- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Phenix for Ubuntu 12.04
by Kay Diederichs 23 Jan '13

23 Jan '13

Dear all, coming from RedHat Linux, I have a difficult time to install the latest nightly phenix build on a 64bit Ubuntu 12.04 LTS notebook. (I must confess that I did not try any older or stable releases, like 1.8.1) The reason why I did not install SL6 on the notebook is that it comes with Windows installed on fake RAID. Since I don't want to get rid of Windows completely, and thus can only take half of the disk for Linux, I wanted to use Ubuntu which offers an alternate installer supporting fake RAID. I tried the FC3 binary installer (which is offered by default), as well as the FC8 FC12 FC14 installers. Installation works, but upon startup libjpeg.so.62 is missing (libjpeg.so.80 is installed but they are incompatible). So I tried the source installer, but that fails with ERROR: installation of xrender failed ERROR: installation of xft failed ERROR: installation of cairo failed ERROR: installation of pango failed ERROR: installation of gtk failed ERROR: installation of gtk-engine failed ERROR: installation of wxgtk failed ERROR: installation of wxpython failed So I believe I should apt-get install certain packages. Does anyone know which ones? thanks, Kay -- 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".

2 1

Problems with occupancy summation when more than two alt. conf.
by Haim Rozenberg 23 Jan '13

23 Jan '13

Hello, It seems that after "refine", the summation of occupancies is not always equal to 1.00 when more than two alternative conformations are defined in the pdb. In recently refined structures we were surprise to find 1.01 instead of 1.00 (Big deal ??? Yes, for the deposition/validation!). We didn't find any warning nor error messages in the corresponding log files. (phenix.refine: 1.8.1_1168) or newer, on Mac as well as Linux machines. Best regards, Haim ============================================ Haim Rozenberg, PhD. Department of Structural Biology Kimmelman Building Weizmann Institute of Science 76100 Rehovot, Israel Phone: +972-8-9344289 FAX:+972-8-9344136 E-Mail: haim.rozenberg(a)weizmann.ac.il ============================================ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" D.I. Iuvenalis

2 1

structure factors for PDB deposition
by wtempel 22 Jan '13

22 Jan '13

Hello all, based on ${prefix}_001_f_model.mtz from phenix.refine, I would like to prepare a cif file with structure factors. FOBS, SIGFOBS, R_FREE_FLAGS, FMODEL, PHIFMODEL, FOM are available in (+) and (-) versions, presumably representing Bijvoet pairs. My questions are: 1) are FMODEL, PHIFMODEL the most appropriate columns for calculated amplitudes and phases for the purpose of PDB deposition? 2) I understand that the PDB sf_tool does not accommodate separate (+)/(-) columns for some of the items. A job for phenix.reciprocal_space_arrays and a reflection file without anomalous differences? Alternatively, I imagine that phenix has a tailored procedure just for the preparation of PDB deposition, but I may not have used the correct web search terms to find the instructions. Thank you in anticipation, Wolfram Tempel

4 3

fwd: WCPCW 21 - registration deadline!
by Nathaniel Echols 21 Jan '13

21 Jan '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Williams, John Charles" <jwilliams(a)coh.org> To: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Cc: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:16:14 -0800 Subject: WCPCW 21 - registration deadline! Dear All, Today is technically the last day of standard registration rates. I have had a couple of emails this morning asking for extra time (approval by business manager, etc.). To accommodate everyone, we will extend the rate standard rates until Wednesday, Jan 23rd. Also, please submit your abstract soon. We have a significant number of people already registered and will have have to select abstracts for oral presentations. Best, John

1 0

Structure minimization for model with rigid body
by danashah＠post.tau.ac.il 18 Jan '13

18 Jan '13

Hi all, We're interesting in performing a structure minimization for a model, while treating a part of the model as a rigid body. Is there an option for that on PDB tools via geometry minimization? Or is there another way to do that? Thank you, Dana. __ Dana Sachyani Joel Hirsch's Lab Faculty of Life Sciences Tel Aviv University Ramat Aviv, Israel e-mail: danashah(a)post.tau.ac.il

3 2

Bug squash request
by Antony Oliver 17 Jan '13

17 Jan '13

Dear Phenix-developers, I've noticed a slightly annoying "feature" when using a reference model to help in refinement of low-resolution structures. phenix.refine seems to take it's crystal parameters and space-group from whichever PDB was loaded last, even after setting one PDB as the "reference model" and the other as the "Input model". When running phenix.refine it gives you a nice error message telling you that the space group information is incorrect, and that you may have used the reference model's parameters by mistake… But surely, it should just (by default) only take (check?) the cell parameters and space group information from the "Input PDB"? With thanks, Tony. --- Dr Antony W Oliver Senior Research Fellow CR-UK DNA Repair Enzymes Group Genome Damage and Stability Centre Science Park Road University of Sussex Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RQ email: antony.oliver(a)sussex.ac.uk tel (office): +44 (0)1273 678349 tel (lab): +44 (0)1273 677512

2 1

Still can't get refinement of anomalous groups to work
by Brennan Bonnet 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

Hi all, I'm still working on this pesky anomalous group refinement problem. Originally, the problem was that the output from AutoBuild no longer retained the anomalous data. To fix this, I used the Phenix reflection file editor and combined exptl_fobs_phases_freeR_flags.mtz (which is automatically entered as input when running phenix.refine from AutoBuild) with the F+ F- values from my original reflection data. Now when I try to run refinement I get this error message: "This model appears to have previously been refined against a different set of R-free flags. Please resolve the mismatch." I find this strange since I am only modifying the file that phenix.refine tries to use anyway. How do I fix this problem? Thanks, ~Brennan~

2 5

18 Days to the deadline: Please apply for RapiData 2013, a course on Data Collection and Structure Solving at the NSLS.
by Robert Sweet 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

We are offering RapiData 2013, the fifteenth offering of our popular course: Rapid Data Collection and Structure Solving at the NSLS: A Practical Course in Macromolecular X-Ray Diffraction Measurement The course will be held 21-26 April 2013: http://www.bnl.gov/RapiData/. Students could be at any level from advanced undergraduate to full professor. The course should accommodate 48 students total. We encourage all students to bring their own specimens for data collection, and to bring old data for the data-reduction and structure-solving tutorials. Please read the Course Announcement at http://www.bnl.gov/RapiData/. You'll see that many experts in the field will be available for lectures and tutorials. You'll find the application materials on the Course Application tab at this site. For the eleventh time we will hold a short lecture course on the fundamentals of crystallography for roughly five hours on Sunday 21 April. The body of the RapiData course really requires that students have a healthy knowledge of crystallography. For potential students who have some experience but are shaky about fundamentals, this course will help. There will be a small additional fee for the fundamentals course, to pay for Saturday night accomodations and food on Sunday morning and noon. Latin American Scientists: Several scholarships are available, from the International Union of Crystallography, to pay partial travel and subsistence costs for Latin-American students and junior faculty (under 40 yrs). Please apply for the course, and then contact R. Sweet (sweet(a)bnl.gov) if you are interested in applying for a scholarship. In accordance with the standards of the International Union of Crystallography, we observe the basic policy of non-discrimination, affirming the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as citizenship, religion, creed, political stance, ethnic origin, race, colour, language, age, or gender, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science. At this course no barriers will exist beyond the application procedure that would prevent the participation of bona fide scientists. Please apply or send your students to our course, Bob Sweet, Sonya Kiss, and Alex Soares Course Announcement at http://www.bnl.gov/RapiData/ ========================================================================= Robert M. Sweet E-Dress: sweet(a)bnl.gov Group Leader, PXRR: Macromolecular ^ (that's L Crystallography Research Resource at NSLS not 1) http://px.nsls.bnl.gov/ Photon Sciences and Biology Dept Mail Stop, Bldg 463 Brookhaven Nat'l Lab. Phones: Upton, NY 11973 631 344 3401 (Office) U.S.A. 631 344 2741 (Facsimile) =========================================================================

1 0

how to modify C-D bond length restraints in phenix?
by Maxime Cuypers 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

Hi, i am refining a perdeuterated neutron structure and have noticed a lot of positive density aside the D atoms on aliphatic and aromatic side chains. just in the alignment of C-D bonds (C-D then +), suggesting that phenix.refine constraints these bond lengths too short in my case. i tried automatic weights for geometry refinement and unrestrained specific C-D refinement but it is not satisfactory. then i found the following funny distances (angströms) in the pdb database neutron structures: 3KYX: program: Phenix.refine D-prot Distances: C-D aromatics = 0.93-0.94 C-D aliph. = 0.98 1CQ2 Program : xplor3.1 D-protein (despite the atoms being labelled as H according to abstract) Distances: C-D aromatics = 1.06-1.08 C-D aliph. = 1.08 4FC1 H-protein Distances: program: Phenix.refine C-H aromatics = 0.93 C-H aliph. = 0.97 1VCX H-protein program: CNS Distances: C-H aromatics = 1.06-1.10 C-H aliph. = 1.09 those neutron C-D/C-H bond lengths in pdb seem pretty much inconsistentto me. So it seems that phenix.refine uses C-D/ C-H bonds restrains that are different to other programs to below 1.0 Ang. ( ca. 0.10 A differences) how can i change the restraints to make it all longer bond lengths for C-D only? with a .cif file? i saw that phenix uses the CCP4 monomer library but the one in : /usr/local/phenix-.../chem_data/mon_lib/list only seem to be applying modifications. any clue on how to specifically modify the restraints parameters on C-D bonds would be very appreciated. Thanks, Maxime

2 4

Macromolecular Crystallography School announcement : 2013 in Uruguay
by Alejandro Buschiazzo 16 Jan '13

16 Jan '13

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the *second Macromolecular Crystallography School 2013 *at the Institut Pasteur de Montevideo (Uruguay). All details can be found at www.pasteur.edu.uy/mx2013 <http://www.pasteur.edu.uy/mx2013> *Title:* "Macromolecular Crystallography School 2013: From data processing to structure refinement and beyond" *Dates:*April 9th-17th, 2013. *Site:*Institut Pasteur de Montevideo (Montevideo), Uruguay *The workshop content:* Conceived to provide theoretical background and hands-on abilities in the use of computational tools to exploit X ray diffraction data. Through lectures, tutorials and hands-on trouble-shooting, the students will be trained in state-of-the-art macromolecular crystallography. Particular emphasis will be given to data processing, phasing/structure determination and model refinement/validation. The workshop will feature authors and experts of many modern crystallographic software packages. This workshop represents the continuation within the series started in 2010 (http://www.pasteur.edu.uy/mxcourse) on Macromolecular Crystallography. In this opportunity it is being co-organized by the Center for Structural Biology of the Mercosur CeBEM (www.cebem.org.ar <http://www.cebem.org.ar>), jointly with the Collaborative Computational Project Number 4 (CCP4 -- UK www.ccp4.ac.uk <http://www.ccp4.ac.uk>). Support from the Institut Pasteur International Network, the International Union of Crystallography and Institut Pasteur de Montevideo is also greatly acknowledged. *Applicants:* Graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and young scientists are encouraged to apply. Only 20 applicants will be selected for participation. Participants of the workshop are strongly encouraged to bring their own problem data sets so they can be used during the workshop's hands-on sessions. There is no registration fee. Support for accommodation, per diem and local transportation will be provided to all participants from abroad. Support to cover travel expenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Specific requests should be well-grounded as we will only be able to select a limited number. *Application:* Application *deadline is February 10, 2013*. Application form, the program, contact info and other details can be found at www.pasteur.edu.uy/mx2013 <http://www.pasteur.edu.uy/mx2013> Please address further inquiries to mx2013(a)pasteur.edu.uy <mailto:[email protected]> Ronan Keegan and Alejandro Buschiazzo -- Alejandro Buschiazzo, PhD Research Scientist Unit of Protein Crystallography Institut Pasteur de Montevideo Mataojo 2020 Montevideo 11400 URUGUAY Phone: +598 25220910 int. 120 Fax: +598 25224185 http://www.pasteur.edu.uy/pxf

5 14

Heavy atoms outside of molecule
by Brennan Bonnet 15 Jan '13

15 Jan '13

Hi all, Is there an option in Phenix that will fix the heavy atom positions so that they are at their equivalent positions within the molecule? Thanks Brennan

2 3

P3 pseudotranslation
by Ethayathulla A.S 15 Jan '13

15 Jan '13

Hello I am trying to solve a structure with P3 Pseudotranslation at 3.5A. The 3.5 dataset have cell of 150,150,200 and 5A dataset have smaller cell 150,150, 100. The data can be scaled in P321, p3221,p3121 with similar rsym (6 (54). Pointless gave me Spacegroups as P3221 or P3121 as soln. I tried Phenix.xtriage it showed me 40% Pseudotranslation peak ( 0,0,0.5) for 3.5A dataset as the c-axis is double that of 5A data. According to cell content analysis it can be dimer in 3.5A and monomer for 5A dataset. So I tried MR with both datasets with homology model build using similar fold protein. I got solns for dimer with LLGs with 1000's in P3221,P3121,P321 with 3.5A dataset. There were 28 solutions ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SOLU SET RFZ=2.0 TFZ=8.2 PAK=0 LLG=259 TFZ==11.3 LLG=1181 TFZ==28.4 ( SOLU SPAC P 32 2 1) SOLU 6DIM ENSE partial EULER 94.4 2.7 25.5 FRAC -0.07 -1.07 -0.81 BFAC -1.00 Solution #2 annotation (history): SOLU SET RFZ=2.0 TFZ=8.2 PAK=0 LLG=225 LLG=1066 ( SOLU SPAC P 31 2 1) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So I refined the solns. of P3221, p321 it refined to 44/54 after that it doesn’t go down. The 0.5 Pseudotranslated molecule can been as symmetry molecule along c-axis. The packing looks very good. I have attached the image of it with native patt map. I deleted one monomer and refined to check the solution I could see clearly see the other molecule. I could see 2n+1 odd reflections to be weak. To check whether two fold can be due to twinning due to pseudotranslation I could not observe it. So I tried to see check whether the it can be P32 merohedral twinning with pseudotranslation with twinning of 0.36 (h,-h-k,-l) from yeates server. I try to use the dimer of P3212 and try for alternative spacegroup which yield me unique soln in P32. I refined the molecule four molecule which yielded me 46/49 and when I apply twinning fraction the r-factor decreases to 40/45. Similarly for 4.5A dataset I used dimer of 3.4 dataset dimer which yield me solution in P32 but cannot refine it gets struck for 45/50.I tried to use the dimer with 5A dataset I get unique solu and refine with merohedral twinning the r/freeR goes to 38/57. How I can check whether it is P32 merohedral twinning with Pseudotranslated or P3221. Also the patterson analysis another peak of height 4% ( 0.050, 0.102, 0.495 ) : 4.452 . Is it significant ? Any suggestion will be helpful Thank you Abdul ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Patterson analyses from phenix.xtriage Frac. coord. : 0.000 0.000 0.500 Distance to origin : 103.157 Height (origin=100) : 40.427 p_value(height) : 2.740e-04 The full list of Patterson peaks is: x y z height p-value(height) ( 0.000, 0.000, 0.500 ) : 40.427 (2.740e-04) ( 0.050, 0.102, 0.495 ) : 4.452 (9.782e-01) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- *********************************************** Dr. A.S. Ethayathulla Dept of biophysics AIIMS, new delhi ***********************************************

2 1

fwd: Annual CCP4 summer school in USA, at APS, June 18-26
by Nathaniel Echols 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri)" <nukri(a)aps.anl.gov> To: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:46:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: Annual CCP4 summer school in USA, at APS, June 18-26 Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the sixth annual CCP4 summer school at Advanced Photon Source (APS), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). All details can be found at http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/schools/APS-2013/index.php Title: "CCP4 school: From data collection to structure refinement and beyond" Dates: June 18 to 26. Site: Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (Near Chicago), USA The school content: Data collection workshop the first two days: beamline training and data collection on GM/CA-CAT beamlines 23ID-B and 23ID-D. For data collection, only the participants' crystals will be used. Software workshop: The rest of the time after data collection will feature many modern crystallographic software packages taught by authors and other experts. It will be organized in three Sections – lectures, tutorials and hands-on trouble-shooting. There will be model data sets available for tutorials but data, provided by participants, will have higher priority for the hands-on sessions. Applicants: Graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and young scientists at the assistant professor level are encouraged to apply. Only 20 applicants will be selected for participation. Participants of the workshop are strongly encouraged to bring their own problem data sets or crystals so the problems can be addressed during data collection workshop and/or hands-on sessions. Application: Application deadline is April 5. The application form, the program, contact info and other details can be found at http: http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/schools/APS-2013/index.php Fees: There is no fee for the workshop. The students will be responsible for their transportation and lodging. The workshop organizers will arrange economical lodging at the Argonne Guest House. The workshop will also cover the expenses for all meals and refreshments. Garib, Ronan and Nukri Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri) Macromolecular Crystallographer GM/CA@APS X-ray Science Division, ANL 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne, IL 60439 Tel: (630)252-0665 Fax: (630)252-0667 rsanishvili(a)anl.gov

1 0

Ligand building/refinement woes
by Machius, Mischa Christian 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

I seem to be having the hardest time building/refining NADPH (PDB code NAP). When fetching this common ligand from within coot, Phenix (1.81-1168) subsequently does not seem to accept it and bombs noting all kinds of violations. When I have Phenix automatically build NAP into the density, it does place NAP (albeit completely out of otherwise quite nice density). When I then take the coordinates, read them into coot together with the CIF that Phenix writes into the ligand_build directory, placing and refinement in coot works well, but subsequent refinement in Phenix, using the very same CIF, again bombs. Since hydrogens are often an issue when going from coot to Phenix I remove them before running Refine. I have also tried just refining the coordinates as they came out of ligand_build. But Phenix still bombs and doesn't seem to accept its own CIF. I would have thought that a ligand as common as NAP wouldn't require a lot of gymnastics, perhaps not even reading CIF information, and that it would go all automatically.That's probably too optimistic on my part. It's probably something silly, but I can't figure out what it is. Any ideas? Many thanks in advance, MM

3 4

Fwd: WCPCW21
by Nathaniel Echols 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Williams, John Charles" <jwilliams(a)coh.org> To: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:29:12 -0800 Subject: WCPCW21 Dear All, The West Coast Protein Crystallography Workshop is rapidly approaching. The standard rates close Jan 21st. Also, we are now able to accept credit cards. Due to IT security issues, the CC number needs to be called in to Ariadna Bello, senior secretary in Dept of Molecular Medicine, City of Hope. Finally, please submit your abstracts as soon as possible as we will start to select oral presentations. Best, John

1 0

Electron Density
by CPMAS Chen 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

Thanks, Nat, If the density level(map or coefficient) of phenix is not an absolute level, then I really do not need to worry what shows up by coot. I used the Fourier map generated by phenix, .mtz file. Thanks! 6. density level (CPMAS Chen) > 7. Re: density level (Nathaniel Echols) > 9. Re: density level (Pavel Afonine) > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:21:00 -0800 > From: Nathaniel Echols <nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] density level > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1Mty9= > U-CFcmhJ1ZRWAiuXMeOS0RHVT4YtXpOVBO0EDyQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:38 AM, CPMAS Chen <cpmasmit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I recently updated my old phenix-1.6.4-486 to phenix-dev-1266. To my > > surprise, the absolute electron density on the 2Fo-Fc map is quite > > different. > > The electron density maps (or coefficients) generated by Phenix are > not on an absolute scale, and the values displayed by Coot are more or > less irrelevant. The scaling method changed significantly between > 1.6.4 and 1.8, so I'm not surprised that the map levels did too. > > > By the way, is there a simple way to keep only F and SIGF column of the > > autoxds generated truncate.mtz via phenix? the GUI does not allow to > reduce > > columns. I normally use IMEAN and SIGIMEAN to do refinement, but this may > > not be necessary as it is pointed in the maillist, since the intensity is > > already transformed to amplitude after truncation in autoxds. > > > > I can specify labels by xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF", but apparently > phenix > > treats it as containing anomalous data. the following is extracted from > the > > refine pdb file > > > > MIN(FOBS/SIGMA_FOBS) : 1.16 > > REMARK 3 COMPLETENESS FOR RANGE (%) : 97.11 > > REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS : 143207 > > REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS (NON-ANOMALOUS) : 73247 > > > > Also, in the auto generated def file, > > xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF, DANO, SIGDANO" > > This is intentional - why would you want to throw out information? > However, you can always use either the reflection file editor (in the > latest builds) or the French & Wilson GUI to convert IMEAN to F. > > > -Nat > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:19:17 -0800 > From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] density level > Message-ID: <50F39555.8000000(a)lbl.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, > > what kind of file you use to see the map in Coot: Fourier map > coefficients (MTZ file) or actual map (CCP4 binary formatted file with > the map)? I need to know this before offering a first guess on what may > be the reason for this. > > Pavel > > On 1/13/13 11:38 AM, CPMAS Chen wrote: > > Dear PhenixBBer, > > > > I recently updated my old phenix-1.6.4-486 to phenix-dev-1266. To > > my surprise, the absolute electron density on the 2Fo-Fc map is quite > > different. > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/prs0z8ayb73kg9k/Screenshot_sigma.png > > > > At the same sigma level(1.5), the absolute density of the violet map > > is 0.32e/A^3 (phenix-dev-1266), while that of the blue map is > > 0.01e/A^3(phenix-1.6.4-486). Besides the different phenix used, there > > is no other difference on the data and model used. > > > > Sam encountered a similar problem on the density. > > > > http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2012-December/019226.html > > > > By the way, is there a simple way to keep only F and SIGF column of > > the autoxds generated truncate.mtz via phenix? the GUI does not allow > > to reduce columns. I normally use IMEAN and SIGIMEAN to do refinement, > > but this may not be necessary as it is pointed in the maillist, since > > the intensity is already transformed to amplitude after truncation in > > autoxds. > > > > I can specify labels by xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF", but apparently > > phenix treats it as containing anomalous data. the following is > > extracted from the refine pdb file > > > > MIN(FOBS/SIGMA_FOBS) : 1.16 > > REMARK 3 COMPLETENESS FOR RANGE (%) : 97.11 > > REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS : 143207 > > REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS (NON-ANOMALOUS) : 73247 > > > > Also, in the auto generated def file, > > xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF, DANO, SIGDANO" > > > > Or there is a work round for this issue? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > > > *************************************************** > > > > Charles Chen > > > > Research Associate > > > > University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine > > > > Department of Anesthesiology > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > phenixbb mailing list > > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > >

1 0

density level
by CPMAS Chen 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

Dear PhenixBBer, I recently updated my old phenix-1.6.4-486 to phenix-dev-1266. To my surprise, the absolute electron density on the 2Fo-Fc map is quite different. https://www.dropbox.com/s/prs0z8ayb73kg9k/Screenshot_sigma.png At the same sigma level(1.5), the absolute density of the violet map is 0.32e/A^3 (phenix-dev-1266), while that of the blue map is 0.01e/A^3(phenix-1.6.4-486). Besides the different phenix used, there is no other difference on the data and model used. Sam encountered a similar problem on the density. http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2012-December/019226.html By the way, is there a simple way to keep only F and SIGF column of the autoxds generated truncate.mtz via phenix? the GUI does not allow to reduce columns. I normally use IMEAN and SIGIMEAN to do refinement, but this may not be necessary as it is pointed in the maillist, since the intensity is already transformed to amplitude after truncation in autoxds. I can specify labels by xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF", but apparently phenix treats it as containing anomalous data. the following is extracted from the refine pdb file MIN(FOBS/SIGMA_FOBS) : 1.16 REMARK 3 COMPLETENESS FOR RANGE (%) : 97.11 REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS : 143207 REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS (NON-ANOMALOUS) : 73247 Also, in the auto generated def file, xray_data.labels = "F, SIGF, DANO, SIGDANO" Or there is a work round for this issue? Thanks! -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

3 2

Refining anomalous groups
by Brennan Bonnet 12 Jan '13

12 Jan '13

Hi All, I hope everyone had relaxing holidays to begin the new year. I am back to work trying to refine anomalous groups using phenix.refine. I have managed to merge my files so that my exptl_fobs_phases_flags_1_with_hl_anom.mtz now contains F(+), SIGF(+), F(-), SIGF(-). Now I have a new problem which was not occurring before the break. Usually I check the box for "Anomalous groups", then select "Modify selections for: Anomalous groups" which brings up a screen for atom selection and definition of f' and f''. In the past, clicking on the View/pick button launches Coot for selection of the atoms. Sadly, now clicking on the View/pick doesn't launch Coot and instead crashes Phenix. Does anyone else have this problem or know how to fix it? Please help! Thanks, ~Brennan~

4 13

Problem rebuilding ligand structure
by bsubedi＠btk.fi 11 Jan '13

11 Jan '13

Hi, I am using Phenix 1.0-1069 for refinement and coot 0.7-pre-1 for visualization and rebuilding. I used SMILES in coot to build the ligand and then merged them with PDB.I had to do this as a separate step for both chains and the .cif file so produced was not accepted for refinement. I used readyset to obtain the restrains for refinement using .pdb file, even though my refinement works, when i try to run real build refine in coot I get this error message: Failed to match (to the dictionary) the following model atom names: HB3 O6 C10 C11 C12 O7 C13 O5 C8 C9 ...... That would cause exploding atoms, so the refinement didn't start. Could someone help me with fixing this problem. Best regards, Bishwa

4 3

symmetry related bond restraint in R3 space group
by Xiang Li 11 Jan '13

11 Jan '13

I am trying to add some restraints between symmetric molecule with symmetry operation. However, I found it is not correct to use the operation information directly provided in Coot. The crystal I worked on has R3 symmetry. The symmetry operation in Coot shows to be -x+y,-x,z+ (1,1,0) and it did not work in Phenix refine. I read one previous email on this topic about the difference of symmetry operation in Coot and Phenix. However, I do not know how to do the conversion between the two when the numbers changed. Could you help me to work out on correct the symmetry operation in Phenix and talk some more on how to do the conversion please? I really appreciate your help! Sincerely, Xiang

2 1

AutoSol error
by Luca Pellegrini 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

AutoSol (phenix 1.8.1-1168) stops at the build stage with the following message: *** ERROR MESSAGE: The cell appears to have changed during the run Original cell: [49.22, 91.325, 103.285, 113.16, 97.64000000000001, 76.74] New cell : [49.173301696777344, 92.32479858398438, 103.37100219726562, 66.54070281982422, 82.29070281982422, 76.58550262451172] If running from a script, please specify the space group in the input file. The incorrect space group may be coming from another wizard... *** Can you please advice as to what might be wrong? I am running AutoSol from the GUI and it did pick up the space group from the mtz file. What AutoSol refers to as the 'new cell' is actually my original cell. I was running two AutoSol jobs simultaneously from two mtz files with the same cell dimensions, and they both failed with the same message. Thanks, Luca Luca Pellegrini Department of Biochemistry University of Cambridge 80 Tennis Court Road Cambridge CB2 1GA - UK Email: lp212(a)cam.ac.uk Tel: 0044-1223-760469 Fax: 0044-1223-766002 Sanger building, room 3.59

3 3

DEN refinement and reference model
by Luca Pellegrini 08 Jan '13

08 Jan '13

Phenix.den_refine (1.8.1-1168) stops and complains that: "Sorry: Reference model contains SEGIDs that do not match the working model." I have four chains in both working and reference model, ordered in the same way (A to D). Chains A and C are the same molecule, and chains B and D are also the same. Can you please advice? Some of the chains in the reference model contain more residues, is this a problem? Thanks for your help. Luca Luca Pellegrini Department of Biochemistry University of Cambridge 80 Tennis Court Road Cambridge CB2 1GA - UK Email: lp212(a)cam.ac.uk Tel: 0044-1223-760469 Fax: 0044-1223-766002 Sanger building, room 3.59

2 2

dev-1261 wizard.test fail
by Morten Groftehauge 08 Jan '13

08 Jan '13

Hi guys, I just updated Rosetta to 3.4 and it seems to have compiled correctly (at least no error interruptions). I've done this enough to not be satisfied by that and ran > phenix_regression.wizards.test_command_line_rosetta_quick which goes past the Rosetta tests correctly but fails at ================================================================= Running test_prerefine ------------------------------------------------------------ Numbers do not match: 0.47825 0.53601 r {{ 0.87799 0.06946 -0.47362} {-0.02049 0.99396 0.10779} { 0.47825 -0.08494 0.87411}} --- r {{ 0.84375 0.06393 -0.53291} {-0.02789 0.99676 0.07541} { 0.53601 -0.04877 0.84280}} ------------------------------------------------------------ FAILED See log files test_prerefine/test_prerefine.log test_prerefine/test_prerefine_current.log ================================================================= Running test_prerefine_double OK ================================================================= Running test_prerefine_no_data ------------------------------------------------------------ Numbers do not match: 0.47825 0.53601 r {{ 0.87799 0.06946 -0.47362} {-0.02049 0.99396 0.10779} { 0.47825 -0.08494 0.87411}} --- r {{ 0.84375 0.06393 -0.53291} {-0.02789 0.99676 0.07541} { 0.53601 -0.04877 0.84280}} ------------------------------------------------------------ FAILED See log files test_prerefine_no_data/test_prerefine_no_data.log test_prerefine_no_data/test_prerefine_no_data_current.log ================================================================= When I look in the log there are no error messages. I don't need to prerefine so I'm good but I still find it weird. I tried again with Rosetta 3.3 and got no error flags. Is it because the quick tests are checking the result against the results that you got earlier and the algorithm has been changed between 3.3 and 3.4? Cheers, Morten PS Really enjoyed the talks at the CCP4 study weekend. -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

3 4

mr_rosetta and disulphide bonds
by Morten Groftehauge 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

Hello again, I forgot my important question in all my "this seems to be working but the test says it doesn't"-drama: How do I specify disulphide bonds for MR_rosetta? I know it keeps them if they are in the input model but disulphides are generally poorly conserved, especially in the %identity range where mr_rosetta is the most useful. According to the changelog this feature should be available in the latest dev. Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

2 2

Ph.D. position at Lund University
by Derek Logan 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

A 4-year PhD position is available in the groups of Dr. Derek Logan and Prof. Ulf Ryde at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Structural Biology and the Dept. of Theoretical Chemistry at Lund University, Sweden. The project is sponsored by the European Spallation Source and will also involve the participation of ESS scientists. The PhD student will work on structural and theoretical studies of protein-ligand interactions, using the carbohydrate binding protein galectin-3 as a model system. Structural studies will be conducted principally using neutron crystallography in combination with X-ray crystallography at very high resolution (< 0.9 Å). The work will include production of crystals of suitable size for neutron diffraction, data collection at various neutron sources around the world, data processing and modelling. The theoretical studies will be conducted in Ulf Ryde's group at Theoretical Chemistry. We will develop methods to combine crystallographic refinement and quantum mechanical calculations. In addition, we perform molecular dynamic simulations and estimates of binding affinities using free-energy perturbation. The project is part of a larger network at Lund University including organic chemists, medical scientists and NMR experts, dedicated to a fundamental understanding of protein-ligand interactions in general and galectin inhibition in particular. The candidate must have bachelor's degree in an appropriate subject (preferably chemistry) and should ideally have previous experience in structural biology, both theoretical and practical. The candidate should also have good knowledge of theoretical chemistry. Experience of quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and simulations is an advantage. The deadline for application is 31st January 2013. For more information on the eligibility requirements, please see: http://admin.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=22598&Dnr=511988&Type=E Application should be made using the link in the right hand column of this web page. For informal enquiries on the project contact: Derek Logan, Associate professor +46 46-2221443 derek.logan(a)biochemistry.lu.se Ulf Ryde, Professor +46-2224502 ulf.ryde(a)teokem.lu.se http://www.cmps.lu.se/ http://www.teokem.lu.se/ http://www.chem.lu.se/People/galectins_in_Lund/ http://www.esss.se

1 0