- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

erraser for DNA?
by Phoebe A. Rice 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

I know phenix has lovely DNA restraints, but I think the backbone of my lowish-resolution DNA structure could use more help. Is there anything like erraser for DNA that will make my DNA backbone as B-like as possible? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phoebe A. Rice Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology The University of Chicago PRice(a)uchicago.edu<mailto:[email protected]>

2 1

The discrepancy for determination of Ramachandran outliers by Coot and MolProbity
by Smith Lee 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

Dear All, It often finds for the Ramachandran favored determined by Coot, MolProbity regards as Ramachandran outliers. There are earlier posts regards Coot and MolProbity has different database for the determination of the Ramachandran plots. Then will you please let me know the correct way to correct the Ramachandran outliers by Coot in order to meet the MolProbity Standards? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

1 0

SA (torsion angle) along with B factor reset to low value.
by Tarek DawoD 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

to remove memory of the old original R-free flags (which is not available) and using a new test set, i reset the B factor and use SA (torsion angle) i got this error: not implemented: support of different sites. individual and sites.torsion_angles selection. what does that mean? thank you in advance TK_DawoD

2 1

on HIS ** both conformations clash in the flipping
by Smith Lee 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

Dear All, In the log output of the Phenix refine, for the flipping of the N/Q/H residues before XYZ refinement, it often occurs something like "HIS ** both conformations clash, **PLEASE CHECK MANUALLY**". Will you please tell me what will clash with 1 of the 2 conformations of the specified HIS? I have checked the specified HIS in Coot, and I still do not know what does it mean for "both conformations clash". I am looking forward to getting a reply from you for clarification. Smith

2 1

Computational Crystallography Newsletter - Volume 6, Number 1
by Nigel Moriarty 17 Feb '15

17 Feb '15

I am pleased to announce the publication of the latest issue of the Computational Crystallography Newsletter: http://www.phenix-online.org/newsletter/ A listing of the articles and short communications is given below. Please note that the newsletter accepts articles of a general nature of interest to all crystallographers. Please send any articles to me at NWMoriarty(a)lbl.gov noting that there is a Word Template on the website to streamline production. January 2015 Articles Improved Probabilistic Estimates of Biocrystal Solvent Content Rapid evaluation of non-bonded overlaps in atomic models Short Communications Plan a SAD experiment, scale SAD data, and analyze your anomalous signal Validation of carbohydrate structures in CCP4 6.5 Disulfide bond restraints Fitting Tip #9: Avoiding excess cis peptides at low resolution or high B FAQ - Tips for coordinated metal refinement Cheers Nigel --- Nigel W. Moriarty 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

Quick request for addition to the line at the end of all these mails
by Morten Grøftehauge 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Dear administrators of this list, Could you please add a line at the very end of these mails with: To unsubscribe click: www.somelink.com As it is it seems that some people have trouble getting off the list after they sign up. Because my spam filter keeps sending phenixbb mails into the spam folder. Which is likely because someone out there keeps flagging them as spam. If there's a link like that then gmail will even offer to attempt to unsubscribe for you. Just a thought. Cheers, Morten

2 1

Please comment on the twinning analysis of my data by Xtriage
by Smith Liu 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

Dear All, I have done a Xtriage twinning analysis on my data. I summarize the result as following, Twinning analysis summary: The results of the L-test indicate that the intensity statistics below as expected. No twinning is suspected. Multivariate Z score L-test: 1.625. It further shows, Possible twin operators o merohedral twin operator(s) found, 1 pseudo-merohedral twin operator(s) found. Type Axis R metric(%) delta(le Pa) delta (lebed) Twin law PM 2-fold 4.934 2.547 0.036 l -k h Based on the above information, will you please advise me whether I need to input "l -k h" in the "Twin law" in "Other options" in "Refinement settings" in the Phenix refine graphical interface? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

2 1

On the cycles of the Phenix refinement
by Smith Lee 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

Dear All, The default number of cycles for the Phenix refinement graphical interface is 3 (should be macro-cycles). I have done a refinement with 3 default cycles, and I get the acceptable refinement results. Then I kept everything same, except I changed the cycles of refinement from 3 to 5, however the refinement result was ugly which was unacceptable. Someone told me once I have corrected the outliers by Coot, I can have a Phenix refinement with macro-cycles as 1, in order to avoid the Ramachandran corrected ones changing backing to Ramachandran outliers (Will you please further comment whether this strategy to correct Ramachandran outliers is acceptable or not). Thus can we regard the macro-cycles of Phenix refinement as one parameter for the refinement? And why the macro-cycles of the refinement can affect the refinement result? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Fw: Fw: Question related to Phenix refinement
by Pavel Afonine 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

> From the attached the image, on the x-axis you can see the 4' rsrg and > 5'rsrg. > > I am looking forward to getting an explanation from you. Dear Smith, hope this will lead you to the answer: chevy:/net/chevy/raid1/afonine/sources % which fifig fifig: aliased to libtbx.find_files -g chevy:/net/chevy/raid1/afonine/sources % fifig rsrg ./cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/print_statistics.py: "realsrg" : "rsrg", chevy:/net/chevy/raid1/afonine/sources % All the best, Pavel

1 0

Question related to Phenix refinement
by Smith Lee 15 Feb '15

15 Feb '15

Dear All. In the Phenix refine "run status" window, with the progression of the refinement, it occurs 3' bss, 3' rsrl, 3' xyz, 3' adp (for 3rd round of refinement). I guess xyz means the strategy is for x, y, z coordinates? Then what do bss, rsrl and adp mean? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

9 14

Test
by Paul Adams 14 Feb '15

14 Feb '15

-- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Division Deputy for Biosciences, Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Laboratory Research Manager, ENIGMA Science Focus Area Building 64, Room 248 Building 80, Room 247 Building 978, Room 4126 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: Louise Benvenue [ LBenvenue(a)lbl.gov ][ 1-510-495-2506 ] --

1 0

Hydrogen adding and real space refinement
by Smith Lee 13 Feb '15

13 Feb '15

Dear All, I find when I add H in the PDB file, in a refinement by Phenix, there is no real space refinement step (rsrl). If I do not add H in the PDB file, there is the rsrl step in the refinement. Somebody told me it was because there was a bug in the Phenix I downloaded, somebody told me if H added, there would be no real space refinement. I myself cannot clarify it by reading documents. Will you please clarify whether no rsrl step after H addition was because of bug or because of H addition leading to no rsrl step? And why H addition can lead to no rsrl step? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Best regards. Smith

1 0

How should we estimate the "uncertainty" of the occupancy of an atom?
by Masaki UNNO 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

Hello We determined the structure of an enzyme-substrate complex. The substrate of the enzyme contains some partially occupied atoms. We were able to calculate the occupancies of these atoms using PHENIX_refine. By the way, I would like to know the uncertainties of the occupancies of these atoms. How can I estimate the uncertainties? For example, the occupancy of an atom was calculated as 0.65; can we write it as 0.65 (+/- 0.05) or 0.65 (+/- 0.1)? I know that it is related to B-factor and depends on the resolution (number of diffraction data per parameters), but I would like to know how to estimate (calculate?) the uncertainty. Could someone tell me about this issue? Best regards ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Masaki UNNO Graduate School of Science and Engineering Ibaraki University, JAPAN 4-12-1 Nakanarusawa, Hitachi, Ibaraki 316-8511, Japan Tel&Fax +81-294-38-5041 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 17

Re: [phenixbb] How should we estimate the "uncertainty" of the occupancy of an atom?
by Dale Tronrud 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

On 2/11/2015 12:34 PM, Keller, Jacob wrote: >> If your interpretation of your model depends on whether the occupancy of this atom is 0.65 or 0.75 crystallography is the tool you need. > > Did you mean *not* the tool...? > > JPK > You are right. I meant crystallography is NOT your tool. Sorry. Dale Tronrud

1 0

Specifying Multiple Twin Operators
by Keller, Jacob 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

Dear List, Is it possible to specify multiple twin operators in Phenix? I have tetartohedrally-twinned data. If so, what's the syntax, and an example? And can it be done through the GUI? Thanks, Jacob ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller, PhD Looger Lab/HHMI Janelia Research Campus 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147 email: kellerj(a)janelia.hhmi.org *******************************************

2 1

Question on Torsion-angle NCS
by Smith Liu 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

Dear All, For the graphical Phenix refine, if we click the "NCS options" button, a small window will occur. In the small window, will you please tell me how much should I input for "Weigh on NCS-related B-factor restraints"? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

2 1

Calculating map with electron scattering factors
by Omar Davulcu 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Hi, everyone. Probably a silly question, but here goes... I'm trying to calculate a simulated map around a set of coordinates using the electron scattering table. Phenix.maps doesn't appear to allow selection of that particular scattering table. I noticed that phenix.refine allows me to select that table and I thought I would set the number of macro cycles to 0 and turn off all the refinement options and produce a map that way. I thought I would generate the structure factors needed as input with phenix.fmodel, but that also doesn't allow selection of the electron scattering table. So, my (naïve) question is: what am I doing wrong? Is there a way I can calculate this map in phenix? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks much! Omar Davulcu

2 3

on XYZ individual (reciprocal space) refinement
by Dialing Pretty 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Dear All, Will you please tell me the XYZ individual (reciprocal space) refinement is executed by which strategy of the Phnix refinement? By XYZ coordinates, or by Optimize X-ray/ADP weight,or by Optimize X-ray/sterochemistry weight? Dialing

2 1

on my Phenix refinment
by Smith Lee 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

Dear All, I have started a Phenix refinement, my strategy including xyz coordinates, real space, individual B-factors, Group B-factors, TLS parameters, Occupancies, optimize X-ray/sterochemistry weight, NCS restraints, and Automatically correct N/Q/H errors. Number of cycles is 3. It is now at the 3' bss stage. But will you please tell me why there is no rsrl stage occurred in the Run Status window (here I mean there is no 1' rsrl stage and 2' rsrl stage) even now it has reached the 3' bss stage? I am looking forward to getting your reply. Smith

2 2

Global metrics for Ramachandran quality beyond %outliers?
by Shane Caldwell 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

I'm making a new thread because it's off the topic, but I have a question in response to this point <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2015-February/021691.html>: > [Doggy structure improved, as shown by how] The Ramachandran plot tightened This is interesting to me - other than eyeballing the plot, are there any quantitative metrics of Ramachandran distribution quality? At low-res or when refining a bunch of structures side-by-side it could be an additional indicator of quality of the model, without requiring having to inspect the plot. Of course manual inspection is always important in the end, but in early stages a global measure of spread could help guide refinement. I've seen %outliers used for this purpose, but that ignores that while a residue can be "allowed" it can still be far from a statistically likely conformation. From what I've seen, some users only consult Ramachandran to tweak residues until they pop into the "allowed" regions and stop there, which isn't the same as globally improving the geometry. Interested to hear thoughts (or it it's already in use, pointing me in the right direction!), Shane Caldwell McGill University On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Andreas Förster <docandreas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Almudena, > > I promise not to make a habit of advertising other programs on the Phenix > mailing list, but just once I would like to encourage you (and the > community) to try all the tools at your disposal. > > Different refinement programs have different strength and weaknesses. > Secondary-structure restraints in Phenix are great for low-resolution data, > but so is jelly-body refinement in Refmac. A dodgy 3.2 Å structure I'm > currently working on was improved dramatically by Buster-TNT. The > Ramachandran plot tightened, and R free plunged by four percentage points. > > > Andreas > > > > On 05/02/2015 10:44, Almudena Ponce Salvatierra wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I am refining my structure (data at 3 A), with a model that is complete. >> However the Rs values are: R work= 0.25 and Rfree= 0.32. I have read >> "Improved target weight optimization in phenix.refine" (In the >> computational crystallographic newsletter 2011) and what I understand is >> that just by marking the boxes "improve xray/stereochemistry weight" and >> "improve xray/adp weight" it should work... giving me the best possible >> Rfree. >> >> I'm refining individual coordinates, occupancies, b-factors (isotropic >> for all atoms), TLS, and using secondary structure restraints, automatic >> ligand linking and experimental phases restraints. Also, I chose this >> strategy because I have finished building the structure and according to >> some of the suggestions in "towards automated crystallographic structure >> refinement with phenix.refine". >> >> I am actually quite confused and don't know what to think... is it a >> matter of the weights? is it only that this is as good as it gets? >> >> Any suggestions and comments are welcome. >> >> Thanks a lot in advance, >> >> Best, >> >> Almudena >> -- >> Almudena Ponce-Salvatierra >> Macromolecular crystallography and Nucleic acid chemistry >> Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry >> Am Fassberg 11 37077 Göttingen >> Germany >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> phenixbb mailing list >> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >> >> _______________________________________________ > phenixbb mailing list > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >

5 4

Scientist BioMAX
by Marjolein Thunnissen 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Beamline manager position open for BioMAX Beamline The MAX IV Laboratory, a part of Lund University, has operated successfully for more than 25 years and is currently building the new MAX IV synchrotron facility in Lund. More than 900 scientists from Sweden and the rest of the world are coming to the MAX IV Laboratory every year to use the x-rays produced by our electron accelerators. They do research in areas such as materials science, structural biology, chemistry, and nanotechnology. 170 people are currently employed at the MAX IV Laboratory. The MAX IV facility, the largest and most ambitious Swedish investment in research infrastructure, will be the brightest source of x-rays worldwide and will replace the existing laboratory, which today consists of the storage rings MAX I, II and III. The new MAX IV facility will become operational in June 2016. One of the first beamline at MAX IV to come into operation will be the macromolecular crystallography (MX) beamline BioMAX. BioMAX will use the unique properties of the MAX IV 3 GeV ring to become a world leading MX beamline with a high degree of automation, microfocus capability, highly parallel beam suitable for large molecular assemblies, high flux, high level of software support and a user friendly environment. We are now looking for a beamline manager for the BioMAX beamline. Link to full posting: http://www.lu.se/lediga-anstallningar-available-jobs?x=0&Dnr=654959&Type=E Job Location: MAX IV-Laboratory, Lund, Sweden Job Title / Reference: Scientist BioMAX / Ref: PEPA 2015/9 Application deadline: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 For further information please contact: Tomas Lundqvist<mailto:[email protected]>, Life Science Director | +46708467688 best regards Marjolein [cid:3A2194AC-734C-45EB-B5A7-CE7FC0F0F1BC] Marjolein Thunnissen Science Coordinator Structural Biology MAX IV Laboratory Lund University P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden Visiting address: Ole Römers väg 1, 223 63 Lund Telephone: +46 766 32 04 17 www.maxlab.lu.se<http://www.maxlab.lu.se/> [cid:3A2194AC-734C-45EB-B5A7-CE7FC0F0F1BC] Marjolein Thunnissen Science Coordinator Structural Biology MAX IV Laboratory Lund University P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden Visiting address: Ole Römers väg 1, 223 63 Lund Telephone: +46 766 32 04 17 www.maxlab.lu.se<http://www.maxlab.lu.se/>

1 0

allowable completeness limit for the highest resolution shell
by Tarek DawoD 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Dear ALL i would like to ask in general if there is a suggested certain completeness cutoff for the higher resolution shell. for example; the following are the values for the 4 higher resolution shells Shell Lower Upper Average Average Norm. Linear Square limit Angstrom I error stat. Chi**2 R-fac R-fac Rmeas Rpim CC1/2 CC* completeness 1.53 1.50 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.706 0.680 0.596 0.855 0.510 0.547 0.841 73.6 1.50 1.47 2.3 1.1 1.0 0.745 0.742 0.629 0.967 0.613 0.468 0.798 55.3 1.47 1.44 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.725 0.775 0.644 0.000 0.694 0.395 0.752 52.4 1.44 1.41 1.9 0.8 0.8 0.689 0.946 0.681 0.000 0.883 0.371 0.736 33.9 All reflections 44.8 2.5 2.3 0.638 0.044 0.029 0.052 0.028 my question in other word if all statistics for the highest resolution shell are reasonable, good I/sigma, R-fac, ........, CC1/2, ..etc but the completeness is just say 20 or 30, what is allowable completeness limit for the highest resolution shell, 70, 80 or 90??? regardsTK_Dawod

2 1

refinement with anomalous data
by Guangyu Zhu 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Hi, all, I have a question for refinement. I have a data set for refinement at 3.8A (outshell I/sigma ~1.0). When I processed the data, I kept anomalous data I+/I-. Because at that time I think I might have anomalous signal. But later I found that the protein coordinated with wrong metal, so I don’t really have anomalous scatters. I have good model from high resolution data. When I refined the structure, I found that refined against I+/I- give lower R/Rfree (23.0%/27.0%) than against Imean (25.1%/28.3%). When I used I+/I-, I knew I doubled reflections/parameters ratio. I also let Phenix both X-ray stereochemistry/ADP weight. The refined models have similar geometry. So should I use I+/I- for refinement since it gives lower R factor? Guangyu Zhu

3 8

Fwd: [ccp4bb] Absence of contact between layers in a crystal
by Folmer Fredslund 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Hi all, As you might have noticed, there is a discussion going on about the fraudulent 2hr0 pdb deposition on the CCP4BB Searching for 2hr0 I came across http://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/cif_as_mtz.html where 2hr0 is used as an example. Might I suggest that this is changed in the documentation? Best regards, Folmer Fredslund ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kerff Fred <fkerff(a)ulg.ac.be> Date: 2015-02-06 11:58 GMT+01:00 Subject: [ccp4bb] Absence of contact between layers in a crystal To: CCP4BB(a)jiscmail.ac.uk Hello, Looking at structure 2HR0 ("The structure of complement C3b provides insights into complement activation and regulation. »,Abdul Ajees, A., Gunasekaran, K., Volanakis, J.E., Narayana, S.V., Kotwal, G.J., Krishna Murthy, H.M.; (2006) Nature 444: 221-225), I noticed the absence of contacts between layers in the crystal. Is it something that has already been observed in other crystals? Best regards, Fred ----- Frédéric Kerff Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS Cristallographie des protéines Centre d'Ingénierie des Protéines Université de Liège 17, Allée du 6 Août - Bat B5a 4000 Liège (Belgium) Tel.: +32 (0)4 3663620 Fax: +32 (0)4 3663772 > Le 6 févr. 2015 à 10:12, Tim Gruene <tg(a)SHELX.UNI-AC.GWDG.DE> a écrit : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Smith, > > The sca file most likely does not contain flags. pointless can read > the sca file, standardise it to ccp4 standards and freerflag marks > random reflections. You should use the maximum of 500 unique > reflections or 5% of the unique reflections, whichever is larger. > > Best, > Tim > > On 02/06/2015 09:49 AM, Smith Lee wrote: >> Dear All, I have a sca file. Will you please tell me by which >> software or how I can know whether the sca file contains R-free >> tags? If not, by which software or how I can add the R-free tags? >> And how much of the reflections I add the R-free tags? I am looking >> forward to getting your reply. Smith >> > > - -- > - -- > Dr Tim Gruene > Institut fuer anorganische Chemie > Tammannstr. 4 > D-37077 Goettingen > > GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFU1IWVUxlJ7aRr7hoRAmZHAJ4+6wREnwkFN0EhfErAA0tPSopKKwCgiLdi > j0JFZac4kAh8twpov71MG84= > =XN57 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Folmer Fredslund

1 0

Phenix refine - R free does not decrease
by Almudena Ponce Salvatierra 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Dear all, I am refining my structure (data at 3 A), with a model that is complete. However the Rs values are: R work= 0.25 and Rfree= 0.32. I have read "Improved target weight optimization in phenix.refine" (In the computational crystallographic newsletter 2011) and what I understand is that just by marking the boxes "improve xray/stereochemistry weight" and "improve xray/adp weight" it should work... giving me the best possible Rfree. I'm refining individual coordinates, occupancies, b-factors (isotropic for all atoms), TLS, and using secondary structure restraints, automatic ligand linking and experimental phases restraints. Also, I chose this strategy because I have finished building the structure and according to some of the suggestions in "towards automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine". I am actually quite confused and don't know what to think... is it a matter of the weights? is it only that this is as good as it gets? Any suggestions and comments are welcome. Thanks a lot in advance, Best, Almudena -- Almudena Ponce-Salvatierra Macromolecular crystallography and Nucleic acid chemistry Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry Am Fassberg 11 37077 Göttingen Germany

3 2