- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

individual anisotropic adps
by gerwald jogl 11 Dec '08

11 Dec '08

Hi All, I was wondering if there is information/recommendations out there for the resolution required to refine individual anisotropic adps. I think the recommendation for shelx is at least 1.5 A resolution. In addition, is phenix set up and would it make sense to combine tls with individiual anisotropic adps? All comments welcome, Gerwald

4 3

Keeping the same origin
by Mo Wong 11 Dec '08

11 Dec '08

Hi all, I would like to compare maps from different phasing runs, so it would make my life much easier if I could keep the same origin. I recall this could be done in solve/resolve, but can't seem to find it mentioned in the phenix documentation. Any suggestions? Thanks!

2 1

resolution bins
by Daniele de Sanctis 10 Dec '08

10 Dec '08

Hi, I was wondering how phenix.refine decide the number of resolution bins in which it shows the refinement statistics (R-free, phase error...). In the case I'm working on it prints out only three resolution bins. Thanks d -- Daniele de Sanctis, PhD Macromolecular Crystallography Group ESRF, Grenoble, France Tel 33 (0)4 76 88 2869

2 1

Question regarding phenix.elbow
by Young-Jin Cho 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

Hi I would like to know how I can add H atoms to my ligand, ADP in the protein complex. I was trying to add H atoms to one of my ligand, ADP. When I types "phenix.elbow --final-geometry=test10bcoot_h_refine_001.pdb --residue=ADP --output=model_h", it went on but failed with the following error message: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/command_line/builder.py", line 1201, in <module> run() File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/command_line/builder.py", line 1108, in run molecule = post_process(molecule, options) File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/command_line/builder.py", line 577, in post_process options, File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/utilities/optimisation_manager.py", line 331, in optimisation_manager pre_opt)) File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/chemistry/IOMixins.py", line 857, in WritePDB original_order=original_order, File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/chemistry/IOMixins.py", line 965, in WritePDB2String self.AdjustHydrogenNames() File "/home2/yjcho/phenix-1.3-final/elbow/elbow/chemistry/IOMixins.py", line 940, in AdjustHydrogenNames if test_name[3]==" ": test_name[3]="0" TypeError: 'str' object does not support item assignment FYI. ADP is names as ADP as a residue name in the pdb file but has different chain names. By the way, I should mention that I used phenix.reduce first for adding H atoms but it was not able to add sugar H's in ADP molecule albeit other residues were fine. Thanks in advance for your help. Best, YoungJin

3 3

Bulk solvent
by csantiag＠cnb.csic.es 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

Hi all, I'm refining a protein and after running phenix.refine I always get a bulk solvent refinement cycle at the end of the process. Is there any way to get rid of the last step? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ REMARK stage angl bond chir dihe plan repu geom_target REMARK 0 : 1.007 0.027 0.237 18.975 0.004 4.107 2.7953e-01 REMARK 1_bss: 1.007 0.027 0.237 18.975 0.004 4.107 2.7953e-01 REMARK 1_xyz: 1.844 0.015 0.087 19.502 0.005 4.106 1.9824e-01 REMARK 1_adp: 1.844 0.015 0.087 19.502 0.005 4.106 1.9824e-01 REMARK 2_bss: 1.844 0.015 0.087 19.502 0.005 4.106 1.9824e-01 REMARK 2_xyz: 1.222 0.008 0.075 19.562 0.005 4.107 1.2876e-01 REMARK 2_adp: 1.222 0.008 0.075 19.562 0.005 4.107 1.2876e-01 REMARK 3_bss: 1.222 0.008 0.075 19.562 0.005 4.107 1.2876e-01 REMARK 3_xyz: 1.021 0.005 0.063 19.049 0.004 4.111 1.0306e-01 REMARK 3_adp: 1.021 0.005 0.063 19.049 0.004 4.111 1.0306e-01 REMARK 3_bss: 1.021 0.005 0.063 19.049 0.004 4.111 1.0306e-01 REMARK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ César Santiago Dept of Macromolecules Structure Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, CSIC Campus Cantoblanco 28049 Madrid Spain csantiag(a)cnb.csic.es

3 3

anomalous scatters refinement
by Daniele de Sanctis 02 Dec '08

02 Dec '08

Hi, I'm making some refinement tests with anomalous data and I wanted to try to refine the anomalous contribution. When would it be the best stage when to introduce it? Thanks D -- Daniele de Sanctis, PhD Macromolecular Crystallography Group ESRF, Grenoble, France Tel 33 (0)4 76 88 2869

2 1

phenix.autobuild- multiple models
by meindert lamers 29 Nov '08

29 Nov '08

Hi all, I am a bit puzzled by an error message I get when trying to run phenix.autobuild. (I am using the latest/final version of phenix: PHENIX VERSION: 1.3 of 11-08-2008) phenix.autobuild data=01.mtz model=3mei_coot.pdb multiple_models=True include_input_model=True \ multiple_models_number=1 n_cycle_rebuild_max=5 This gives me: **************************************** AutoBuild Input failed Sorry, multiple_models is only available with rebuild_in_place **************************************** However, when I run the same commands using an older version of phenix (PHENIX VERSION: 1.3 of 23-03-2008), all runs fine. Any ideas ? Meindert

2 1

R/Rfree from phenix.autobuild
by Graeme Winter 28 Nov '08

28 Nov '08

Hi Folks, Quick question about R/Rfree from phenix - I ran the autobuild and it kindly built pretty much all of the visible residues, and it gave me the following output: SOLUTION CYCLE R RFREE BUILT PLACED 1 1 0.22 0.23 169 169 2 2 0.21 0.23 170 170 3 4 0.22 0.23 170 170 Now, I'm not one to complain about good results, but I did feel that the Rfree looked a little close to the R factor - usually I would expect a difference of maybe 4-5%. Is there a reason for this that I am missing? The model seemed to fit very nicely, closely corresponded to the PDB entry and the waters were pretty good. There is no NCS (one copy in the ASU) and the phases are from SeMet mad data from Autosol. Resolution is ~1.6A, if that is any help. Just noticed this and thought it was interesting. I am used to Arp/wArp for automated tracing, which typically gives a bigger difference... Many thanks, Graeme

3 2

0 for wxc_scale and wxu_scale?
by Michaela Kramer, Biochemisches Inst. 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix. The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin law -h,-k,l. In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement. In the last refinement step, I use the option to optimize the values for wxu_scale and wxc_scale. These values are optimizes to 0 for wxc_scale and close to 0 for wxu_scale (0.2) When I tried this at earlier refinement stages wxu_scale was also here optimized in some refinement macrocycles to 0. Interestingly I obtain better R values (0.1948/0.2184), than without the optimization by using the default values (0.1391/0.2438 Rwork/Rfree). In addition to that the statistics are better: clashscore 14.41 (compared to 25.73 without wxc_scale & wxu_scale optimization), rotamer outliers 2.33% (compared o 4.66%) and Ramachandran favoured (Molprobity). How is it possible that wxu_scale and wxc_scale can be optimized to 0 by having better statistics? The total refinement target is defined as Etotal= wxc_scale x wxc x Exray + wc x Egeom As I understand it, the crystallographic refinement target (Exray) would now not be considered in the refinement procedure. Would this refinement procedure be valid? And how is wxc (output of target weights: x-ray data) defined? Thank you very much for your help Michaela Here is the output belonging to the optimization: Refinement Macrocycle 1 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 1.649809 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 93.128 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.888942 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 85.407 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2118 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2181 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 1.6498 r_free= 0.2336 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 2.4747 r_free= 0.2379 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 3.2996 r_free= 0.2412 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.0999 r_free= 0.2297 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.8249 r_free= 0.2245 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.6599 r_free= 0.2226 2 Best r_free = 0.2181 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2181 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2247 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.8889 r_free= 0.2262 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 1.3334 r_free= 0.2293 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 1.7779 r_free= 0.2310 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.5926 r_free= 0.2236 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.4445 r_free= 0.2221 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.3556 r_free= 0.2208 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.2963 r_free= 0.2203 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.2540 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.2222 r_free= 0.2191 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.1975 r_free= 0.2186 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.1778 r_free= 0.2183 0 Best r_free = 0.2183 Refinement Macrocycle 2 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 1.737535 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 89.612 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.228155 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 155.392 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2179 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2223 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 1.7375 r_free= 0.2272 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 2.6063 r_free= 0.2310 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 3.4751 r_free= 0.2332 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.1584 r_free= 0.2267 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.8688 r_free= 0.2258 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.6950 r_free= 0.2269 2 Best r_free = 0.2223 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2223 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2228 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.2282 r_free= 0.2235 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 0.3422 r_free= 0.2256 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 0.4563 r_free= 0.2275 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.1521 r_free= 0.2219 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.1141 r_free= 0.2213 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.0913 r_free= 0.2207 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.0761 r_free= 0.2204 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.0652 r_free= 0.2201 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.0570 r_free= 0.2197 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.0507 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.0456 r_free= 0.2194 0 Best r_free = 0.2194 Macrocycle 2 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 2.157676 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 93.409 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.228399 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 140.390 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2163 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2189 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 2.1577 r_free= 0.2299 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 3.2365 r_free= 0.2340 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 4.3154 r_free= 0.2341 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.4385 r_free= 0.2282 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 1.0788 r_free= 0.2255 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.8631 r_free= 0.2249 2 Best r_free = 0.2189 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2189 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2218 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.2284 r_free= 0.2231 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 0.3426 r_free= 0.2250 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 0.4568 r_free= 0.2272 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.1523 r_free= 0.2215 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.1142 r_free= 0.2209 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.0914 r_free= 0.2201 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.0761 r_free= 0.2197 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.0653 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.0571 r_free= 0.2193 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.0508 r_free= 0.2191 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.0457 r_free= 0.2190 0 Best r_free = 0.2190 Michaela Kramer PhD student Institute of Biochemistry Winterthurerstrasse 190 8057 Zuerich Switzerland

7 6

trouble in phenix.refine
by Huiying Li 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

I was running phenix.refine in tls mode with the following command line: phenix.refine mydata.mtz mymodel.pdb strategy=tls tls_group_selection.param mylibrary.cif against a 2.1A data set, P21211 SG, a homodimer in AU, totally 10 tls groups. The following errors occured and program stopped. I do not know how to fix the problem. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3-final/phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 5, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3-final/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 68, in run log=log) .... ... .... File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3-final/mmtbx/mmtbx/monomer_library/pdb_interpretation.py", line 970, in get_lib_link atom_dicts[angle.atom_3_comp_id].get(angle.atom_id_3, None)] IndexError: list index out of range Your help is highly appreciated. Huiying -- Huiying Li, Ph. D Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Natural Sciences I, Rm 2443 University of California at Irvine Irvine, CA 92697, USA Tel: 949-824-4322(or -1953); Fax: 949-824-3280 email: hli(a)uci.edu

2 2

twin axis for p21
by HUA YUAN 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

Dear Colleagues, I'd like to share with you with a twinning puzzle that's been troubling me for a while. I have a ~2.2 A data merged in p212121 space group with unit cell: 41.8300 117.4490 134.4840 90.0000 90.0000 90.0000 Translational NCS was detected but structure solution was able to be obtained by phased molecular replacement as we have a Au derivative data set. Obtaining experimental phase or MR alone didn't work. However, with this model and data set, the refinement didn't work (with R-free ~40% or higher if with more cycles). Different twinning tests have been carried out and no sign of twinning. All possible p222 space groups have been tried but no luck or even worse. Considering that translational symmetry and perfect twinning may make things deceiving, the data was merged into p21 and a twin-refinement was performed in phenix.refine. After 3 cycles of rigid-body and group ADP, a R-free of ~30% was obtained and the output map looks OK. It looks like we got it. But then things get interesting when we tested other two axis as the p21 unique axis. With all the three choices plus corresponding twin-refinement, we could get a similar R-free (30%). Besides, the three maps all look OK except for one missing some side chains. Then the structure was solve in p1 and Xtriage was used with the hope that one axis would stand out. However, the RvsR for all three axis are almost the same. Did I miss anything here? Of course, we could pick up the one axis we like best and get the structure solved ^---^. However, this puzzle would eat me alive for a very long time. Best, Hua

2 1

solvent flipping
by Mark Collins 24 Nov '08

24 Nov '08

Hi Is there a solvent flipping (like solomon, ccp4) rather than flattening option in phenix? Mark

4 3

Windows version of Phenix
by Graeme Winter 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hi Folks, This is a potentially heretical question I know, but are there any plans to port Phenix to Windows in the future? Certainly having access to the command-line versions of the autosol and autobuild wizards would be excellent... Thanks, Graeme

2 1

Question about overall_best history
by Mo Wong 20 Nov '08

20 Nov '08

Hi all, I'm sure this is in one of the log files (and written somewhere in the documentation), but I can't find which solve_*.mtz and which subsequent resolve_*.mtz were used to make overall_best_denmod_map_coeffs.mtz. Could someone please tell me where I may find it. Thank you

2 3

Difference Fouriers using AutoSol
by Mo Wong 14 Nov '08

14 Nov '08

Hi, I'm a new Phenix user, so please forgive me if I ask an obvious question... I have pretty good SIRAS phases from one derivative, and calculating difference maps for 2 other derivatives show decent peaks above 5 sigma in both these maps. I've tried to follow the MIR example, but no sites are found in the two other derivatives (I thought Phenix calculates difference Fouriers for other derivatives as soon as it finds sites in one of the datasets - but it doesn't appear to in my case). Anyway, the following is my effeort at trying to use the SIRAS phases of the good derivative and the 5sigma peaks in the 2 other derivatives to phase a better map. Please could someone advise me if this script won't do what I'd like it to (i.e., calulate difference Fouriers for derviatives 2 and 3, refine the HA sites that I've included, and calculate phases): cell 100.000 100.000 100.000 90.000 90.000 90.000 # cell params resolution 5.5 # Resolution solvent_fraction 0.47 input_seq_file seq.dat ##### READ IN DERIV 1 SIRAS PHASES ###### input_phase_file solve_4.mtz input_phase_labels FP SIGFP PHIB FOM HLA HLB HLC HLD ############### DERIV 2 ################# input_file_list nat.sca hg.sca # Native and deriv 2 nat_der_list Native Hg # identify files by ha type inano_list noinano inano # say if ano diffs to be used f_prime -2.1 f_double_prime 9.5 n_ha_list 0 6 # number of heavy-atoms sites_file hg-sites.xyz run_list start # read in datafiles for dataset run_list read_another_dataset # about to start a new dataset here ############### DERIV 3 ################# input_file_list nat.sca xe.sca # Native and deriv 3 nat_der_list Native Xe # identify files by ha type inano_list noinano inano # say if ano diffs to be used f_prime -0.1 f_double_prime 3.5 n_ha_list 0 11 # number of heavy-atoms sites_file xe-sites.xyz ########################################## Many thanks!

1 0

General user proposal deadline November 15
by Peter Zwart 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

Dear All, The deadline for general user proposals for PX beamtime at the ALS is comming up soon! At the BCSB, we have 5 beamlines for which you can apply for beamtime. At the Berkeley Center for Structural Biology (BCSB) we have recently completed a number of upgrades: Sector 8: Recent improvements include: * A high-accuracy microdiffractometer on BL 8.2.1, allowing for centering and viewing of very small crystals * Robotic automounters which can increase the screening throughput at the beamlines, and allows for the implementation of remote data collection. * A new large format (315mm active surface area) CCD detector on BL 8.2.1, facilitating data collection on large unit cell crystals Sector 5: Beamlines (5.0.1 and 5.0.3) now generate 1.5x10^11 photons per second at 0.97 Angstrom. This wavelength is slightly above the Se K edge making them ideal for performing Se SAD experiments. Beamline 5.0.2 (the tunable beamline) generates a peak flux of 8x10^11 photons per second, and the energy range of 5.0.2 has been extended to 17 keV, enabling the routine use of shorter wavelengths and anomalously scattering elements such as bromine. Remote data collection for general users on sector 5 is currently being tested for a limited number of users. Please contact beamline staff for details. Please visit http://bcsb.lbl.gov/ for more details about the Center and its beamlines. If you'd like to apply for next round of beamtime (Jan-Feb) at the Advanced Light Source, please submit a General User proposal by November 15, 2008. To find out more, click on: http://www-als.lbl.gov/als/quickguide/independinvest.html We invite you to submit a proposal at: http://alsusweb.lbl.gov/4DCGI/WEB_GetForm/PXProposalEntry.shtml If you have any questions or would like to request open beamtime, please e-mail BCSBBeamtime(a)lbl.gov. (Please note that executed user agreements must be received by LBNL prior to beamtime. Proprietary fees, if applicable, must be received by LBNL at least five working days prior to scheduled beamtime.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.H. Zwart Beamline Scientist Berkeley Center for Structural Biology Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA-94703, USA Cell: 510 289 9246 BCSB: http://bcsb.als.lbl.gov PHENIX: http://www.phenix-online.org CCTBX: http://cctbx.sf.net -----------------------------------------------------------------

1 1

Autosol: cell keyword
by Page, Rebecca 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

Hi phenixers: Is there a way to use the Autosol Wizard with unmerged data from Scalepack? I can't get it to recognize the 'cell' keyword. Thanks in advance, Rebecca

2 1

restricted simulated annealing
by Raja Dey 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

Dear Friends, How can I restrict simulated annealing in phenix on part of my molecule, say 2 chains out of 3 or part of a particular chain? Thanking you in advance for your reply... Raja

2 1

Failed to carry out AutoBuild
by Joao Renato Carvalho Muniz 12 Nov '08

12 Nov '08

Dear Phenix community, I started an AutoBuild run using the Phenix GUI (ver 1.3 final) on linux. However, I noticed 2 weird things: 1st, Phenix seems that can not handle with alignment between the residues from pdb and sequence.seq, flagging the "Rebuild in place not recommended as identity * fraction_aligned is 0.0%" message but still trying to build the structure with the option "include_input_model=False" I guess(?)... and 2nd, after quite a while I obtained the following error message: ******************************************************************************** Failed to carry out AutoBuild_build_cycle: child process stderr output: command: 'csh /someplace/somedir/somedir2/AutoBuild_run_2_/TEMP0/RUN_FILE_1' /someplace/somedir/somedir2/AutoBuild_run_2_/TEMP0/RUN_FILE_1.log: File exists. ******************************************************************************** The alignment between MR.1.pdb and sequence.seq should be something like 80%+! Also tried to run using the followed command line: phenix.autobuild data=MR.1.mtz model=MR.1.pdb include_input_model=True n_cycle_rebuild_max=5 seq_file=sequence.seq Same problem as above. Could anyone please tell me what to do to prevent this error and get phenix get its job finished? Many thanks in advance, Joao.

2 1

refine occupancies for MET/MSE double conformations
by Anastassis Perrakis 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Hi there - I was pleased to read in the manual: if no selections are provided (refine.occupancies.individual=None and refine.occupancies.group=None) then phenix.refine by default will refine individual occupancies for atoms that have partial occupancy values in input PDB file (except zeros) and it will perform group constrained occupancy refinement for all atoms in alternative conformations. Occupancies of all other atoms will be fixed. If selections are provided (refine.occupancies.individual=atom_selection or refine.occupancies.group=atom_selection) then the selected atoms will be added to the list of atoms defined above (atoms with partial occupancies or those in alternative conformations). See this document for examples of atom_selection syntax. However, I want to refine my MET residues in double conformations, one as MET (AMET) and the other one as MSE (BMSE) with each 0.5 occupancy to start with. When I try that I get: == ----------Initial model statistics (before refinement)---------- ... |-Occupancies statistics------------------------------------------------------| Sorry: There are atoms with negative occupancies. Check input PDB file. === The PDB file has 0.5 and 1.0 occupancies only. I am also using: == refinement.refine.strategy=tls+individual_sites+individual_adp +group_anomalous refinement.refine.adp.tls="chain A" refinement.refine.adp.tls="chain B" refinement.main.number_of_macro_cycles=4 refinement.simulated_annealing.start_temperature=5000 refinement.refine.adp.individual.anisotropic =" chain C" refinement .input .xray_data .labels=I_Mystery(+),SIGI_Mystery(+),I_Mystery(-),SIGI_Mystery(-),merged refinement.refine.anomalous_scatterers { group { selection = "name ZN " f_prime = -0.3 f_double_prime = 2.5 refine = *f_prime *f_double_prime } group { selection = "name SE " f_prime = -5.2 f_double_prime = 3.8 refine = *f_prime *f_double_prime } } == Any hints on how to proceed ? Should I define groups for the occupancy refinement explicitely and not rely to automatic assignment? And if so how? How do people treat this partial Se-Met issue ? We solved the structure with SeSAD ... if I out MSE I get pretty large negative density peaks on the Se ... if I put MET I get positive peaks ;-) And there are good reasons to believe in partial Se- substitution in this case. Thanks in advance, Tassos

8 15

cis peptide
by Jianghai Zhu 09 Nov '08

09 Nov '08

Hi, Does phenix.refine restrain cis peptide? How do I know if the refined pdb file contain any cis peptide? Thanks. -- Jianghai

3 3

User proposal submission for Collaborative Crystallography at BCSB
by Banumathi Sankaran 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Dear Users, Through the Collaborative Crystallography Pilot Program (CC) at the Advanced Light Source, scientists can send protein crystals to Berkeley Center for Structural biology (BCSB) staff researchers for data collection and analysis. The CC Pilot 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; * Reduced travel costs. Thumbnail Description: ====================== The Collaborative Crystallography program will be piloted on beamlines 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 for one year; if successful it will be implemented on a permanent basis. CC proposals will go through the regular ALS General User proposal review process for beamtime allocation. Proposals will be reviewed and ranked by the Proposal Study Panel, and beamtime will be allocated accordingly. BCSB staff will schedule the projects 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 submit a proposal, go to: http://www-als.lbl.gov/als/quickguide/independinvest.html Click on "protein crystallography" to begin proposal. For question 3 select "Collaborative PX 501/502." For question 9, please describe a specific research project with a clear end point. In order to request CC time for January/February 2009 allocation period, proposals must be submitted by November 15, 2008. The deadline for CC proposals for the time period March/April 2009 will be January 15, 2009. Regards, Banumathi Sankaran

1 0

weight optimization
by Raja Dey 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

Hi, I was trying to optimize weights as follows, but it came out with the error given below. Can anyone tell me what's wrong? I used phenix.refine ../p65_nat.mtz ../p65_136.1.pdb optimize_wxc=true optimize_wxu=true output.prefix=136.1 ----------xray term weight optimization (wxc)---------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 5, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 82, in run call_back_after_monitor_collect=call_back_after_monitor_collect) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/refinement/driver.py", line 1143, in run call_back_after_monitor_collect = call_back_after_monitor_collect) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/refinement/strategies.py", line 449, in refinement_machine log = log) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/refinement/weight_xray_chem.py", line 256, in __init__ self.wxc_optimization() File "/usr/local/phenix-1.3b-rc6/phenix/phenix/refinement/weight_xray_chem.py", line 511, in wxc_optimization wxc = self.holder.wxc AttributeError: weight instance has no attribute 'holder' Thanks... Raja

6 6

DNA sugar pucker
by Laura Murray 26 Oct '08

26 Oct '08

Hi. I'm one of the Richardsons' people. I have more experience with RNA, but have looked at DNA some as well. 1. On C2'-endo and C3'-exo being equivalent: no, not quite equivalent, but related. If you do have C1', C4', and O4' in the plane, then "popping" C2' out on one side or C3' out on the other is relatively similar (sort of) and there's a recognized "twist" conformation where you've got them both out of plane a bit. However, you can really get C3' mostly in-plane with the other three and have a conformation that's distinctly a C2' endo pucker rather than looking like it could be either one. If you're building ideal B-form DNA, it would be better to use a real C2'-endo pucker than the twist, and certainly better than using the C3'-exo. 2. I'm afraid I don't know the appropriate format for use with PHENIX, but there are pucker-specific parameters available on the Nucleic Acid Database site: http://ndbserver.rutgers.edu -- specifically, here: http://ndbserver.rutgers.edu/standards/parameter.html -- these are set up for XPLOR, but the values should help. At any rate, these files distinguish the dihedrals for C2'-endo and C3'-endo sugar puckers. (The set for higher resolution also provides slightly different bond lengths and angles for them, since the ring strains are a bit different.) And I don't think they make a habit of turning up C3'-exo. Laura Murray

1 0

sugar puckering in an ideal B-DNA
by chern 26 Oct '08

26 Oct '08

Hi all, does anybody know why coot and sybil (and may be others that I don't know about) generate an ideal dna with C3*-exo puckers instead of C2*-endo, as text books say. maia

2 1