- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Only one solution in AutoMR with very negative LLG
by Zhang yu 16 Mar '11

16 Mar '11

Hi, I am working on a DNA-protein complex, the protein apo structure is already known. Recently I got a dataset of the DNA-protein complex, I tried to find a solution by autoMR in Phenix with the known protein coordinate as template. I got only one solution with very negative LLG (around -4000), and after rigid body refinement, the both Rwork and Rfree is around 0.55. Was there anyone in the same situation as me? What does that mean if there is just one solution while with very high negative LLG? Thanks

6 18

Need help in refining my twinned P6322(apparent) dataset
by John Pak 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

Hey Phenix community, Here are the details of my current situation - any assistance in the matter would be greatly appreciated as I've been struggling mightily for the past month trying to get this structure refined (to no avail). Details: -3.0 angstrom dataset from a membrane protein crystal -reduced in a P3 Bravis lattice using HKL2000 -Pointless and Xtriage suggest P622 symmetry -Solved structure via MR - ran Phaser in all P622 based space groups, found 1 convincing solution in P6322 (LLG ~110) which makes biological sense (1 monomer in ASU that lies on the screw axis to recapitulate the biological trimer) -31% sequence identical search molecule -no pseudotranslation (via Xtriage) Xtriage suggests that the P6322 dataset is nearly perfectly twinned (twin fraction = 0.49). Mindful of the fact that there are no twin operators for P6322, I'm thinking that the true space group is P321, P312 or P63 and I've tried a number of things listed below: 1. Refined in P6322 (simulated annealing+individual B). Missing side chains and incorrectly modelled loops apparent in maps. Start R=0.49, Rfree=0.5. Refinement stalls at R=0.41, Rfree=0.45 after building. 2. Ran Phaser in P312 (using unrefined model) - no solution. 3. Ran Phaser in P321 (using unrefined model). One nice solution (LLG ~220) - lattice looks very similar to P6322 crystal packing. Twin refinement in phenix using operator suggested by Xtriage (simulated annealing + individual B) results in R=0.38, Rfree=0.41 (no rebuilding performed). 4. Ran Phaser in P63 (using unrefined model). Three solutions (LLGs all ~210) - solution #3 looks very similar to P6322 crystal packing. Twin refinement in phenix using operator suggested by Xtriage of solution #3 gives R=0.37, Rfree=0.40 (no rebuilding performed). Solutions #1 and #2 do not give packing arrangements that look like the P6322 solution. Twin refinement of Sol 1 and 2 give higher R factors. So I'm at a loss as to which space group my crystal truly belongs to, and where I should be focusing my refinement. The maps all look similar before and after DM. Thanks for any assistance or recommendations that you might have! -- John E. Pak, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Associate, Stroud Lab Department of Biochemistry& Biophysics UCSF MC2240 Genentech Hall Room S414 600-16th St. San Francisco, CA 94158-2517 Lab #: 415-476-3937 Fax #: 415-476-1902 Cell #: 415-215-0048

4 4

fwd: Re: Need help in refining my twinned P6322(apparent) dataset
by Nathaniel Echols 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Van Den Berg, Bert" <Lambertus.VandenBerg(a)umassmed.edu> To: "PHENIX user mailing list" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:01:42 -0400 Subject: Hi John, How do the maps look for cases 3 and 4? Are they great or are there obvious things to correct? Does your model have the correct sequence or is it that of the search model? I’m asking because your R’s seem reasonable to me after a first round of refinement and using a 30% identical search model for MR. So maybe there is no problem? Bert On 3/15/11 2:55 AM, "John Pak" <john.pak(a)msg.ucsf.edu> wrote: Hey Phenix community, Here are the details of my current situation - any assistance in the matter would be greatly appreciated as I've been struggling mightily for the past month trying to get this structure refined (to no avail). Details: -3.0 angstrom dataset from a membrane protein crystal -reduced in a P3 Bravis lattice using HKL2000 -Pointless and Xtriage suggest P622 symmetry -Solved structure via MR - ran Phaser in all P622 based space groups, found 1 convincing solution in P6322 (LLG ~110) which makes biological sense (1 monomer in ASU that lies on the screw axis to recapitulate the biological trimer) -31% sequence identical search molecule -no pseudotranslation (via Xtriage) Xtriage suggests that the P6322 dataset is nearly perfectly twinned (twin fraction = 0.49). Mindful of the fact that there are no twin operators for P6322, I'm thinking that the true space group is P321, P312 or P63 and I've tried a number of things listed below: 1. Refined in P6322 (simulated annealing+individual B). Missing side chains and incorrectly modelled loops apparent in maps. Start R=0.49, Rfree=0.5. Refinement stalls at R=0.41, Rfree=0.45 after building. 2. Ran Phaser in P312 (using unrefined model) - no solution. 3. Ran Phaser in P321 (using unrefined model). One nice solution (LLG ~220) - lattice looks very similar to P6322 crystal packing. Twin refinement in phenix using operator suggested by Xtriage (simulated annealing + individual B) results in R=0.38, Rfree=0.41 (no rebuilding performed). 4. Ran Phaser in P63 (using unrefined model). Three solutions (LLGs all ~210) - solution #3 looks very similar to P6322 crystal packing. Twin refinement in phenix using operator suggested by Xtriage of solution #3 gives R=0.37, Rfree=0.40 (no rebuilding performed). Solutions #1 and #2 do not give packing arrangements that look like the P6322 solution. Twin refinement of Sol 1 and 2 give higher R factors. So I'm at a loss as to which space group my crystal truly belongs to, and where I should be focusing my refinement. The maps all look similar before and after DM. Thanks for any assistance or recommendations that you might have! -- John E. Pak, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Associate, Stroud Lab Department of Biochemistry& Biophysics UCSF MC2240 Genentech Hall Room S414 600-16th St. San Francisco, CA 94158-2517 Lab #: 415-476-3937 Fax #: 415-476-1902 Cell #: 415-215-0048

1 0

Mar 15, 2011 deadline- User proposal submission for Collaborative Crystallography at BCSB
by Banumathi Sankaran 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Dear Users, The deadline for May/June 2011 Collaborative Crystallography proposals will be *Mar 15, 2011.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Through the Collaborative Crystallography Program (CC) at the Advanced Light Source (ALS), scientists can send protein crystals to Berkeley Center for Structural Biology (BCSB) staff researchers for data collection and analysis. The CC Program can provide a number of benefits to researchers: * Obtain high quality data and analysis through collaborating with expert beamline researchers; * Rapid turn around on projects; and * Reduced travel costs. To apply, please submit a proposal through the ALS General User proposal review process for beamtime allocation. Proposals are reviewed and ranked by the Proposal Study Panel, and beamtime is allocated accordingly. BCSB staff schedule the CC projects on Beamlines 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 to fit into the available resources. Only non-proprietary projects will be accepted. As a condition of participation, BCSB staff researchers who participate in data collection and/or analysis must be appropriately acknowledged - typically being included as authors on publications and in PDB depositions. Please consult the website for additional information at: http://bcsb.als.lbl.gov/wiki/index.php/Collaborative_Crystallography ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How To Apply: To learn more, go to: http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/quickguide/becomealsuser.html To submit a proposal, go to: http://alsusweb.lbl.gov/. Scroll down to "*Structural Biology beamlines (includes protein SAXS)*" and click on "New Proposal." Enter your proposal information, with attention to the following details: * For question 3/First choice, select "5.0.1 (Monochromatic);" for question 3/Second choice, select "5.0.2 (MAD)." * Check box (yes) in response to question (7) "Do you want collaborative crystallography (beamline 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 only) * In question 4, please describe a specific research project with a clear end point. In order to request CC time for May/June 2011 allocation period, proposals must be submitted by *Mar 15, 2011.* The deadline for CC proposals for the time period July/Aug 2011 will be May 15, 2011. Regards, Banumathi Sankaran

1 0

Jan 15, 2011 deadline- User proposal submission for Collaborative Crystallography at BCSB
by Banumathi Sankaran 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Dear Users, The deadline for March/April 2011 Collaborative Crystallography proposals will be *Jan 15, 2011.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Through the Collaborative Crystallography Program (CC) at the Advanced Light Source (ALS), scientists can send protein crystals to Berkeley Center for Structural Biology (BCSB) staff researchers for data collection and analysis. The CC Program can provide a number of benefits to researchers: * Obtain high quality data and analysis through collaborating with expert beamline researchers; * Rapid turn around on projects; and * Reduced travel costs. To apply, please submit a proposal through the ALS General User proposal review process for beamtime allocation. Proposals are reviewed and ranked by the Proposal Study Panel, and beamtime is allocated accordingly. BCSB staff schedule the CC projects on Beamlines 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 to fit into the available resources. Only non-proprietary projects will be accepted. As a condition of participation, BCSB staff researchers who participate in data collection and/or analysis must be appropriately acknowledged - typically being included as authors on publications and in PDB depositions. Please consult the website for additional information at: http://bcsb.als.lbl.gov/wiki/index.php/Collaborative_Crystallography ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How To Apply: To learn more, go to: http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/quickguide/becomealsuser.html To submit a proposal, go to: http://alsusweb.lbl.gov/. Scroll down to "*Structural Biology beamlines (includes protein SAXS)*" and click on "New Proposal." Enter your proposal information, with attention to the following details: * For question 3/First choice, select "5.0.1 (Monochromatic);" for question 3/Second choice, select "5.0.2 (MAD)." * Check box (yes) in response to question (7) "Do you want collaborative crystallography (beamline 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 only) * In question 4, please describe a specific research project with a clear end point. In order to request CC time for March/April 2011 allocation period, proposals must be submitted by *Jan 15, 2011.* The deadline for CC proposals for the time period May/June 2011 will be March 15, 2011. Regards, Banumathi Sankaran

1 1

B-factor discrepancy
by Yuri 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

I am refining a single-mutant structure at 2.1 A. The native was solved years ago by heavy atom phasing. The reported average B-factors for alpha carbons especially of the original structure were significantly lower than the ones I am seeing. around 15 vs. around 25. Has anyone any idea if this is perfectly fine and its simply something intrinsic to my crystals? Also at this resolution, should I try to refine any residues at all anisotropically? Thanks for the guidance

2 1

XYZ refinement vs individual sites refinement
by Yuri 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

I am new to phenix and I am trying to probe two residues that are putative H-bond partners, after refinement they seem to be put in orientations that would make it impossible for them to be interacting with a ligand. My SA composite omit map may suggest that one of the Asn could be in a different position. My question: If I manually change its conformation is it wise to keep its position fixed during refinement to see what the new maps would look like? If so where would I do that under the real space or individual sites tab on GUI phenix? I am not sure what these 2 tasks accomplish exactly. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks Yuri Pompeu

3 2

Fwd: XYZ refinement vs individual sites refinement
by Yuri 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

Thats better! thank you

1 0

most appropriate map for ligand fitting/interaction with FMN
by Yuri 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

I am refinig a structure at 2.1 A. I have 2 questions: a) Is the best way to identify a ligand refining the protein and water molecules and at the end looking at the 2mfo-dfc and mfo-dfc maps? Or looking at a SA composit omit map? b) In almost every map i look at during refinement I see density that smears/joins my ligand (cyclopentenone type molecule) and flavin's isoalloxazine ring. Has anyone ever seen that? they seem to be 3.1 A apart? Thanks -- Yuri Pompeu

3 2

Elbow problem
by Jerome Nwachukwu 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

Hi all: For some reason, phenix.elbow converts a specific double-bond (C=C) in my ligand to a single bond (C-C) and therefore generates a wrong .cif file. Is there away to avoid or correct this problem? Thank you, -Jerome Jerome C. Nwachukwu, PhD Kendall Nettles' Lab Dept. of Cancer Biology The Scripps Research Institute-Florida 130 Scripps Way, 2C1 Jupiter, FL 33458

2 1

Binary Installation failure on Ubuntu
by Katherine Sippel 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

Hi all, I am trying to install the latest nightly build (dev-694) using the Kernel 2.6 (64-bit; Fedora Core 3) binary. The OS is Ubuntu 10.10 installed as a dual boot through Wubi. I get as far as configuring PHENIX components at which point it heaves out a binary.log file. I can send the whole file to anyone whose interested but it's a bit too large for the bb. The juicy bit is as follows... Could not find platform independent libraries <prefix> Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to <prefix>[:<exec_prefix>] ImportError: No module named site How can I determine which libraries are missing? Thanks for any help you can provide, Katherine

3 3

Average maps (*not* NCS averaging)
by Stephen Graham 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

Hi there, I'd like to average 2Fo-Fc maps from 2 (approximately) isomorphous data sets (one with ligand, one without) to see whether I get better density for some of the noisier bits of the structure. I don't want to do any kind of solvent flattening, histogram matching, cyclical averaging, etc; I just want to sum the equivalent pixels and divide by 2. Is it possible to do this easily using any of the phenix tools? It seems like all the required plumbing is there with get_cc_mtz_mtz or superpose_maps, but I can't find a phenix utility for averaging two superposed maps. Thanks, Stephen -- Dr Stephen Graham 1851 Research Fellow Cambridge Institute for Medical Research Wellcome Trust/MRC Building Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road Cambridge, CB2 0XY, UK Phone: +44 1223 762 638

9 13

Re: [phenixbb] [ccp4bb] Getting the triangulated solvent excluded surface of a protein (PDB) as a .obj file
by Francois Berenger 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

Sorry, I forgot to mention about what is the .obj file I need. It is a pure ASCII geometric description of a polyhedra. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file It looks rather easy to parse compared to some VRML file, for example. Thanks, F. Francois Berenger wrote: > Hello, > > What are the good software to do this? > > I already know of Pymol and Jmol. > > Both can export the result to a .obj file, which is interesting for > later processing. > > However, Pymol's algorithm is not exactly what Connolly described, > cf. > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00179.html > > Also, Pymol will save the surface with some translation and rotation > which are not present in the PDB read in, which is a real pain. > > For Jmol, sometimes the surface is not a closed polyhedra, so > it is kind of useless for my purpose. > > I know of MSMS, but I don't think it is that robust (I read some source > code where someone was using MSMS, the source code had many dirty things > in order to try handling the apparently many cases where MSMS was > crashing). > > Is there something freely usable for research, using beta shapes > internally, for example? That should be a robust approach. > > A robust software would be much appreciated (not crashing, whatever > the PDB we give it as input). > Open source and not in Fortran would be heaven. ;) > > Thanks a lot for suggestions, > F.

1 0

Getting the triangulated solvent excluded surface of a protein (PDB) as a .obj file
by Francois Berenger 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

(was posted on CCP4 bb also) Hello, What are the good software to do this? I already know of Pymol and Jmol. Both can export the result to a .obj file, which is interesting for later processing. However, Pymol's algorithm is not exactly what Connolly described, cf. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00179.html Also, Pymol will save the surface with some translation and rotation which are not present in the PDB read in, which is a real pain. For Jmol, sometimes the surface is not a closed polyhedra, so it is kind of useless for my purpose. I know of MSMS, but I don't think it is that robust (I read some source code where someone was using MSMS, the source code had many dirty things in order to try handling the apparently many cases where MSMS was crashing). Is there something freely usable for research, using beta shapes internally, for example? That should be a robust approach. A robust software would be much appreciated (not crashing, whatever the PDB we give it as input). Open source and not in Fortran would be heaven. ;) Thanks a lot for suggestions, F.

1 0

automr renumbered all residues to 0 for final solution in dev-674
by Francis E Reyes 10 Mar '11

10 Mar '11

Is this fixed in a later version? Thanks! F --------------------------------------------- Francis E. Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 67BA8D5D 8AE2 F2F4 90F7 9640 28BC 686F 78FD 6669 67BA 8D5D

1 0

ambiguous ligand density
by Pompeu,Yuri Alexey Andreiw 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Sorry, I meant judging by distances it is not experiencing interaction in the form of H-bonds. Which I think is concerning.

4 3

ambiguous ligand density
by Pompeu,Yuri Alexey Andreiw 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hi Pavel, What I meant it was just that the 2mFo-2DFc map looks really great and corroborates experimental data as far as the stereochemistry. But I dont understand ehy the carbonyl moiety of the ligand would be where it is now, no "driving force to be here". And when I look at my averaged kick and SA omit map it looks ambiguous. Any help?

1 0

ambiguous ligand density
by Pompeu,Yuri Alexey Andreiw 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hello everyone, I have this strucuture I solved by Molecular replacement. It is a single mutant of previously solved enzyme. I started refining it and fit the ligand in a way that gives me the experimental stereochemistry. The final map 2mFo-2DFc looks great. After further examination I noticed, I have a carbonyl that does not seem to be bound to anything !!! I started looking at my average kick and SA composit omit-map prior to modeling in the ligand and now I am really lost. Could anyone help? Thank you

2 1

Important change in phenix.refine output: MTZ file with data and map coefficients
by Pavel Afonine 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

Hi Everyone, starting development version dev-686: http://www.phenix-online.org/download/nightly_builds.cgi phenix.refine does not output *map_coeffs.mtz file. Instead, it creates prefix_serial.mtz file (example: lysozime_001.mtz) containing four sections: - section 1: Original input data (Iobs or Fobs, and HL coefficients if provided) and flags (as supplied in input); - section 2: Experimental data used in refinement (labels: F-obs-filtered, SIGF-obs-filtered). This can be different from "Original data" due to Iobs->Fobs conversion (if input data are intensities) and outliers filtering; - section 3: Contains total model structure factors (labels: F-model, PHIF-model) used everywhere in refinement (for the formula, see: http://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/fmodel.htm). In the future, this section might be extended to explicitly list all contributions to Fmodel, such as Fcalc (corresponding to atomic model), Fbulk (bulk solvent contribution), and so on. - section 4: Fourier map coefficients (exactly the same as used to be in *map_coeffs.mtz file). This change is meant to reduce the confusion when people tended to use *map_coeffs.mtz file for refinement and PDB deposition, and facilitates the reproduction of refinement statistics (R-factors, for example). Also, thanks to Jeff Headd, by default phenix.refine now converts input intensities (Iobs) to amplitudes (Fobs) using French & Wilson method (Acta Cryst A34, 517, 1978), so no need to run a specific program (Truncate, for example) to do this. To see the content of a MTZ file use phenix.mtz.dump command: phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz Pavel.

2 2

Geometry problem with sugars refined in phenix
by Tirumala Kumar Chowdary 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi, I have refined a structure with NAGs linked to ASNs at 3 places in my structure. I used the right link definitions and the NAG definitions are from Phenix library. Phenix refined all the sugars right and made the right links between the NAGs. However, while submitting, PDB found problem with the geometry of NAGs linked to the ASN at two places. This is the issue -the atoms around C1 atom of the sugar molecule NAG A #810 and NAG A #1670 are on a plane and the C1 atom center is far off to be tetrahedral. Please, verify the chirality of C1 and provide the correct coordinates if necessary.- Any ideas on how to fix the geometry of these sugars will be of great help. Regularization and real space refine in Coot is not working or I don't know how to do it. I am looking for alternative ways to fix this problem. Thank You Tirumal

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] number of cycles
by Maia Cherney 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Hi, I am using now the latest phenix version and I am curious how to understand these lines: Flipped N/Q/H residues before refinement: A 28 HIS A 72 HIS A 141 GLN A 202 GLN A 296 ASN ** A 335 ASN ** both conformations clash, **PLEASE CHECK MANUALLY** ** A 347 GLN ** both conformations clash, **PLEASE CHECK MANUALLY** A 353 ASN A 388 HIS Maia

4 4

[Fwd: Re: number of cycles]
by Maia Cherney 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [phenixbb] number of cycles Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:50:57 -0700 From: Maia Cherney <chern(a)ualberta.ca> To: Jeff Headd <jjheadd(a)lbl.gov> References: <40FBFA09-3C52-460A-A6A1-7D08F6496AD2(a)umich.edu> <AANLkTin=8_ddvihNSDyLp9k1iSpV9fVj6A2ndvoUTJ6O(a)mail.gmail.com> <0171D39299ABC14AAAA75ABABDD0BBB63868BF23AA(a)NIHMLBX12.nih.gov> <A8FA87FE-7DF1-48BE-AA44-E19BB7D0E6E0(a)crystal.harvard.edu> <4CAC89B8.9090909(a)lbl.gov> <4D12B58C.1030604(a)ualberta.ca> <4D12E866.9070602(a)lbl.gov> <4D138B20.5050001(a)ualberta.ca> <4D14E51F.2040305(a)lbl.gov> <4D164065.3050709(a)ualberta.ca> <4D165AE5.8090905(a)lbl.gov> <4D6C0DB1.5040003(a)ualberta.ca> <4D6C9271.6000301(a)lbl.gov> <4D6DA14C.6060806(a)ualberta.ca> <AANLkTi=GXvoGWsB+3+NNBNFvVtzc0Q0ag1Ln_U6FqHqO(a)mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Jeff. Though I don't see any clashes for any orientations. But this feature is really great. Jeff Headd wrote: > Hi Maia, > > Phenix.refine analyzes Asn, Gln, and His residues at each macrocycle > and determines which orientation is likely correct given the local > environment of the sidechain. The best orientation will have no steric > clashes and satisfy local H-bond donors/acceptors. In cases where > there are other model errors in the region of the sidechain and both > orientations clash significantly, you'll see the **PLEASE CHECK > MANUALLY** warning which indicates that there are likely multiple > misfit sidechains that need to be corrected, and refinement alone is > not powerful enough to escape the false minimum. > > If you want to turn this feature off, you can add main.nqh_flips=False > to your refinement call or > > main { > nqh_flips=False > } > > to your param file. However, we highly recommend leaving this option > on as it is an excellent diagnostic of model errors. > > If you have any further questions please let me know. > > Thanks, > Jeff > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Maia Cherney <chern(a)ualberta.ca> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am using now the latest phenix version and I am curious how to understand >> these lines: >> >> >> Flipped N/Q/H residues before refinement: >> A 28 HIS >> A 72 HIS >> A 141 GLN >> A 202 GLN >> A 296 ASN >> ** A 335 ASN ** both conformations clash, **PLEASE CHECK MANUALLY** >> ** A 347 GLN ** both conformations clash, **PLEASE CHECK MANUALLY** >> A 353 ASN >> A 388 HIS >> >> Maia >> _______________________________________________ >> phenixbb mailing list >> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >> >> > > >

1 0

Glycan Links/Restraints
by Damian Ekiert 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Sorry to bring up an old topic again but I can't find any documentation of glycan refinement on the Phenix website and previous threads don't seem to answer my question. I am refining a structure with N-linked glycans. I have inserted several "apply_cif_link" records to my .eff file to define the glycan topologies (see below) and fed in a cif file for BMA. After fiddling for quite some time now, I have managed to get around all the error messages people have described previously to disappear. Yet, 1) none of my linkages appear to be enforced and 2) even the restraints on the individual sugars appear to be unenforced (or at least, insufficiently so). For example, some rings are rendered almost flat, or flipped into boat or otherwise distorted conformations, and glycosidic bonds stretch to >2 A. No obvious signs of trouble in the log file, running the latest version (1.7, also tried 1.6.4), but my glycans look terrible (despite some of the best density I have ever seen! :-) ) Any suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks, Damian Ekiert >From my .eff file: apply_cif_link { data_link = NAG-ASN residue_selection_1 = chain X and resname NAG and resid 401 residue_selection_2 = chain A and resname ASN and resid 91 } apply_cif_link { data_link = NAG-ASN residue_selection_1 = chain Y and resname NAG and resid 401 residue_selection_2 = chain C and resname ASN and resid 91 } apply_cif_link { data_link = NAG-ASN residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 401 residue_selection_2 = chain E and resname ASN and resid 91 } apply_cif_link { data_link = BETA1-4 residue_selection_1 = chain X and resname NAG and resid 402 residue_selection_2 = chain X and resname NAG and resid 401 } apply_cif_link { data_link = BETA1-4 residue_selection_1 = chain Y and resname NAG and resid 402 residue_selection_2 = chain Y and resname NAG and resid 401 } apply_cif_link { data_link = BETA1-4 residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 402 residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 401 } apply_cif_link { data_link = BETA1-4 residue_selection_1 = chain Y and resname BMA and resid 403 residue_selection_2 = chain Y and resname NAG and resid 402 } apply_cif_link { data_link = ALPHA1-3 residue_selection_1 = chain Y and resname MAN and resid 404 residue_selection_2 = chain Y and resname BMA and resid 403 }

3 6

Implementation of French & Wilson data correction?
by Joseph Noel 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Hi All, Any pointers on implementing the new option in the latest build for French & Wilson correction? Does scala output negative intensities so that a proper scaling with this new option can be used? Also, what column labels should be used particularly for proper treatment of anomalous data? Can one use the labels output by scala? Joe ___________________________________________________________ Joseph P. Noel, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor, The Jack H. Skirball Center for Chemical Biology and Proteomics The Salk Institute for Biological Studies 10010 North Torrey Pines Road La Jolla, CA 92037 USA Phone: (858) 453-4100 extension 1442 Cell: (858) 349-4700 Fax: (858) 597-0855 E-mail: noel(a)salk.edu Web Site (Salk): http://www.salk.edu/faculty/faculty_details.php?id=37 Web Site (HHMI): http://hhmi.org/research/investigators/noel.html ___________________________________________________________

9 13

Bay Area and Beyond Phenix User Meeting
by Paul Adams 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Dear Colleagues, On Thursday March 17th, a Bay Area and Beyond Phenix User Meeting will be held at Lawrence Berkeley Lab. During the workshop, the Phenix developers will give lectures on the latest developments and Phenix usage. Half of the user meeting will be in the form of informal hands on sessions, allowing participants to work with the developers. Participants are encouraged to bring their own (reduced) data to be used during hands on sessions, but tutorial data will also be available. Due to the highly interactive format of the meeting there will be space for approximately 20 participants. If I have missed any of your colleagues on this invitation please feel free to pass on the message. To apply, researchers should send a email to NEchols(a)lbl.gov and PDAdams(a)lbl.gov by Monday March 7th. Unfortunately we are unable to provide any funds to support student travel to the meeting. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology 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: Kathleen Moody [ KLMoody(a)lbl.gov ][ 1-510-495-2506 ] --

1 0