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Why is CIF monomer data split into individual files?
by Joe Krahn 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Is there a good reason not to merger all monomer data into a single file, similar to PDB's components.cif? My first thought is that it is a performance issue. However, I wrote a simple CIF parser in Tcl, and found that carefully designed regexp processing can index data segments very fast. The entire components.cif takes just a few seconds. (The key is to use a regexp that matches an entire data block, and not tokenize the whole file.) So, I am thinking that a single merged file might be better. With separate files, there is already a need for a list of residues (mon_lib_list.cif) which could just as well be file offsets. So, even if parsing is not so fast, it is not an issue because we already have an index file. One problem with separate files is that it relies on the 3-letter residue name to be unique. With a merged file, a different database key can be used without concern for filename restrictions. The PDB format was originally designed so that HET 3-letter codes only need a file scope, where HETNAM defines the full name of each HET residue in a file. Everyone has been using HET codes the same as standard residues, which has cause the 3-letter codes to become meaningless database keys rather than useful abbreviations. Eventually, we will run out of 3-letter codes, and will have to change. Why not start sooner rather than later? Even now, there are potential conflicts. For example, CCP4 has DNA residues using a lower-case d, which may not provide a unique filename for non-POSIX case-insensitive operating systems. If anyone actually wants a Tcl CIF parser, I can share it. I only wrote it as a simple and efficient way to read CIF files from a CCP4i script. Joe Krahn

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Autobuild for very elongated models
by Gino Cingolani 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Thanks Tom! Gino ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:28:09 -0600 >From: Tom Terwilliger <terwilliger(a)lanl.gov> >Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Autobuild for very elongated models >To: Gino.Cingolani(a)jefferson.edu,PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > >Hi Gino, > >Here is how to specify a mask in phenix.autobuild (see https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/faqs.htm >#anch68): > >----------------- >How can I specify a mask for density modification in AutoSol/AutoBuild? >If you want to specify a mask, add this command: > >resolve_command_list=" 'model ../../coords.pdb' 'use_model_mask' " >where there are " and ' quotes and coords.pdb is the model to use for >a mask. Note the "../../" because coords.pdb is in your working >directory but when resolve runs the run directory is 2 directories >lower, so relative to that directory your coords.pdb is at "../../ >coords.pdb". You will know it is working if your resolve_xx.log says: >"Using model mask calculated from coordinates" >----------------- >I am not so sure this is the problem, however. I would suggest that >you do a quick composite omit map before refinement on your mr model: >phenix.autobuild data=data.mtz model=MR.1.pdb >composite_omit_type=simple_omit >It is important that this start with you MR unrefined model so that >you have no worries about model bias. This procedure will omit a >region, refine, calculate a 2Fo-Fc map for the omitted region, then >repeat for all other parts of your model and paste them all together >and put it in >AutoBuild_run_1_/OMIT/resolve_composite_map.mtz >which you can use to calculate a map with LABIN="FP=FP PHIB=PHIM >FOM=FOMM" (you need to include the FOM). >If this map shows density for your whole model...you are in great >shape and the problem may indeed be the mask. If it does not...then >the model may not be very close and it may be difficult to proceed. >All the best, >Tom T > >On Oct 14, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Gino Cingolani wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I am trying to solve a very elongated structure (~180A-long) formed >> by two long a-helices. I have a good MR solution (Log-Likelihood >> Gain ~168.537 to 3.0A resolution), which refines OK immediately >> after MR (Rfactor/Rfree 46/50%). The electron density has clear side >> chain features and high res data is available to ~2.1A resolution. >> >> Logically, I should be able to plug everything into Autobuild and >> get a good final model (or at least something better than my input >> MR solution). I have tried a million time using different parameters >> and datasets, but Autobuild always breaks up my long helical model >> into short helical bundles, that refine to random Rfree. In other >> words, if my starting MR model is a continuous >> 80aa-long helix, Autobuild fragments it into three helices of ~30aa >> each packed laterally (I see back my initial model if I visualize >> symmetry-related atoms in Coot). >> >> In parallel, I have made the following observation. >> If I use DM to improve my phases, prior to Autobuild, I noticed that >> something similar happens. DM gives great density for less than half >> of my long helix while the rest is flattened. >> If I look at the solvent mask generated by DM, it basically flattens >> half of my elongated model. It seems that at least DM fails to >> generate a solvent mask that makes sense with such an elongated >> structure (by the way, the unit cell is a=25, b=37, c=220 in >> P212121). This problem can be circumvented in DM where >> an outside solvent mask can be inputted, but what about in phenix? >> >> Is it possible that Autobuild is failing because Resolve also makes >> a poor solvent mask? Is there a way to see and/or edit the solvent >> mask generated by Resolve? Or even better, can I input a new solvent >> mask in Autobuild? >> >> Thanks in advance for the feedback! >> >> Gino >> >> >> ****************************************************************************** >> Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor >> Thomas Jefferson University >> Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology >> 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 >> Philadelphia PA 19107 >> Office (215) 503 4573 >> Lab (215) 503 4595 >> Fax (215) 923 2117 >> E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu >> ****************************************************************************** >> "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e >> conoscenza" >> ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and >> knowledge") >> Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) >> _______________________________________________ >> phenixbb mailing list >> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > > >Thomas C. Terwilliger >Mail Stop M888 >Los Alamos National Laboratory >Los Alamos, NM 87545 > >Tel: 505-667-0072 email: terwilliger(a)LANL.gov >Fax: 505-665-3024 SOLVE web site: http://solve.lanl.gov >PHENIX web site: http:www.phenix-online.org >ISFI Integrated Center for Structure and Function Innovation web site: http://techcenter.mbi.ucla.edu >TB Structural Genomics Consortium web site: http://www.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/TB >CBSS Center for Bio-Security Science web site: http://www.lanl.gov/cbss > > > > >_______________________________________________ >phenixbb mailing list >phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

2 1

Autobuild for very elongated models
by Gino Cingolani 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hi Everyone, I am trying to solve a very elongated structure (~180A-long) formed by two long a-helices. I have a good MR solution (Log-Likelihood Gain ~168.537 to 3.0A resolution), which refines OK immediately after MR (Rfactor/Rfree 46/50%). The electron density has clear side chain features and high res data is available to ~2.1A resolution. Logically, I should be able to plug everything into Autobuild and get a good final model (or at least something better than my input MR solution). I have tried a million time using different parameters and datasets, but Autobuild always breaks up my long helical model into short helical bundles, that refine to random Rfree. In other words, if my starting MR model is a continuous 80aa-long helix, Autobuild fragments it into three helices of ~30aa each packed laterally (I see back my initial model if I visualize symmetry-related atoms in Coot). In parallel, I have made the following observation. If I use DM to improve my phases, prior to Autobuild, I noticed that something similar happens. DM gives great density for less than half of my long helix while the rest is flattened. If I look at the solvent mask generated by DM, it basically flattens half of my elongated model. It seems that at least DM fails to generate a solvent mask that makes sense with such an elongated structure (by the way, the unit cell is a=25, b=37, c=220 in P212121). This problem can be circumvented in DM where an outside solvent mask can be inputted, but what about in phenix? Is it possible that Autobuild is failing because Resolve also makes a poor solvent mask? Is there a way to see and/or edit the solvent mask generated by Resolve? Or even better, can I input a new solvent mask in Autobuild? Thanks in advance for the feedback! Gino ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120)

2 1

use get_cc_mtz_pdb to calculate the cc between model and map
by 丁玮 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hi, everyone: When I use get_cc_mtz_pdb to calculate the cc between model and map, two values is output: （1）Overall map correlation: （2）Map correlation in region of model: What is the different between them? Whether the "Map correlation in region of model" is the correlation between model and the density map superimposing on it and the "Overall map correlation" is the correlation between model and the overall density map? Thanks a lot! dream dingding830106(a)sina.com 2009-10-14

2 1

autosol import failed
by Jan Abendroth 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hi all, I am trying to run Phenix AutoSol on a SAD data set. Sadly enough, it fails on me during reading in the mtz file with the error message below. The same happens with both intensities or amplitudes. phenix version 1.5-2 run through the gui where I read in the mtz file and specified I+, I-, ... Any ideas? Thanks Jan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ error message: ImportRawData_output_files ImportRawData Run 3 Tue Oct 13 18:14:37 2009 NOTE: Input labels currently restricted to: I(+),SIGI(+),I(-),SIGI(-) Note also: a group of labels needs to be enclosed with quotes Skipping labels I(+) SIGI(+) I(-) SIGI(-) which do not match requested labels **************************************** AutoSol Input failed -- Jan Abendroth deCODE biostructures Seattle / Bainbridge Island WA, USA work: JAbendroth_at_decode.is home: Jan.Abendroth_at_gmail.com

2 1

New GUI, MTZ, multiple data sets
by Graeme Winter 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Hi Folks, I just tried reading an MTZ file full of MAD data (from xia2) with the new GUI, and it seems like you can't read more than one data set from a given file - is this the case? It did correctly find all of the columns that were in there. Reading in scalepack format files, one per wavelength, seemed to work fine. Browse then selecting the same file again didn't seem to work, couldn't find the "add another dataset" button... it of course works just fine from the command-line with the .eff file. Thanks, Graeme

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] Does PHENIX exclude Rfree reflections in maps?
by Thomas C. Terwilliger 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Hi Pavel and Joe, I carried out a test to see if (1) excluding a super-free set completely from automated structure solution affects the results and (2) if the super-free R that results is different from the standard free R obtained with all data and excluding the free set only from refinement. Here are the results: A = structure B, C and D are for the run with a super-free set excluded from all calculations. B and C are work and free R for the reflections included in the calculation. D is the R for the super-free set. E and F are work and free R for the same datasets, run in the same way, but without any super-free set. A B C D E F ---super-free-run---- --standard run-- structure work free super-free work free 1029B 0.31 0.38 0.41 0.29 0.36 1038B 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.28 1071B 0.28 0.33 0.35 0.26 0.30 rab3a-sad 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.29 0.34 rnase-p 0.28 0.32 0.31 0.28 0.29 calmodulin 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.29 cobd-sad 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.28 insulin 0.27 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.26 nsf-n 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.24 ut-synthase 0.24 0.29 0.28 0.24 0.28 mean 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.29 Conclusions: (1) super-free is very nearly the same as free in the matched set. (2) leaving out super-free data does not make a lot of difference in these actual cases. (Perhaps it might in worse data sets) (3) so it would be ok to take out super-free set, but it is not necessary. All the best, Tom T >> Hi Pavel and Joe, >> >> I'm glad you put that option in, Pavel. However for model-building it is >> not so straightforward. Normally we are building into density-modified >> maps. Density modification works poorly when a significant set of >> reflections is excluded, so this becomes impractical. We could exclude >> those reflections in the map only, but they will have been used in density >> modification so they are no longer truly free. I don't have a good >> solution for that. >> >> I am guessing that for model-building, the free R is hardly affected, >> compared to refinement against the map, though I haven't tested this. >> >> All the best, >> Tom T >> >>>> Hi Joe, hi Tom, >>>> >>>> until recently, all reflections (work and test) were used in map >>>> calculation. When I added a real-space refinement option to >>>> phenix.refine I spent a day thinking hard about why Rfree was almost >>>> always equal to Rwork after real-space refinement, until I realized >>>> that >>>> I have to exclude test reflections from map calculation, and that fixed >>>> the problem. >>>> >>>> I think it depends on the task: >>>> >>>> - for things like real-space refinement (where the map is heavily used) >>>> or automated model building, the test reflections have to be excluded >>>> from map calculation; >>>> >>>> - for catching a tiny detail (looking at weak ligand density = slight >>>> map use) or fixing a few side chains, all reflections should be used, >>>> since 10% of data put aside may sometime significantly affect map >>>> quality. >>>> >>>> Pavel. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/30/09 11:51 AM, Tom Terwilliger wrote: >>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>> In PHENIX R-free reflections are included in your maps. >>>>> All the best, >>>>> Tom T >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Joe Krahn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Does PHENIX exclude R-free reflections when computing maps? IMHO, it >>>>>> is >>>>>> bad to use test reflections in maps, or anywhere else other than >>>>>> computing R-free, but opinions vary. If some people still want test >>>>>> reflections in maps, maybe it could be an option. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Joe Krahn >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> phenixbb mailing list >>>> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >>>> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >>>> >> >>

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] FreeR set reduced by half in twin crystal refinement?
by lauren 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Hi all Thanks for all your reply, really helpful Joe wrote, >My first guess is that the R-free set generated in CCP4 is not set to follow twin laws, so you have work and free reflections associated by twinning. However, I would expect PHENIX >to check this. >As for the reduced size, that probably comes from the way the twinned test set is calculated. Maybe it is a bug. Are you using anomalous data? No anomalous >What is the PHENIX version? Peter wrote, >- you have at least n% of free flags, but not more then 2000+epsilon >(typically) >- it follows any possible twin law (not user specified, it follows symmetry of the lattice) After I change the setting "xray_data.r_free_flags.max_free ", and set it up to 5000. xray_data.r_free_flags.fraction=0.05, the results look normal. Final: r_work = 0.1782 r_free = 0.2285 bonds = 0.007 angles = 1.186 REMARK 3 FIT TO DATA USED IN REFINEMENT. REMARK 3 R VALUE (WORKING + TEST SET) : 0.1807 REMARK 3 R VALUE (WORKING SET) : 0.1782 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE : 0.2285 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET SIZE (%) : 5.07 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET COUNT : 2776 Best Regards Lauren

1 0

parallel phaser?
by Francis E Reyes 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Did phaser get OpenMP/parallelized or was I just having a dream? If so, how's it work? Thanks FR --------------------------------------------- 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

4 6

FreeR set reduced by half in twin crystal refinement?
by lauren 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Hi everyone, I have a P31 twin crystal, resolution 2.0, and with twin fraction 0.451. I use phenix.refine to refine the structure and with freeR set to 8%. % phenix.refine data.sca model.pdb twin_law="h,-h-k,-l" xray_data.r_free_flags.generate=True xray_data.r_free_flags.fraction=0.08 Result: Final: r_work = 0.1793 r_free = 0.2258 bonds = 0.011 angles = 1.557 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE : 0.2258 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET SIZE (%) : 3.67 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET COUNT : 2013 After the refinement, it seems like my freeR set size reduced by half (3.67%). Is it due to the twin effect, or something is wrong with my refinement? And if I use ccp4 program "scalpeak2mtz " to convert the .sca to .mtz and with freeR fraction set to 8%. Then refine it with phenix. % phenix.refine data.mtz model.pdb twin_law="h,-h-k,-l" Final: r_work = 0.1669 r_free = 0.1970 bonds = 0.010 angles = 1.406 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE : 0.2022 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET SIZE (%) : 7.80 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET COUNT : 4326 It turns out, my test set is still 8%, and R/Rfree looks even better than the first one. So I am wondering which one is the correct one and why? Thanks! Lauren

3 2