- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Call reminder: XChem fragment screening, NEXT WEDNESDAY
by Frank von Delft 29 Mar '19

29 Mar '19

Dear aspiring drug discoverers A reminder that the deadline for the next round of proposals for XChem fragment screening is *next Wednesday 5pm*, as part of Diamond's general Call for Proposals. Full details <https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Instruments/Mx/Fragment-Screening/Applying-for-XC…> are on the XChem webpage <https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Instruments/Mx/Fragment-Screening.html>. *Reminder: *we are now inviting a broader set of projects: * Two-tiered access: if you have an exciting system but don't yet know how to progress it, you can ask for exploratory access ("Tier 1") * BAG access: several labs and collaborations have requested increased flexibility, and several have been assigned Block Allocation Groups. If you wish to submit this route, I suggest you also email me directly. Happy screening! Frank -- Prof Frank von Delft Associate Professor Principal Investigator: Protein Crystallography Structural Genomics Consortium Oxford University +44 1865 617583 (office: W,F) Principal Beamline Scientist: I04-1 Diamond Light Source +44 1235 778997 (office: M,T,T) +44 7471 026103 (mobile)

1 0

scattering_table in phenix.real_space_refine
by Keitaro Yamashita 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

Dear PHENIX developers, For the refinement of CryoEM structure, I changed scattering_table to electron from default (n_gaussian in phenix-1.13), but the resultant coordinates and ADPs were exactly same while map-model CCs were improved. Looking into the code, I noticed scattering_table is not passed to the ADP refinement code (mmtbx.refinement.real_space.adp.real_space_group_adp_refinery_via_reciprocal_space) and xray_structure is newly constructed from a pdb_hierarchy object; therefore a default table in scattering_type_registry() (which is n_gaussian) is always used. Is this an intended behavior? I modified the code to use the scattering table of electron in ADP refinement, and CCs were improved (CC_mask 0.7566 to 0.7813; both evaluated with scattering_table=electron). Best regards, Keitaro

2 1

Refinement
by StrBio 24 Mar '19

24 Mar '19

ALL. I have data at 2.4 A in P21 sp gr, helical protein. Refined to Rwork 29 Rfree 34 with nice density map and all nice statistics oither Rfactor (by Phenix). Refmac quit same. Should I deposit it or look better data? Any suggestion?

1 0

Phenix Rosetta hybrid refinement PHENIX_ROSETTA_PATH error
by Ahmad Khalifa 23 Mar '19

23 Mar '19

But I have the path set! (base) [labusr@luxor ~]$ echo $PHENIX_ROSETTA_PATH /home/labusr/rosetta:/home/labusr/rosetta/main I attached the log. Please advise.

2 1

Distance constraint to atom in symmetry copy in phenix.refine
by Julian Esselborn 23 Mar '19

23 Mar '19

Dear community, we have a somewhat complicated problem to which I don't seem to find a solution. We have a structure, which has a number of 3-fold and 2-fold symmetry axes in the final assembly structure. The 3-fold axes are hold together by metal atoms on the axis. However, we have three cases of these axes: 1. Symmetry axis falls onto the crystallographic symmetry axis. We can deal with this; setting metal to 0.33 occupancy and setting metal-protein distance constraints. This is a proper symmetry axis. 2. Symmetry axis doesn't fall onto a crystallographic symmetry axis, but all three monomers coming together are within the same symmetry copy of the ASU. Even easier, metal stays at occ=1 and we just set constraints to chain A, chain B, chain C. 3. The really challenging case, where the axis doesn't fall onto the symmetry axis, but the three monomers coming together are in different symmetry copies of the ASU. Cases (2) and (3) are pseudo-symmetric in the crystallographic sense. Usually a bit of intelligent moving around of the monomers to their crystallographic symmetry positions should push all monomers of case (3) into neighboring positions within the same ASU ending up as case (2); problem solved. BUT: In our structure we have too many 3fold axes, such that there will always be one of them ending up as case (3). E.g. the three monomers are chains A, B, C, but they do not end up neighboring in the ASU. Rather the axis is formed by A, B' and C'' (with ' denoting different symmetry copies of the ASU). We could assign the metal to chain A with occ=1 and no metal in B and C. However, we would need to set a distance constraint from the metal to it's ligands in protein monomer B and protein monomer C. But it is only the ligand in B' and C'', which are actually close to the metal in A. The ligands in B and C are at the other end of the ASU. Is there a way to set a distance constraint such that it measures the distance to a crystallographic symmetry copy? A different idea was to just assign an alternative position alt A, alt B and alt C to the metal, with A being close to the ligand in monomer A, B close to monomer B and C close to monomer C. That way we could make constraints. But we would need to cross fingers that the three metal atoms actually end up in the same spot once applying the crystallographic symmetry (and remember, that 3-fold axis is not constructed by applying a 3fold rotational symmetry around that axis; rather an actual crystallographic symmetry somwhere else brings them together; means the ligands with their metal atoms can actually move independently). I'm a bit at a loss how to deal with this and would appreciate input. Thanks a lot in advance! all the best Julian ---- Julian Esselborn Postdoctoral Researcher Tezcan group University of California, San Diego

3 6

Map Segmantation
by Yangqi Gu 22 Mar '19

22 Mar '19

Hi Everyone, I have a naive question about segmentation. I have a low resolution map of a filament (~20 A) and I know the helical symmetry. I have monomer sequence but no structure. I am wondering if I could segment the filament and obtain the monomer density? Does segment_and_split_map work on the low resolution case? Best, Yangqi -- Yangqi Gu Graduate Student Malvankar Lab Yale University, West Campus

2 1

How to get command line of operation run through gui?
by Ahmad Khalifa 20 Mar '19

20 Mar '19

I'm trying to box out a cryo-em map and used the option "padding=" as per the documentation, but received error interpreting command line argument. is the documentation outdated? Regards.

1 0

mmCIF for deposition
by Patrick Loll 19 Mar '19

19 Mar '19

Hi all, Following the instructions given here: https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/overviews/xray-structure-deposi… I’m attempting to use mmtbx.prepare_pdb_deposition to insert sequence information into the mmCIF that contains the model coordinates. Unfortunately, the program fails with an error (shown below). The sequence file is FASTA format, and contains an entry for each of the (4) chains in the AU, i.e. >A MSEQNCE… >B MSEQNCE… etc. Any bright ideas? ============this is what happens (vide infra)==================================== [PJL-iMac:blahblah/PJL_final] loll% mmtbx.prepare_pdb_deposition filename.cif seq_name.fasta Starting mmtbx.prepare_pdb_deposition on Mon Oct 1 11:16:23 2018 by loll =============================================================================== Processing files: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Found model, filename.cif Found sequence, seq_name.fasta Processing PHIL parameters: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No PHIL parameters found Final processed PHIL parameters: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- data_manager { model { file = “filename.cif" } default_model = “filename.cif" sequence_files = "seq_name.fasta" default_sequence = "seq_name.fasta" } Starting job =============================================================================== Validating inputs Using model: filename.cif Using sequence: seq_name.fasta Creating mmCIF block for sequence Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Applications/phenix-1.14-3260/build/../modules/cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/prepare_pdb_deposition.py", line 9, in <module> run_program(program_class=prepare_pdb_deposition.Program) File "/Applications/phenix-1.14-3260/modules/cctbx_project/iotbx/cli_parser.py", line 71, in run_program task.run() File "/Applications/phenix-1.14-3260/modules/cctbx_project/mmtbx/programs/prepare_pdb_deposition.py", line 98, in run alignment_params=self.params.mmtbx.validation.sequence.sequence_alignment) File "/Applications/phenix-1.14-3260/modules/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/hierarchy.py", line 1190, in as_cif_block_with_sequence assert len(chain.residue_groups) + chain.n_missing_start + chain.n_missing_end == len(sequence) AssertionError (gouts of smoke, terrified squealing) The ‘No PHIL parameters found’ message is concerning, but the program clearly seems to be finding the input file names. Suggestions welcome. Thanks, Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D. Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Drexel University College of Medicine Room 10-102 New College Building 245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192 USA (215) 762-7706 pjloll(a)gmail.com pjl28(a)drexel.edu

3 4

FEM by using FoFc map
by Danilo Belviso 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Dear all, I am interested in fitting a ligand in the case of a structure where water molecules have been already placed. I know that this is not the standard procedure, but these water molecules are quite sure. To do this, I used ligand fit procedure with command "lig_map_type = *fo-fc_difference_map fobs_map pre_calculated_map_coeffs" command. At the end, the procedure provides ligands with low CC (0.4-0.55). So, I would try ligand fitting by using FEM of Fo-Fc. The rationale is that FEM of Fo-Fc could help (likely) ligand fitting, by consider the presence of water molecules at the same time (Fo-Fc should be 0 where water molecules are placed). Maybe nothing will change, but I would try. I calculated FEM by using phenix.fem start_FEM.pdb start_FEM.mtz input.xray_data.label='FOFCWT' and also by using phenix.fem start_FEM.pdb start_FEM.mtz maps.map_coefficients_label='FOFCWT PHFOFCWT' file_name_prefix='FEM_map' where start_FEM.pdb and start_FEM.mtz are the pdb and mtz resulting from the refinement with water. However, by checking the the fem maps by coot, I notice that fem is completely different from Fo-Fc and it is not the expected feature-enanched Fo-Fc. Is the procedure and keywords correct to perform FEM calculation of Fo-Fc? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks Danilo -- Dr. Belviso Benny Danilo, PhD Istituto di Cristallografia (IC) Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) via Amendola 122/o, 70126 Bari - Italy Tel ++39 080 5929273 Fax ++39 080 5929170 mail: danilo.belviso(a)ic.cnr.it web: users.ba.cnr.it/ic/crisdb00

2 1

UK Open Research Data Task Force weblink to Report, Case studies and Minister’s response
by John R Helliwell 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Dear Colleagues, Thankyou for asking about the weblink to the case studies. The UK Open Research Data Task Force weblink to Report, Case studies and Minister’s response is here:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-research-data-task-force-fi… Best wishes, John

1 0

UK Open Research Data Task Force Final Report
by Jrh Gmail 17 Mar '19

17 Mar '19

Dear Colleagues, The UK Open Research Data Task Force Final Report is here:- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/… This will be of general interest. As well as contributing to the general report I wrote the crystallography case study. Best wishes, John Emeritus Professor of Chemistry John R Helliwell DSc_Physics Chairman of IUCr Committee on Data

1 0

completeness issue
by yong zhou 17 Mar '19

17 Mar '19

Dear Pavel, Thanks for your reply. The output file is attached. Please check. Look forward to the reply. Best regards Yong Zhou ________________________________ From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 6:47 PM To: yong zhou; phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Subject: Re: [phenixbb] completeness issue Can you send the file to me off-list? I'll have a closer look once I have the file. Pavel On 3/11/19 16:10, yong zhou wrote: Hi, Recently I deposited a structure to PDB. However, I was told there is a large difference between reported (77.89%) and calculated (88.36%) values for data completeness. In order to confirm the information, I used the command phenix.reflection_statistics and the result is as following. Resolution range: 31.6787 1.91132 Completeness in resolution range: 0.783333 Completeness with d_max=infinity: 0.783193 Anomalous completeness in resolution range: 0.599544 Bijvoet pairs: 15786 Lone Bijvoet mates: 9291 Mean anomalous difference: 0.0671 Space group of the intensities: P 2 2 2 Space group of the metric: P m m m Tolerance used in the determination of the lattice symmetry: 3 degrees Possible twin laws: None Completeness of 4-8-(GlcNAc)5/output4-8.sca:I(+),SIGI(+),I(-),SIGI(-): unused: - 31.6830 [ 0/9 ] 0.000 bin 1: 31.6830 - 1.9113 [28083/29673] 0.946 unused: 1.9113 - [ 0/0 ] There are two completeness values 0.783 and 0.946. So which is the correct one? Look forward to the reply. Yong Zhou _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

error in Phaser
by Alexandra Deaconescu 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

Hello, I have been trying to run Phaser using a map ensemble when I encountered the error listed below, which caused Phaser to fail. I have also attached the log file. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you, Alexandra UNHANDLED ERROR: Program internal error in source file TraceMol.cc (line 229) *** Consistency check (wang_mask.size()) failed. ***

2 1

completeness issue
by yong zhou 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

Hi, Recently I deposited a structure to PDB. However, I was told there is a large difference between reported (77.89%) and calculated (88.36%) values for data completeness. In order to confirm the information, I used the command phenix.reflection_statistics and the result is as following. Resolution range: 31.6787 1.91132 Completeness in resolution range: 0.783333 Completeness with d_max=infinity: 0.783193 Anomalous completeness in resolution range: 0.599544 Bijvoet pairs: 15786 Lone Bijvoet mates: 9291 Mean anomalous difference: 0.0671 Space group of the intensities: P 2 2 2 Space group of the metric: P m m m Tolerance used in the determination of the lattice symmetry: 3 degrees Possible twin laws: None Completeness of 4-8-(GlcNAc)5/output4-8.sca:I(+),SIGI(+),I(-),SIGI(-): unused: - 31.6830 [ 0/9 ] 0.000 bin 1: 31.6830 - 1.9113 [28083/29673] 0.946 unused: 1.9113 - [ 0/0 ] There are two completeness values 0.783 and 0.946. So which is the correct one? Look forward to the reply. Yong Zhou

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] Fo-Fo difference map for non-isomorphous datasets
by Jordan Luke Pederick 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

Also, I am interested if anyone knows of any publications that have included a real-space difference map? Cheers, Jordan ________________________________ From: Jordan Luke Pederick Sent: Monday, 11 March 2019 1:25:57 PM To: Eric Montemayor; Pavel Afonine; Philip Kiser; Tim Gruene; phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Fo-Fo difference map for non-isomorphous datasets Thank you all for the prompt responses and suggestions. My metal ion of interest is Cesium in this case, so I guess I am more interested in using this approach for visualization rather than peak identification - the strong density of Cs is fairly obvious I have attached a few images of the superimposed (Fo, Phi) maps and resulting difference map using either Superpose maps in phenix or transform_map in coot following Tim's suggestions. I also tried using maprot (CCP4) to apply the rotation/translation operator from the LSQ superpose but the resulting map was not superposed correctly (not sure why). Both results seem kind of reasonable - I have shown one of the difference peaks for what is likely to be a bound Cs. For both approaches the peak was very obvious at a 3 sigma level, and could still be observed to around 10 sigma in both cases. I am still unsure about differences in scaling, so although strong positive peaks can be identified, I wouldn't be confident using the map to interpret smaller differences. In response to Eric - I checked the anomalous signal, which was fairly weak. The resulting anomalous difference map did show positive peaks up to a level of ~10 sigma that matched those observed in the above real-space difference maps, with a 3 sigma level corresponding to 0.0137 e/A^3. The CCanom was also low (1-5% between shells), so I was thinking that another approach might be more suitable for this data? Cheers, Jordan ________________________________ From: Eric Montemayor <montemayor.eric(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2019 4:50:21 AM To: Jordan Luke Pederick Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Fo-Fo difference map for non-isomorphous datasets Why not just look for peaks in the anomalous difference Fourier for just the derivative dataset? If there’s even a weak anomalous signal, you won’t need to mess with non-isomorphism between multiple datasets.... the information you need is already contained alone in the derivative dataset. What is the metal? The above approach won’t work for something like magnesium, but should work for almost any transition metal. Eric On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 3:23 AM Jordan Luke Pederick <jordan.pederick(a)adelaide.edu.au<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I am trying to generate a Fo-Fo difference map for two data sets of the same protein at ~2.3 angstrom resolution. One dataset is native and the other was soaked with a metal ion, so the purpose of the map is for identifying and visualizing peaks that may correspond to a bound metal ion. These datasets differ by 6 angstroms (~10%) along the A edge - an isomorphous difference map generated in Phenix GUI wasn't useful As an alternative I was planning to make a real-space Fo-Fo difference map making use of Superpose Maps in Phenix Gui as follows: Superpose maps would be used to superimpose (Fobs.metal, PHI.metal) and (Fobs.native, PHI.native) The superimposed maps will be opened in Coot and a difference map generated using "Extensions -> Maps -> Make a difference map" There were two things I was unsure about: Does this seem like a reasonable alternative? Is scaling of the two datasets required before generating the difference map? Cheers, Jordan _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

phenix.elbow error
by Eugene Osipov 10 Mar '19

10 Mar '19

Dear phenix developers, I have found that QM calculations in phenix.elbow fail due to an error: *bad fp number.* I've found the source of the error in phenix-1.14-3260/modules/elbow/elbow/quantum/run_utils.py at line 11: easy_run.call('./%s.csh >& /dev/null' % project) should be : easy_run.call('./%s.csh 2>&1 /dev/null' % project) Also jaguar template (phenix-1.14-3260/modules/elbow/Jaguar.csh) is a bit outdated. For $SCHRODINGER/jaguar paramether -PROC was replaced by -PARALLEL also, it seems that programs seeks for wrong input file. So I suggest that: $SCHRODINGER/jaguar run -PROCS %d -WAIT $PROJECT should look like: $SCHRODINGER/jaguar run -PARALLEL %d -WAIT $PROJECT.in Can you please fix this issues in next releases? -- Evgenii Osipov Laboratory for Biocrystallography, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, KU Leuven O&N2

2 1

Fo-Fo difference map for non-isomorphous datasets
by Jordan Luke Pederick 09 Mar '19

09 Mar '19

Hi, I am trying to generate a Fo-Fo difference map for two data sets of the same protein at ~2.3 angstrom resolution. One dataset is native and the other was soaked with a metal ion, so the purpose of the map is for identifying and visualizing peaks that may correspond to a bound metal ion. These datasets differ by 6 angstroms (~10%) along the A edge - an isomorphous difference map generated in Phenix GUI wasn't useful As an alternative I was planning to make a real-space Fo-Fo difference map making use of Superpose Maps in Phenix Gui as follows: Superpose maps would be used to superimpose (Fobs.metal, PHI.metal) and (Fobs.native, PHI.native) The superimposed maps will be opened in Coot and a difference map generated using "Extensions -> Maps -> Make a difference map" There were two things I was unsure about: Does this seem like a reasonable alternative? Is scaling of the two datasets required before generating the difference map? Cheers, Jordan

3 2

Units in intensity?
by Murpholino Peligro 09 Mar '19

09 Mar '19

If I do `phenix.xtriage XDS_ASCII.HKL` I get a log file. In the "Statistics for data merging" of this log file I have: Resolution: 26.02 - 1.40 Observations: 44675 Unique reflections: 16306 Redundancy: 2.7 Completeness: 70.37% Mean intensity: 1656.8 Mean I/sigma(I): 19.8 SigI < 0 (rejected): 644 observations R-merge: 0.027 R-meas: 0.032 R-pim: 0.017 My question is... what units does Mean intensity has? Thanks Ps I am not sure if this has to do with the detector used which was a CCD (type) ADSC QUANTUM 210 (model).

3 5

difference in Wilson B calculated in Xtriange or Polygon
by Eze Chivi 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

Hi, The value of Wilson B calculated in Phenix differs for the same data when I use Polygon or Xtriange, why? In Xtriange-->Absolute scale and Wilson analysis: ML estimate of overall B value: 48.88 A**2 In Polygon: 52.05 Thank you Ezequiel

1 0

contour values for Polder and FEM
by V F 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Hi all, What is the recommended values for contouring for Polder and FEM? In pymol, I have a isomesh polder_COA_mesh, polder_207_1, 3, select_COA, carve=2 isomesh FEM_COA, fem_coa_190, 1, select_COA, carve=2 Are these sensible values? Many thanks, Vero PS: Both identify ligand very well!

2 1

AUC2019 – registrations are open.
by Renwick Dobson 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

Dear Structural Biology community, AUC2019<https://auc2019.uleth.ca/>, the 24th AUC Workshop and Symposium, will be held at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch (New Zealand) from 24-29 August 2019. The format of the event is a 2-3 day workshop<https://auc2019.uleth.ca/workshops.php> offering parallel, hands-on training in experimental design and the latest AUC data analysis software from the world experts in this area followed by a 2 day research symposium on AUC and complementary approaches: methodological development, combination with orthogonal techniques (SAXS, SANS, SPR, MST, SEC-MALLS etc), application in biosciences and material sciences. Registrations are now open and details can be found at this website: https://auc2019.uleth.ca/ As the scientific program<https://auc2019.uleth.ca/symposium.php> for AUC2019 emerges, events will be uploaded to the website. We strongly encourage you to submit abstracts for talks and posters<https://auc2019.uleth.ca/abstracts.php>. The meeting is also timed such that delegates can also attend the Queenstown Molecular Biology Conference<https://www.queenstownresearchweek.org/> (which is in Queenstown), although note that this is a separate conference. Lastly, The European Biophysics Journal has kindly agreed to run a special issue to celebrate the research presented at AUC2019. Therefore, we invite those who wish to extend their talks to a journal publication to consider contributing original research articles to this issue. Please indicate your interest for inclusion in this volume below. Deadline for registration of a contribution is August 30 2019. We look forward to welcoming you to Christchurch, New Zealand next Spring(-ish)! Ren Dobson, Chair AUC2019 On behalf of the AUC2019 Scientific Organising Committee ---- Prof. Ren Dobson Co-Director, Biomolecular Interaction Centre (BIC) http://www.bic.canterbury.ac.nz/ School of Biological Sciences | Te Kura Pūtaiao Koiora University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha Private Bag 4800 Christchurch | Ōtautahi New Zealand | Aotearoa E: renwick.dobson(a)canterbury.ac.nz<mailto:[email protected]> T: ++64 (03) 369-5145 x 95145 F: ++64 (03) 364-2590 W: http://dobsonlab.org/

1 0

Postdoctoral position in structural biology of influenza virus transcription Cusack group, EMBL Grenoble
by Stephen Cusack 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

Postdoctoral position in structural biology of influenza virus transcription Cusack group, EMBL Grenoble We are looking for a highly motivated and ambitious individual to progress our understanding of the mechanism of transcription by influenza virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The work is in the frame of the ANR-funded FluTranscript project that brings together the complementary expertise of the groups of Stephen Cusack (EMBL Grenoble, project coordinator) and Nadia Naffakh (Institut Pasteur) in structural biology and molecular virology, respectively. The project follows on from a recent joint publication (Structural basis of an essential interaction between influenza polymerase and Pol II CTD. Lukarska et al, Nature 2017) and aims to reconstitute and determine the structure of functional transcription complexes. A secondary goal is to use the acquired structural information to develop new approaches to anti-influenza drug development. The Cusack group uses X-ray crystallography and cryo electron-microscopy to study the structural biology of protein-RNA complexes involved in RNA virus replication, innate immunity and cellular RNA metabolism. Group website: https://www.embl.fr/research/unit/cusack/index.html The successful candidate should have a PhD in Molecular Biology or related field and a strong background and interest in biochemistry and structural biology. We are looking for a creative and ambitious person with good communication skills and keen to work on a challenging project. Experience in insect cell expression systems, reconstitution of protein-RNA complexes, X-ray crystallography or cryo-electron microscopy would be particularly beneficial. EMBL is one of the world’s leading research organizations in the life sciences. The Headquarters Laboratory is located in Heidelberg, with additional sites in Barcelona, Grenoble, Hamburg, Hinxton, and Rome. EMBL Grenoble has excellent access to state-of-the-art structural biology technologies with the in house EM facility being equipped with a T12 microscope and 200kV Glacios/Falcon III . Additionally, we have access to the Titan Krios at the adjacent ESRF as well as those in EMBL Heidelberg. Other facilities on the Grenoble Campus include the ESRF synchrotron X-ray beamlines, neutron scattering at the ILL, high-field NMR at the IBS as well as high-throughput crystallization platform, mammalian and insect cell facilities, biophysical platform and confocal microscopy. You can find out more about this vacancy at: https://www.embl.fr/jobs/searchjobs/index.php?ref=GR00133 or by contacting Stephen Cusack: cusack(a)embl.fr Please apply online through www.embl.org/ Stephen Cusack -- ********************************************************************** Dr. Stephen Cusack, FRS Head of Grenoble Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) Group leader in structural biology of protein-RNA complexes and viral proteins ********************************************************************** Email: cusack(a)embl.fr Website: http://www.embl.fr Tel: (33) 4 76 20 7238 Secretary (33) 4 76 20 7123 Fax: (33) 4 76 20 7199 Postal address: EMBL Grenoble Outstation, 71 Avenue des Martyrs, CS 90181, 38042 Grenoble Cedex 9, France Delivery address: EMBL Grenoble Outstation, Polygone Scientifique, 71 Avenue des Martyrs, 38000 Grenoble, France **********************************************************************

1 0

Are TLS parameters applied when TLS refinement is OFF?
by Mark Saper 05 Mar '19

05 Mar '19

I have a structure where at one stage TLS parameters were determined and then refined. It caused the R-free to increase so I stopped refining the TLS parameters. Are the TLS parameters still applied to the structure on subsequent refinement runs even when the TLS refinement is off? Is it appropriate to refine anisotropic B’s for a high resolution (1.35 Å) structure AND apply TLS parameters? Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ Mark A. Saper, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biological Chemistry, U-M Medical School Room 3220B, MSRB III saper(a)umich.edu +1 (734) 764-3353 mobile: (734) 276-6505

2 3

MAD merged dataset deposition
by Eugene Osipov 03 Mar '19

03 Mar '19

Hello, everyone, I have solved the structure of heme containing protein using anomalous signal from Fe atom (~1.739 anstroms) and further refined it using native dataset (0.9 angstroms). Structure was solved in AutoSol. The question is "What is the best way to deposit mtz with both datasets?" Should I merge and scale them simultaneously or can I deposit output file from AutoSol overall_best_refine_data.mtz, which contains F,FP, Rfree and HL coefficients? P.S.: please, respond in PM, I have only digest subscription on phenixBB. Thank you in advance! -- Evgenii Osipov Laboratory for Biocrystallography, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, KU Leuven O&N2

2 1

Rotamer restraints in phenix.real_space_refine
by Ashley Pike 01 Mar '19

01 Mar '19

Hi - Am I right in thinking that rotamer restraints behaves differently in latest official release (1.14-3260) compared to last but one official release (1.13-2998)? Issuing rotamer_restraints=True from command line or GUI used to give 0% rotamer outliers in the molprobity analysis at end of log in 1.13-2998 but now in 1.14 gives non-zero for same input model. It is as if they are not being applied. In the old log file it used to clearly print - **Update rotamer restraints*** after every macrocycle, in the 1.14 logs this is omitted. Many thanks, Ashley

3 4