- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Twinnig
by Michael Gorman 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Dear all, After over 15 years solving structures I have (knowingly) encountered my first twinned data set. Short history.. Processed synchrotron data with HKL2000 SG P 42 21 2 ( Cell 105.485, 105.485, 62.445, 90, 90, 90) Rmerge 6% to 2A Solved MR using Phaser ( 1 mol in ASU) and built using COOT Refined using Phenix to a 'final' Rwork 29.4% Rfree 31.7% The maps look good but not great. Spurious peaks in difference maps. Couldn't get R's down any further. Xtriage suggested 'Overmerging pseudo-symmetric or twinned data' Re-processed in P2 ( cell 105.299, 62.385, 105.548, 90, 90.021, 90) Two molecules in ASU Xtriage suggested the presence of 3 pseudo-merohedral twin operators (one 4-fold and two 2-folds) Refined with twin law h,-k,-l (one of the pseudo 2-folds) using Phenix Rwork 26% Rfree 28% (no further building carried out at the moment) Wondered if it was a higher space group so.... re-processed in P222 (again Rmerge 6% to 2A) and did MR with Phaser in all the alternative space groups. The highest LL-gain was for P 21 21 21 (cell 62.377 105.297 105.546 90 90 90) I re-processed the data in P 21 21 21, all the systematic absences looked 'absent'. Xtriage suggested the presence of only one 4-fold Pseudo-merohedral twin law h,l,-k, R obs 5.1% Simulated annealing and ADP refinement in Phenix with twin law h,l,-k gave Rwork 33% Rfree 40%. Here are my questions... 1) Should I go for P2 due to the low R-factors and build from my good model ( beta angle of 90.021 seems unlikely ) 2) Should I try other possible SG ( HKL2000 suggested, primitive tetragonal, primitive orthorhombic, C centred orthorhombic, and monoclinic). 3) I'm concerned that my free-R reflections will be screwed-up since I have pseudo-merohedral twinning and some Rwork reflections may be the same as Rfree ones. I have read that Phenix is rather clever and chooses the highest observed symmetry to ovoid this problem but I can't see it being reported in the log-file that, in the case of P2, pseudo P42 21 2 is used for Rfree calculations. All help is much appreciated Mike -- Michael Gorman PhD St. Vincent's Institute of Medical Research 9 Princes Street Fitzroy Victoria 3065 Australia Tel : (03) 9288 2519

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] Rfree increases during ordered solvent filtering
by Jennifer L Ekstrom 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hi Pavel, Thanks. I don't believe that is the cause of this refinement anomaly. If I run the same job without the filter_only option, I am still seeing a very large jump in R/Rfree at the ordered solvent location/analysis/update step (before 2_xyz). ordered_solvent=true 0 : 0.1564 0.1709 2.905699e+00 3.076326e+00 1_bss: 0.1145 0.1431 2.837441e+00 3.027552e+00 1_xyz: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_adp: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_occ: 0.1155 0.1429 2.844726e+00 3.028603e+00 2_bss: 0.1154 0.1427 2.844702e+00 3.028393e+00 2_xyz: 0.1313 0.1555 2.950732e+00 3.111378e+00 2_adp: 0.1307 0.1543 2.945031e+00 3.101981e+00 2_occ: 0.1306 0.1542 2.945015e+00 3.101954e+00 3_bss: 0.1301 0.1538 2.944930e+00 3.101580e+00 3_xyz: 0.1312 0.1565 2.951306e+00 3.117549e+00 3_adp: 0.1306 0.1546 2.940355e+00 3.100448e+00 3_occ: 0.1305 0.1546 2.940347e+00 3.100439e+00 3_bss: 0.1292 0.1534 2.940856e+00 3.100060e+00 However, if I run this job with no ordered solvent manipulation, the R/Rfree are stable at their previous lower value. ordered_solvent=false 0 : 0.1564 0.1709 2.905699e+00 3.076326e+00 1_bss: 0.1145 0.1431 2.837441e+00 3.027552e+00 1_xyz: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_adp: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_occ: 0.1155 0.1429 2.844726e+00 3.028603e+00 2_bss: 0.1154 0.1427 2.844702e+00 3.028393e+00 2_xyz: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 2_adp: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 2_occ: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842433e+00 3.027654e+00 3_bss: 0.1151 0.1426 2.842430e+00 3.027578e+00 3_xyz: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846107e+00 3.029162e+00 3_adp: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846106e+00 3.029160e+00 3_occ: 0.1156 0.1429 2.846122e+00 3.029225e+00 3_bss: 0.1156 0.1429 2.846122e+00 3.029225e+00 I wouldn't expect to see a 1% jump in Rfree after minor tweaking of a few dozen waters. This is not a small structure. There must be something strange in the refinement protocol during the ordered water treatment. I had thought it could be a weighting issue, but subsequent refinement with optimization of wxc and wxu does not bring the R/Rfree down to the original range. Thanks, Jennifer (Running version 2008_05_03_2330) ................................................... Pavel Afonine writes: > Hi Jennifer, > > you are using "ordered_solvent.mode=filter_only". This means that the new > waters are not added but the existing ones are filtered (removed) at final > step based on selection criteria (B-factors, distances, H-bonding, > etc...). Do you really want this? If not, then do not use > "ordered_solvent.mode=filter_only" (the default is "auto" which is good in > most of cases). > > Please let me know if you have any questions! > > Pavel. > > > On 6/24/2008 2:42 PM, Jennifer L Ekstrom wrote: >> I am running phenix.refine (version 2008_05_03_2330) with the >> command-line options ordered_solvent=true >> ordered_solvent.mode=filter_only >> >> During the final step (3_bss), my R and Rfree increase significantly. >> Any thoughts on why this jump would occcur? Per the notations in the >> logfile, only 30 waters were removed in the final model. >> >> Thanks, Jennifer >> >> >> R-factors, x-ray target values and norm of gradient of x-ray target >> stage r-work r-free xray_target_w xray_target_t >> 0 : 0.1564 0.1709 2.905699e+00 3.076326e+00 >> 1_bss: 0.1145 0.1431 2.837441e+00 3.027552e+00 >> 1_xyz: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 >> 1_adp: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 >> 1_occ: 0.1155 0.1429 2.844726e+00 3.028603e+00 >> 2_bss: 0.1154 0.1427 2.844702e+00 3.028393e+00 >> 2_xyz: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 >> 2_adp: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 >> 2_occ: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842433e+00 3.027654e+00 >> 3_bss: 0.1151 0.1426 2.842430e+00 3.027578e+00 >> 3_xyz: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846107e+00 3.029162e+00 >> 3_adp: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846106e+00 3.029160e+00 >> 3_occ: 0.1156 0.1429 2.846122e+00 3.029225e+00 >> 3_bss: 0.1306 0.1512 2.943092e+00 3.079441e+00 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> phenixbb mailing list >> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >> >

2 1

PI Position @ SGC-Oxford: Integral Membrane Proteins
by Frank von Delft 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hi, any ambitious membrane protein researchers, please read about the vacancy below. Thanks, phx We are seeking a Principal Investigator to lead the Integral Membrane Protein (IMP) group of the Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), Oxford. The SGC is a charity organization that includes ~200 researchers in laboratories in the universities of Oxford, Toronto and the Karolinska Institute. Our goal, successfully pursued since 2004, is to solve structures of medically relevant human proteins and deposit them immediately in public databases. We further exploit our target proteins in downstream studies with special emphasis on Chemical Biology, using both our in-house infrastructure and a network of collaborators. In the last year, our efforts have expanded to human integral membrane proteins. The present PI of the IMP group is leaving, and we are seeking a replacement with demonstrated experience and publication record in structural biology of membrane proteins. The IMP group comprises ~8 people, and is additionally supported by the SGC's extensive infrastructure, with close collaborations with molecular biologists, crystallographers, biophysicists and informaticians in the other groups. Currently funded until 2011, the post offers an unrivalled opportunity to develop a strong research program and a reputation as a group leader. More details are available at the following links: http://www.sgc.ox.ac.uk http://www.sgc.ox.ac.uk/jobs/H908014.html

1 0

group_adp default ? and other phenix questions?
by hari jayaram 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hi I quite new to the phenix environemnt and just ran a phenix refinement with the following command line *phenix.refine myfile.mtz mymodel.pdb simulated_annealing=true model.ncs refinement.main.ncs=true --overwrite refinement.ncs.excessive_distance_limit=None >phenix_06_18_2008_2.log * The model.ncs file is structured as follows refinement.ncs.restraint_group { reference = chain A selection = chain B selection = chain C selection = chain D } My data is good to 3.3 A ( membrane protein) and thus far I have been refining with refmac5. After the phenix run indicated above, I had a dramatic reduction in r/rfree ( post refmac 33/36 AND post phenix 28/31). This is despite relatively small changes to my model by the simulated annealing refinement. I have a few questions about the process and am hoping some phenix veterans can help me out. 1) At my resolution I guess I should at best be refining only one B-factor / ADP per residue is this the default behavior with the command line above 2) I have seen the emails about syntax for forcing group-B refinement at this location<http://www.phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2007-March/000161.html>and this one<http://www.phenix-online.org/download/documentation/cci_apps/structure_refi…>. Basically they use strategy=group_adp . I am imagining this calculates one ADP per residue or per defined group. In my case if I force the behavior with the syntax , how is group ADP for NCS-mates handled? 3) On a general note , when I say phenix.refine --show-defaults , the section on strategy has a long list, what do the asterisks (*) in the syntax mean .Does that mean those are the defaults . Also how can I infer the syntax from this hierarchy? Sorry for the long list of questions but I am very happy with phenix and just thought I should understand the syntax better. Thanks for your help Hari Jayaram Attachments: phenix.refine --show-defaults returns refine { strategy = *individual_sites rigid_body *individual_adp group_adp tls \ individual_occupancies group_occupancies group_anomalous sites { individual = None rigid_body = None } adp { individual { isotropic = None anisotropic = None } group = None one_adp_group_per_residue = True tls = None }

2 1

How to generate an anomalous map in PHENIX?
by Schubert, Carsten [PRDUS] 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hi, I am trying to make an anomalous map in the latest phenix. After refinement of a medium resolution structure (1.8A) with anomalous data (and signal) I used the ANOM and PHANOM columns in the map_coeffs.mtz file to generate a map. The map was created either in coot or via fft, but shows no anomalous peaks for a present Cl1 nor for SS bonds. It rather mimics a noisy protein map. Generation of an anomalous map in CNX using the same data (FOBS(+/-) and HL coeffs(calc) ) produces a nice map with the expected peaks. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the ANOM/PHANOM columns or is this feature not implemented yet. Cheers Carsten

4 4

Rfree increases during ordered solvent filtering
by Jennifer L Ekstrom 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

I am running phenix.refine (version 2008_05_03_2330) with the command-line options ordered_solvent=true ordered_solvent.mode=filter_only During the final step (3_bss), my R and Rfree increase significantly. Any thoughts on why this jump would occcur? Per the notations in the logfile, only 30 waters were removed in the final model. Thanks, Jennifer R-factors, x-ray target values and norm of gradient of x-ray target stage r-work r-free xray_target_w xray_target_t 0 : 0.1564 0.1709 2.905699e+00 3.076326e+00 1_bss: 0.1145 0.1431 2.837441e+00 3.027552e+00 1_xyz: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_adp: 0.1159 0.1433 2.846219e+00 3.029651e+00 1_occ: 0.1155 0.1429 2.844726e+00 3.028603e+00 2_bss: 0.1154 0.1427 2.844702e+00 3.028393e+00 2_xyz: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 2_adp: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842538e+00 3.027628e+00 2_occ: 0.1151 0.1427 2.842433e+00 3.027654e+00 3_bss: 0.1151 0.1426 2.842430e+00 3.027578e+00 3_xyz: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846107e+00 3.029162e+00 3_adp: 0.1156 0.1428 2.846106e+00 3.029160e+00 3_occ: 0.1156 0.1429 2.846122e+00 3.029225e+00 3_bss: 0.1306 0.1512 2.943092e+00 3.079441e+00

2 1

Phenix / Resolve build related..
by Partha Chakrabarti 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

Hi, Sorry for the slightly off the topic question. I have a three wavelength SE MAD data to 3A, which I could only solve using SHARP or BP3. It seemed to have two monomers and each having one ordered SE sites. Found the NCS using RAVE programs, AVE, NCS6d and IMP. I am wondering if it is possible to give the NCS matrix (transposed from O format) and somehow tell Resolve (or Autobuild) to build multiple chains.. in this case, a homodimer. Do I need to duplicate the sequence? Regards, Partha -- MRC National Institute for Medical Research Division of Molecular Structure The Ridgeway, NW7 1AA, UK Email: pchakra(a)nimr.mrc.ac.uk Phone: + 44 208 816 2515

2 1

NCS
by john kryst 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

Hi all !! What is the NCS restrain energy used by default in phenix... like CNS can we restarain 100kcal/mol.... Thanks regards John

2 1

COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT - BIOCRYS2008 - REMINDER
by Daniele de Sanctis 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

On behalf of the organizers, Maria Armenia Carrondo and Thomas R. Schneider COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT - BIOCRYS 2008 Fundamentals of Modern Methods in Biocrystallography - 'What you always wanted to know about crystallography but never dared to ask' http://biocrys.itqb.unl.pt 4th - 11th October 2008 at the Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica, Oeiras, Portugal. The topics of the second edition of this course will run from fundamentals such as symmetry, point groups and crystal systems, basic diffraction physics, reciprocal space and the Ewalds sphere, radiation damage, data processing, structure factors, Patterson function to modern methodologies including molecular replacement, SAD, MAD, MIR and maximum likelihood phasing, density modification, refinement, model building, twinning and structure validation. The course will be organized with lectures in the mornings and interactive practicals and tutorials in the afternoons. Evening lectures on current topics will be presented by the invited speakers. Instructors and speakers (confirmed): M. Archer, I. Bento, N. Berrow, G. Bunkoczi, M. Coll, K. Cowtan, Z. Dauter, D. de Sanctis, P. Donner, C. Frazão, E. Garman, C. Hermes, E. Hough, G. Leonhard, A. Leslie, P. Matias, A. Perrakis, T. Schneider, C. Vonrhein. 36 participants will be selected with preference to scientists at the beginning of their crystallographic career and to those from Europe. A registration fee of 500 Euro for academic and of 1000 Euro for not academic applicants is requested for full board and accommodation. Selected applicants will have to pay the registration fee by bank transfer before arrival. A very limited number of grants may be available to partially cover the registration fees and will be paid upon students arrival. For application, please please fill the form on the web page http://www.embl-hamburg.de/workshops/2008/BIOCRYST08/ by the 15th of July For more information visit the course web page http://biocrys.itqb.unl.pt -- Daniele de Sanctis, PhD Homo sum humani nil alienum a me puto ______________________________________________________________ phone ++ 351 21 4469 662 fax ++ 351 21 4433 664 e-mail de.sanctisd(a)gmail.com, sanctis(a)itqb.unl.pt Mailing address: ITQB, Av. República, Apartado 127 2781-901 Oeiras Portugal

1 0

Problem running phenix.autobuild version 1.3-rc2
by Terry Lang 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Hey Everyone, We just upgraded to the newest version of PHENIX and are now having some problems running autobuild. The command we are running is: phenix.autobuild data=061908.mtz seq_file=mydata.dat model=062308polyser.pdb sg=p212121 When we run this command file with version 1.3b-rc6, the calculation runs to completion. However, when we run version 1.3-rc2, we get the following error message: ******************************************************************************************************* Failed to carry out AutoBuild_build_cycle: child process stderr output: command: 'csh /nfs/berger/allyn/elsa/062308ab/AutoBuild_run_1_/TEMP0/RUN_FILE_1' Word too long. ******************************************************************************************************* We have also tried running from the top-level directory to make the path name shorter, but still get the same error. Has anyone else experienced a similar problem? If so, what is the best way to address it? Please let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Terry -- P. Therese Lang Postdoctoral Scholar Alber Lab, UC Berkeley

1 0