- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

pdb deposition
by Sneha Rangarajan 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

Hi everyone, For a 1.9A dataset, here are my statistics- Rfactors: 22/26 Ramachandran favored: 90.60% Ramachandran outliers: 2.17% Rotamer outliers: 4% Clashscore: 8 Bonds: 0.007 Angles: 1.2 I have tried a couple of things to refine it further but nothing seems to improve all the parameters. My question is what is an acceptable Rfactor at this resolution for deposition in pdb? Thanks, Sneha

2 1

how to refine everything except n residues in phenix.refine?
by Murpholino Peligro 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Hi everybody! Everytime when I (within coot) do "real space refine" two arginines that have two alternate conformations ..(interacting by hydrogen bonds); and then phenix.refine everything, both conformers move away. Therefore, when I open my mtz and pdb files from phenix.refine in coot, I'll have green blobs where there should be guanidium groups. Can I tell phenix.refine not to move only those two residues? It should be something like the following lines in the eff file? sites { individual = None torsion_angles = None rigid_body = None remove_selection=resid 45 remove_selection=resid 68 } Thank you very much

4 8

Electrostatic potential map/Delphi/PDB2PQR
by Ivan IVANOV 21 Oct '14

21 Oct '14

Dear All, I am facing a problem. I have a protein-RNA complex at 2A resolution I refined using TLS in Phenix. Now in the pdb file I have ANISOU line for every atom and probably many other errors. This is the reason I am not able to run Delphi or PDB2PQR to create potential electrostatic map. I removed already all water molecules and all heteratoms and ANISOU lines and RNA molecule. The program creating the phi file for the potentials does not work at all. Do you know any server which can correct any errors in the pdb file in order to run properly the program to create electrostatic map ?? Thanks a lot, Ivan -- Ivan Ivanov, PhD PostDoctoral fellow at EMBL, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Structural biology of RNA-protein complexes, Dr. Stephen Cusack, EMBL 71, avenue des Martyrs CS 90181 38042 Grenoble Cedex 9 T: +33 (0)4 76 20 7630 T(lab): +33 (0)4 76 20 7014 Email: ivanov(a)embl.fr Url: http://www.embl.fr

3 2

An old (?) tutorial?
by Bryan Lepore 21 Oct '14

21 Oct '14

Greetings - On the public webpage, there used to be an outstanding text tutorial under the phenix.refine link (I think!) that described the attachment of prosthetic groups and such to protein, I think using NAG (or was it something else...). It had all the commands for inclusion in the .def. and of course I can't find it now on the public site. Should I look in the local docs of an old release? -Bryan

2 2

Phenix Table 1 discrepancy
by Rich Grey 20 Oct '14

20 Oct '14

I'm preparing Table 1 for a structure I have recently solved. I chose to compare the Table 1 Phenix produces to the data found in the PDB file and the log file from my last refinement in Phenix. I see discrepancies between the data for the highest resolution bin's R-factors, including what resolution data that bin contains. In addition, the number of reflections used in refinement is different (although only by about 5, so not a large difference). The PDB file appears to match the log file, and the overall Rwork and Rfree agree for all. Does anyone know where the Table 1 program in Phenix pulls these values from why I may be seeing these differences? Thank You. -Rich

2 1

anomalous signal
by Matteo Colombo 20 Oct '14

20 Oct '14

Hello, I was wondering if the f'' determined by XANES experiment is quantitatively significant and if it can be contributed by two different anomalous scatterers. For example in my protein I know that Co and Zn are present. In theory, at Zn absorption edge, I have a contribution from Co too. If I perform a XANES experiment to determine Zn absorption edge and I obtain a f'' of 5.87, does this value correspond to only Zn signal or to a sum of Zn+Co? Thanks a lot Matteo -- Matteo Colombo PhD Groupe Extremophile et grands assemblages moléculaire Institut de Biologie Structurale 71 avenue des Martyrs CS 10090 38044 Grenoble Cedex 9

4 4

phenix error
by Ivan IVANOV 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Dear all, I have an error appearing in phenix. I think it is a problem of my pdb file. I do not know how to change it. Error: residue.id_str(suppress_segid=false):segid is not unique: pdbres=ATP C 1 "segid= "O" Does anyone can help me?? Where is the mistake and how to solve it ?? Kind regards, Ivan -- Ivan Ivanov, PhD PostDoctoral fellow at EMBL, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Structural biology of RNA-protein complexes, Dr. Stephen Cusack, EMBL 71, avenue des Martyrs CS 90181 38042 Grenoble Cedex 9 T: +33 (0)4 76 20 7630 T(lab): +33 (0)4 76 20 7014 Email: ivanov(a)embl.fr Url: http://www.embl.fr

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] COOT and default dictionary
by Yazan Abbas 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hi, I was trying to troubleshoot this and it seems to be a problem related to the FEM map only. When I open my FEM.mtz and do RSR in coot it works well if I choose the 2mFoDfc map but not the FEM map. I'm still not sure why it stopped working since coot was behaving normally just yesterday. Maybe it had something to do with the cif file I tried to import earlier (see previous message). Yazan PS I'm replying to my previously sent message, I hope it ends up in the same thread... On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Yazan Abbas <yazan.abbas(a)mail.mcgill.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > I am encountering a problem with coot real space refinement (RSR). > Basically when I try to fit any residues using RSR the atoms come apart and > fit into the center of the density, possibly because it is not reading in > any geometry restraints. This happens for examples when I am opening my > FEM .mtz map (either manually or 'open in coot' via phenix). > > The only times coot RSR behaves normally is when I load it via phenix > after running phenix refine, or when I open coot via the command line and > auto-open an mtz (the same one generated by phenix refine). Also, fetching > a pdb and map via EDA/PDBredo still allows me to use RSR. > > When I encountered the problem I tried to reinstall coot 0.8 stable and > also tried to install the latest pre (0.8.1-5404), and upgraded to phenix > 1.9-1692. My coot installation comes from the stand alone packages of the > Scott lab website. > > The only thing I can think of as having caused this is when I was trying > to fit an unusual ligand into my density, I used phenix elbow to generate a > cif file and then loaded that into coot (--> import cif dictionary). > Shortly afterwards coot gave up on real space refinement under most > circumstances. > > Have I somehow replaced a default dictionary file? > > Thanks, > > Yazan > > > -- > PhD Candidate > Dr. Bhushan Nagar Lab > McGill University > Tel: (514)-398-7271 > http://bhushan-nagar.lab.mcgill.ca/ > -- PhD Candidate Dr. Bhushan Nagar Lab McGill University Tel: (514)-398-7271 http://bhushan-nagar.lab.mcgill.ca/

2 1

R-factor difference between phenix and sftools
by Simon Jenni 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

Hi, we refined a structure in phenix.refine (dev-1810) and the R-factors are: Final R-work = 0.3221, R-free = 0.3638 phenix.cc_star agrees: phenix.cc_star com_001.pdb com_001.mtz \ f_obs_labels="F-obs,SIGF-obs" \ f_model_labels="F-model,PHIF-model" \ unmerged_data="xscale.hkl" r_work: 0.322 r_free: 0.364 so does phenix.model_vs_data: phenix.model_vs_data com_001.pdb com_001.mtz r_work : 0.3221 r_free : 0.3638 sigma_cutoff : None However, when I calculate the R-factors with sftools, I get a discrepancy between the phenix and sftools results: sftools << eof read com_001_f_model.mtz Y select col R_FREE_FLAGS > 0 correl col FOBS FMODEL select invert correl col FOBS FMODEL quit Y eof R-work: 33.6 R-free: 38.1 Does anyone perhaps know what causes this difference? With best regards, Simon PS: The structure is in spacegroup P212121 with strong pseudocentering tNCS (dimer in the asymmetric unit, native Patterson peak at 0.500 0.500 0.497). No indication for a P21 twin (L-test and refinement in P21 with twin law), not higher symmetry spacegroup I222 (alternating strong and weak reflections are visible in the diffraction patterns, resolved structural differences in the two protomers of the dimer). Two datasets from different beamlines. As might be expected, the R-factors after refinement are unusually high (e.g. 28/35 [conventional resolution cutoff at 3.1 A], 32/36 with Kay's CC cufoff at 2.6 A). I wanted to compare refinements between different programs to see how they cope with the unexpected bimodal amplitude distribution.

4 8

ligand fitting
by Sneha Rangarajan 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

Hello everyone, I have a question about ligand fitting into density. At this point my maps look quite good with decent density for the peptide (ligand)[Rfactprs 26/31]. I tried using ligandfit by giving it the pdb and mtz of the ligand free model along with peptide.pdb (peptide stripped from a pdb where it was complexed with a homologous protein). However the output was a ligand.pdb file with a CC of 0.49. I am not sure how to interpret this. Does this mean it could not find the density for the ligand? Is there a better way to fit the peptide into density? Thanks, S From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sneha Rangarajan Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:30 AM To: Nathaniel Echols Cc: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Subject: Re: [phenixbb] (no subject) This was a great idea. My Rfactors after a second round of autobuild are now 25/32. I think it might be getting there afterall ☺ S From: Nathaniel Echols [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:08 PM To: Sneha Rangarajan Cc: Pavel Afonine; phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [phenixbb] (no subject) On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I did another round of refinement with default settings (XYZ,realsp, IndB and occ) with and without weight optimization. Without weight opt, the Rfactors are 23/36 with RMSbonds-0.0108 and RMSangles-1.750 One idea would be to run AutoBuild again. I've seen cases before where it didn't converge using the default settings, and feeding a previous result back into the program for a second run produced significantly better models. It might help get rid of the overfitting. -Nat

5 12

Re: [phenixbb] R-factor difference between phenix and sftools
by Ed Pozharski 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

To be fair, I made the same mistake initially, but the question is about calculating Rs with sftools using output mtz from phenix.refine, not sfcheck. Thusly, bulk solvent explanation does not seem to apply. My other theory (impossible to check without actual data) was that phenix.refine outlier reflection rejection makes the difference here, although it's surprising if effect is so noticeable. Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® III <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> </div><div>Date:10/13/2014 2:21 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Tim Gruene <tg(a)shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de>, phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [phenixbb] R-factor difference between phenix and sftools </div><div> </div>Thanks Tim, yes missed this one! Hi Simon, the differences in R-factors you observe are most likely because we use improved bulk-solvent modeling and overall scaling procedure. This is described here: Bulk-solvent and overall scaling revisited: faster calculations, improved results. Afonine PV, Grosse-Kunstleve RW, Adams PD, Urzhumtsev A. Acta Cryst. D69, 625-34 (2013). Specifically, Figures 3-4 in this paper make your observations very expectable. Other contributions to differences are discussed here: phenix.model_vs_data: a high-level tool for the calculation of crystallographic model and data statistics. P.V. Afonine, R.W. Grosse-Kunstleve, V.B. Chen, J.J. Headd, N.W. Moriarty, J.S. Richardson, D.C. Richardson, A. Urzhumtsev, P.H. Zwart, P.D. Adams J. Appl. Cryst. 43, 677-685 (2010). Pavel On 10/13/14 11:10 AM, Tim Gruene wrote: Dear Simon, I found this a very puzzling observation and given the high throughput of this board, it is likewise puzzling you have not received a reply yet - or have you? Best regards, Tim On 10/12/2014 08:25 PM, Simon Jenni wrote: Hi, we refined a structure in phenix.refine (dev-1810) and the R-factors are: Final R-work = 0.3221, R-free = 0.3638 phenix.cc_star agrees: phenix.cc_star com_001.pdb com_001.mtz \ f_obs_labels="F-obs,SIGF-obs" \ f_model_labels="F-model,PHIF-model" \ unmerged_data="xscale.hkl" r_work: 0.322 r_free: 0.364 so does phenix.model_vs_data: phenix.model_vs_data com_001.pdb com_001.mtz r_work : 0.3221 r_free : 0.3638 sigma_cutoff : None However, when I calculate the R-factors with sftools, I get a discrepancy between the phenix and sftools results: sftools << eof read com_001_f_model.mtz Y select col R_FREE_FLAGS > 0 correl col FOBS FMODEL select invert correl col FOBS FMODEL quit Y eof R-work: 33.6 R-free: 38.1 Does anyone perhaps know what causes this difference? With best regards, Simon PS: The structure is in spacegroup P212121 with strong pseudocentering tNCS (dimer in the asymmetric unit, native Patterson peak at 0.500 0.500 0.497). No indication for a P21 twin (L-test and refinement in P21 with twin law), not higher symmetry spacegroup I222 (alternating strong and weak reflections are visible in the diffraction patterns, resolved structural differences in the two protomers of the dimer). Two datasets from different beamlines. As might be expected, the R-factors after refinement are unusually high (e.g. 28/35 [conventional resolution cutoff at 3.1 A], 32/36 with Kay's CC cufoff at 2.6 A). I wanted to compare refinements between different programs to see how they cope with the unexpected bimodal amplitude distribution. _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Refine three alternate conformations of residues and two loop confirmations.
by AMIT 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

Hi All, I am unable to refine three alternate conformations of a residue provided in PDB file prefixed before resname as A,B and C in Phenix dev-1370. When I make it two alternate conformations it runs OK. Also I am not able to refine two loop confirmations, the refinement somehow puts both in the major 2Fo-Fc map peak and makes the almost same, even though the starting loop has different trace.Turning off siulated annealing or making temp. lower or just doing 1 cycle is not doing any good. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thanks, Amit. ------------------------------------------------------- AMIT DAS, Ph.D. PRESENT ---- BUILDING 8600, MS-6460 BIOLOGY AND SOFT MATTER DIVISION P O BOX 2008 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 1 BETHEL VALLEY ROAD OAK RIDGE, TN 37831-6460 U.S.A. PROTEIN CRYSTALLOGRAPHY SOLID STATE PHYSICS DIVISION BARC, TROMBAY, MUMBAI-400085. INDIA. --------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Test
by Paul Adams 11 Oct '14

11 Oct '14

-- 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

anomalous difference map
by CPMAS Chen 10 Oct '14

10 Oct '14

Hi, phenix users, A difference map is used to identify whether there is anything not-modeled, say some ligands, ions. Then when I generate anomalous difference map, I should not put the ligand(which contains Br) in the model, right? Or in phenix, after I put the Br-ligand in the model, I should not see the anomalous difference density at the site, right? Could anyone give me a confirmation of this? Thanks! Charles -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

6 15

Re: [phenixbb] (no subject)
by Sneha Rangarajan 08 Oct '14

08 Oct '14

After running autobuild, the Rfactors were 26/39 (autobuild removed the first 30 residues from the Nter!) but the maps look much better. I ran a quick refinement with default settings and the Rfactors are now 31/39 and can now see the density for my peptide (absent in the model) coming up. I have a few questions- 1) When is a good time to start building the peptide into the density (should I wait until Rfactors improve significantly)? 2) If so, should I be masking the peptide density somehow so that further refinement doesn't flatten out that density? 3) What is a general good strategy for lowering Rfactors? (Esp if the gap between Rwork and Rfree is high..like 28/40 or so)? Thanks a lot, S -----Original Message----- From: Sneha Rangarajan Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 12:54 PM To: 'Paul Adams' Cc: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Subject: RE: I think my problem in MR has been one of the chains. Anyway I tried the ideas you suggested and seems like they worked! I used ensembler to create a merged pdb of the problematic chain and used phaser giving both chains as multiple ensembles. It gave me a solution with LLG=474 (highest I have got so far) and TFZ=18.8. I also tried MRage and got a solution with LLG=294. In both these maps, the density for chain1 ("bad chain") is not as good as the other chain but is nonetheless far better than what I have got before. I am currently running autobuild on the solution hoping my Rfactors would be reasonable this time. Thanks a lot for your inputs. They really helped!! S -----Original Message----- From: Paul Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:51 PM To: Sneha Rangarajan Subject: Re: This likes normal orthorhombic data. In this case I suggest that the most likely issue is the search model (I assume your molecule is fairly small given the unit cell dimensions). I would look at ways to create the best search model using using tools like sculptor and ensembler. You can get Phaser to search for the two domains in the same run but using multiple ensembles. You might also want to try MRage in Phenix, where you can just provide the data file and the sequence and it will try to make the best model and solve the MR problem. On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > Oh I see. I tried to repeat xtriage with the scala.mtz file and am attaching the log file. > > ________________________________________ > From: Sneha Rangarajan > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:58 PM > To: Paul Adams > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: RE: > > Even i thought so but after i run mosflm and process the data in p21 or p1 and run quicksymm/quickscale it always suggests that the chosen space group is not correct and that it should be p212121. > > I will try looking into Zanuda. Thanks. > > S > ________________________________________ > From: Paul Adams [pdadams(a)lbl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:36 PM > To: Sneha Rangarajan > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: Re: > > It looks like your R-merge etc in P222 is very high, what leads you to think this is the correct point group? Can you send the xtriage output for the unmerged P2 data? > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Nat, >> >> I am attaching the Xtriage log file from p222.mtz. >> Would you need anything else (mtz,pdb)? >> >> Thanks, >> Sneha >> <xtriage_237.log> > > -- > 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 ] > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > <xtriage_264.log> -- 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 ] --

3 5

PDBe workshop on programmatic access to macromolecular structure information, 20-21 Nov 2014, Cambridge UK
by swanand＠ebi.ac.uk 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

=============================================================== Programmatic Access to the Macromolecular Structure Information =============================================================== -------- PDBe Workshop for Programmers, 20-21 Nov 2014 -------- ============= What? The Protein Data bank in Europe (PDBe; http://pdbe.org) is organising a hands-on, interactive workshop for developers interested in using primary and value-added information about the 3D structures in PDB and EMDB. Programmatic access to macromolecular structure data as well as information about assemblies, structure quality, literature and citations, and up-to-date cross-references to other biomedical resources (UniProt, Pfam, CATH, SCOP, etc.) is a critical requirement for integrative bioinformatics analyses and workflows. PDBe has developed a set of REST APIs (http://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/api/doc) that provide easy access to high-quality information regarding biomacromolecular structures archived in PDB and EMDB. They provide a simple, reliable, light-weight mechanism to query macromolecular structure data, select entries or molecules of interest, and access targeted information about them, including information about the molecules, experimental details, assemblies, motifs, function, taxonomy, structure quality, etc. The API is used by the PDBe services and is also integrated in Jmol/Jsmol. We will also present Solr/Lucene based query API for macromolecular structure information including PDB, EMDB and value added information on assemblies, structure quality and up-to-date cross-reference infromation to other biomedical databases based on SIFTS (http://pdbe.org/sifts) . ============= Is it for me? Do you (plan to) develop software or on-line resources that use or need access to information about structures in PDB or EMDB? Would you rather not maintain your private infrastructure for retrieving, parsing, storing and updating such information? If so, then this workshop is for you! In the workshop, we will explain what information is available through the API and how you can access it from your own software or resource. There is plenty of time for hands-on work where experienced PDBe developers will try to help you use the API for your specific needs. ============= When? 20 & 21 November 2014. ============= Where? EMBL-EBI (http://www.ebi.ac.uk) , Cambridge. ============= How much does it cost? We expect you to pay for (and arrange) your own travel to and from Cambridge. However, there is no fee for the workshop, and we will provide free accommodation (Holiday Inn Express; http://www.hiexpresscambridgeduxford.co.uk), transportation between the hotel and the EMBL-EBI, coffee/tea, lunches and a workshop dinner on the 20th. This is all thanks to generous funding from the Wellcome Trust to PDBe. ============= How can I apply? E-mail Swanand Gore (swanand(a)ebi.ac.uk) or Jose Dana (dana(a)ebi.ac.uk) at PDBe no later than 20 October 2014 with the following details: * a brief description of the software you have developed or are developing - i.e. what it does, in which field, how many users, relevant publications, etc. * programming language(s) you are specifically interested in (python examples and tutorials will be provided). * how you would benefit from this workshop. * any specific topics or questions you would like to see addressed in the workshop. If the workshop is oversubscribed, we will select participants based on the information provided. You will be informed by the end of October if you have been selected or not, or whether you are on the stand-by list. ============= Prerequisites? Basic programming experience in use of REST API’s. Bring your own laptop with git and iPython notebook pre-installed if you want to follow the python tutorial and examples. If you need to make plots, make sure that matplotlib is also installed. ============= Questions? Swanand Gore (swanand(a)ebi.ac.uk) or Jose Dana (dana(a)ebi.ac.uk) at PDBe will be happy to answer your queries.

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Calculate average B-factor?
by Ed Pozharski 05 Oct '14

05 Oct '14

grep "^ATOM " filename.pdb | cut -c 61-66 | awk '{s+=$1;} END {print s/NR;}' "Nobody likes a show off, Private" Skipper Cheers Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® III <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Chen Zhao <c.zhao(a)yale.edu> </div><div>Date:10/04/2014 4:03 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> </div><div>Subject: [phenixbb] Calculate average B-factor? </div><div> </div>Dear all, I am just wondering whether there is a command line tool in phenix that calculates the average B-factor of a PDB file? Can it deal with the ANISOU records (from TLS refinement or not) properly? I looked into previous posts but the --show-adp-statistics option in phenix.pdbtools seems to be no longer available in the version (1.9-1678) I installed. Thank you so much, Chen

3 2

Calculate average B-factor?
by Chen Zhao 04 Oct '14

04 Oct '14

Dear all, I am just wondering whether there is a command line tool in phenix that calculates the average B-factor of a PDB file? Can it deal with the ANISOU records (from TLS refinement or not) properly? I looked into previous posts but the --show-adp-statistics option in phenix.pdbtools seems to be no longer available in the version (1.9-1678) I installed. Thank you so much, Chen

2 2

Off Topic: Calculating accurately RMSD
by PC 03 Oct '14

03 Oct '14

4 7

Problems building source
by Jason Swails 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

Hi everyone, I'm a new user that is trying to get Phenix installed. I'm trying the source build since I want to poke around with a little development. I haven't had much luck in this endeavor (I'm fairly competent when it comes to building especially scientific software from source). What I tried was untarring the 1.9-1692 release tarball and running ./install in that directory. The first thing to fail was Imaging, and the build log complained of a missing freetype/fterrors.h header. On my machine, that file is located in /usr/include/freetype2/fterrors.h. OK, so I symlinked /usr/local/include/freetype to /usr/include/freetype2 and tried again. Imaging succeeded, but then I noticed that Phenix tried to compile its own version of freetype later (!). I'm curious as to why it would either a) not build freetype first so Imaging could use it or b) why it would try to build freetype at all when it already has to be installed. Anyway, after that was done, I got another problem when the install process got to Pango. Then I get the error: fribidi_config.h:1:18: fatal error: glib.h: No such file or directory But glib has already been installed according to the Phenix install log (and I have it installed on my system, too). There's a glib.h in tmp/glib-2.12.11/glib/glib.h (but that directory is never added to the include search path), and also in /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib.h. I admit that the install process has me puzzled (for instance, I can't figure out how to augment CFLAGS for the Pango install to make it find glib.h), and I feel that I'm playing a bit of whack-a-mole with the build problems here... Any help or advice regarding getting the source code built is appreciated. Thanks! Jason -- Jason M. Swails BioMaPS, Rutgers University Postdoctoral Researcher

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] (no subject)
by Sneha Rangarajan 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

I think my problem in MR has been one of the chains. Anyway I tried the ideas you suggested and seems like they worked! I used ensembler to create a merged pdb of the problematic chain and used phaser giving both chains as multiple ensembles. It gave me a solution with LLG=474 (highest I have got so far) and TFZ=18.8. I also tried MRage and got a solution with LLG=294. In both these maps, the density for chain1 ("bad chain") is not as good as the other chain but is nonetheless far better than what I have got before. I am currently running autobuild on the solution hoping my Rfactors would be reasonable this time. Thanks a lot for your inputs. They really helped!! S -----Original Message----- From: Paul Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:51 PM To: Sneha Rangarajan Subject: Re: This likes normal orthorhombic data. In this case I suggest that the most likely issue is the search model (I assume your molecule is fairly small given the unit cell dimensions). I would look at ways to create the best search model using using tools like sculptor and ensembler. You can get Phaser to search for the two domains in the same run but using multiple ensembles. You might also want to try MRage in Phenix, where you can just provide the data file and the sequence and it will try to make the best model and solve the MR problem. On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > Oh I see. I tried to repeat xtriage with the scala.mtz file and am attaching the log file. > > ________________________________________ > From: Sneha Rangarajan > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:58 PM > To: Paul Adams > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: RE: > > Even i thought so but after i run mosflm and process the data in p21 or p1 and run quicksymm/quickscale it always suggests that the chosen space group is not correct and that it should be p212121. > > I will try looking into Zanuda. Thanks. > > S > ________________________________________ > From: Paul Adams [pdadams(a)lbl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:36 PM > To: Sneha Rangarajan > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: Re: > > It looks like your R-merge etc in P222 is very high, what leads you to think this is the correct point group? Can you send the xtriage output for the unmerged P2 data? > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Nat, >> >> I am attaching the Xtriage log file from p222.mtz. >> Would you need anything else (mtz,pdb)? >> >> Thanks, >> Sneha >> <xtriage_237.log> > > -- > 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 ] > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > <xtriage_264.log> -- 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

PHENIX installation errors with CentOS 6
by Mark A. White 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

Hello, I am getting install errors with several phenix installations after upgrading to CentOS 6. I started with the nightly-build ========================================================================== PHENIX Installation version: dev release tag: 1807 machine type: intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 OS version: 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 user shell: /bin/tcsh destination: /usr/local ========================================================================= Warning: /usr/local/phenix-dev-1807 already exists, will be overwritten removing existing temporary directory... ok finding existing installations... Removing out-of-date lib directory... ok Removing out-of-date base software directory... ok Installing new binary package... ok Configuring PHENIX components... ******************************************************************************** configuration step incomplete! See the log file for detailed error messages. ******************************************************************************** The log contains only a list of files ending with (./docutils/._MANIFEST.in) and no error messages. Then I went back to the latest stable version, which was installed on my server when it ran CentOS 5. Both my server and WS now produce the same error (CentOS 6). ========================================================================== PHENIX Installation version: 1.9 release tag: 1692 machine type: intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 source machine type: intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 OS version: redhat-e6.5 user shell: /bin/tcsh destination: /usr/local ========================================================================= ========================================================================== Installing from binary bundle ========================================================================== bundle file: bundle-1.9-1692-intel-linux-2.6-x86_64.tar.gz PHENIX installation source directory set to: /home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-1.9-1692 PHENIX installation target directory <PHENIX_LOC > set to: /usr/local/phenix-1.9-1692 PHENIX installation build directory set to: <PHENIX_LOC > /build/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64 PHENIX temporary build directory set to: build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/marvin/tmp PHENIX installation log directory set to: build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/marvin/log ==== warning: "/usr/local/phenix-1.9-1692" already exists ==== ==== warning: cannot determine installation time-stamp, proceeding ==== installing binary components removing existing files in build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/marvin/tmp/binary finding installed versions finding binary versions binary components up-to-date the binary package will not be installed setting environment configuring PHENIX components /home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-1.9-1692/bin/install-from-binary: line 361: 19688 Segmentation fault $PHENIX_BUILD/base/bin/python $PHENIX_LOC/cctbx_project/libtbx/configure.py --current_working_directory="$PHENIX_BUILD" $PHENIX_COMPONENTS $CONFIG_OPTS >> $PHENIX_LOG/binary.log 2>&1 Error configuring: see /home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-1.9-1692/build-binary/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/marvin/log/binary.log for details The log contains only a list of files ending with (./docutils/._MANIFEST.in) and no error messages. Then I tried installing phenix-dev-1810 from source: Installing cairo... log file is /home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/install_tmp/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/marvin/cairo_install_log getting package cairo-1.8.10.tar.gz... using /home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/gui/cairo-1.8.10.tar.gz Traceback (most recent call last): File "./bin/install.py", line 815, in <module> run(sys.argv[1:]) File "./bin/install.py", line 72, in __init__ self.install_from_source() File "./bin/install.py", line 292, in install_from_source log=out) File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 113, in __init__ self.build_cctbx_dependencies() File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 168, in build_cctbx_dependencies self.build_wxpython_dependencies() File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 425, in build_wxpython_dependencies self.build_wxpython_dependencies_linux() File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 504, in build_wxpython_dependencies_linux self.build_compiled_package_simple(pkg_name=pkg, pkg_name_label=name) File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 377, in build_compiled_package_simple log=pkg_log) File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 196, in configure_and_build self.call("make -j %d %s" % (self.nproc, " ".join(list(make_args))), log=log) File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/install_base_packages.py", line 192, in call return call(args, log=log) File "/home/white/downloads/phenix-installer-dev-1810/lib/libtbx/auto_build/installer_utils.py", line 53, in call raise RuntimeError("Call to '%s' failed with exit code %d" % (args, rc)) RuntimeError: Call to 'make -j 8 ' failed with exit code 2 I would like to install the latest developmental version. Any idea what could be going wrong? I have the latest updates installed. -- Yours sincerely, Mark A. White, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Manager, Sealy Center for Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Macromolecular X-ray Laboratory, Basic Science Building, Room 6.630 University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, TX 77555-0647 Tel. (409) 747-4747 Fax. (409) 747-1404 mailto://[email protected] http://xray.utmb.edu QQ: "Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got a hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations. " - George Bernard Shaw

3 4

refinement problem
by Sneha Rangarajan 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Hello, I have a 1.9A dataset for a single chain Fv-peptide complex that shows psedomerohedral twin operators in Xtriage (1 in p212121, 3 in p21 and 7 in p1). Although most programs (in CCP4) identify the best SG to be p212121, MR cannot find a solution with p212121 due to packing clashes. I tried reprocessing it in p21 and MR can find only one molecule in the asu. The map looks quite good with good density for the sidechains. However the Rfactors wont come down. After a few rounds of refinement (rigidbody, Xray, TLS and Ind B fac) it is still 38/48. I tried processing it in p1 and have managed to find 3 molecules in the asu (missing one molecule). The map looks good. While the Rfactors are lower, the gap between Rwork and Rfree is still high (27/40). I don't know what space group I should choose to ultimately refine it and get the Rfactors low. If you need any more information, I would be happy to provide it. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks a lot, Sneha

2 2

Target function for refinement in case of Pseudo-translational symmetry
by Varun Bhaskar 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Hi, I collected a dataset for a binary complex (72kDa size) to 3.62A resolution which could be processed in P32 2 1 space group. Data quality analysis with phenix.xtriage showed a presence of Pseudotranslational symmetry (Non-origin peak in the patterson with 60% intensity at 0.33, -0.33, -0.013). I determined the structure with MR. I have 6 copies in ASU. I tried Zanuda for SG validation and this looks like the right space group. For refinement when I use Maximum likelihood (ML) as the target function, my Rfactor/Rfree is around 31.3/32 but when I change it to Least square (LS) my Rfactor/Rfree drops to 27.3/29.8. The map quality after ML or LS refinement looks very similar for most of the molecule, except for few places where the map from ML has slightly better features. I read people use LS instead of ML only in the case of twinning but I am not sure if it could also be used in the case of PST. Would the use of LS as the target function for refinement be right in this case? Thanks in advance Best Regards Varun

2 1

Histidine as a hydrogen bond acceptor in Phenix refine
by Phan, Jason 26 Sep '14

26 Sep '14

Hi All, I've been refining a 1.1 Å structure with explicit hydrogen atoms and noticed that the serine HG atom (hydrogen atom attached to oxygen gamma) is rotated more than 90 degrees from the OG - NE2 (histidine) line (5 cases observed). In this position, the HG is staggered with the two carbon beta hydrogens and should be the preferred configuration. However, there is a histidine nearby with atom NE2 at 2.7 Å from the serine OG and in good geometry for Hbond formation. The other nitrogen, ND1, is protonated and interacting with an aspartic acid (similar to the catalytic triad configuration). In this protomer, the NE2 atom has a lone pair and should act as an acceptor. Thus, the OG - H - NE2 angle should be as close to 180 as possible for an ideal hydrogen bond angle. The OG - H - NE2 angle of more than 90 degrees looks a little off to me. I checked the other program, e.g. Schrodinger Prime to see how it treats this situation and found that all the OG - H - NE2 angles are within 10-60 degrees from the ideal value of 180, certainly not 90 as observed in Phenix refine. My question is is NE2 or ND1 atom of the HID or HIE protomer treated as a potential hydrogen bond acceptor in Phenix? For other acceptors like the backbone carbonyl oxygen, carboxylic acid oxygen, and water oxygen, the hydrogen bond angle OG -H -O looks good. Not when it involves histidine atom NE2 or ND1 though. The pH of the crystallization is 7 by the way. Also, there's no water nearby that would draw the HG away from the histidine. Jason

4 5