- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Phenix version 1.8 released
by Paul Adams 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

The Phenix developers are pleased to announce that version 1.8 of Phenix is now available. Binary installers for Linux, Mac OSX, and Windows platforms are available at the download site: http://phenix-online.org/download/ Some of the new features in this version are: Graphical interface: ==================== - New GUIs: phenix.multi_crystal_average, phenix.morph_model, phenix.table_one, phenix.find_peaks_holes - Improved layout for AutoBuild and reflection file editor GUIs - Editor for custom bond/angle/plane restraints in phenix.refine - Project groups: manage defaults for similar projects General: ======== - New very fast bulk-solvent and overall anisotropic scaling procedure - Experimental Windows installer (32-bit only) - Improved support for anomalous difference arrays (F SIGF DANO SIGDANO ISYM) - New commands: phenix.den_refine, phenix.find_peaks_holes - Overall Molprobity score now calculated in phenix.model_vs_data and the validation/refinement GUIs Refinement: =========== - Change in default NCS restraints behavior: - use torsion-angle parameterization - restraints on NCS-related B-factors turned off - Automatic matching of chains to reference model; allows multiple chains to be restrained to a single reference chain - Support for multiple reference model files - New method for filling of missing Fobs using simple density modification Molecular Replacement: ====================== - phaser (version 2.5): - TNCS support enabled by default for both MR and SAD Experimental Phasing and Model Building: ======================================== - AutoSol: - TNCS support for SAD phasing Miscellaneous: ============== - phenix.pdbtools: - ability to set atomic charge field (used for X-ray scattering factors and VDW radii in nonbonded restraints) - phenix.find_peaks_holes (new command): - standalone map peak search program: highlight difference map features - includes analysis of anomalous maps, flag suspicious "water" molecules - phenix.maps: - simplified execution on command line: "phenix.maps model.pdb data.mtz" - generates default map coefficients (2mFo-DFc, mFo-DFc, anomalous if available) and 2mFo-DFc CCP4-format map. - phenix.fetch_pdb: - added --maps option: generates 2mFo-DFc and mFo-DFc map coefficients - phenix.get_cc_mtz_pdb: - added atom_selection keyword: compute CC for a subset of atoms - phenix.real_space_correlation: - simplified execution on command line: "phenix.real_space_correlation model.pdb data.mtz" - calculates CC of model to 2mFo-DFc map - added atom_selection keyword: compute CC for a single selection (instead of per-atom or per-residue statistics) For a full list of changes see: http://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/CHANGES Please note that this publication should be used to cite use of Phenix: PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. P. D. Adams, P. V. Afonine, G. Bunkóczi, V. B. Chen, I. W. Davis, N. Echols, J. J. Headd, L.-W. Hung, G. J. Kapral, R. W. Grosse-Kunstleve, A. J. McCoy, N. W. Moriarty, R. Oeffner, R. J. Read, D. C. Richardson, J. S. Richardson, T. C. Terwilliger and P. H. Zwart. Acta Cryst. D66, 213-221 (2010). Full documentation is available here: http://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/ There is a Phenix bulletin board: http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb/ Please consult the installer README file or online documentation for installation instructions. Direct questions and problem reports to the bulletin board or: help(a)phenix-online.org and bugs(a)phenix-online.org Commercial users interested in obtaining access to Phenix should visit the Phenix website for information about the Phenix Industrial Consortium. The development of Phenix is principally funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH) under grant P01-GM063210. We also acknowledge the generous support of the members of the Phenix Industrial Consortium. -- 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 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 ] --

2 2

Run time error while refining
by Subhani Bandara 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

Hi everyone, I got the following error message while running refinement in mac, using PHENIX-1.8-1069. This occured when refined after editing Ramachandran outliers in coot, without applying Ramachandran restraints. Not sure wether it has something to do with this. RuntimeError : Estimated memory allocation for cubicles exceeds max_number_of_bytes: This may be due to unreasonable parameters: cubicle_edge=5 space_span=(3528.41,3528.41,3442.53) n_cubicles=(706,706,689) max_number_of_bytes=2147483648 Any suggestions! Thanks Subhani

2 2

error TLS groups
by Christian Roth 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

Dear Phenix developers, If I want use the automatic TLS definition the following error appears. At least the first error line with invalid iteral does also appear int the last verification step of the validation against the supplied sequence file. I have a PMS modified Serine could that cause the problem, because with other pdb's it works. Best Regards Christian RuntimeError : Error in subprocess! Original error: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '' Original traceback: File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/libtbx/thread_utils.py", line 233, in run return_value = self._target(self._args, self._kwargs, self._c) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/find_tls_groups.py", line 901, in __call__ xray_structure=self.xray_structure) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/find_tls_groups.py", line 729, in find_tls ssm.find_automatically(log=out) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/secondary_structure/__init__.py", line 334, in find_automatically self.sec_str_from_pdb_file = self.find_sec_str(log=log) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/secondary_structure/__init__.py", line 381, in find_sec_str allow_none=True) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 425, in process_records secondary_structure = annotation(records=records) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 62, in __init__ self.helices = parse_helix_records(records) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 217, in parse_helix_records helix_class=string.atoi(line[38:40]), File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/build/intel- linux-2.6/base/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 403, in atoi return _int(s, base) Traceback (most recent call last): File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/wxGUI2/Programs/Refine/TLS.py", line 140, in OnFindTLS self.find_tls_groups() File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/wxGUI2/Programs/Refine/TLS.py", line 103, in find_tls_groups callback=None) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/wxtbx/process_control.py", line 348, in run_function_as_process_in_dialog dlg.handle_error() File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/wxtbx/process_control.py", line 302, in handle_error %s""" % (str(exception), traceback)) RuntimeError: Error in subprocess! Original error: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '' Original traceback: File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/libtbx/thread_utils.py", line 233, in run return_value = self._target(self._args, self._kwargs, self._c) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/find_tls_groups.py", line 901, in __call__ xray_structure=self.xray_structure) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/find_tls_groups.py", line 729, in find_tls ssm.find_automatically(log=out) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/secondary_structure/__init__.py", line 334, in find_automatically self.sec_str_from_pdb_file = self.find_sec_str(log=log) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/secondary_structure/__init__.py", line 381, in find_sec_str allow_none=True) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 425, in process_records secondary_structure = annotation(records=records) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 62, in __init__ self.helices = parse_helix_records(records) File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/iotbx/pdb/secondary_structure.py", line 217, in parse_helix_records helix_class=string.atoi(line[38:40]), File "/userdata-2/christian/phenix-1.8-1069/build/intel- linux-2.6/base/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 403, in atoi return _int(s, base) -- Christian Roth Institut für Bioanalytische Chemie Biotechnologisch-Biomedizinisches Zentrum Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie Universität Leipzig Deutscher Platz 5 04103 Leipzig Telefon: +49 (0)341 97 31316 Fax: +49 (0)341 97 31319

2 1

phenix.mr_model_preparation
by Alexander Batyuk 21 Jun '12

21 Jun '12

Dear all, I'm trying to run phenix.mr_model_preparation in phenix 1.8-1069 with a .hhr file but it fails with Reading homology search file: 4671015.hhr Sorry: Uninterpretable: 'Q ss_pred cccccchHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhchheEEE etc. Could somebody point me to the right direction, please? Thank you and best wishes, Alex -- Alex Batyuk The Plueckthun Lab www.bioc.uzh.ch/plueckthun

2 1

phenix.refine and torsion-angle ncs
by Antony Oliver 21 Jun '12

21 Jun '12

Dear phenix.bb How do I specifically exclude particular amino acids from torsion-angle ncs? >From the GUI, it is not obvious. In a couple of my chains, one or two amino acids are in definite crystal contacts, and are therefore in a different rotamer/conformation compared to the other ncs-related copies. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the right option / keyword to stop the refinement job moving these side-chains to agree with the rotamers found in the other molecules of the asymmetric unit. Many thanks, Tony. --- Dr Antony W Oliver Senior Research Fellow CR-UK DNA Repair Enzymes Group Genome Damage and Stability Centre Science Park Road University of Sussex Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RQ email: antony.oliver(a)sussex.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]> tel (office): +44 (0)1273 678349 tel (lab): +44 (0)1273 677512

3 4

Re: [phenixbb] bad geometry problem
by Qian Sarah 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

> > > Hi Pavel Thank you so much! The information is VERY detailed and I learnt a lot! Thanks to phenixbb! > > 2012/6/21 Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> > >> Hi Sarah, >> >> thanks for sending me the data. I spent 15 minutes trying a few things >> and here is the statistics I get: >> >> r_work = 0.2454 r_free = 0.2700 >> MOLPROBITY STATISTICS. >> ALL-ATOM CLASHSCORE : 13.60 >> RAMACHANDRAN PLOT: >> OUTLIERS : 0.89 % >> ALLOWED : 5.33 % >> FAVORED : 93.78 % >> ROTAMER OUTLIERS : 8.64 % >> CBETA DEVIATIONS : 0 >> >> which isn't that bad compared to the starting point: >> >> r_work = 0.2469 r_free = 0.2613 >> MOLPROBITY STATISTICS. >> ALL-ATOM CLASHSCORE : 48.87 >> RAMACHANDRAN PLOT: >> OUTLIERS : 2.49 % >> ALLOWED : 5.33 % >> FAVORED : 92.18 % >> ROTAMER OUTLIERS : 29.47 % >> CBETA DEVIATIONS : 10 >> >> Here is what I did (it's just one of possible ways of doing this; other >> scenarios may works as good as this one or better!): >> >> - add H atoms: >> >> phenix.reduce model.pdb > model_H.pdb >> >> - then run a quick geometry regularization: >> >> phenix.pdbtools model_H.pdb --geom >> >> - then strip off H: >> >> phenix.reduce -trim model_H_regularized.pdb > start.pdb >> >> - then run refinement using NCS and Ramachandran plot restraints: >> >> phenix.refine start.pdb def_data.mtz main.ncs=true --overwrite >> output.prefix=def2 main.number_of_mac=5 ramachandran_restraints=true >> rama_potential=emsley strategy=individual_sites+**individual_adp >> >> - then take outcome of previous refinement and run the same refinement >> plus weights optimization: >> >> phenix.refine def2_001.pdb def_data.mtz main.ncs=true --overwrite >> output.prefix=def3 main.number_of_mac=5 ramachandran_restraints=true >> rama_potential=emsley strategy=individual_sites+**individual_adp >> optimize_xyz=true nproc=6 >> >> Also, looking at the original maps I see a lot of places where simple >> fixing in Coot is just obvious, for both - rotamers and Ramachandran >> outliers. So you should do it first of all. >> >> Also, use Ramachandran restraints ONLY to preserve good starting model >> and NOT to fix problems. >> >> All in all, geometry problems you were concerned about are all easily >> fixable. One of the reason why these problems arise is that the map is >> really looking like 3A resolution map, may be even worse; plus there are >> places in the model that you need to fix manually (refinement would not be >> able to fix them). >> >> I will send you the files off-list. >> >> >> Pavel >> >> On 6/19/12 1:17 AM, Qian Sarah wrote: >> >>> Hi, this may not be a new problem, but I tried every stretagy that I >>> know from bb, but the geometry is still very bad. So I wish I can get some >>> help from here. >>> Crystal information: >>> SAD data. Resolution 3.0. There is no anisotropy in the data. >>> R/Rfree : 22.7/26.8 (Rfree-flag is always from the Refine_data.mtz file >>> generated after the first refinement.) >>> RMS(bonds):0.02 >>> RMS(angles): 1.453 >>> Ramachandran outliers: 3.0% >>> Ramachandran favored: 91.2% >>> Rotamer outliers: 18.7% !! >>> Clashscore: 31.84 >>> overall score: 3.47 >>> I tried different strategies, like autobuild and then refine; set >>> wxu/wxc=0.3/0.3; turn on "Ramachandran restrains", "fix bad sidechain >>> romaters"etc, however the paramters are still very bad, especially the >>> rotamer outliers. Then I rebuild them manually in coot,after refinement the >>> parameters are even worse. >>> p.s. phenix version: phenix-1.7.3-dev-1046. >>> Thank you very much! >>> best, >>> Sarah >>> >> >> >

1 0

fixing weights
by Morten Groftehauge 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Hi all, I tried specifying wxc, wxu, wxu_scale and wxc_scale as you can see from the log file: target_weights { wxc_scale = 0.50001 wxu_scale = 0.49999 fix_wxc = 6 fix_wxu = 0.35 } but the refinement proceeds with the default values for _scale: ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 6.000000 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: None (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxu = 0.350000 wxu_scale = 0.500 wu = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: None (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| I am running dev-1082, used the GUI for phenix.refine. Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

3 3

R-factor calculation
by Abhinav Kumar 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Hi, Is it possible to specify a different high resolution cutoff (than what's in data file) in phenix.model_vs_data for R-factors calculation? -- Thanks, Abhinav JCSG@SSRL, SLAC (650) 926-2992

2 4

bad geometry problem
by Qian Sarah 20 Jun '12

20 Jun '12

Hi, this may not be a new problem, but I tried every stretagy that I know from bb, but the geometry is still very bad. So I wish I can get some help from here. Crystal information: SAD data. Resolution 3.0. There is no anisotropy in the data. R/Rfree : 22.7/26.8 (Rfree-flag is always from the Refine_data.mtz file generated after the first refinement.) RMS(bonds):0.02 RMS(angles): 1.453 Ramachandran outliers: 3.0% Ramachandran favored: 91.2% Rotamer outliers: 18.7% !! Clashscore: 31.84 overall score: 3.47 I tried different strategies, like autobuild and then refine; set wxu/wxc=0.3/0.3; turn on "Ramachandran restrains", "fix bad sidechain romaters"etc, however the paramters are still very bad, especially the rotamer outliers. Then I rebuild them manually in coot,after refinement the parameters are even worse. p.s. phenix version: phenix-1.7.3-dev-1046. Thank you very much! best, Sarah

3 3

Source code build - overriding compiler choice
by Graeme Winter 18 Jun '12

18 Jun '12

Hi Folks, On my macbook with lion and a source code build, I always set --compiler=gcc for cctbx and this works fine. Just tried a source code build of phenix which failed because it picked up clang, so how do I override this in the install script? I didn't see the option from the install script: Graemes-MacBook-Pro:phenix-installer-dev-1078 graeme$ ./install --help Usage: install [options] Options: --prefix=<path> Determines PHENIX installation path, which will be <path > /phenix-[version] --overwrite Forces overwriting of installed packages --nproc=number Number of processors to use in compilation --base-only Do not compile PHENIX sources (cctbx, phaser, resolve, etc.) --no-gui Do not compile and install GUI components --no-apps Don't create Mac app launcher icons --app-prefix=<path> Path for Mac app launchers (default: /Applications) --noopt Turn off optimization during compilation --debug Turn on debugging during compilation --openmp Try to use OpenMP if supported by compiler --force-compile Force compilation of source --binary Force a binary install if binaries and source are both available --source Force a source install if binaries and source are both available --no-packages Do not install other packages such as PHASER --alias-mtype=<string> Force installation from a different machine type e.g. --alias-mtype=intel-linux-2.4 [for binary installations only] --try-unsupported Try source installation on an unsupported platform --help Print this help message Thanks, Graeme

2 3

MR_Rosetta
by Heather Condurso 15 Jun '12

15 Jun '12

Hello all, I am working on a structure for which a good molecular replacement model doesn't really exist ( highest sequence similarity is 24% for a protein with completely different function and even worse for proteins with a more similar function). As I try and solve the phase with Se-Met derived protein, I thought I would try and use MR_rosetta and see what happens. I have also tried to use pyrosetta to generate better models, but the structure alignments suggest my protein to be primarily composed of beta sheets so the models from ab initio methods aren't great. I am using the GUI and have given my sca file, a sequence file, the 3 and 9 fragment files, and both the global and local alignment hhr files. I thought that phenix would use the hhr alignments to pull models directly from the pdb, but without giving a model pdb, MR_rosetta fails. So my question is how do I input the models? Should I download each of the pdbs and clean them up a bit? How many should I include? I unde! rstand the more I include the more computing time this will take. Can you give any recommendations as to other parameters to change keep the computing time down initially to identify the best model before extensive time is used? I appreciate any help you may be able to provide, Heather Condurso UF-Department of Chemistry condurso(a)ufl.edu

3 6

alternate conformation clashes
by Timothy Springer 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

We have a 1.4 Å structure with two pseudo-symmetry related A and B chains that form a super b-sheet. An 8-residue loop has two quite different alternate, backbone conformations. When we refine the occupancy of these loops, they come out to 0.51 and 0.49, consistent with them being mutually incompatible (i.e., forced to be 0.50 and 0.50 in the ideal situation). Indeed, clashes would exist between the A chain A alternate and the B chain A alternate, but when these are A and B alternates, there is no clash. Since these are in separate chains, Phenix has no problem with an A and A clash. There is a second loop, non-contiguous in sequence, that also has clashes with one of these. We refine each of the two clashing loops as the A conformat ion. Since these are separate loops, Phenix does not seem to care and seems to treat the A conformation of one loop as if it is compatible with the B conformation of the other loop. This is great that Phenix is so forgiving, but my concern is that shouldn't by convention we reassign the conformations so that the A conformations are all compatible within the same monomer? Is there some formal convention on this, and will PDB ask us to reassign these? In a closely related 1.7 Å lattice, we have a single molecule per asymmetric unit, and now the relationship is between two symmetry-related molecules. The two conformations of loops are similar as in the 1.4 Å structure. Here, we have to keep the same alternate conformation name, and thus have a clash between A and A loops 1 but not A and B loops 1. Again there is a clash between A conformation of loop 1 and A conformation of loop 2, and we could make this go away by switching A and B in loop 2. I find it to be less confusing if we switch the conformation names in loop 2. What is the consensus view? Tim

2 1

cif_as_mtz assertion error
by Eric Williams 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

I'm trying to run phenix.cif_as_mtz on a large number of PDB entries, and several entries give me an assertion error. The example below is from 8icz, but the error always seems to be the same. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/build/intel-linux-2.6/../../cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/cif_as_mtz.py", line 544, in <module> run(sys.argv[1:]) File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/build/intel-linux-2.6/../../cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/cif_as_mtz.py", line 135, in run incompatible_flags_to_work_set=command_line.options.incompatible_flags_to_work_set) File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/build/intel-linux-2.6/../../cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/cif_as_mtz.py", line 197, in process_files r_free_flags = r_free_flags).mtz_object() File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/utils.py", line 2001, in __init__ skip_twin_detection = True) File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/utils.py", line 2113, in get_r_factor twin_laws = twin_laws) File "/media/funky/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/utils.py", line 1556, in fmodel_simple assert f_obs.sys_absent_flags().data().count(True)==0 Any ideas? Thanks. :) Eric Williams PhD candidate Intelligent Systems Program University of Pittsburgh

3 8

run time crashing
by CPMAS Chen 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

It crashes during rotamer fix at the initial stage. If you like, I can send you the necessary file for you to debugging. > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:24:44 -0700 > From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4 > Message-ID: <4FDA023C.3070306(a)lbl.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, > > how long does it take to reproduce this problem in your case? So far I > have examples that take forever before they crash. So if yours takes a > few minutes I would be very interested to have it for debugging. > > Also, Jeff is going to try something else that may eliminate this problem. > > Thanks, > Pavel > > *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
by CPMAS Chen 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

I thought I am the only one have this problem. I have encountered the same problem with the newest version of phenix. My installation is on MacOS X 10.6.8. If more information needed, I am happy to provide. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/build/mac-intel-osx-x86_64/../../phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 11, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 146, in run call_back_handler=call_back_handler) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/driver.py", line 1510, in run ncs_manager = self.ncs_manager) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/phenix/phenix/refinement/strategies.py", line 575, in refinement_machine log=log) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/torsion_restraints/torsion_ncs.py", line 884, in fix_rotamer_outliers monitor_clashscore=False) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/real_space.py", line 336, in refine geometry_restraints_manager = geo_box) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/real_space.py", line 250, in __init__ lbfgs_exception_handling_params = lbfgs_exception_handling_params) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/maptbx/real_space_refinement_simple.py", line 137, in __init__ exception_handling_params=lbfgs_exception_handling_params) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/scitbx/lbfgs/__init__.py", line 258, in run log) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/scitbx/lbfgs/__init__.py", line 126, in run_c_plus_plus f, g = target_evaluator.compute_functional_and_gradients() File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/maptbx/real_space_refinement_simple.py", line 193, in compute_functional_and_gradients compute_gradients=True) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/manager.py", line 716, in energies_sites flags=flags, sites_cart=sites_cart, site_labels=site_labels) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/manager.py", line 650, in pair_proxies min_cubicle_edge=self.min_cubicle_edge) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/geometry_restraints/__init__.py", line 1295, in __init__ shell_asu_tables=shell_asu_tables) RuntimeError: Estimated memory allocation for cubicles exceeds max_number_of_bytes: This may be due to unreasonable parameters: cubicle_edge=5 space_span=(2696.14,2555.98,2650.54) n_cubicles=(540,512,531) max_number_of_bytes=1073741824 > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:07 -0700 > From: Nathaniel Echols <nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] runtime error in phenix.refine > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1PBCCzKPJTMoDsFbsZMSO=SMB_19ns+mfvC3HozuUcBaQ(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Eugene Valkov <eugene.valkov(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in > > phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: > > > > RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: > > ?This may be due to unreasonable parameters: > > ? ?cubicle_edge=5 > > ? ?space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) > > ? ?n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) > > ? ?max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 > > > > Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. > > If I'm interpreting the code correctly, this means that the number of > cubicles will lead to an integer format overflow - which I find hard > to believe if you're using a 64-bit system. Could you please send me > the rest of the error message, along with the output of the command > "boost_adaptbx.show_platform_info"? > > thanks, > Nat > > > -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
by Kay Diederichs 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

"A 64bit operating system" can only run on hardware that supports 64bits. Here, 64bits refers to addresses in memory - arrays larger than 4GB need 64bit addressing because 32bits do not allow high enough numbers to index such arrays. It has nothing to do with the maximum value of an integer - that is set by the programmer. A programmer can (depending on programming language and compiler) usually decide whether integer numbers should be of size 4 bytes or 8 bytes. It is just by coincidence that 8 bytes are 64 bits. Here it seems to me that a 8byte integer would be needed to hold the number of cubicles. best, Kay > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:07 -0700 > From: Nathaniel Echols<nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list<phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] runtime error in phenix.refine > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1PBCCzKPJTMoDsFbsZMSO=SMB_19ns+mfvC3HozuUcBaQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Eugene Valkov<eugene.valkov(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in >> phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: >> >> RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: >> ?This may be due to unreasonable parameters: >> ? ?cubicle_edge=5 >> ? ?space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) >> ? ?n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) >> ? ?max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 >> >> Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. > > If I'm interpreting the code correctly, this means that the number of > cubicles will lead to an integer format overflow - which I find hard > to believe if you're using a 64-bit system. Could you please send me > the rest of the error message, along with the output of the command > "boost_adaptbx.show_platform_info"? > > thanks, > Nat

2 1

MR error when fix one component and search for the other one
by fn1＠rice.edu 13 Jun '12

13 Jun '12

Hi everyone, I am trying to fix one component from the previous MR search and try to search for the other one, euler and frac are taken from the pdb file of the previous run (MR.1.pdb). Here are my input file and error message. Thanks in advance! Fengyun automr { build=false ensemble { ensembleID = "mol1" copies_to_find = 1 coords = in.pdb RMS = 0.85 } ensemble { ensembleID = "mol2" copies_to_find = 0 coords = in.pdb RMS = 0.85 } component { seq_file="mut.seq" component_type = *protein nucleic_acid component_copies = 4 } fixed_ensembles { fixed_ensembleID_list="mol2" fixed_euler_list = 206.66 146.75 96.21 fixed_frac_list = 0.688 1.011 0.005 } } i get the error message like this, ENSEMBLE: mol1 , 1 PDB file(s) ENSEMBLE: mol2 , 1 PDB file(s) Resolution set to 3.5 Specifying composition through protein sequence file /shared.scratch/ni/mut-p222-all/bb-3.5/AutoMR_run_5_/r2/mut.seq 4 Adding Ensemble mol2 as fixed solution with: Euler angles: [206.66, 146.75, 96.21] Coords (orthogonal A): [0.688, 1.011, 0.005] *************ERROR ENDING ******************* **************************************** AutoMR Input failed Python argument types in SOLU.addSOLU_6DIM_ENSE(InputMR_AUTO, str, list, bool, list, float, bool, bool, bool) did not match C++ signature: addSOLU_6DIM_ENSE(phaser::SOLU {lvalue}, std::string, scitbx::vec3<double>, bool, scitbx::vec3<double>, double, bool, bool, bool, bool, scitbx::vec3<double>, double) **************************************** *************ERROR ENDING *******************

2 1

runtime error in phenix.refine
by Eugene Valkov 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

I'm encountering the following during the second macro-cycle in phenix.refine in latest 1.8-1069 dev build for Linux 64-bit: RuntimeError: Excessive number of cubicles: This may be due to unreasonable parameters: cubicle_edge=5 space_span=(8467.78,8440.85,8372.67) n_cubicles=(1694,1689,1675) max_number_of_bytes=101542821888 Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. Thanks, Eugene -- Dr Eugene Valkov Division of Structural Studies MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH Email: evalkov(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 402261

3 3

How to run normal mode analysis under command mode?
by fn1＠rice.edu 11 Jun '12

11 Jun '12

Hi everyone, I'd like to perturb my model with normal mode analysis. Does phenix have a way to do this? Thanks in advance! Fengyun

6 11

Gordon conference - last chance!
by Anastassis Perrakis 10 Jun '12

10 Jun '12

Dear all, The registration deadline for the Gordon conference on diffraction methods in Structural Biology (15-20 July), is at the end of the week (June 17th). This is you last chance to register and get some of the places left!!! See the program and application information at: http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2012&program=diffrac Ana and Tassos

1 0

Ordered solvent DOD
by YoungJin 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, When you add waters by ordered solvent option, is it possible putting DOD for neutron data? I added normal waters and changed them to DOD by using ReadySet. But wondering if I want to go further refinement with ordered_solvent on, how can I keep adding DOD rather than HOH. Otherwise, do I have to change again by using REadySet? I also tried to change resid name as DOD but didn't help me. Best, Young-Jin

3 2

R/Rfree can not be reproduced
by 周文昌 03 Jun '12

03 Jun '12

Dear all, I had a weird case in which I can not reproduce the R/Rfree value for the same refinement. "same" means I run my refinement first and then I rerun with "phenix.refine *.eff --overwrite". The R/Rfree values for the two cases are different (0.2942/0.3190 vs 0.2942/0.3085). Should not they be the same always? the command I used: 1st. phenix.refine new-unique.mtz model.pdb xray_data.high_resolution=2.7 fix_rotamers=true strategy=individual_adp+individual_sites+tls ../tls_group_selections.params wxc_scale=0.05 refinement.input.xray_data.labels=FP,SIGFP --overwrite 2nd phenix.refine model_refine_001.eff --overwrite thanks, Wenchang

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] SA omit map
by Huang, Raven H 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Hi all, Was the issue of SA omit map debated last July (involving Tiaard Pining, Pavel, and Folmer) resolved in the newer version of Phenix? Specifically, We'd like to generate the same map for a ligand. It is not for the refinement, but for publication (a reviewer asked us to cover the ligand with the map in a figure). Previously, I used cns to do that (sa_omit_map.inp). But we refined our current structures solely in Phenix. If there is a choice, I'd rather not to move everything to cns and set it up just for the sake of generating a omit map. Thanks, Raven ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Raven H. Huang, Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry Center for Biophysics & Computational Biology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 411 Roger Adams Lab., 600 S. Mathews Ave. Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: 217-333-3967; Fax: 217-244-5858

3 3

partial partial occupancy
by Terry Lang 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Hey Everyone, I have partially occupied ligand that I am trying model. The problem is that the ligand is in at least two conformations PLUS there is a side chain that occludes binding part of the time. In other words, I'm aiming for something like: Residue Conf A occ = 60%, Residue Conf B occ = 40%, Ligand Conf A 30%, Ligand Conf B 10%. Phenix is happy having a single conformation below 100% occupancy but seems to force the total sum of multiple occupancy residues to be 100%. Is there a way to turn that off for the ligand? Thanks Terry -- Paula Therese Lang Postdoctoral Scholar Alber Lab UC Berkeley/QB3

2 1

Occupancy refinement
by Jerome Nwachukwu 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Hi: I have a 2.2Å structure containing a ligand in at least 2 alternate conformations. When the structure is refined via XYZ refinement + occupancy using phenix.refine, both ligand conformers are kicked out of the electron density. Is there a way to prevent this? Thank you, -Jerome Sent from my iPhone

3 3

TLS makes my r-factors shoot through the roof
by Morten Groftehauge 30 May '12

30 May '12

Hi Phenixbb, 3.2A data, 110 Wilson B, I41, twinned. Imperfect inverted repeat dsDNA with 4 protein monomers, NCS not used in refinement. If I don't include TLS I get a nice stable R-factor while RMS goes down. If I include TLS (whether as one group per chain or as chosen by Phenix) this happens: [image: Inline images 1] Density disappears around some of the DNA bases as an obvious difference. If I run Refmac with TLS it just never finishes. While I could just refine without TLS this does make me worried that there is something wrong with my model or my data (besides being terrible). Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

2 5

Wilson B and REMARK 3
by Michael Thompson 28 May '12

28 May '12

Hello Everyone, I have a question regarding the Wilson B information reported in REMARK 3 of a pdb file. I am preparing a pdb file for deposition, and I am wondering which is the most appropriate value to report as the Wilson B in REMARK 3? My inclination is to report the Wilson B for the full dataset calculated by XSCALE. This value differs slightly from the Wilson B value calculated by phenix.refine and printed to the refinement log file (XSCALE=27.6 vs. phenix.refine=19.8). I assume this difference is due to phenix.refine using a low-resolution cutoff of ~20A. My concern stems from the fact that REMARK 3 "presents information on refinement program(s) used and the related statistics," so I'm not sure if it's best to include the Wilson B calculated by the refinement software, or the Wilson B for the whole data set. Thanks, Mike -- Michael C. Thompson Graduate Student Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Division Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles miket(a)chem.ucla.edu

2 1

Phenix crashes during refinement of a large structure
by Gino Cingolani 18 May '12

18 May '12

Hi all, PHENIX keeps crashing while refining a large structure (>18,000 residues/asym unit). Can anybody make sense of the following error message (see below)? Thanks so much, Gino ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ File "/usr/local/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/model_statistics.py", line 112, in __init__ self.clashscore_obj.analyze_clashes(hierarchy = pdb_hierarchy) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/validation/clashscore.py", line 176, in analyze_clashes stdin_lines=tmp_r.as_pdb_string()) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/libtbx/easy_run.py", line 147, in __init__ close_fds=not subprocess.mswindows) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/libtbx/subprocess_with_fixes.py", line 598, in __init__ errread, errwrite) File "/usr/local/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/libtbx/subprocess_with_fixes.py", line 1015, in _execute_child self.pid = os.fork() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu Website: http://www.cingolanilab.org ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120)

2 4

iterative-build omitmap
by ARJUN＠pitt.edu 17 May '12

17 May '12

Hi I am trying to calculate iterative-build omitmap. Initially program run all 126 omit region and created map coeffs file in corresponding TEMPO subdirectory and unable to create final combined map and this reduce program is running three days without creating the final map. I am trying to run combine_map script separately with all omit region coeffs file and I got the following error: >combine_map overall_best_denmod_map_coeffs.mtz_OMIT_REGION_126 combining map from binary file overall_best_denmod_map_coeffs.mtz_OMIT_REGION_126 >omit Full cross-validation will be done Setting n_small_cycle to 3 All done with inputs Building protein Setting up for building protein Standard fill-in residues: ALA A GLY G Standard main-chain atoms: N CA C O CB All main-chain atoms: N CA C O Max dist between adjacent N atoms: 6.000000 List of all residues: GLY ALA SER VAL ILE LEU MET CYS PHE TYR LYS ARG TRP HIS GLU ASP GLN ASN PRO THR List of 1-letter code of residues: GASVILMCFYKRWHEDQNPT List of number of atoms in side-chains: 0 1 2 3 4 4 4 2 7 8 5 7 10 6 5 4 5 4 3 3 checking license file.. solve2.access The date today is 17-may-12. Your license is good until 15-dec-96. >>>>>> CCP4 library signal library_file:Cannot open file (Error) raised in ccp4_file_open2 <<<<<< >>>>>> CCP4 library signal mtz:Cannot open file (Error) raised in MtzGet <<<<<< Error: failed to open file for read! Sorry, unable to open mtz file: exptl_fobs_phases_freeR_flags.mtz Sorry, unable to open mtz file resolve malloc count: 0 resolve exit_info: How to overcome this error problem Thank you P.Arjunan

2 1

New UPDATE-- Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning?
by Zhou, Tongqing (NIH/VRC) [E] 17 May '12

17 May '12

Dear All, Kay helped me reprocess the data set with XDS, the program pick up I422 as space group. It turned out that when I originally used XDS, I used spindle axis -1, 0, 0 for the APS ID22 detector, it should be 1, 0, 0. The output from XDS: SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA R-meas CC(1/2) Anomal SigAno Nano LIMIT OBSERVED UNIQUE POSSIBLE OF DATA observed expected Corr 8.87 4414 841 858 98.0% 2.7% 3.2% 4402 45.77 3.0% 99.9* -18 0.664 577 6.33 7883 1374 1385 99.2% 3.7% 3.9% 7872 35.76 4.1% 99.9* -17 0.687 1108 5.18 10205 1724 1734 99.4% 5.1% 4.9% 10195 29.38 5.6% 99.8* -15 0.748 1468 4.49 12194 2042 2055 99.4% 5.0% 4.7% 12185 30.77 5.4% 99.8* -20 0.727 1764 4.02 13830 2284 2297 99.4% 6.2% 5.9% 13822 24.55 6.7% 99.8* -15 0.736 2019 3.67 15377 2501 2530 98.9% 9.4% 9.3% 15368 16.77 10.3% 99.6* -12 0.752 2245 3.40 16709 2702 2724 99.2% 14.3% 14.5% 16700 11.31 15.6% 99.2* -5 0.761 2430 3.18 18091 2904 2934 99.0% 23.3% 24.6% 18084 7.14 25.4% 98.4* -3 0.726 2635 3.00 18105 2972 3107 95.7% 37.3% 40.4% 18071 4.42 40.7% 96.4* -6 0.665 2624 total 116808 19344 19624 98.6% 8.2% 8.4% 116699 18.79 9.0% 99.8* -10 0.724 16870 Attached please also find the xtriage log for data processed with XDS. Final model with I422 data set at 3 A resolution looked fine to me, r-free went down from ~0.32 to 0.298, the map even let me correctly fitted one place that supposed to have a Cis-Pro. The final numbers for the model is: r_work = 0.2611 r_free = 0.2983 bonds = 0.002 angles = 0.568 Thank you all for all the help! Regards, Tongqing Tongqing Zhou, Ph.D. Staff Scientist Structural Biology Section Vaccine Research Center, NIAID/NIH Building 40, Room 4609B 40 Convent Drive, MSC3027 Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 594-8710 (Tel) (301) 793-0794 (Cell) (301) 480-2658 (Fax) ****************************************************************************** The information in this e-mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives. ****************************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Pavel Afonine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:07 PM To: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org Subject: Re: [phenixbb] UPDATE-- Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning? Hi, >> 1. Is it really twinned since including twin-law in refinment gave much >> better numbers? R-factors may not be directly comparable: G.Murshudov, Appl. Comput. Math., V.10, N.2, 2011, pp.250-261. The strategy is: - check to see if Xtriage tells it's twinned (based on reflection statistics, not just predicted twin laws based on geometry); - use phenix.model_vs_data to see if it's worth using it. Pavel _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

2 1

annealing omit map
by r n 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hi all I have omitted some region manually from the pdb and did annealing - cartesian using phenix.refinment, the resulting map has density (1.2 sigma) in 2fofc and also seen 2.8 sigma negative density on the omitted region? any suggestions? Rab

1 1

Re: [phenixbb] mr.rosetta gui
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hi Alex, OK, the problem should be fixed in tomorrow's build. Thank you for pointing it out! Let us know if that does not do it! All the best, Tom T ________________________________ From: Terwilliger, Thomas C Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:45 AM To: PHENIX user mailing list Cc: Terwilliger, Thomas C Subject: RE: [phenixbb] mr.rosetta gui Hi Alex, Yes, I can duplicate this...I'm checking on what is happening now. All the best, Tom T ________________________________ From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org [phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org] on behalf of Alexander Batyuk [batyuk(a)bioc.uzh.ch] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:54 AM To: PHENIX user mailing list Subject: [phenixbb] mr.rosetta gui Dear developers, While trying to run mr.rosetta from the GUI, I've encountered an error (see screenshot). I have un-checked the box Include solvation energy. The file rosetta_weights.wts has been created in WORK_1, fa_sol=0.0. Inspection of mr_rosetta_params.eff in GROUP_OF_PLACE_MODEL_1 revealed include_solvation_energy = False, followed by weights_file = "/Users/abatyuk/Desktop/o1map/MR_ROSETTA_74/WORK_1/rosetta_weights.wts", but it seems that the GUI wants either or. Is that the expected behavior? I'm running 1.8-1056, Rosetta 3.4 on OS X 10.6.8 Best wishes, Alex

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] mr.rosetta gui
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 16 May '12

16 May '12

Hi Alex, Yes, I can duplicate this...I'm checking on what is happening now. All the best, Tom T Dear developers, While trying to run mr.rosetta from the GUI, I've encountered an error (see screenshot). I have un-checked the box Include solvation energy. The file rosetta_weights.wts has been created in WORK_1, fa_sol=0.0. Inspection of mr_rosetta_params.eff in GROUP_OF_PLACE_MODEL_1 revealed include_solvation_energy = False, followed by weights_file = "/Users/abatyuk/Desktop/o1map/MR_ROSETTA_74/WORK_1/rosetta_weights.wts", but it seems that the GUI wants either or. Is that the expected behavior? I'm running 1.8-1056, Rosetta 3.4 on OS X 10.6.8 Best wishes, Alex -- Alex Batyuk The Plueckthun Lab www.bioc.uzh.ch/plueckthun<http://www.bioc.uzh.ch/plueckthun>

1 0

mr.rosetta gui
by Alexander Batyuk 16 May '12

16 May '12

Dear developers, While trying to run mr.rosetta from the GUI, I've encountered an error (see screenshot). I have un-checked the box Include solvation energy. The file rosetta_weights.wts has been created in WORK_1, fa_sol=0.0. Inspection of mr_rosetta_params.eff in GROUP_OF_PLACE_MODEL_1 revealed include_solvation_energy = False, followed by weights_file = "/Users/abatyuk/Desktop/o1map/MR_ROSETTA_74/WORK_1/rosetta_weights.wts", but it seems that the GUI wants either or. Is that the expected behavior? I'm running 1.8-1056, Rosetta 3.4 on OS X 10.6.8 Best wishes, Alex -- Alex Batyuk The Plueckthun Lab www.bioc.uzh.ch/plueckthun

1 0

Occupancy issue
by Simon Kolstoe 15 May '12

15 May '12

Hi phenixbb, I'm wanting to refine the occupancy for just a few Cadmium atoms in a structure but not refine any other occupancies. I've used the following command however the occupancies haven't refined: phenix.refine refinement_006.def occupancies.individual="chain X and element CD2" and the cadmiums are in the pdb file as: ATOM 8740 CD+2 CD2 X 1 -81.043 91.612 65.218 1.00 11.63 X CD2+ ATOM 8741 CD+2 CD2 X 2 -78.111 92.072 62.948 1.00 11.15 X CD2+ ATOM 8742 CD+2 CD2 X 3 -85.283 28.170 80.931 1.00 12.01 X CD2+ Thanks, Simon

3 4

Refinement error with Se labeled DNA cif seting
by Lauren 15 May '12

15 May '12

Dear all, I have a protein complex with 10mer DNA with one adenine labeled with Se-CH3 at C2'. I gave the se labeled pdb structure to the Elbow or ReadySet, the program gave me the cif as shown below. When I tried to refine the structure, phenix.refine ends with a Error message: Chain: "A" Number of atoms: 23 Number of conformers: 1 Conformer: "" Number of residues, atoms: 1, 23 Unexpected atoms: {'AMS,OP1': 1, 'AMS,OP2': 1} Classifications: {'DNA': 1} Unresolved non-hydrogen bonds: 2 Unresolved non-hydrogen angles: 3 Unresolved non-hydrogen chiralities: 1 Number of atoms with unknown nonbonded energy type symbols: 2 "HETATM 2 OP1 AMS A 1 .*.A O " "HETATM 3 OP2 AMS A 1 .*.A O " Any advice on how to modified the cif or pdb files? Thanks so much in advance. CIF files: AMS P P P . 10.3639 38.8090 53.6083 AMS OP1 O OH1 . 9.8621 39.4308 52.7650 AMS OP2 O O . 9.6270 38.9790 55.3430 AMS O5' O O2 . 11.5188 37.6926 53.7178 AMS C5' C CH2 . 12.2621 37.6244 54.8065 AMS C4' C CR15 . 13.5128 36.9044 54.7141 AMS O4' O O . 14.2653 37.1385 55.8584 AMS C3' C CR15 . 13.2442 35.4155 54.6698 AMS O3' O OH1 . 14.1003 34.8289 53.7923 AMS C2' C CR15 . 13.5010 34.9324 55.9516 AMS SE2' SE SE . 11.8697 34.2402 56.7089 AMS C1' C CR15 . 13.9654 36.1199 56.7679 AMS CA' C CH3 . 11.5566 32.3937 56.0481 AMS N9 N NR5 . 15.1526 35.8937 57.6065 AMS C8 C CR15 . 16.4077 35.6661 57.1789 AMS N7 N N . 17.1943 35.5119 58.2703 AMS C5 C CR56 . 16.4320 35.6429 59.3887 AMS C4 C CR56 . 15.1196 35.8884 58.9705 AMS N1 N N . 15.6651 35.7647 61.7193 AMS C2 C CR16 . 14.4119 35.9994 61.2874 AMS N3 N N . 14.1134 36.0657 59.9478 AMS C6 C CR6 . 16.7122 35.5796 60.8007 AMS N6 N NH2 . 18.1110 35.3174 61.2840 # loop_ _chem_comp_bond.comp_id _chem_comp_bond.atom_id_1 _chem_comp_bond.atom_id_2 _chem_comp_bond.type _chem_comp_bond.value_dist _chem_comp_bond.value_dist_esd AMS P OP1 single 1.162 0.02 AMS P OP2 double 1.892 0.02 AMS P O5' single 1.610 0.02 AMS O5' C5' single 1.320 0.02 AMS C5' C4' single 1.446 0.02 AMS C4' O4' single 1.389 0.02 AMS C4' C3' single 1.514 0.02 AMS O4' C1' single 1.398 0.02 AMS C3' O3' single 1.359 0.02 AMS C3' C2' single 1.394 0.02 AMS C2' SE2' single 1.927 0.02 AMS C2' C1' single 1.514 0.02 AMS SE2' CA' single 1.986 0.02 AMS C1' N9 single 1.471 0.02 AMS N9 C8 aromatic 1.345 0.02 AMS N9 C4 aromatic 1.364 0.02 AMS C8 N7 aromatic 1.354 0.02 AMS N7 C5 aromatic 1.360 0.02 AMS C5 C4 aromatic 1.399 0.02 AMS C5 C6 aromatic 1.441 0.02 AMS C4 N3 aromatic 1.414 0.02 AMS N1 C2 aromatic 1.346 0.02 AMS N1 C6 aromatic 1.405 0.02 AMS C2 N3 aromatic 1.374 0.02 AMS C6 N6 single 1.503 0.02 Best Regards Lauren

2 1

refinement of peptide with non-standard aminocids
by Vitali Stanevich 14 May '12

14 May '12

Hi, I am trying to refine protein structure with MCLR ligand - this is cyclic hepta-peptide which has some non-standard amino acids. Sequence is DAL-LEU-ACB-ARG-1ZN-FGA-DAM. It's exactly the same compound as chain G at 3dw8 PDB entry. I could successfully import amino acids in coot through "get monomer" option, renumber and combine in one chain. Problem is that whenever I use phenix.refine it returns all residues nonbonded. Corresponding carboxyl and amino groups are in close proximity to make a bond. I tried to write LINKR record in .pdb - with no success: ... LINKR 1ZN G 5 FGA G 6 trans LINKR FGA G 6 DAM G 7 trans ... Is there a way to create peptide bonds in this inhibitor chain? I'm using phenix Version: 1.7.3. Thanks in advance, Vitali

3 4

discrepancy in MolProbity statistics
by Michael Thompson 14 May '12

14 May '12

Hello All, I recently ran into a discrepancy between the MolProbity statistics reported by phenix.refine and the MolProbity statistics reported by the actual MolProbity webserver. I was hoping someone could comment on this and let me know if this is a warning sign that something is amiss. The structure (resolution=2.0A) seems to be correct and well refined, based on R-factors (0.1591/0.1774) and geometry reports from the various validation tools. Remark 3, which was written out to the pdb file by phenix.refine, contains the following: REMARK 3 MOLPROBITY STATISTICS. REMARK 3 ALL-ATOM CLASHSCORE : 4.14 REMARK 3 RAMACHANDRAN PLOT: REMARK 3 OUTLIERS : 0.00 % REMARK 3 ALLOWED : 2.32 % REMARK 3 FAVORED : 97.68 % REMARK 3 ROTAMER OUTLIERS : 1.83 % REMARK 3 CBETA DEVIATIONS : 0 Remark 40, which was created by and downloaded from the MolProbity web server, contains slightly different statistics: REMARK 40 MOLPROBITY OUTPUT SCORES: REMARK 40 ALL-ATOM CLASHSCORE : 0.83 REMARK 40 BAD ROTAMERS : 1.6% 8/510 (TARGET 0-1%) REMARK 40 RAMACHANDRAN OUTLIERS : 0.0% 0/657 (TARGET 0.2%) REMARK 40 RAMACHANDRAN FAVORED : 97.7% 642/657 (TARGET 98.0%) I am mainly concerned about the values of the ALL-ATOM CLASHSCORE, as they are significantly different according to the two calculations. Thanks in advance for any information/answers! Mike -- Michael C. Thompson Graduate Student Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Division Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles miket(a)chem.ucla.edu

2 1

phenix.model
by r n 14 May '12

14 May '12

Hi I did get different values in phenix.model_vs_data, after the refinement gave me R and Rfree as 24 and 29% and phenix.model_vs_data gave me R_compute and Rfree-compute as 22 and 26%. Thought that both R-compute and refinement values should be more or less same? any suggestions R

4 3

CASP 10: Call for targets to assess the state of the art in protein structure modeling
by Torsten Schwede 11 May '12

11 May '12

*CASP 10: Call for targets to assess the state of the art in protein structure modeling* As many of you know, CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure prediction) has been assessing the state of the art in modeling protein structure from sequence since 1994, running a community experiment once every two years. In these experiments, information on soon to be solved structures is collected from the experimental community, and the sequence data are passed to the structure modeling community so that blind predictions of structure and can collected and assessed (1). Over that period CASP has seen enormous progress in the quality of modeled structures (2), but many problems remain. CASP is only possible because of the generous participation of the experimental community in providing the modeling targets (3). We recently appealed for your help in providing novel fold and membrane protein targets for the ongoing CASP ROLL process. That is very successful, with 57 prediction teams participating and 26 targets already released, thanks to all of you who have contributed. The prediction season for the next full biannual experiment, CASP 10, begins May 1, and so we are now asking for your help again, this time in reaching our goal of releasing at least varied 100 targets in a the three-month period. We need all sorts of targets, spanning the categories below: 1. (More than ever) novel folds and membrane protein targets -- even with the extended collection season provided by CASP ROLL, there will be still a shortage. There are some interesting methods developments for ab initio modeling, and it is important to be able to decisively evaluate their effectiveness. 2. A diversity of comparative modeling targets. Cases where the there is fairly high sequence identity (30-50%) between the target structure and an available template are valuable for testing the degree to which model accuracy can approach that of experiment, particularly in functionally critical regions. Cases with lower sequence identity to template, right down to undetectable, are valuable for testing the ability of the methods to detect remote homologs, to overcome challenging alignment difficulties, to make use of multiple templates, and to build regions of the structure not obviously available from a template. 3. Targets containing significant amounts of disordered structure, so as to test the ability of methods to identify these regions. Disorder identified by absence of density in crystallography is current the main source and very useful, but its important to have cases where the nature of the disorder has been established by other means, such as NMR. 4. Some targets will also be used to test methods of structure refinement. In these cases, the best model received for a target will be released to the refinement community, who will subsequently submit new models. This too is an area where there have been some exciting developments in the last year, so we are hoping for significant progress. Refinement targets are selected based on the nature of the errors in the initial models. Because of the extended process, these targets need to be available for longer before release of the experimental structure. For those of you who have not provided targets to CASP before, the procedure is simple. There are three ways to submit targets: (1) Go the target submission web page and fill in the easy form; (2) When you submit your co-ordinates to the PDB, tick the 'CASP HOLD' box, automatically setting up a target entry; (3) Send an email the prediction center with details. If you have queries, there is a very experienced prediction center staff to deal with them. The key thing is timing: We need a window of at least four weeks between receiving information about a target and the release of your experimental structure. A longer window -- up to eight weeks - is often useful, for example so that a target can be used to test refinement methods, but is not essential (note that using the PDB target submission route automatically selects eight weeks). We don't need your experimental structure in advance of its release by the PDB, provided that will happen by the end of August. Please consult the target submission page for more details: http://www.predictioncenter.org/casp10/targets_submission.cgi There are already over 200 prediction teams signed for CASP 10, and so any targets provided will receive plenty of attention. If you have a suitable target now, we are ready to receive it. If new targets come up before July 17, we would also love to have them. (After July 17, we will continue with CASP ROLL for novel folds and membrane proteins). So please get in touch whenever a suitable opportunity arises, and help improve modeling methods. Thanks, CASP organizing committee John Moult, IBBR, University of Maryland, USA Krzysztof Fidelis, University of California, Davis, USA Andriy Kryshtafovych, University of California, Davis, USA Torsten Schwede, SIB & Biozentrum University of Basel, Switzerland Anna Tramontano, University of Rome, Italy Get in touch: casp(a)predictioncenter.org More information: http://www.predictioncenter.org/casp10/index.cgi CASP Roll targets so far: http://www.predictioncenter.org/casprol/targetlist.cgi Submit a target: http://www.predictioncenter.org/casp10/targets_submission.cgi 1. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)--round IX. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21997831> Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A, Tramontano A. Proteins. 2011;79 Suppl 10:1-5. doi: 10.1002/prot.23200. Epub 2011 Oct 14. 2. CASP9 results compared to those of previous CASP experiments. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21997643> Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K, Moult J. Proteins. 2011;79 Suppl 10:196-207. doi: 10.1002/prot.23182. Epub 2011 Oct 14 3.Target highlights in CASP9: Experimental target structures for the critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22020785> Kryshtafovych A et al. Proteins 2011;79 Suppl 10:6-20. doi: 10.1002/prot.23196. Epub 2011 Oct 21.

1 0

Fwd: Re: anisotropic induced noise amplification
by Pavel Afonine 11 May '12

11 May '12

Hi, I realized Randy's reply did not go to the mailing list, so I'm forwarding it now. Pavel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [phenixbb] anisotropic induced noise amplification Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:49:57 +0100 From: Randy Read <rjr27(a)cam.ac.uk> To: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> CC: developers(a)phenix-online.org <developers(a)phenix-online.org>, Peter Zwart <PHZwart(a)lbl.gov> In the absence of an answer from Peter (who implemented this and therefore ought to know best), I'm pretty sure that the idea is to measure how much difference there is in the amount of signal in the data that have received the biggest anisotropy corrections, compared to the ones that have received the smallest anisotropy corrections. If there's very little signal in the data that have been scaled up the most, then the noise is being amplified (nearly-random amplitudes have gone from being relatively small to the same size on average as the well-measured amplitudes). But what the Z-scores mean is not at all clear from that output, and I'm not aware that Peter has written anything describing this. This amplified noise is what I suspect is creating problems in phenix.refine refinement with highly anisotropic data, because if the experimental sigmas are ignored then the program doesn't know (after anisotropic scaling) which amplitudes of a comparable size contain signal and which are essentially noise. Anisotropic truncation gets rid of it, which would explain why refinement works better with anisotropically-truncated data. Randy On 6 May 2012, at 20:21, Pavel Afonine wrote: > Hi, > > did anyone address this post? I'm interested to know the answer > myself: I have absolutely no idea what is this. > > Pavel > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [phenixbb] anisotropic induced noise amplification > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:06:55 -0500 > From: James Thompson <Thompson.James(a)mayo.edu> > Reply-To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > To: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > > > > Anyone willing to summarize Xtriage's algorithm that determines > whether "/anisotropic induced noise amplification/" is present in > diffraction data? What is this noise amplification? Is it > anisotropic correction factors that over-fit the data thereby inducing > noise? > > Many thanks, > Jim T > > ---------------- Anisotropy analyses ---------------- > > Anisotropy ( [MaxAnisoB-MinAnisoB]/[MaxAnisoB] ) : 3.596e-01 > Anisotropic ratio p-value : 0.000e+00 > > The p-value is a measure of the severity of anisotropy as > observed in the PDB. > The p-value of 0.000e+00 indicates that roughly 100.0 % of > datasets available in the PDB have > an anisotropy equal to or worse than this dataset. > > > For the resolution shell spanning between 2.36 - 2.20 Angstrom, > the mean I/sigI is equal to 3.37. 42.2 % of these intensities have > an I/sigI > 3. When sorting these intensities by their anisotropic > correction factor and analysing the I/sigI behavior for this ordered > list, we can gauge the presence of 'anisotropy induced noise > amplification' > in reciprocal space. > > The quarter of Intensities *least* affected by the anisotropy > correction show > <I/sigI> : 3.82e+00 > Fraction of I/sigI > 3 : 5.01e-01 ( Z = 3.59 ) > > The quarter of Intensities *most* affected by the anisotropy > correction show > <I/sigI> : 2.02e+00 > Fraction of I/sigI > 3 : 1.84e-01 ( Z = 10.78 ) > > *The combined Z-score of 11.36 indicates that there probably is > significant* > *systematic noise amplification that could possibly lead to artefacts > in the* > *maps or difficulties in refinement* > > <Attached Message Part.txt> ------ Randy J. Read Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge Cambridge Institute for Medical Research Tel: + 44 1223 336500 Wellcome Trust/MRC Building Fax: + 44 1223 336827 Hills Road E-mail: rjr27(a)cam.ac.uk <mailto:[email protected]> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K. www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk

1 0

lastest phenix.refine reproducible problem
by 周文昌 09 May '12

09 May '12

Dear all, I've been learning phenix refinement on a MAD dataset which is already deposited in PDB. There are something I can not get through. Basically I had two steps refinement: 1->phenix.refine data.mtz model.pdb xray_data.high_resolution=3 fix_rotamers=true strategy=individual+adp+individual_sites+tls 2->phenix.refine data.mtz model-refined.pdb xray_data.high_resolution=3 fix_rotamers=false strategy=none main.number_of_macro_cycles=1 model-refined.pdb is actually from the 1st step, so in principle the R/R-free values should be the same for 1 and 2. However in my case, I had 0.2506/0.2996 for the 1st step but 0.2503/0.2998 for the second. I compared the resulting pdb and mtz files from the two steps. PDB model were exactly the same but there were little difference in the mtz file. Why there is difference in mtz file and would it be the reason for the difference of R factors? I use the latest version of phenix, phenix-dev-1009. thanks, Wenchang

3 3

Installation on a POWER 7 system
by Rajagopalan, Senapathy 09 May '12

09 May '12

Hi Everyone, I was wondering if its possible to install PHENIX on a POWER 7 system. The cluster for which we have access runs on a power 7 system and at least my initial try to install the FC3 version failed. 'uname –rm' gives me '2.6.32-220.13.1.el6.ppc64 ppc64'. If only re-compilation is required, I would appreciate if you can point me in the right direction. Thanks Sena Methodist. Leading Medicine. Recognized by U.S.News & World Report as one of America's "Best Hospitals" in 13 specialties. Named to FORTUNE® Magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For®" list seven years in a row. Designated as a Magnet hospital for excellence in nursing. Visit us at methodisthealth.com. Follow us at twitter.com/MethodistHosp and www.facebook.com/MethodistHospital. ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This e-mail is the property of The Methodist Hospital and/or its relevant affiliates and may contain restricted and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. Thank you.

2 1

NCS, TLS and anisotropic b-factors
by Morten Groftehauge 08 May '12

08 May '12

Hi Phenixbb, Just one more stupid question: On the phenix website it says under *current limitations of phenix.refine*"Atoms with anisotropic ADP in NCS groups". I take this to mean that phenix.refine doesn't handle the combination of TLS and NCS well, is this correct? So what is the correct way of handling TLS and NCS? Do one run where individual, isotropic ADP+xyz and NCS are refined and then another where individual, isotropic ADP+xyz and TLS are refined? Or one run where individual, isotropic ADP+xyz and NCS are refined and then another where individual, isotropic ADP and TLS are refined? Or does the issues go away if you only use torsional NCS? Or adjusting the B-factor weight of NCS selections? Should B-factor weight then be set up or down? Okay, that was more than one question but at least they're all on the same topic. Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

4 5

UPDATE-- Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning?
by Zhou, Tongqing (NIH/VRC) [E] 08 May '12

08 May '12

Hi Jürgen, Kelly and Nat, I tried XDS and MosFilm, they simply cannot index the data. I reprocessed the data yesterday with HKL2000 starting from frame #30 (splitting 1-29, 30-360), I did get it indexed to I4 and refined to very nice x/y chi^2 and covering most spots, I then used the index/refinement numbers for the whole data set. it seems that other spots were from a "nicely" positioned secondary crystal which fooled the program to pick P4 space group. I scaled the data as I4 and I422 to see which one is better. The I4 data set, ~95% complete overall, 9.2% R-sym. Xtriage suggested it should have higher symmetry I422 or twin (-k, -h, -l, almost 50%). MR sent well and best SG is I4, 2 mol/ASU, r and r-free went to about 27% and 32%, but if I used the twin-law in phenix.refine and ask phenix to generate r-free-flags with twinning in mind, the numbers went to ~22% and 27%. Shell Lower Upper Average Average Norm. Linear Square limit Angstrom I error stat. Chi**2 R-fac R-fac 50.00 7.32 440.7 8.8 5.1 1.481 0.027 0.030 7.32 5.81 167.2 4.2 3.2 1.868 0.045 0.048 5.81 5.08 196.3 5.1 3.9 2.130 0.053 0.058 5.08 4.62 243.1 6.2 4.7 2.264 0.056 0.061 4.62 4.29 236.7 6.4 4.9 2.057 0.055 0.055 4.29 4.03 167.6 5.6 4.7 1.819 0.067 0.066 4.03 3.83 139.5 5.6 5.0 1.740 0.083 0.075 3.83 3.66 110.2 5.5 5.1 1.645 0.102 0.091 3.66 3.52 92.5 5.6 5.3 1.459 0.117 0.101 3.52 3.40 76.5 5.7 5.4 1.372 0.143 0.124 3.40 3.30 59.3 5.7 5.5 1.278 0.179 0.146 3.30 3.20 47.3 5.7 5.6 1.161 0.212 0.179 3.20 3.12 40.7 5.8 5.7 1.103 0.241 0.201 3.12 3.04 31.6 5.8 5.8 1.057 0.298 0.254 3.04 2.97 28.9 5.9 5.9 1.031 0.331 0.271 2.97 2.91 22.6 5.9 5.9 0.985 0.400 0.340 2.91 2.85 19.0 6.0 6.0 0.991 0.484 0.405 2.85 2.80 17.1 6.1 6.1 0.957 0.518 0.437 2.80 2.75 14.6 6.2 6.2 0.908 0.577 0.485 2.75 2.70 13.0 6.4 6.3 0.931 0.645 0.550 All reflections 112.9 5.9 5.3 1.455 0.092 0.066 The I422 data (below), 1 mol/ASU, r and r-free were about 27% and 32%. Shell Lower Upper Average Average Norm. Linear Square limit Angstrom I error stat. Chi**2 R-fac R-fac 50.00 7.32 430.0 8.4 5.0 1.344 0.025 0.028 7.32 5.81 163.4 4.0 3.0 1.489 0.040 0.042 5.81 5.08 192.4 4.8 3.6 1.694 0.046 0.052 5.08 4.62 231.6 5.6 4.3 1.790 0.049 0.053 4.62 4.29 227.8 5.8 4.5 1.534 0.045 0.043 4.29 4.03 161.3 5.0 4.2 1.401 0.055 0.052 4.03 3.83 135.3 5.0 4.4 1.367 0.066 0.059 3.83 3.66 106.2 4.9 4.4 1.302 0.082 0.071 3.66 3.52 88.1 4.8 4.5 1.253 0.097 0.082 3.52 3.40 75.0 4.9 4.6 1.193 0.113 0.096 3.40 3.30 56.7 4.8 4.6 1.121 0.144 0.115 3.30 3.20 44.8 4.8 4.7 1.061 0.172 0.141 3.20 3.12 38.0 4.8 4.7 1.011 0.203 0.166 3.12 3.04 29.1 4.7 4.7 1.029 0.253 0.209 3.04 2.97 27.7 4.8 4.8 0.985 0.261 0.209 2.97 2.91 21.4 4.9 4.8 0.917 0.320 0.266 2.91 2.85 18.3 4.9 4.8 0.949 0.380 0.316 2.85 2.80 16.1 4.9 4.9 0.955 0.431 0.358 2.80 2.75 14.2 5.0 5.0 0.940 0.483 0.399 2.75 2.70 12.6 5.2 5.2 0.886 0.536 0.462 All reflections 110.9 5.1 4.5 1.236 0.076 0.054 So my questions are: 1. Is it really twinned since including twin-law in refinment gave much better numbers? 2. When refining with twin-law, Are the maps by phenix.refine output already "corrected" mtz/map? 3. If I use xray_data.r_free_flags.generate=True, can I write the data mtz out with the generated r-free-flags so that each round of refinement uses the same CV set? Thnaks, Tongqing Tongqing Zhou, Ph.D. Staff Scientist Structural Biology Section Vaccine Research Center, NIAID/NIH Building 40, Room 4609B 40 Convent Drive, MSC3027 Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 594-8710 (Tel) (301) 793-0794 (Cell) (301) 480-2658 (Fax) ****************************************************************************** The information in this e-mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives. ****************************************************************** From: Bosch, Juergen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 1:34 PM To: PHENIX user mailing list Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning? Why don't you index over the whole dataset (XDS) ? Or at least over a couple of images (Mosflm) Jürgen On May 7, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Kelly Daughtry wrote: I agree. The fact that two "crystals forms" appear, with related unit cells: P422 data: unit_cell = 191.6999969 191.6999969 311.0539856 90 90 90 space_group = "P 4 2 2" I422 data: unit_cell = 191.783 191.783 103.775 90 90 90 space_group = "I 4 2 2" indicated to me you have mis-indexed the P422 data. It is likely I422. Kelly ******************************************************* Kelly Daughtry, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Fellow, Raetz Lab Biochemistry Department Duke University Alex H. Sands, Jr. Building 303 Research Drive RM 250 Durham, NC 27710 P: 919-684-5178 ******************************************************* On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Nathaniel Echols <nechols(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Kelly Daughtry <kddaught(a)bu.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Looking at the P422 data, it look like you have pseudo translational symmetry. Did you try processing this data as I422? >From the P422_xtriage.log: The full list of Patterson peaks is: x y z height p-value(height) ( 0.500, 0.500, 0.165 ) : 78.635 (6.634e-07) ( 0.000, 0.000, 0.330 ) : 56.292 (2.795e-05) ( 0.500, 0.500, 0.497 ) : 30.920 (1.207e-03) One word of caution: an exceptionally high off-origin peak can mean that the unit cell was measured too large, and you've integrated extra reflections that are really non-existent. (I'm not sure what the threshold for this is, but 80% seems pretty large.) Splitting and various indexing artifacts can sometimes lead to this. I'd recommend running labelit.index on the images and seeing what it thinks the lattice should be. -Nat _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb ...................... Jürgen Bosch Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 Baltimore, MD 21205 Office: +1-410-614-4742 Lab: +1-410-614-4894 Fax: +1-410-955-2926 http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

5 5

redundancy of merged multiple datasets
by CPMAS Chen 08 May '12

08 May '12

Dear all, I have merged multiple datasets obtained from the same crystals, different spots of course, it certainly increases the signal/noise ratio and makes the resolution go higher a little bitter. But, the con is, the redundancy is increased to ~20 after I merged 6 datasets. Whereas the individual dataset has the redundancy around 3~5. Is this acceptable? Thanks! *************************************************** CPMAS Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] UPDATE-- Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning?
by Kay Diederichs 08 May '12

08 May '12

> On May 8, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Zhou, Tongqing (NIH/VRC) [E] wrote: > > Hi J?rgen, Kelly and Nat, > > I tried XDS and MosFilm, they simply cannot index the data. > Hi, "simply cannot index" is hard to believe. 90% of indexing failures are due to wrong header values, 9% to the spindle rotating in the "wrong" direction, and the last 1% has other causes. I have yet to see a single-crystal dataset that cannot be indexed. If you are willing to confidentially share (at least some of) your data, I could try to process them with XDS - at least you get another opionion. Easiest way: copy them into a Dropbox or Wuala folder and share that. best, Kay

2 1

phenix.refine crashes
by Jianghai Zhu 08 May '12

08 May '12

Hi, I am using phenix.refine dev-1051. When I was trying flip_peptide, it crashes with the following error messages. Validate: |--------START--------| |--------FINAL--------| residue map_cc 2mFo-DFc mFo-DFc map_cc 2mFo-DFc mFo-DFc Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/build/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/../../phenix/phenix/command_line/refine.py", line 11, in <module> command_line.run(command_name="phenix.refine", args=sys.argv[1:]) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/phenix/phenix/refinement/command_line.py", line 146, in run call_back_handler=call_back_handler) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/phenix/phenix/refinement/driver.py", line 1499, in run ncs_manager = self.ncs_manager) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/phenix/phenix/refinement/strategies.py", line 928, in refinement_machine params = params.flip_peptides) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/flip_peptides.py", line 445, in run log=log) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/fit_rotamers.py", line 749, in validate_changes sites_cart=sites_cart) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/cctbx_project/mmtbx/refinement/flip_peptides.py", line 152, in __call__ return (self.rama_lookup.evaluate_sites(res_type,i_seqs,sites_cart)<0.002) File "/home/jzhu/phenix/phenix-dev-1051/cctbx_project/mmtbx/rotamer/ramachandran_eval.py", line 76, in evaluate_sites "isoleucine or valine"]) AssertionError -- Jianghai

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 78, Issue 9
by CPMAS Chen 08 May '12

08 May '12

Thank you all. Actually, as Pavel said there is a easy way to do so, I changed the cif file of the ligand, where I had restraints on the dihedral modified. Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 13:48:06 -0700 > From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> > To: phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] how to define a molecule in two rigid_body > Message-ID: <4FA59206.7090207(a)lbl.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Charles, > > I think you are trying to achieve two goals, "keep conformation you > like" and "make sure it fits given density", while one of the two > contradicts to the other. That is either the density you are trying to > fit in your molecule or your expectations about the geometry of the > molecule (or both) are not quite right. > > I think this is how much one can tell given the information you provided. > > I don't think you need to do that sophisticated rigid-body kind of > refinement that you described in your original post. The solution must > be easier. May be if you send me the model and data and tell which part > of the model you think is in trouble then probably I could help more. > > Pavel > > On 5/5/12 10:22 AM, Nathaniel Echols wrote: > > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:39 AM, CPMAS Chen<cpmasmit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am almost at final stage. but the refinement always shows error > density at > >> the single bond connecting the two rings. I have tried manually change > the > >> orientation of these two rings, but there are two concerns that I > thought > >> why I did not get the perfect fitting. > >> 1. I might not choose the perfect the orientation of these rings, and > these > >> give me a non-perfect fitting, and high b-factor. > >> 2. since phenix always tries to change the conformation a little bit to > fit > >> the density, so this also might cause some errors, or not the > conformation I > >> like. > >> > >> Then, my sense is that, if I can somehow define the two parts of the > >> molecule as two rigid bodies, then phenix only can has free rotation of > >> these two rings, and the fitting might come out good. > > You can define custom planarity restraints for the rings - there isn't > > good documentation for this, but here is what to do: > > > > 1. If you're using the command line, look here in the .eff file: > > > > refinement { > > geometry_restraints { > > edits { > > planarity { > > atom_selection = resseq 1001 and (name C1 or name C2 or name > > C3 or name C4 or name C5 or name C6) > > sigma = 0.1 > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > (Other parameters omitted for clarify, of course. I'm not sure what > > an appropriate sigma would be - you'll probably have to experiment.) > > > > 2. If you're using the GUI, make sure you have the latest nightly > > build, and on the middle configuration tab, click "Custom geometry > > restraints", which will open a window that includes a tab for creating > > planarity restraints. > > > > Technically, the two planes won't actually be "rigid bodies" (i.e. > > "constrained"), but if you make the planarity restraint sufficiently > > tight there will be very little deviation from ideality. (Just don't > > make it too tight, or you'll confuse the minimizer.) > > > > -Nat > > _______________________________________________ > > phenixbb mailing list > > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > > > > ------------------------------ > > -- *************************************************** CPMAS Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

1 0

Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning?
by Zhou, Tongqing (NIH/VRC) [E] 07 May '12

07 May '12

Dear All, I have collected several dataset for an antibody:antigen complex. It apparently indexed to P4 space group with large cell dimensions of 191.7000/191.7000/311.0540. When I processed as P1 and ran Pointless, it suggested P422 as space group. P4212 gives the best MR solution with 6 mol/ASU (18 chains total ). However, ridigbody and subsequent refinement with TLS could not reduce the r and r-free which stayed at ~48%. Tried to go P4, P222...(12 mol/ASU) with twinning, but the refinement failed due to insufficient computer memory (12 GB), it was also impossible to refine in P1 due to the same reason. But for some data sets, HKL2000 also gave I4 space group with c axis reduced to 1/3 of that of P4. With the I4 data (~2.7 A resolution), I422 was the best MR space group (1 mol/ASU), the refinement went down to r=29% and r-free=34%, but won't go down further. Please advise if it's possible to use the data Tongqing Tongqing Zhou, Ph.D. Staff Scientist Structural Biology Section Vaccine Research Center, NIAID/NIH Building 40, Room 4609B 40 Convent Drive, MSC3027 Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 594-8710 (Tel) (301) 793-0794 (Cell) (301) 480-2658 (Fax) ****************************************************************************** The information in this e-mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives. ******************************************************************

4 5