- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

elbow
by Mengbin Chen 13 Jun '13

13 Jun '13

Dear PHENIX Users, I have been playing around with Elbow for a while, but I kept having problems generating .cif file. For "Chemical file type" and "Template PDB file", I used the pdb file of the ligand. Since the coordinates in the pdb file corresponds to a conformation desired, I chose "None" for "geometry optimization". After running Elbow, the output pdb file was completely different than the input one -- even double bonds became single bonds and 10-membered ring conformation changed. I have tried Sketcher in CCP4 package, but no good results either. Could anyone tell me how to do this correctly? Any help is appreciated! Thank you in advance, Mengbin -- Mengbin Chen Department of Chemistry University of Pennsylvania

2 1

Discrepancy between R-factors from phenix.refine vs phenix Generate "Table 1"
by Sam Stampfer 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear Phenix Community, I am preparing my structure for deposition and ran it through the Generate "Table 1" function in phenix. The inputs I gave it were my .mtz structure factors file, the final pdb coordinate file, and the log file from hkl2000. I did not provide unmerged data. My pdb file (which had been refined using phenix.refine) had values of r_work=0.2342 r_free=0.2603 However, phenix.model_vs_data (from Generate "Table 1") gave me r_work=0.2940 r_free=0.3150 I also got this warning about resolution limits, but I think it should not have affected the R-free calculation to this extent: WARNING: Resolution limits in scaling log for structure A549T are inconsistent with resolution limits in the MTZ file: 50.00 - 3.02 (in logfile) 48.47 - 3.03 (in MTZ file) When I refined my model in phenix, I used the twin law h,-h-k,-l. I read in the documentation that twinning can account for some of this discrepancy, but that the program is supposed to take twinning into account if it will lower the calculated R-work by more than 2%, which it doesn't seem to have done (or there is some other problem with my data). Thanks for your help! -Sam

5 6

den refinement
by Andreas Förster 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear all, I'm trying to get DEN refinement going from the command line. The run aborts quickly with the following error in the log file: Sorry: Cartesian simulated annealing should not be turned on for DEN refinement. Annealing settings are controlled in the den parameter scope. The DEN scope in input.def looks like this: den { reference_file = den_ref_Jun.pdb gamma = 0.5 kappa = 0.1 weight = 30 sigma = 0.44 optimize = True opt_gamma_values = 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 opt_weight_values = 3 10 30 100 300 num_cycles = 12 kappa_burn_in_cycles = 2 bulk_solvent_and_scale = True refine_adp = True final_refinement_cycle = False verbose = False annealing_type = *torsion cartesian output_kinemage = False restraint_network { lower_distance_cutoff = 3 upper_distance_cutoff = 15 sequence_separation_low = 0 sequence_separation_limit = 10 exclude_hydrogens = True ndistance_ratio = 1 export_den_pairs = False den_network_file = None } Annealing type is torsion from what I can tell. What am I doing wrong? (Release tag: 1394, Platform: intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 redhat-e6.2) Thanks. Andreas -- Andreas Förster, Research Associate Paul Freemont & Xiaodong Zhang Labs Department of Biochemistry, Imperial College London http://www.msf.bio.ic.ac.uk

2 6

Discrepancy between phenix.refine and phenix.model_vs_data R-factors
by Abhinav Kumar 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

I am getting a significant difference between the R-factors written by phenix.refine and phenix.model_vs_data. 1. Phenix.refine phenix.refine "in.pdb" "Fobs.mtz" "refinement.input.xray_data.labels=FP SIGFP" "refinement.input.xray_data.high_resolution=2.50" "fix_rotamers=True" "ordered_solvent=True" "strategy=tls+individual_sites+individual_adp" Final R-work = 0.1829, R-free = 0.2141 2. Phenix.model_vs_data phenix.model_vs_data out.pdb Fobs.mtz f_obs_label="FP" r_free_flags_label="FreeR_flag" high_resolution=2.50 comprehensive=true r_work(re-computed) : 0.1808 r_free(re-computed) : 0.2099 How can I reproduce the phenix.refine R-factors in phenix.model_vs_data? -- Thanks, Abhinav JCSG@SSRL, SLAC (650) 926-2992

2 3

phenix elbow: is similar compound helpful to create restraint for new ligand?
by Rongjin 11 Jun '13

11 Jun '13

Hello Phenix users, I have tetrabutylphosphonium in my crystal. I found a similar compound tetrabutylammonium (PDB residue name TBA) which are found in several PDB entries. Usually I draw the new compound in 2-D format and convert to 3D and then create restrain files. In this case, considering N and P are very similar, will the TBS be helpful for elbow to generate restrains for tetrabutylphosphonium? Thanks Rongjin Guan

2 1

Hi
by Wei Shi 10 Jun '13

10 Jun '13

Hi all, I was trying to solve the structure of a protein in several different datasets using xds and phenix. I could solve the structure from one dataset in space group P4. For another dataset, I could solve the structure using the monomer of the structure I got from the first dataset as search model and solve the structure in space group mC. For the third dataset, in IDXREF.LP, the space group of the highest symmetry is hp: 101.2, 101.3, 58.8, 90, 90, 120. According to Mathiews coefficient, 1 monomer is expected in the asymmetric unit. But I couldn't get the molecular replacement solution using the same method as for the second dataset. I also tried several other search models (eg. deletion of the potential flexible region in the search model) and tried to find the solution in all possible pointgroup. I also tried to process the data in oC (C222), the space group of the second highest symmetry in IDXREF.LP, but, still I could not get right molecular replacement solution. I don't whether this means that there is a big conformational change for the structure in the third dataset or the space group I use is not right. Let me know if any of you would have any comments or suggestions for me. Thank you so much! Best, Wei

1 0

Postdoc Position - Berkeley
by Paul Adams 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Postdoctoral Researcher Job ID: 76029 Division: Physical Biosciences (Joint BioEnergy Institute) Date Opened: 6/5/2013 Summary: A postdoctoral position is available at the Joint BioEnergy Institute in Emeryville to work on proteins involved in plant cell wall synthesis. To learn more about JBEI visit: http://www.jbei.org/ Duties: Implementation of methods for the cloning, protein expression, and purification for glycosyl transferases, typically using the Gateway system for gene manipulation. Transformation of host organisms for protein expression, followed by assay of protein expression, and scale up of expression and sample processing (such as deglycosylation). Purification of proteins for biochemical and structural studies. Expression in multiple systems, including E. coli, yeast and insect cells. Qualifications: a Ph.D. in biochemistry, molecular biology, structural biology, or a related field. Demonstrated experience with protein expression, especially in systems other than E. coli. First-author publications demonstrating prior results in the area of protein expression. Experience with cloning methods and protein purification methods. Strong problem solving skills. Solid interpersonal skills and the ability to work in a team environment are critical. Experience with the practical aspects of structure solution by X-ray crystallography would be helpful but not essential. Note that this is a multi-year position that is renewed annually on the basis on performance and continued funding. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a world leader in science and engineering research, with 13 Nobel Prize recipients over the past 75 years, and 57 present members of the National Academy of Sciences. LBNL conducts unclassified research across a wide range of scientific disciplines and hosts four national user facilities. AA/EEO employer committed to the development of a safe and diverse workforce. Learn more at http://www.lbl.gov. To apply visit https://lbl.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobsearch.ftl?lang=en and search for the job number 76029 or visit: https://lbl.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=76029 -- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Division Deputy for Biosciences, Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Laboratory Research Manager, ENIGMA Science Focus Area Building 64, Room 248 Tel: 1-510-486-4225, Fax: 1-510-486-5909 http://cci.lbl.gov/paul Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 64R0121 Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Executive Assistant: Louise Benvenue [ LBenvenue(a)lbl.gov ][ 1-510-495-2506 ] --

1 0

From Dmitri Svergun and Matthias Wilmanns: BSR-2013: Abstract submission deadline is extended until 20th June!
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

11th International Conference: Biology and Synchrotron Radiation (BSR), 8-11 September 2013, EMBL Hamburg, Germany The abstract submission deadline for BSR-2013 is extended until Thursday 20th June, 2013! Biologists, physicists, chemists, from students to principal investigators, are invited to this tri-annual meeting with rich traditions. Do not miss the unique opportunity to present your work, meet colleagues, friends and future collaboration partners from all over the world. Check out our preliminary programme to learn more. BSR 2013 offers a tour of DESY’s most impressive research infrastructures and includes a broad social programme to discover the vibrant city of Hamburg. Accompanying persons will enjoy special rates! Extended deadlines: ·Registration and abstract submission: 20 June 2013 ·Registration without abstract: 15 August 2013 Take a look at the updates BSR webpage ( www.bsr2013.org<http://www.bsr2013.org/>) for more information and to register. CONTACT: Diah.Yulianti(a)embl.de<mailto:[email protected]>, or margret.fischer(a)embl-hamburg.de<mailto:[email protected]> Alternatively, contact us on the event facebook page

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Pseudotranslation issue
by Gino Cingolani 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

Dear Fulvio, We just had a similar problem (further complicated by some twinning). Assuming that: 1. You collected enough data and 2. You don't have a crazy number of molecules in the tetragonal asymmetric unit, I would advice to scale your data in P1 and do MR in P1. Then use conventional refinement + model building to bootstrap a better model (most likely your initial model isn't as good). Rosetta may help, too. Then eventually go back to the tetragonal data with the improved search model and see if LLG and packing make sense. 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 Website: http://www.cingolanilab.org **************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) Fulvio Saccoccia <fulvio.saccoccia(a)uniroma1.it> wrote: >Dear phenixbb, > I have a data set collected at 2.2A resolution that I can integrate >in P4. Aimless, Phaser and Xtriage recognized a pseudotranslation >(34.6% of origin peak) at fractional coordinates 0.500 0.500 0.479 >(ORTH 46.7 46.7 37.4). However labelit.index run with >sublattice_allow=true search did not detect the pseudotranslation >vector. So far, any attempts to phase by molecular replacement was >unsuccesfull and I suspect that it could be due to incorrect assignement >of space group: > >Now, some questions arise: >1) does the pseudo translation exist or do not? >2) if translational NCS is present, could it mimic a P41/P42/P43 space >group? >3) in any case, any advices in order to properly deal with tNCS will be >of great help? > >I thank you in advance >Best wishes > >-- >Fulvio Saccoccia, PhD >Sapienza University of Rome >Dept. of Biochemical Sciences "A. Rossi Fanelli" >Piazzale Aldo Moro, 5 >00185 Rome (Italy) > >_______________________________________________ >phenixbb mailing list >phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for emergent or urgent health care matters.

1 0

Pseudotranslation issue
by Fulvio Saccoccia 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

Dear phenixbb, I have a data set collected at 2.2A resolution that I can integrate in P4. Aimless, Phaser and Xtriage recognized a pseudotranslation (34.6% of origin peak) at fractional coordinates 0.500 0.500 0.479 (ORTH 46.7 46.7 37.4). However labelit.index run with sublattice_allow=true search did not detect the pseudotranslation vector. So far, any attempts to phase by molecular replacement was unsuccesfull and I suspect that it could be due to incorrect assignement of space group: Now, some questions arise: 1) does the pseudo translation exist or do not? 2) if translational NCS is present, could it mimic a P41/P42/P43 space group? 3) in any case, any advices in order to properly deal with tNCS will be of great help? I thank you in advance Best wishes -- Fulvio Saccoccia, PhD Sapienza University of Rome Dept. of Biochemical Sciences "A. Rossi Fanelli" Piazzale Aldo Moro, 5 00185 Rome (Italy)

1 0

rosetta installation problems
by Mengbin Chen 04 Jun '13

04 Jun '13

Dear Phenix Users, I am interested in using Rosetta to do MR, but unfortunately I have encountered some problems in installing it: I was able to get to the step where "scons: done building targets." showed up, and set up the environment by typing setenv /Users/yanghai/Desktop/rosetta-3.5 into the shell. I also filled out the "path to rosetta" in "Preferences" under "PHENIX GUI", which I believe it is correct. However, when I was ready to run MR-rosetta, it kept saying "cannot locate Rosetta programs. You may set the path in PHENIX GUI under preferences->Automation, or define the environment variable PHENIX_ROSETTA_PATH (recommended)". Any help would be apprecited! Thank you in advance, Mengbin Chen -- Mengbin Chen Department of Chemistry University of Pennsylvania

2 2

EG4 not in phenix dictionary?
by Yarrow Madrona 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Hello, I have previously refined EG4 and EG2 (tetra and diethylene glycol) as ligands and these were in the standard phenix library. I was under the impression that phenix shares the library from the CCP4 monomer library which I know should have EG4. Can anyone help me with this. I guess the alternative is to generate a restraints file. -Yarrow -- Yarrow Madrona Graduate Student Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Dept. University of California, Irvine Natural Sciences I, Rm 2403 Irvine, CA 92697

2 1

MAX IV Life Science Director position
by Derek Logan 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Hi, If anyone fancies becoming Life Science Director at the world's brightest light source, look no further than here: http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24914&Dnr=547454&Type=E /Derek ________________________________________________________________________ Derek Logan tel: +46 46 222 1443 Associate Professor mob: +46 76 8585 707 Dept. of Biochemistry and Structural Biology www.cmps.lu.se<http://www.cmps.lu.se> Centre for Molecular Protein Science www.maxlab.lu.se/node/307<http://www.maxlab.lu.se/node/307> Lund University, Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Discrepancy between R-factors from phenix.refine vs phenix Generate "Table 1"
by Michael Thompson 01 Jun '13

01 Jun '13

As another follow up to this point, I have had a recent example where Xtriage reported that my intensity statistics indicated twinning (<|L|>=0.399 and <L^2>=0.227, alpha=0.4). After having refined the structure with the suggested twin law, and making composite omit maps along the way (using autobuild with no twin law), I ran model vs. data at the end of refinement and noticed that it reported R/Rfree that were about 10% higher than the R/Rfree from refinement, similar to what the original post described. I checked the model vs. data logfile and found that the L-test routine used by model vs. data was failing, so the subsequent analysis was carried out as if there was no twinning. So in my case, the crystal was twinned, but model vs. data was not able to perform the L-test so it was outputting incorrect R-factors. The error message at the top of the model vs. data log file is: Twin analysis failed: Python argument types in l_test.__init__(l_test, miller_index, double, space_group, bool, float, float, float, int) did not match C++ signature: __init__(_object*, scitbx::af::const_ref<cctbx::miller::index<int>, scitbx::af::trivial_accessor> miller_indices, scitbx::af::const_ref<double, scitbx::af::trivial_accessor> intensity, cctbx::sgtbx::space_group space_group, bool anomalous_flag, long parity_h, long parity_k, long parity_l, unsigned long max_delta_h) Twin analysis failed: Python argument types in l_test.__init__(l_test, miller_index, double, space_group, bool, float, float, float, int) did not match C++ signature: __init__(_object*, scitbx::af::const_ref<cctbx::miller::index<int>, scitbx::af::trivial_accessor> miller_indices, scitbx::af::const_ref<double, scitbx::af::trivial_accessor> intensity, cctbx::sgtbx::space_group space_group, bool anomalous_flag, long parity_h, long parity_k, long parity_l, unsigned long max_delta_h) Perhaps there are some other users who are seeing this behavior because the L-test fails within model vs. data. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathaniel Echols" <nechols(a)lbl.gov> To: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:18:57 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Discrepancy between R-factors from phenix.refine vs phenix Generate "Table 1" On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Sam Stampfer <Samuel.Stampfer(a)tufts.edu> wrote: > When I refined my model in phenix, I used the twin law h,-h-k,-l. I read in > the documentation that twinning can account for some of this discrepancy, > but that the program is supposed to take twinning into account if it will > lower the calculated R-work by more than 2%, which it doesn't seem to have > done (or there is some other problem with my data). Okay, the problem is that your data don't actually appear to be twinned. The automatic method used by phenix.model_vs_data (which is used internally for Table 1 and the validation GUI) only tries possible twin laws if the results of the "L test" show a suspicious distribution of intensities. Your data look fine, so it doesn't bother trying the twin laws. That the R-factors are lower when you refine with a twin law isn't necessarily indicative of the data actually being twinned - Garib Murshudov has looked into this in detail but I confess to being ignorant of the math (but I can probably dig up his paper on the subject if anyone is interested). However, I'm pretty sure the data are actually in a higher-symmetry space group. Will send details and new files off-list (probably tomorrow at this rate). I should probably change some of the programs and/or documentation to make it more clear what is being done internally, since it took me a bit of digging to realize what was going on. In general, though, always be very careful before running twinned refinement! I have seen several users do this by mistake when they really had higher symmetry. The maps will also be more model-biased when using twinned refinement, so it's good to avoid doing this unless absolutely necessary. -Nat _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb -- Michael C. Thompson Graduate Student Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Division Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles miket(a)chem.ucla.edu

4 4

Re: [phenixbb] refinement of partly occupied water molecules?
by krimmer＠staff.uni-marburg.de 31 May '13

31 May '13

Dear Nathaniel, dear Pavel, thank you for your fast answers! > currently phenix.refine can add automatically only fully occupied > waters (I am not sure it will ever use atomic model for partially > occupied waters). If necessary, add partially occupied waters > yourself manually. Make sure they have properly set altlocs > (alternative location identifiers): non blank (say A and B). Is it current praxis to let phenix.refine freely refine the occupancy of water molecules (adding partially occupied water molecules in coot and don’t fix the occupancy in phenix)? If I do so, these water molecules are refined by phenix.refine with occupancies between 0.4-0.8. My resolution range was 1.1 – 1.4 Å. > The nightly builds have an option in phenix.refine to place ions > automatically based on a variety of criteria (still being tuned). > However, what you describe doesn't sound like any ion coordination > motif that I've read about. Could you please send us a picture that > shows the density in context? Some of the other readers with more > experience in "blobology" may recognize it. [if our list server > complains about the size of the message, just ignore it, I'll approve > it for posting] Attached you will find the image of the blob. I think it’s easily visible that the density blob is in the middle of the five-ring and that there is also a (smaller) blob in the middle of the six-ring. The water which occupies the blob was not yet refined with phenix, I just put it there to measure the distances to the carbon atoms. Best regards, Stefan

2 1

gap between Wilson B and average B
by fn1＠rice.edu 30 May '13

30 May '13

Dear all, I have a structure at about 3.5 A, which has a wilson B of about 109 and has an average B factor from model is only 49 (I did not use TLS). I read from the previous posts that wilson B is sometimes smaller than average B, but in my case it is reversed. I look at the distribution of model B factors, they are in the range of 8 to 132. Is there any problem with the refinement of this structure? Thanks in advance for all advice! Regards, Fengyun

2 3

refinement of partly occupied water molecules?
by krimmer＠staff.uni-marburg.de 30 May '13

30 May '13

Dear all, I have a question concerning the refinement of partly occupied water molecules: in some of my macromolecular crystal structures with resolutions between 1.1 - 1.4 Å, mainly in the second solvation shell round positive Fo-Fc electron density blobs are detectable which show after assignment of a water molecule to these blob and subsequent refinement with Phenix refine a good-looking calculated 2Fo-Fc electron density (round shape, the 2Fo-Fc map appears at a contour level of σ = 1.0 - 1.4), but there also occurs a small negative Fo-Fc electron density detectable inside the 2Fo-Fc density blob. The negative Fo-Fc electron density disappears if the occupancy of the water molecule is refined by Phenix or manually set lower than 100% occupancy. Therefore, I think these positions are partly occupied by water molecules, but I am not sure how I should handle it/how it is generally handled. I would be thankful for any advice and/or literature about this topic. My second question is concerning a density blob in perfect coordination distance to an indolyl group (perfectly located in the middle of the five-ring, with 3.4 Å distance to every of the five carbon atoms of the five-ring). What‘s the best way to find out which ion possibly occupies this position? I tried Na+ and Ca2+, but after refinement big negative Fo-Fc blobs appear in both cases (maybe the ion at this position is only partly occupied?). There is no anomalous signal detectable at this position (data collection wavelength was 0.91841 nm). After the refinement of a water molecule at this position, a positive Fo-Fc election density is still there. Thank you for your help! Stefan

3 2

R-merge
by Mengbin Chen 30 May '13

30 May '13

Dear Phenix Users, I have R-merge values equal 0.000 from highest resolution shell (which corresponds to values larger than 1.000) in a data set processed by HKL2000, with redundancies higher than 10 (I know this may help in increasing R-merge). I am not sure if this is going to be a problem of Table 1 for the reviewers. Could you kindly drop me your suggestions? Thank you in advance, Mengbin Chen -- Mengbin Chen Department of Chemistry University of Pennsylvania

5 9

phenix.refine using anomalous concepts for neutron data?
by Derek Logan 29 May '13

29 May '13

Hi, I'm doing a joint X-ray neutron refinement in Phenix and have run into some behaviour that puzzles me. I had not been paying any attention to the use or non-use of anomalous signal in the neutron dataset, as This is what I get if I let phenix.refine itself decide whether or not to use anomalous data: ================================= Neutron data ================================ F-obs: neutron.mtz:FO,SIGFO,DANO,SIGDANO,ISYM Miller array info: neutron.mtz:FO,SIGFO,DANO,SIGDANO,ISYM Observation type: xray.reconstructed_amplitude Type of data: double, size=16672 Type of sigmas: double, size=16672 Number of Miller indices: 16672 Anomalous flag: True Unit cell: (removed) Space group: P 21 21 21 (No. 19) Systematic absences: 0 Centric reflections: 1258 Resolution range: 29.22 1.89826 Completeness in resolution range: 0.785008 Completeness with d_max=infinity: 0.78486 Bijvoet pairs: 6832 Lone Bijvoet mates: 1750 Anomalous signal: 0.0876 Number of F-obs in resolution range: 16672 Number of F-obs<0 (these reflections will be rejected): 0 Number of F-obs=0 (these reflections will be used in refinement): 0 Refinement resolution range: d_max = 29.2200 d_min = 1.8983 and this is what I get if I forcibly switch off use of anomalous data in the phenix.refine GUI: ================================= Neutron data ================================ F-obs: neutron.mtz:FO,SIGFO,DANO,SIGDANO,ISYM Miller array info: neutron.mtz:FO,SIGFO,DANO,SIGDANO,ISYM Observation type: xray.reconstructed_amplitude Type of data: double, size=16672 Type of sigmas: double, size=16672 Number of Miller indices: 16672 Anomalous flag: True Unit cell: (removed) Space group: P 21 21 21 (No. 19) Systematic absences: 0 Centric reflections: 1258 Resolution range: 29.22 1.89826 Completeness in resolution range: 0.785008 Completeness with d_max=infinity: 0.78486 Bijvoet pairs: 6832 Lone Bijvoet mates: 1750 Anomalous signal: 0.0876 force_anomalous_flag_to_be_equal_to=False Reducing data to non-anomalous array. R-linear = sum(abs(data - mean(data))) / sum(abs(data)) R-square = sum((data - mean(data))**2) / sum(data**2) In these sums single measurements are excluded. Redundancy Mean Mean Min Max Mean R-linear R-square unused: - 29.2234 bin 1: 29.2234 - 4.0863 1 2 1.699 0.0240 0.0011 bin 2: 4.0863 - 3.2448 1 2 1.793 0.0302 0.0022 bin 3: 3.2448 - 2.8350 1 2 1.800 0.0417 0.0041 bin 4: 2.8350 - 2.5760 1 2 1.764 0.0486 0.0054 bin 5: 2.5760 - 2.3914 1 2 1.745 0.0505 0.0051 bin 6: 2.3914 - 2.2505 1 2 1.717 0.0513 0.0051 bin 7: 2.2505 - 2.1378 1 2 1.658 0.0533 0.0056 bin 8: 2.1378 - 2.0448 1 2 1.614 0.0611 0.0074 bin 9: 2.0448 - 1.9661 1 2 1.575 0.0634 0.0075 bin 10: 1.9661 - 1.8983 1 2 1.485 0.0736 0.0097 unused: 1.8983 - Fobs statistics after all cutoffs applied: Miller array info: None Observation type: xray.amplitude Type of data: double, size=9840 Type of sigmas: double, size=9840 Number of Miller indices: 9840 Anomalous flag: False Unit cell: (removed) Space group: P 21 21 21 (No. 19) Systematic absences: 0 Centric reflections: 1258 Resolution range: 29.22 1.89826 Completeness in resolution range: 0.855801 Completeness with d_max=infinity: 0.855503 What's going on here? If I let phenix.refine decide automatically, it looks like it's reading in F+ and F- separately and regarding them as independent in the refinement. If I force "no anomalous" it merges them. However I can't work out whether in either case it has actually read FOBS instead of the Friedel mates. According to the SCALA manual the I+ and I- columns will always be written out even if the keyword ANOMALOUS OFF is used, so this is a potential pitfall for many. In addition, phenix.refine seems to identify the neutron data first as xray.reconstructed_amplitude then as xray.amplitude even though the data are explicitly defined as neutron data in the GUI. I can send more information if required! Thanks Derek ________________________________________________________________________ Derek Logan tel: +46 46 222 1443 Associate Professor mob: +46 76 8585 707 Dept. of Biochemistry and Structural Biology www.cmps.lu.se<http://www.cmps.lu.se> Centre for Molecular Protein Science www.maxlab.lu.se/node/307<http://www.maxlab.lu.se/node/307> Lund University, Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden www.saromics.com<http://www.saromics.com>

3 5

Structure Comparison questions
by Heather Condurso 29 May '13

29 May '13

Dear all, I have a few related structures that I would like to compare to make figures for publication but I have a few issues. The biggest issue is that my structures are large (12- 422aa chains) and any attempt at simple alignment in pymol results in a crash. I would like to first compare entire structures, but also compare the differences between related chains in the same structure. I want to look at the small differences in the active site density. What is the best way to do this? Is there a simple way to do this or do I need to make separate pdb files for each chain? Can I use the same mtz or should I rename copies? I will try a few things but any advice would be greatly appreciated. Heather condurso(a)bc.edu

6 8

R: problem refining RNA structure at 4Å resolution
by fulvio.saccoccia＠uniroma1.it 29 May '13

29 May '13

Any signs of twinning? Check also the correctness of your space group: probably you could index In a lower symmetry Laue group with a slight increased distorsion index. Fulvio ----Messaggio Originale---- Da: Benoît Masquida Inviato: 29/05/2013, 14:53 A: PHENIX user mailing list Oggetto: [phenixbb] problem refining RNA structure at 4Å resolution Dear phenix users, I solved using MR a low resolution RNA structure taking data up to 4.3Å and a model of a structure with slight differences. However, when I try to refine, Rwork decreases quickly (start 47, final 32 but Rfree remains high (start 48, final 44). The data are pretty good up to 4.0 with I/sigma above 1. The map doesn't point clearly to wrong regions of the model. What can I try to improve the maps and build the correct model? Thanks in advance. Benoit _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

1 0

problem refining RNA structure at 4Å resolution
by Benoît Masquida 29 May '13

29 May '13

Dear phenix users, I solved using MR a low resolution RNA structure taking data up to 4.3Å and a model of a structure with slight differences. However, when I try to refine, Rwork decreases quickly (start 47, final 32 but Rfree remains high (start 48, final 44). The data are pretty good up to 4.0 with I/sigma above 1. The map doesn't point clearly to wrong regions of the model. What can I try to improve the maps and build the correct model? Thanks in advance. Benoit

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] paired refinement in phenix gui
by Kay Diederichs 28 May '13

28 May '13

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 15:08:26 -0700, Nat Echols wrote: >> >It would be nice if you could confirm if my settings are ok, or if there are >> >still some settings in the background which I overlooked, because we see >> >small changes in R and Rfree. > Changes relative to what? It is not expected that feeding the output > PDB file back to phenix.refine (or another program) will exactly > reproduce the R-factors from the previous round of refinement, because > the precision of the atomic parameters is limited by PDB format. > (Using mmCIF instead would be more reliable, but we don't think a > change in R-factor of 0.0004 is worth worrying about anyway.) > >> >I added the model refined at higher resolution (e.g. 1.5A) and the mtz file >> >cut at CC (e.g.1.5A) in the ?Input data? tab, and set High resolution cutoff >> >in ?X-ray data and experimental phases? box to (e.g. 1.8A) >> >In the refinement setting strategy tab I uncheck everything and set Number >> >of cycles = 1. >> >In ?other options? I uncheck everything too. > This sounds correct, but it's much easier to simply run the validation > GUI, because the underlying code (specifically phenix.model_vs_data) > is designed to calculate identical R-factors to what phenix.refine > shows you. From what I've seen, recent phenix.model_vs_data works correctly and reproduces the statistics from phenix.refine within the numerical accuracy that one can expect. > >> >Alternatively adding a file to the input data with > I don't recommend this - using parameter files as input is fine for > large repetitive parameter blocks such as custom geometry restraints, > selections from the TLSMD server, or nucleic acid base pairs, but > anything that attempts to override the controls in the main GUI may > not work. > >> >2. For whatever reason I would like to do that (molprobity) - can I (and how >> >can I do this) add the command line commands also in the gui? > Could you please clarify? > >> >3. In december 2012 there was a discussion about weak data and refinement. I >> >would like to know if there are new data available showing that ?Whether the >> >benefit they describe is considered cosmetic or non-trivial,.....? > Maybe Kay could comment on this... There is not a single answer that fits all situations. When done correctly (e.g. keeping Rfree flags, keeping refinement strategy), in those cases that I looked at, using weak reflections (cutoff at <I/sigma>~0.5 to 1, cc1/2~0.15-0.25) improved the model's Rfree at lower resolution (paired refinement!) by a few percent, compared to cutting the data at I/sigma>2. Just try it and see if the improvement is worth it, according to your own judgement! > >> >4. Additionally could one short comment on what phenix is doing with strong >> >(weak) reflections marked as aliens in XDS. > Assuming that XDS doesn't actually remove these, phenix.refine may or > may not discard them at the outlier filtering stage (which can be > disabled). I don't know how the different methods for flagging > suspect resolutions compare; Kay and/or Pavel would know more about > this. The "Alien" list in CORRECT.LP was only (originally) meant to alert the user to ice reflections, zingers, and cosmic rays (not sure if the latter play a role, but the former certainly do!). If the "Alien" list just shows reflections at very high resolution, in low-<intensity> resolution shells, then this is due to the fact that Wilson statistics does not hold in these shells, and therefore the algorithm for deciding about "Aliens" is no longer valid. If this happens, you should (as identified in analysis together with James Holton) prevent CORRECT from marking "Aliens" as outliers by changing REJECT_ALIEN from 20 (the default) to 100 or so. Otherwise the mean intensity in that resolution shell will drop (due to rejecting the strongest reflections), and that is bad for applying the Wilson&French algorithm. The XDSCONV in the latest XDS package (identifying itself as March-30-2013) has two fixes for dealing with weak data (again, based on an exchange with James Holton). Unfortunately, a small bug (affecting very few datasets) was identified by Graeme Winter (thanks!) in the XDS program of that package, so be prepared to download the XDS package again in a few days. hope that helps, Kay > >> >According to the supplementary of P. Andrew Karplus, Kay Diederichs ?Linking >> >Crystallographic Model and Data Quality? >> >I would like to do >> >anisotropic refinement, with additional options >> >?ordered_solvent.new_solvent=anisotropic >> >adp.individual.anisotropic="not element H" >> >fix_rotamers=True?. > If your resolution really is 1.5?, I wouldn't recommend making waters > anisotropic. There is some difference of opinion whether anisotropic > refinement of protein atoms is acceptable; it's probably good to try > both ways. (It would be interesting to know whether including the > weak high-resolution data allows you to parameterize the model more > aggressively.) > > -Nat > -- Kay Diederichs http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de email: Kay.Diederichs(a)uni-konstanz.de Tel +49 7531 88 4049 Fax 3183 Fachbereich Biologie, Universität Konstanz, Box M647, D-78457 Konstanz This e-mail is digitally signed. If your e-mail client does not have the necessary capabilities, just ignore the attached signature "smime.p7s".

1 0

PDB deposition
by Kay Diederichs 28 May '13

28 May '13

Dear Phenix developers, the following questions came up today, during an attempt to answer the questions that the PDB asks at deposition time: a) For Bulk solvent modeling, what should be given as value for K sol and B sol ? My understanding is that the new solvent model does no longer result in these values; the table is Total model structure factor: F_model = k_total * (F_calc + k_mask * F_mask) k_total = k_isotropic * k_anisotropic Resolution Compl Nwork Nfree R_work <Fobs> <Fmodel> kiso kani kmask 37.014-13.525 85.34 95 4 7.2146 38.755 318.867 0.937 1.000 0.300 13.240-10.663 91.82 91 10 7.1453 40.328 328.027 0.901 1.000 0.309 10.640-8.570 93.27 202 6 7.4011 38.069 318.901 0.905 1.002 0.310 8.548-6.875 95.70 380 21 7.2679 31.166 258.647 0.901 1.000 0.309 6.871-5.523 95.40 731 36 7.1964 29.485 241.669 0.908 1.001 0.302 5.520-4.439 90.49 1347 61 7.3445 39.504 329.514 0.934 1.001 0.281 4.438-3.568 92.52 2610 150 7.3166 41.793 347.063 0.961 1.000 0.280 3.567-2.867 94.10 5191 231 7.2983 33.593 278.704 0.965 1.000 0.024 2.867-2.304 92.97 9835 476 7.3098 23.922 198.755 0.984 1.000 0.000 2.304-1.852 92.81 18869 947 7.3097 18.746 155.751 1.053 1.000 0.000 1.852-1.488 90.33 35341 1797 7.3288 10.914 90.931 1.035 0.999 0.000 1.488-1.196 86.49 64979 3561 7.2975 6.848 56.810 1.028 0.998 0.000 1.196-1.081 53.28 29672 1567 7.1776 5.351 43.737 0.986 1.000 0.000 Approximation of k_total with k_overall*exp(-b_overall*s**2/4) k_overall=1.0149 b_overall=-0.0072 So what can we do here? b) there is the question about Overall Anisotropic values B11; B22; B33; B12; B13; B23.... but the logfile offers overall anisotropic scale matrix: V0: -0.0214,0.0415,-0.0249,0.0006,-0.0515,-0.0161 V1: -0.0055,-0.0022,0.0080,-0.0001,-0.0020,0.0011 So which of these should be given? I've tried to locate the information about these two questions in the documentation, but it seems I missed it! thanks, Kay

2 1

command line molprobity tools
by Engin Özkan 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi everybody, I want to create a comprehensive, human-readable log file by running validation using molprobity tools within phenix command-line. I do not have structure factors/maps. Apparently, the GUI runs validation through phenix.model_vs_data (according to the .eff file), but in command-line, I cannot get phenix.model_vs_data to run without an mtz/hkl. I guess I could provide it a fake data file, and then set the comprehensive flag to "True"? BTW, the log file produced by the GUI is not comprehensive at all. I could not find a related mmtbx or cctbx function either. Another mentioned tool, phenix.validate, does not even exist in my installation (dev 1361). Thanks, Engin -- Engin Özkan Post-doctoral Scholar Laboratory of K. Christopher Garcia Howard Hughes Medical Institute Dept of Molecular and Cellular Physiology 279 Campus Drive, Beckman Center B173 Stanford School of Medicine Stanford, CA 94305 w ph: (650)-498-7111 cell: (650)-862-8563

4 13