- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Inconsistent R-factors in PDB file
by Schubert, Carsten [PRDUS] 30 May '11

30 May '11

Hi, Not sure if this has been asked before but recently I noticed phenix seems to report inconsistent R-values after each refinement. The final values reported in the screen output after refinement match the values reported in the 'Quick Facts' section, but are not matched by the values in the PDB deposition section. Attached is an example: ... REMARK ******************** REFINEMENT SUMMARY: QUICK FACTS ******************* REMARK Start: r_work = 0.1907 r_free = 0.2151 bonds = 0.004 angles = 0.727 REMARK Final: r_work = 0.1838 r_free = 0.2141 bonds = 0.005 angles = 0.832 REMARK ************************************************************************ ... REMARK IF THIS FILE IS FOR PDB DEPOSITION: REMOVE ALL FROM THIS LINE UP. REMARK 3 REMARK 3 REFINEMENT. REMARK 3 PROGRAM : PHENIX (phenix.refine: 1.7.1_743) REMARK 3 AUTHORS : Adams,Afonine,Chen,Davis,Echols,Gopal, REMARK 3 : Grosse-Kunstleve,Headd,Hung,Immormino,Ioerger,McCoy, REMARK 3 : McKee,Moriarty,Pai,Read,Richardson,Richardson,Romo, REMARK 3 : Sacchettini,Sauter,Smith,Storoni,Terwilliger,Zwart REMARK 3 REMARK 3 REFINEMENT TARGET : ML REMARK 3 REMARK 3 DATA USED IN REFINEMENT. REMARK 3 RESOLUTION RANGE HIGH (ANGSTROMS) : 1.950 REMARK 3 RESOLUTION RANGE LOW (ANGSTROMS) : 37.113 REMARK 3 MIN(FOBS/SIGMA_FOBS) : 1.33 REMARK 3 COMPLETENESS FOR RANGE (%) : 92.21 REMARK 3 NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS : 29410 REMARK 3 REMARK 3 FIT TO DATA USED IN REFINEMENT. REMARK 3 R VALUE (WORKING + TEST SET) : 0.1894 REMARK 3 R VALUE (WORKING SET) : 0.1877 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE : 0.2122 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET SIZE (%) : 6.74 REMARK 3 FREE R VALUE TEST SET COUNT : 1982 For regular work I really don't care as long as the values are consistent and tell me if the refinement reached convergence, but for a deposition it matters a bit more. So which values should I report for a paper? Cheers, Carsten

2 1

Iterative build composite omit hanging
by José Trincão 30 May '11

30 May '11

Hello, I tried to run an iterative build composite omit for my protein - P1, 1350 residues/monomer, 4 molecules in the A.U.. After about 1.5 weeks running almost all was done except one omit region which was stuck. I had two processes running indefinitely (reduce and python) with no output. I tried to rerun that region alone but it gets stuck also with reduce producing no output. What should I do to get the complete map (I am going to merge all the other regions together, but would like to know why this particular one is problematic). Thanks! Jose José Trincão, PhD CQFB@FCT-UNL 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal "It's very hard to make predictions... especially about the future" - Niels Bohr

2 1

isotropic
by ChenTiantian 30 May '11

30 May '11

-- Drug Discovery and Design Center, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences Address: Room 101, 646 Songtao Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, 201203, P.R. China

1 0

sigmaA-weigted 2FoFc maps by only mtz file
by zhangh1＠umbc.edu 27 May '11

27 May '11

Hi, If I only provide a mtz file with Fo, Fc and phase data, and do NOT have the pdb file, can any phenix utility calculate the sigmaA-weigted 2FoFc maps? Thanks! Hailaing

2 6

SA omit map for ligand
by Tjaard Pijning 27 May '11

27 May '11

Hi, I am trying to make an SA-omit Fo-Fc map for a sugar ligand (chain B) bound to protein (structure solved by MR), without doing any rebuilding of protein or ligand – just calculate an Fo-Fc map that I can load into PyMol. So far I used the AutoBuild – Create omit map module with these settings : - input files : model (protein+ligand+waters), data (.mtz), restraints for sugar ligand (.cif) - omit map type : simulated annealing - omit region : omit selection - omit map options : keep input waters, omit chain list : omit_chain_list chainB However, the ligand gets modified even though I use “omit_chain_list chainB”. What are the parameters to set to keep the model (protein, ligand, waters) from being rebuilt ? Furthermore, what is the procedure to load the SA Fo-Fc omit map into pymol ? Phenix version is 1.6.4-486. Thanks in advance, Tjaard Ing. Tjaard Pijning Research Assistant Protein Crystallography Group Nijenborgh 7 9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands (31)(0)50 363 43 85

4 3

get_cc_mtz_pdb results
by Jerome Nwachukwu 27 May '11

27 May '11

Hi: I am using get_cc_mtz_pdb to compare some structural models and found differences in overall CC around ~0.0056 and local CC around 0.0033. How much difference in local and overall CC values between two models is generally considered significant? Thank you, -Jerome Jerome C. Nwachukwu, PhD Dept. of Cancer Biology The Scripps Research Institute-Florida 130 Scripps Way, 2C1 Jupiter, FL 33458

2 2

a new PDB clustering tool available in phenix from nightly build dev-756
by Francois Berenger 26 May '11

26 May '11

Dear Phenix users, Starting from the nightly build dev-756, a new clustering tool called DURANDAL is included in Phenix. It performs exact clustering of proteins in PDB format, fast. It is primarily aimed at people working in protein structure prediction and having to deal with a lot of protein models. The correspondence used to compute CARMSD for a pair of proteins is 1 to 1. If two proteins A and B are to be optimally superposed, both PDB files (A.pdb and B.pdb) must have the same numbers of alpha carbons. The first alpha carbon in A.pdb will be matched to the first alpha carbon in B.pdb, and so on. Clustering up to 20,000 PDB files should work on most machines. Workstations with a lot of memory will be able to cluster even more files. Examples: --------- * to perform exact clustering using a fixed cutoff value of 3.0 Angstroms: durandal.cluster_pdbs -i [file_containing_one_PDB_filename_per_line]\ -d 3.0 -o out -s -v * there is also another tool included, to compute CARMSD of many files versus a reference one (the first in the list is considered the reference): durandal.rank_pdbs [file_containing_one_PDB_filename_per_line] If you want to know more about how the software is working, you can have a look at http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/7/939 Don't hesitate to ask if you encounter any problem while using the software. Best regards, Francois Berenger.

1 0

ADP refinement
by Christian Roth 26 May '11

26 May '11

Dear all, I am sorry for this very stupid question, but I probably overlooked the relevant text in the documentation. I requested the refinement of a heavy atom (chloride) with anisotropic ADP. In the log than isotropic refined ADP were set for 0 atoms. I guess I have to define all other chains as isotropic. Is that right. I have a lot of chains, it would be possible but a pain (more than 40 chains). Is there a something like refine anisotropic chain x and all others isotropic? Thanks and best Regards Christian

2 1

Quick PHENIX install question
by Yuri 26 May '11

26 May '11

Hello PHENIXers, I just got a computer with Red Hat workstation 5 running 64-bit architecture. Which build should I install? Thank you -- Yuri Pompeu

2 1

Equations of transformation
by Hena Dutta 25 May '11

25 May '11

Dear Members, Sorry, if my question is out of the field. I want to know the mathematical relations between 2 sets of co-ordinates, one before and one after the rotation. I used COOT to rotate the side chain (containing atoms N1, C2, N3, C4, C5, C6, N6, N7 and C8) of Adenine by 180 degree about the glycosidic bond (C1’-N9). How the initial co-ordinates (Xi, Yi, Zi) and final co-ordinates (Xf, Yf, Zf) are mathematically related? I shall be very grateful if someone can tell me the equations. Regards... Hena

5 4

Refining sucrose
by Priit Eek 23 May '11

23 May '11

Hi, I couldn't find this (probably basic knowledge) in the manual or here, so... I have a problem with refining a sucrose ligand. It is not covalently bound to the protein – just electrostatic interaction. The density isn't the best, but it's still obvious it must be there. LigandFit can find the blob and fits the sucrose in there quite well, but when I run phenix.refine it distorts the geometry of the molecule and complains about it later in MolProbity - Basic Geometry validation in almost every possible way. How can I apply more stringent restraints to the ligand so its geometry wouldn't get so twisted? This might not be the most appropriate list for my second question, but the problem is the same and somebody probably knows: how to manually modify that sucrose in Coot (eg rotate only one ring or a -CH2OH group) or perform real space refinement? Right now I can only rotate/translate the whole sucrose and trying to perform a real space refinement results in an error ("Failed to match (to the dictionary) the following model atom names: SUC C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 O1 O2 O3 O4 O6. That would cause exploding atoms, so the refinement didn't start.") I haven't specified any custom cif libraries as SUC should be present in the built-in library of both Phenix and Coot. I'm using Phenix v1.7.1-743 and Coot v0.6.2-pre-1-rev3450 on OS X 10.6.7. Thank you in advance! Regards, Priit Eek

2 1

Call for articles and short communications for Computational Crystallography Newsletter
by Nigel Moriarty 23 May '11

23 May '11

Dear Colleagues I'm accepting short communications and articles of general interest to crystallographers working on macromolecular systems for the next issue of the Computational Crystallography Newsletter. You can see recent issues at http://www.phenix-online.org/newsletter/ as well as the word template for article submission. The deadline is June 17th but early submission is appreciated. Nigel -- Nigel W. Moriarty, PhD Building 64R0246B, Physical Biosciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720-8235 Phone : 510-486-5709 Email : NWMoriarty(a)LBL.gov Fax : 510-486-5909 Web : CCI.LBL.gov

1 0

Weird R-free discrepancy.
by Yuri 21 May '11

21 May '11

I was working on a model for at 1.9 A using the previous phenix release (650). I was almost finished r-free was 0.197. I installed the newest release and refined again and my r-free went up to 0.228!!. The values for bsol and ksol look significantly different. I do not understand where the biggest difference is coming from... Below I pasted part of the .log files. Old and new, respectively. =============================== refinement start ============================== ----------structure factors based statistics (before refinement)---------- ----------X-ray data---------- |--(resolution: 1.90 - 28.74 A; n_refl. = 32203)------------------------------| | | | r_work= 0.1747 r_free= 0.1967 ksol= 0.40 Bsol= 39.70 scale= 0.064 | | | | overall anisotropic scale matrix (Cartesian basis; B11,B22,B33,B12,B13,B23):| | (-1.65,-1.65,3.31,-0.00,0.00,0.00); trace/3= -0.00 | | | | maximum likelihood estimate for coordinate error: 0.21 A | | x-ray target function (ml) for work reflections: 2.567485 | =============================== refinement start ============================== ----------structure factors based statistics (before refinement)---------- ----------X-ray data---------- |--(resolution: 1.90 - 28.74 A; n_refl. = 34277)------------------------------| | | | r_work= 0.1911 r_free= 0.2279 ksol= 0.40 Bsol= 59.62 scale= 0.063 | | | | overall anisotropic scale matrix (Cartesian basis; B11,B22,B33,B12,B13,B23):| | (-1.73,-1.73,3.47,0.00,0.00,-0.00); trace/3= 0.00 | | | | maximum likelihood estimate for coordinate error: 0.55 A | | x-ray target function (ml) for work reflections: 2.591014 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| -- Yuri Pompeu

2 1

BRU error
by Krystle Williams McLaughlin 20 May '11

20 May '11

Hi, I'm using phenix for refinement and I keep getting an error. My DNA strand has a bromo-uridine in it and phenix.refine keeps crashing on this nucleotide. Here is the error: Number of atoms with unknown nonbonded energy type symbols: 40 "ATOM 2770 P BRU P 5 .*. P " "ATOM 2771 O1P BRU P 5 .*. O " "ATOM 2772 O2P BRU P 5 .*. O " "ATOM 2773 O5* BRU P 5 .*. O " "ATOM 2774 C5* BRU P 5 .*. C " "ATOM 2775 C4* BRU P 5 .*. C " "ATOM 2776 O4* BRU P 5 .*. O " "ATOM 2777 C1* BRU P 5 .*. C " "ATOM 2778 N1 BRU P 5 .*. N " "ATOM 2779 C6 BRU P 5 .*. C " ... (remaining 30 not shown) Here is what I have in my pdb: ATOM 2901 P BRU E 5 33.977 -16.324 24.303 1.00 27.21 P ATOM 2902 O1P BRU E 5 34.027 -15.724 22.919 1.00 28.22 O ATOM 2903 O2P BRU E 5 33.857 -15.340 25.393 1.00 25.06 O ATOM 2904 O5* BRU E 5 32.721 -17.236 24.418 1.00 28.02 O ATOM 2905 C5* BRU E 5 32.487 -18.228 23.495 1.00 28.50 C ATOM 2906 C4* BRU E 5 31.047 -18.347 23.082 1.00 32.59 C ATOM 2907 O4* BRU E 5 30.337 -18.858 24.152 1.00 28.61 O ATOM 2908 C1* BRU E 5 29.369 -17.891 24.535 1.00 29.63 C ATOM 2909 N1 BRU E 5 29.279 -17.855 25.962 1.00 29.72 N ATOM 2910 C6 BRU E 5 30.426 -17.755 26.799 1.00 30.57 C ATOM 2911 C5 BRU E 5 30.251 -17.738 28.232 1.00 30.89 C ATOM 2912 BR BRU E 5 31.869 -17.591 29.321 1.00 57.08 Br ATOM 2913 C4 BRU E 5 28.917 -17.845 28.826 1.00 30.70 C ATOM 2914 O4 BRU E 5 28.768 -17.825 30.033 1.00 29.36 O ATOM 2915 N3 BRU E 5 27.785 -17.945 27.981 1.00 29.36 N ATOM 2916 C2 BRU E 5 27.961 -17.966 26.552 1.00 29.05 C ATOM 2917 O2 BRU E 5 26.994 -18.064 25.848 1.00 35.29 O ATOM 2918 C3* BRU E 5 30.464 -17.006 22.751 1.00 34.58 C ATOM 2919 C2* BRU E 5 29.845 -16.605 23.968 1.00 33.10 C ATOM 2920 O3* BRU E 5 29.526 -17.213 21.768 1.00 37.93 O I have already run a BRU molecule through ReadySet and when I use the cif file generated from this phenix.refine will run through but when the Bromine atom is in the structure has a large negative density peak in the Fo-Fc map. I think it may just be a naming thing. BRU is already in the monomer library so I don't understand why I get an error at first also without the readyset cif file. Any suggestions? Thanks, Krystle

2 1

Phenix 1.7 with Rosetta and PBS/Torque
by Jeremy Mann 20 May '11

20 May '11

Reading the documentation is is unclear with queue system will work with Phenix 1.7. qsub is mentioned but not referred as the qsub from Torque/PBS or qsub from Grid Engine. Which qsub are the developers referring to? -- Jeremy Mann jeremy(a)biochem.uthscsa.edu University of Texas Health Science Center Bioinformatics Core Facility http://www.bioinformatics.uthscsa.edu Phone: (210) 767-3419 ^^^^^^^^ ** NEW OFFICE NUMBER **

3 3

map error?
by Christian Roth 19 May '11

19 May '11

Dear all, I got a error message in the last round of phenix.refine which seesm to be related to map or mtz file creation (error.txt attached). I used the GUI and I unchecked the map creation option in ccp4 or Xplor before I started the run. I am not sure whats going wrong here. Please could you point me to the problem. Best regards Christian

3 2

AutoSol
by Nora Cronin 19 May '11

19 May '11

Whilst I can input SAD SAD data ie two different SAD datasets using Group =1 and Group =2 with the "Wavelength" keyword, how do I input 2 different crystals using the "crystal_info" keyword which does not recognize Group = Inputting .sca unmerged anomalous data how do I input data for 2 different crystal_info keywords with different heavy atoms and different unit cells? thanks Nora Dr N B Cronin X-Ray Laboratory Manager Tel. (+44) 020 7153 5445 Section of Structural Biology Fax. (+44) 020 7153 5457 Chester Beatty Laboratories mobile: (+44) 07787554059 The Institute of Cancer Research 237 Fulham Road London SW3 6JB The Institute of Cancer Research: Royal Cancer Hospital, a charitable Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England under Company No. 534147 with its Registered Office at 123 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3RP. This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer and network.

3 3

mr_rosetta on a supercomputer
by Patricia Amara 18 May '11

18 May '11

Hello, I have been trying to run phenix.mr_rosetta on a supercomputer where we are limited to 24h for parallel jobs and we have different queues for job mono. Thus to run we have two files. We do not really understand how the code proceeds with nproc so we just put 6 for now. When we sent it, it created 1000 jobs on MR_ROSETTA_1/GROUP_OF_PLACE_MODEL_1/RUN_1/GROUP_OF_ROSETTA_REBUILD_1/RUN_1/REBUILD_IN_SETS_1 it sent 10 jobs mono, but ran only 5 first than the other five. Then the job running the script hangs. when we looked at the log files in the MR_ROSETTA_1/GROUP_OF_PLACE_MODEL_1/RUN_1/GROUP_OF_ROSETTA_REBUILD_1/RUN_1/REBUILD_IN_SETS_1 directories it filled up only 4 if we re-run only 3 and never the same. do you have any idea what we're doing wrong? thanks in advance for your input Patricia Amara ps; Thus to run we have two files. One to send the script #!/bin/bash #MSUB -e ros1_%I.e #MSUB -o ros1_%I.o #MSUB -n 6 #MSUB -T 86400 cd /scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA ./rosetta.run and the script itself: phenix.mr_rosetta \ seq_file=/scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA/NADA.seq \ data=/scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA/NadA-7-BM16-remote-no_ano-P21212-Rfree_shell.mtz \ search_models=/scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA/model_2.pdb \ run_prerefine=True \ number_of_prerefine_models=1000 \ fragment_files = /scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA/aat000_03_05.200_v1_3.gz \ fragment_files = /scratch/cont003/amara/Rosetta-NadA/aat000_09_05.200_v1_3.gz \ rescore_mr.relax=False \ rosetta_models=20 \ ncs_copies=3 \ space_group=p21212 \ use_all_plausible_sg=False \ max_wait_time=100 \ nproc=6 \ group_run_command= "/usr/share/lsf/7.0/linux2.6-glibc2.3-x86_64/bin/bsub -n 1 -q mono -W 03:00"

2 1

phenix.model_vs_data enhancement request
by Schubert, Carsten [PRDUS] 17 May '11

17 May '11

Hi Pavel, do you think it would be possible to extend the statistics printed out by phenix.model_vs_data, so it also does a break-down by chains? Right now the stats are listed by residue type, i.e. protein/ligand/solvent/etc. For instance if I am interested in the B-factors of a glycosylated protein with ligands, the sugars and ligands all get muddled together. Breaking this down by chains as well would allow for finer control. Cheers, Carsten

2 1

Polygon graphs
by Tanner, John J. 17 May '11

17 May '11

Does anyone know whether the polygon graphs from the following paper were ever incorporated into phenix? Crystallographic model quality at a glance Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2009 March 1; 65(Pt 3): 297300. -- John J. Tanner Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Missouri-Columbia 125 Chemistry Building Columbia, MO 65211 Phone: 573-884-1280 Fax: 573-882-2754 Email: tannerjj(a)missouri.edu http://www.chem.missouri.edu/TannerGroup/tanner.html

2 1

Phenix Refine
by Thomas C. Terwilliger 16 May '11

16 May '11

Hi Haytham, This means that you have two atoms in your pdb file that both have the name BR PDB F 1 You can find these with: grep 'BR' my_pdb_file.pdb |grep BR Let me know if that doesn't do it! All the best, Tom T >> when i refine using phenix.refine i get this error >> >> number of groups of duplicate atom labels:1 >> total number of affected atoms: 2 >> group "HETATM 3466 BR PDB F 1 .*. BR " "HETATM 3467 BR PDB F 1 .*. BR " >> >> could you please tell me what is that >> >> Haytham Wahba >> PhD stu >> UdeM >> >>

1 1

Postdoctoral positions in structural biology
by Protein Crystallography 15 May '11

15 May '11

Postdoctoral positions are available immediately in the *Structural Biology Laboratory* headed by *Dr. C. S. Raman* at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Research in the Raman laboratory combines structural, biophysical, biochemical, and cell biological approaches to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying cellular signaling. The laboratory is equipped with state-of-the-art equipment for fermentation, high-throughput protein expression, purification, crystallization (liquid handlers for screen generation and optimization, Mosquito LCP robot, and crystal imaging systems), X-ray diffraction, and high definition mass spectrometry (Synapt G2 HDMS). In addition, we have ready access to synchrotron facilities. For a representative example of our work, please consult*:* *Nature 455: 363-368*. Applicants should hold a PhD in biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, molecular biology, or a closely related field. Applicants should have experience in protein crystallography as well as a good publication record. Strong background in protein expression and biophysical characterization is essential. Expertise in membrane protein purification is a plus. Furthermore, strong communication skills in oral and written English are required. To apply, please, send a letter of interest, a CV, and names of three references by e-mail to: craman(a)rx.umaryland.edu

1 0

missing/extra atoms in phenix.refine
by R.M. Garavito 13 May '11

13 May '11

We are trying to finish up the refinement on two structures, but we have run into a strange problem that I have never seen before. So we need to ask the Phenix experts. As background, we recently solved the structure of an 808 residue enzyme, which crystallizes as a tetramer. In the asymmetric unit there are two tetramers (>6400 residues, ~52,000 atoms, but 67% solvent). After SAD phasing and autobuild (many kudos to the Phenix team), we were able to trace easily the chain in two different ligand complexes, one at 2.85 Å and the other at 2.8 Å. Although the C-terminal domains are quite well resolved (and obey 222 NCS), the first domain (~110 residues out of 808) is a bit disordered and shows some conformational differences between each monomer. While the main chain in this domain can be traced, side chain densities are mediocre to missing in spots. In order to ensure a consistent tracing and sequence assignment between all 8 N-terminal domain, we built in the "correct" sequence, but truncated the side chains to CB if the side chain density was poor to non-existent. After several rounds of refinement and model building, the finished structures look quite good, have a consistent sequence assignment, and have Rwork in the high teens and Rfree in the low 20s. THE PROBLEM: It is the 2.8 Å complex that has the problem. We used Moleman2 to evaluate the B-factors for the 4 domains in the 8 monomers in the ASU. When we compiled the numbers, we noticed that Moleman2 and phenix.refine gave different numbers for the protein atoms for chain B in the 2.8 Å complex (6152 versus 6289). We checked the PDB and confirmed that there are 6152 protein atoms in chain B; the other 7 chains show no differences between the programs. So where did phenix.refine get 6289 protein atoms when only 6152 protein atoms are input for chain B? The number of residues are correct (780). Adding to the confusion, there are truncated residues in each of the 8 chains. In the phenix.refine output attached below, the PDB file is being read in. For chain A, the number of atoms and the number of residues are correct, as well as the number of incomplete residues ({'truncation_to_alanine': 14}). However, for chain B, the number of incomplete residues ({'truncation_to_alanine': 21}) should be 37. Any ideas? Thanks, Michael **************************************************************** R. Michael Garavito, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 513 Biochemistry Bldg. Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1319 Office: (517) 355-9724 Lab: (517) 353-9125 FAX: (517) 353-9334 Email: garavito(a)msu.edu **************************************************************** phenix.refine output: Monomer Library directory: "/usr/local/phenix-1.7-650/chem_data/mon_lib" Total number of atoms: 51463 Number of models: 1 Model: "" Number of chains: 57 Chain: "A" Number of atoms: 6289 Number of conformers: 1 Conformer: "" Number of residues, atoms: 781, 6289 <==== matches PDB file Classifications: {'peptide': 781} Incomplete info: {'truncation_to_alanine': 14} <==== MATCHES PDB file Link IDs: {'PTRANS': 34, 'TRANS': 746} Unresolved non-hydrogen bonds: 47 Unresolved non-hydrogen angles: 60 Unresolved non-hydrogen dihedrals: 36 Unresolved non-hydrogen chiralities: 7 Planarities with less than four sites: {'PHE:plan': 1, 'GLU:plan': 3, 'ASN:plan2': 1, 'ASN:plan1': 1} Unresolved non-hydrogen planarities: 23 . . . . Chain: "B" Number of atoms: 6236 Number of conformers: 1 Conformer: "" Number of residues, atoms: 780, 6236 <==== DOES NOT MATCH PDB file 780 residues with 6152 atoms Classifications: {'peptide': 780} Incomplete info: {'truncation_to_alanine': 21} <==== 37 truncation_to_alanine Link IDs: {'PTRANS': 34, 'TRANS': 745} Unresolved chain links: 1 Chain breaks: 1 Unresolved chain link angles: 3 Unresolved chain link dihedrals: 4 Unresolved chain link planarities: 2 Unresolved non-hydrogen bonds: 80 Unresolved non-hydrogen angles: 101 Unresolved non-hydrogen dihedrals: 62 Unresolved non-hydrogen chiralities: 9 Planarities with less than four sites: {'GLN:plan1': 1, 'GLN:plan2': 1, 'ASP:plan': 1, 'PHE:plan': 1, 'GLU:plan': 6, 'ARG:plan': 2} Unresolved non-hydrogen planarities: 49

2 1

Detecting and dealing with Pseudotranslation and/or twinning
by Hamaoka, Brent 12 May '11

12 May '11

I’ve been working on a troublesome protein structure. The native protein forms crystals that diffract to 2.75A and belong to P212121 (55.179 64.316 233.748 90.000 90.000 90.000) with 4 molecules in the ASU. I have 3 versions of the same protein where selenomethionine mutations are incorporated at different positions. Interestingly, these mutations cause the protein to form crystals belonging to C2221 (56.130 64.665 240.854 90.000 90.000 90.000). Looking back at the native datasets, Xtraige indicates the largest Patterson peak is (0.5, 0.486, 0), height is 11.8% of the origin peak, and p_value(height) is 0.08549, which is just outside of the threshold for being identified as containing pseudotranslation. Datasets from a couple of the selenomet incorporated crystals yield diffraction to ~3.5A and anomalous signal to ~6.7A. Some of the datasets give a solution with reasonable maps, but the best maps are achieved from combining MAD/SAD selenomet datasets and one from a mercury derivatized crystal using the ‘group’ command in Phenix. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5: STEP: finished Top solution: # 39 Dataset #0 BAYES-CC: 69.2 +/- 13.4 FOM: 0.6 Built: 219 Side-chains: 44 Chains: 9 CC: 0.74 Score type: SKEW CORR_RMS NCS_OVERLAP Raw scores: 0.41 0.82 0.00 100x EST OF CC: 69.17 43.34 31.25 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maps from this solution show connected electron density that looks like helices, consistent with the predicted secondary structure. Strangely, there is absolutely no side-chain density, only c-beta at most. I can build a poly-ala model into the map and the distances between the heavy atom sites appear correct based upon the known positions of the selenomethionines and the single cysteine in the protein sequence. However the model does not refine. R-free starts and remains near 0.45. I’ve tried indexing in lower symmetry space groups (P2, C2, P1) and re-solving by molecular replacement, but the refinement still fails. Xtriage does not indicate twinning. Twinning and intensity statistics summary (acentric data): Statistics independent of twin laws <I^2>/<I>^2 : 2.305 <F>^2/<F^2> : 0.758 <|E^2-1|> : 0.788 <|L|>, <L^2>: 0.501, 0.333 Multivariate Z score L-test: 1.643 The multivariate Z score is a quality measure of the given spread in intensities. Good to reasonable data are expected to have a Z score lower than 3.5. Large values can indicate twinning, but small values do not necessarily exclude it. One possible clue as to what is going on comes from analysis of SOLVE results. I was analyzing whether SOLVE/PHENIX solutions were related with one another by various origin shifts and came across one particular SOLVE run from a SeMet SAD dataset in C2221 that gave good statistics for a solution FOM=0.57, Z-score=20.26, peak height between 7.1 and 10.8 for 4 SeMet sites to 3.8A). The maps, however, looked poor. What was interesting, though, was that 2 of the Se sites matched well with where I was expecting the Se sites in one molecule in the asymmetric unit. The other two matched with where I would expect the sites in the other molecule when the model is shifted by one half the unit cell distance along the ‘a’ or ‘b’ axis. I’d appreciate any advice as to what might be happening, and how might I go about detecting the problem, and how to dealing with the data? Brent Hamaoka UC San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive 0375 La Jolla, CA 92093

3 2

problem with version 1.7.1-743 linux
by Daniel PANNE 12 May '11

12 May '11

I get the following error only in 1.7.1-743 but not in 1.7_650. Any idea? Thanks, Daniel ******************************************************************************* ERROR: Unused parameter definitions: refinement.main.compute_optimal_errors (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 257) refinement.pdb_interpretation.peptide_link.use_finite_differences (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 514) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.substitute_n_for_h (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 977) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.restrain_initial_values (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 983) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.sigma (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 984) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.slack (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 985) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.h_o_distance_ideal (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 986) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.h_o_distance_max (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 987) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.n_o_distance_ideal (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 988) refinement.secondary_structure.h_bond_restraints.n_o_distance_max (file "P1_refine_rigid.eff", line 989) ******************************************************************************* Sorry: Unused parameter definitions: Please check the input file(s) for spelling errors and obsolete parameter definitions. To disable this error message, add --unused_ok to the command line arguments.

3 2