- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

observed reflection numbers of refinement greater than the experiment
by carlbluesky＠yahoo.co.jp 24 Apr '09

24 Apr '09

Hi all, I have a problem with reflection numbers of phenix.refine. I did the phenix.refine then i found that the number of observed reflections given for the refinement 75747 (48-2.85A) is greater than the number of observed reflections for the experiment 40434 (50-2.85A). It shoud be around 40000. . This is a peak of MAD data about 2.85A. I used the TLS parameters to refine the structure. I really don't know why because this is my first time use phenix to do refinement. Any advice and suggestion are welcome! Thanks. Carl --------------------------------- Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar.

3 3

rfree checksums version 1.3 and 1.4
by hari jayaram 24 Apr '09

24 Apr '09

Hi am using the same exact mtz data file from CCP4 uniquefy for two refinements in phenix. I did one round of refinement in phenix 1.3 and then used the output pdb of that refinement and input into the next round of refinement . Only I switched versions to phenix version 1.4. Most other things weere the same including the resolution cutoff used and the input mtz. But phenix tells me that the md5checksums dont match. i am very sure its the same input mtz and identical data resolution ( both cases specifying refinement.input.xray_data.high_resolution=3.0) Could this message of mismatched checksums be an error due to chaging versions midtsream . I certainly dont want to be trampling on my Rfree reflections but apart from copying files to a new directory for the next round and changing phenix versions I have changed little else Thanks for your help in advance hari

2 4

Re: [phenixbb] poor phasing
by vennila Natesan 24 Apr '09

24 Apr '09

Dear members, > > I am using phenix1.4-4 version. In autosol, got the score of 10.24 for one > iodine soaked data. > FOM:0.27 and only 54 residues ( that too wrongly) were built out of > 129.(CC=0.4), R=0.49 and Rfree=0.574. > Regrading the data quality, Rsym:0.0448, Ranom:0.055, Resln:25.0-2.6A > Spacegroup is P43212, completeness:99.4%, Multiplicity:11.7, anomalos > signal is 1.52 at lowest resoln and higher in high resolution shells. > > What might be reason for not able to solve this structure? > >

3 2

viewing previous refinement run validation report
by CK 23 Apr '09

23 Apr '09

Hello all, I am using the phenix 1.4-43 gui to run phenix.refine on my structure and so far I'm very impressed. However, after running a refinement job I had to close the gui before I was finished examining the validation report and now would like to look at it again. Upon relaunching the gui I can't seem to find a way to reload log files/ validation reports from previous runs. Am I missing something obvious here or is the feature not yet implemented? Thanks, Chris

2 1

nightly builds nit (and a question)
by Ben Eisenbraun 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Howdy, I'm not sure you are soliciting bugs on the nightly builds, but I thought I'd mention these. Please let me know if you don't need/want them. I downloaded and installed the 1.4-37 nightly builds. The installations went fine for linux and OS X PPC/x86. There are some absolute symlinks in the installation that don't work: phenix-1.4-37/build/intel-linux-2.6/base/bin/wx-config -> /net/longnose/scratch1/phenix/phenix-1.4-37/build/intel-linux-2.6/base/lib/wx/config/gtk2-ansi-release-2.8 On the OS X there are some that don't appear to matter, e.g.: phenix-1.4-37/build/mac-intel-osx/base/bin/MacPyMOL.app/pymol/test/pdb -> /Volumes/Macintosh HD/Users/delwarl/pdb/entries And some that maybe do: phenix-1.4-37/build/mac-intel-osx/base/bin/python2.6 -> /net/patchnose/scratch1/phenix/phenix-1.4-37/build/mac-intel-osx/base/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/bin/python2.6 Since the nightly builds don't build the ext_ref_files, should I just symlink them to the ones in the 1.4-3 release? Thanks. -ben -- | Ben Eisenbraun | Software Gunky | | Structural Biology Grid | http://sbgrid.org | | Harvard Medical School | http://hms.harvard.edu |

2 1

SA_OMIT map at low resolution
by 邬金 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Hi, I would like to calculate sa_omit map for a low resolution structure (4.0 Ang) to validate the conformation in some regions. What's the proper way to do it? Followed the instruction, I tried: phenix.autobuild data=mydata.mtz model=mybestmodel.pdb omit_box_pdb=mybestmodel.pdb \ omit_res_start_list=100 omit_res_end_list=200 omit_chain_list=L \ composite_omit_type=sa_omit I have several questions: 1. "omit_box_pdb=mybestmodel.pdb": If I define the region that I want to omit, do I need to define the omit_box pdb as well? Should it be complete model or the omit region? 2. I have 4 fold NCS axis, if I want to omit a loop in four copies, how can I define 4 corresponding regions in different chains? e.g omit region: 100-200 in chain L, M, N, O: omit_chain_list = L omit_chain_list = M omit_chain_list = N omit_chain_list = O omit_res_end_list = "200" omit_res_start_list = "100" 3. If I want to omit several loops in one copy, should I turn off NCS? Like: find_ncs=False input_ncs_file= None optimize_ncs=False 4. How to define several omit regions in one chain? Many thanks, Jin _________________________________________________________________ 上Windows Live 中国首页，下载最新版 MSN！ http://im.live.cn/

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 41, Issue 12
by Ho-Leung Ng 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Hi Zach, You probably have the wrong space group. P3 is rarely represented in the PDB, with only 67 deposited structures out of 57000. You can use Phaser to automatically try all the other P3 related space groups. phenix.xtriage will also try to predict the space group for you. Good luck! Ho UC Berkeley

4 5

phenix.automr high zscore but too many clashes
by zach powers 18 Apr '09

18 Apr '09

Hi, I have a problem and i wonder if someone has had a similar experience. I have been using phenix.automr program to find an MR solution for a protein. When I ask Phaser to use copies=2 I find a number of solutions with poor z-scores (3-4). When I ask it to use copies=3, I get great Z-scores (see below) but no solution due to the high number of clashes (>100!). As an x-ray newbie I am a bit perplexed of what to make of this: the solution is not good because there is not enough space in the unit cell to comfortably accommodate all three molecules yet the Z-score indicates the structure is good. My structure does have several loops and these may be contributing to the clashing residues. As a newbie I have a newbie question - what does this mean (great z-score but no solutions)? Is this non-solution a possible solution if I play with it, or is the packing simply too tight and the Z-scores are not valid? In the meantime I am chopping my protein into sub-domains as recommended in the Phaser documentation, but if anyone has seen something like this before, any suggestions are welcome. thanks zach charlop-powers Packing Table: Space Group P 3 ------------------------------ Solutions accepted if number of clashes = 135 (lowest number of clashes in list) provided this number of clashes <= 10 (maximum number of allowed clashes) # #Clashes # Accepted Annotation 1 188 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=10.4 2 156 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=10.2 3 151 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=9.8 4 146 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=9.7 5 187 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=16.3 TFZ=10.5 6 202 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=9.2 7 170 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=9.1 8 144 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=16.3 TFZ=10.2 9 177 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=9.1 10 153 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.9 11 150 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.8 12 217 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.6 13 182 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.6 14 135 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.5 15 175 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.3 16 159 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.3 17 192 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.3 18 165 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=16.3 TFZ=9.2 19 169 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=16.3 TFZ=9.1 20 158 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.0 21 173 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=8.0 22 154 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=16.3 TFZ=8.9 23 206 NO RFZ=20.3 TFZ=18.2 PAK=10 LLG=431 RFZ=18.5 TFZ=7.8 0 accepted of 23 solutions

4 4

phenix.autobuild error
by Andreas Förster 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Hey all, I'm calling phenix.autobuild with the following command: phenix.autobuild data=second_try_33.1.mtz model=second_try_33.1.pdb \ > seq_file=name_139_414.seq ps_in_rebuild=True On my MacBook Pro (OSX 5.6, phenix Version: 1.4, Release tag: 3, cctbx tag: 2008_12_07_1353, Platform: mac-intel-osx osx-10.5.6), I get the following error: Exception RuntimeError: 'maximum recursion depth exceeded while calling a Python object' in <type 'exceptions.KeyError'> ignored 108409888 On a linux box (RHEL 5.2, phenix Version: 1.4, Release tag: 3, cctbx tag: 2008_12_07_1353, Platform: intel-linux-2.6 redhat-e5.2) I get this error: ******************************************************************************** Failed to carry out AutoBuild_build_cycle: child process stderr output: command: 'csh /csb/home/andreas/name/P6big/second_try/autobuild/AutoBuild_run_2_/TEMP0/RUN_FILE_1' tset: standard error: Invalid argument ******************************************************************************** Each time, the script was run on the same set of files residing on the linux box. I either ssh into the machine and run phenix.autobuild in an ssh shell or mount my linux home directory via MacFusion and run phenix.autobuild on the Mac. I haven't tried copying the files to the Mac, but other phenix commands work with the remote data (e.g. phenix.autobuild data=data.mtz solvent_fraction=.6 ps_in_rebuild=True model=coords.pdb maps_only=True) What's the problem? Andreas -- Andreas Förster, Research Associate Paul Freemont & Xiaodong Zhang Labs Department of Biochemistry, Imperial College London http://www.msf.bio.ic.ac.uk

2 1

Twin refinement issues?
by Phil Jeffrey 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

While experimenting with twin refinement for a crystal in P321 that approximates P622 to varying extents, I noticed: | twin fraction: 0.59 twin operator: -h,-k,l | A bug, perhaps ? This twin fraction would seem to be unlikely, since twin fractions > 0.5 have no meaning. Since this data does not scale well in p622 compared to some more heavily-twinned datasets on this xtal form I think the twin fraction is certainly less than 0.5. Xtriage estimates: Statistics depending on twin laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Operator | type | R obs. | Britton alpha | H alpha | ML alpha | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | -h,-k,l | M | 0.150 | 0.343 | 0.347 | 0.283 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unless of course phenix.refine is reporting 2*alpha. Phenix v1.4-3 Intel Mac OSX 10.5.6 This particular run with: phenix.refine model-08.pdb pz7e_truncate-unique.mtz refinement.main.ncs=true strategy=individual_sites+group_adp --overwrite xray_data.r_free_flags.generate=True twin_law="-h,-k,l" This is a very early non-finessed model. Phil Jeffrey Princeton

4 6