- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

geometry weight optimization with mlhl target
by Mooers, Blaine H.M. (HSC) 04 May '12

04 May '12

Dear Phenixbb, How does one optimize geometry when using the mlhl target in refinement with Henderson-Lattman coefficients in the input reflection file? The wxc_scale keyword is not recognized when I used the mlhl target, but it is recognized when I use the ml target by setting main.use_experimental_phases=false. Blaine Blaine Mooers Assistant Professor Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center S.L. Young Biomedical Research Center Rm. 466 Letter address: Shipping address: P.O. Box 26901, BRC 466 975 NE 10th Street, BRC 466 Oklahoma City, OK 73190 Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5419 office: (405) 271-8300 lab: (405) 271-8313 fax: (405) 271-3910 e-mail: blaine-mooers(a)ouhsc.edu<mailto:[email protected]> webpage: http://www.oumedicine.com/department-of-biochemistry-and-molecular-biology/…

2 2

secondary structure restraints helices/helixes proline
by Morten Groftehauge 04 May '12

04 May '12

Hi guys, How does phenix.refine handle prolines in helices? When I look in high resolution structures it seems that the carbonyl of the residue four positions before the proline (also in the helix) should be more perpendicular than parallel to the helix. This makes sense since there isn't any nitrogen for it to hydrogen bond to. But when I refine my structure it seems as if phenix.refine is trying to push the carbonyl into parallel position. Am I imagining things? It's not the best data and this is a troublesome region. Cheers, Morten -- Morten K Grøftehauge, PhD Pohl Group Durham University

3 3

Re: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 03 May '12

03 May '12

Hi Kendall, Yes, I think you could use this kind of approach to make overall decisions of any kind, including those you suggest. I would not use Rsleep for anything at all, other than calculating a final number. I would use a fixed Rfree set (which could be a subset of the total free set or the whole set) for all such decision making. If a lot of such decisions are made with Rfree...then yes it would be good to have an Rsleep to make sure that everything is ok. All the best, Tom T ________________________________ From: Kendall Nettles [knettles(a)scripps.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:05 AM To: Terwilliger, Thomas C; PHENIX user mailing list Subject: Fwd: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation Hi Tom, Do you think something like this could be used during refinement to identify the "best" resolution limits? If you have an Rsleep set would Rfree be sufficient for this? I imagine collecting data with a ring of noise and then let the optimal resolution be determined during refinement. My understanding of this is that the modern refinement algorithms can handle some noise in the reflections, but maybe this could be a way to optimize how much signal is needed to contribute in a positive fashion? Kendall

6 7

Re: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation
by Leonid Sazanov 03 May '12

03 May '12

Hi, so will we see now the possibility to apply anisotropic resolution limits truncation in Phenix? Despite the fact that a lot of people use UCLA server, there is still no possibility to do this in any major crystallographic software, AFAIK. Phaser does the scaling, but no truncation, and noise sitting in those regions where there is no signal, is a real culprit. Large SIGFs there do not resolve the problem completely. Thanks. >>>>>> Message: 4 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:05:57 -0400 From: Mario Sanches <mariosan(a)gmail.com> To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Subject: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - UPDATE .......... It turns out that the reason to my nightmares was a highly anisotropic dataset. When I tried to fix geometry related problems in coot, phenix.refine was twisting the geometry back again, probably because it was trying to fit a lot of noise due to the anisotropy. Everything was getting worst, geometry, clashscore, and Ramachandran. Pavel finally corrected it by using this server: http://services.mbi.ucla.edu/anisoscale/ ............ -- Dr. Leonid A. Sazanov Research group leader Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit Wellcome Trust / MRC Building Hills Road Cambridge CB2 0XY WEB: www.mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk Tel: +44-1223-252910 Fax: +44-1223-252915

13 32

Secondary Structure Definitions
by Antony Oliver 03 May '12

03 May '12

Dear all, Is there a phenix jiffy to assign (and write!) secondary structure definitions to a pdb file? I'm currently using MacPyMOL to put together some figures, and I can see that some of the secondary structure elements in the cartoon representation aren't being drawn correctly. Being slightly old-school, I used to use DSSP and the little program dssp2pdb to extract the information and put it into the PDB header. Is there a simpler / easier way to do this? (NB: I'm aware that CCP4MG copes better with SS assignment, but I prefer to use PyMOL in this instance). With 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 5

Fwd: Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation
by Kendall Nettles 03 May '12

03 May '12

Hi Tom, Do you think something like this could be used during refinement to identify the "best" resolution limits? If you have an Rsleep set would Rfree be sufficient for this? I imagine collecting data with a ring of noise and then let the optimal resolution be determined during refinement. My understanding of this is that the modern refinement algorithms can handle some noise in the reflections, but maybe this could be a way to optimize how much signal is needed to contribute in a positive fashion? Kendall From: "Terwilliger, Thomas C" <terwilliger(a)lanl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: May 3, 2012 10:23:29 AM EDT To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation Reply-To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Hi Kendall, This could work. You could define a fixed set of test reflections, and never touch these, and never include them in refinement, and always use this fixed set to calculate a free R. Then you could do whatever you want, throw away some work reflections, etc, refine, and evaluate how things are working with the fixed free R set. All the best, Tom T ________________________________________ From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> [phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Kendall Nettles [knettles(a)scripps.edu<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:05 AM To: PHENIX user mailing list Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation Hi Pavel, Could you use a similar approach to figuring out where to cut your data in general? Could you compare the effects of throwing out reflections in different bins, based on I/sigma, for example, and use this to determine what is truly noise? I might predict that as you throw out "noise" reflections you will see a larger drop in Rfree than from throwing out "signal" reflections, which should converge as you approach the "true" resolution. While we don't use I/sigma exclusively, we do to tend towards cutting most of our data sets at the same i/sigma, around 1.5. It would be great if there was a more scientific approach. Best, Kendall On May 3, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Pavel Afonine wrote: Hi Kendall, removing same amount of data randomly gives Rwork/Rfree ~ 30/35%. Pavel On 5/3/12 4:13 AM, Kendall Nettles wrote: Hi Pavel, What happens if you throw out that many reflections that have signal? Can you take out a random set of the same size? Best, Kendall On May 3, 2012, at 2:41 AM, "Pavel Afonine"<pafonine(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Kendall, I just did this quick test: calculated R-factors using original and anisotropy-corrected Mike Sawaya's data (*) Original: r_work : 0.3026 r_free : 0.3591 number of reflections: 26944 Truncated: r_work : 0.2640 r_free : 0.3178 number of reflections: 18176 The difference in R-factors is not too surprising given how many reflections was removed (about 33%). Pavel (*) Note, the data available in PDB is anisotropy corrected. The original data set was kindly provided to me by the author. On 5/2/12 5:25 AM, Kendall Nettles wrote: I didnt think the structure was publishable with Rfree of 33% because I was expecting the reviewers to complain. We have tested a number of data sets on the UCLA server and it usually doesn't make much difference. I wouldn't expect truncation alone to change Rfree by 5%, and it usually doesn't. The two times I have seen dramatic impacts on the maps ( and Rfree ), the highly anisotrophic sets showed strong waves of difference density as well, which was fixed by throwing out the noise. We have moved to using loose data cutoffs for most structures, but I do think anisotropic truncation can be helpful in rare cases. Kendall On May 1, 2012, at 3:07 PM, "Dale Tronrud"<det102(a)uoxray.uoregon.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: While philosophically I see no difference between a spherical resolution cutoff and an elliptical one, a drop in the free R can't be the justification for the switch. A model cannot be made more "publishable" simply by discarding data. We have a whole bunch of empirical guides for judging the quality of this and that in our field. We determine the resolution limit of a data set (and imposing a "limit" is another empirical choice made) based on Rmrg, or Rmes, or Rpim getting too big or I/sigI getting too small and there is no agreement on how "too big/small" is too "too big/small". We then have other empirical guides for judging the quality of the models we produce (e.g. Rwork, Rfree, rmsds of various sorts). Most people seem to recognize that the these criteria need to be applied differently for different resolutions. A lower resolution model is allowed a higher Rfree, for example. Isn't is also true that a model refined to data with a cutoff of I/sigI of 1 would be expected to have a free R higher than a model refined to data with a cutoff of 2? Surely we cannot say that the decrease in free R that results from changing the cutoff criteria from 1 to 2 reflects an improved model. It is the same model after all. Sometimes this shifting application of empirical criteria enhances the adoption of new technology. Certainly the TLS parametrization of atomic motion has been widely accepted because it results in lower working and free Rs. I've seen it knock 3 to 5 percent off, and while that certainly means that the model fits the data better, I'm not sure that the quality of the hydrogen bond distances, van der Waals distances, or maps are any better. The latter details are what I really look for in a model. On the other hand, there has been good evidence through the years that there is useful information in the data beyond an I/sigI of 2 or an Rmeas> 100% but getting people to use this data has been a hard slog. The reason for this reluctance is that the R values of the resulting models are higher. Of course they are higher! That does not mean the models are of poorer quality, only that data with lower signal/noise has been used that was discarded in the models you used to develop your "gut feeling" for the meaning of R. When you change your criteria for selecting data you have to discard your old notions about the acceptable values of empirical quality measures. You either have to normalize your measure, as Phil Jeffrey recommends, by ensuring that you calculate your R's with the same reflections, or by making objective measures of map quality. Dale Tronrud P.S. It is entirely possible that refining a model to a very optimistic resolution cutoff and calculating the map to a lower resolution might be better than throwing out the data altogether. On 5/1/2012 10:34 AM, Kendall Nettles wrote: I have seen dramatic improvements in maps and behavior during refinement following use of the UCLA anisotropy server in two different cases. For one of them the Rfree went from 33% to 28%. I don't think it would have been publishable otherwise. Kendall On May 1, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Bryan Lepore wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Phil Evans<pre(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Are anisotropic cutoff desirable? is there a peer-reviewed publication - perhaps from Acta Crystallographica - which describes precisely why scaling or refinement programs are inadequate to ameliorate the problem of anisotropy, and argues why the method applied in Strong, et. al. 2006 satisfies this need? -Bryan _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

1 0

How to include restraints when refining DNA?
by Xun Lu 03 May '12

03 May '12

Dear all, I am refining a protein-DNA complex structure at 2.9A resolution. The R/Rfree is 0.2181/0.2501, which is pretty good, but I can tell that the DNA is not well refined. Some sugar puckers are not right. The distances between some base-paired bases are kind of short (~2.5A). I've tried including a reference model for the DNA, or including a cif file, and I've also tried to turn on the secondary_structure_restraints.... nothing worked. I must have not done it in a correct way. But how to do it? And how to deal with sugar puckers? In refmac, I can set the distances between bases during the refinement, so there must be a way to do it in phenix as well? Any advice is welcome. Thanks! Xun -- Department of Molecular and Structural Biochemistry North Carolina State University

4 3

anisotropic induced noise amplification
by James Thompson 02 May '12

02 May '12

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

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Scaling of diffraction data
by jens j birktoft 02 May '12

02 May '12

Hi Everybody, Is there a protocol for re-scaling several sets of diffraction data against a common reference set, either native or based on a Fcalc set computed from a common input model. The are from a number of derivatives, are all isomorphus, and are anomalous data . We want to compare the relative peak heights in Fo-Fc and Anom. difference maps Cheers Jens +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jens J. Birktoft e-mail: birktoft @ nyu.edu <jens.knold(a)gmail.com> ; Phone: 212-749-5057 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5 4

Xtriage problem
by Abhinav Kumar 02 May '12

02 May '12

Hi, When I try to do R vs R analysis for calculated data using xtriage, it has a problem accepting calc labels. source /home/sw/rhel5/x86_64/phenix/phenix-1.7.3-928/phenix_env phenix.xtriage_1.7.3-928 junk.mtz calc_labels=FC ==> Sorry: No matching array: scaling.input.xray_data.calc_labels=FC Howevere, it works fine with an earlier version: source /home/sw/rhel5/x86_64/phenix/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix_env phenix.xtriage_1.6.4-486 junk.mtz calc_labels=FC Thanks, Abhinav JCSG@SSRL, SLAC (650) 926-2992 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: SP16569N-180314 Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:09:00 -0700 From: Miller, Mitchell D. <mmiller(a)slac.stanford.edu> To: Kumar, Abhinav <abhinavk(a)slac.stanford.edu> Hmm, it seems like it may be a bug introduced into phenix. (or else they changed they syntax and did not update the documentation) Can you report it? I get it to do the RvR analysis for calculated data if I use source /home/sw/rhel5/x86_64/phenix/phenix-1.6.4-486/phenix_env phenix.xtriage_1.6.4-486 junk.mtz calc_labels=FC but if I use source /home/sw/rhel5/x86_64/phenix/phenix-1.7.1-743/phenix_env phenix.xtriage_1.7.1-743 junk.mtz calc_labels=FC or source /home/sw/rhel5/x86_64/phenix/phenix-1.7.3-928/phenix_env phenix.xtriage_1.7.3-928 junk.mtz calc_labels=FC then I get the error Sorry: No matching array: scaling.input.xray_data.calc_labels=FC Thanks, Mitch P.S. the results I got were: R vs R statistic: R_abs_twin =<|I1-I2|>/<|I1+I2|> Lebedev, Vagin, Murshudov. Acta Cryst. (2006). D62, 83-95 R_abs_twin observed data : 0.451 R_abs_twin calculated data : 0.502 R_sq_twin =<(I1-I2)^2>/<(I1+I2)^2> R_sq_twin observed data : 0.279 R_sq_twin calculated data : 0.335 The analyses of the Patterson function reveals a significant off-origin peak that is 44.82 % of the origin peak, indicating pseudo translational symmetry. The chance of finding a peak of this or larger height by random in a structure without pseudo translational symmetry is equal to the 1.4447e-04. See the relevant section of the logfile for more details. The results of the L-test indicate that the intensity statistics behave as expected. No twinning is suspected. Even though no twinning is suspected, it might be worthwhile carrying out a refinement using a dedicated twin target anyway, as twinned structures with low twin fractions are difficult to distinguish from non-twinned structures. -----Original Message----- From: Kumar, Abhinav Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 1:30 PM To: Miller, Mitchell D. Subject: Re: SP16569N-180314 I am having trouble inputting Calc labels to xtriage: My mtz file has the following columns: FreeR_flag FP SIGFP FC PHIC FC_ALL PHIC_ALL FWT PHWT DELFWT PHDELWT FOM PHCOMB I tried "FC,PHIC" and "FC" for calc labels but xtriage does not like it. It writes: No matching array: scaling.input.xray_data.calc_labels=FC Possible choices: /mnt/exdsstaff/abhinavk/Refine/SP16569N-180314/RESULTS/current.mtz:FP,SIGFP /mnt/exdsstaff/abhinavk/Refine/SP16569N-180314/RESULTS/current.mtz:FOM /mnt/exdsstaff/abhinavk/Refine/SP16569N-180314/RESULTS/current.mtz:PHCOMB Thanks, Abhinav JCSG@SSRL, SLAC (650) 926-2992 On 05/01/2012 12:51 PM, Miller, Mitchell D. wrote: Also, you could try running xtriage with FC's from the untwined refinement to look at the R vs R stats for Fc vs Fobs.

2 2

Re: [phenixbb] Geometry Restraints - Anisotropic truncation
by Frank von Delft 02 May '12

02 May '12

Hi Pavel > we discussed this with Randy the other day.. A couple of copy-pasts from > that discussion: > > In general, given highly anisotropic data set: > > 1) maps calculated using all (unmodified) data by phenix.refine, > phenix.maps and similar tools are better than maps calculated using > anisotropy truncated data. So, yes, for the purpose of map calculation > there is no need to do anything: Phenix map calculation tools deal with > anisotropy very well. How did you define "better"? If there are a lot of reflections without signal, that makes them essentially missing, so by including them, you're effectively filling in for those reflections with only DFc. If anisotropy is very strong (i.e. many missing reflections), does that not introduce very significant model bias? The maps would look cleaner, though. (I haven't tested myself, btw; I'm genuinely wondering.) > 2) phenix.refine refinement may fail if one uses original anisotropic > data set. This is probably because the ML target does not use > experimental sigmas (and anisotropy correction by UCLA server is nothing > but Miller index dependent removing the data by sigma criterion - yeah, > that old well criticized practice of throwing away the data that you > worked hard to measure!). May be using sigmas in ML calculation could > solve the problem but that has to be proved. If there are large swathes of reciprocal space without signal - I don't see why shouldn't that be excluded? Tossing out individual reflections is of course silly, but what's wrong with trimming down the edges of the elipsoid? Cheers phx

4 4

Inputting DNA for Phenix MR and/or Autobuild
by Charles Allerston 02 May '12

02 May '12

Dear all, I can't find much in the way of documentation for this. Can someone point me to some please? I basically want to know the correct format for entering DNA into the search for MR and inputting into Autobuild. If I have a double stranded DNA do I enter it as >DNA1 AATT:AATT >DNA1 AATT TTAA etc. ? cheers, charlie Dr. Charles Allerston Genome Integrity & Repair Structural Genomics Consortium Nuffield Department of Medicine Old Road Campus University of Oxford OX3 7DQ http://www.thesgc.org/scientists/groups/oxford/genome-integrity-and-repair

8 12

Call for submissions to June 2012 Computational Crystallography Newsletter (CCN)
by Nigel Moriarty 01 May '12

01 May '12

Calling for articles and short communications of interest to structural biologists. The deadline for publication in the June 2012 issue is 29 May, 2012. The Computational Crystallography Newsletter (CCN) is an electronic newsletter for structural biologists, and is published online every 6 months. Feature articles, meeting announcements and reports can be submitted to me at any time for consideration. Submission of text by email or word-processing files using the CCN templates is requested. Past newsletters and the template are available at www.phenix-online.org/newsletter. Cheers Nigel -- Nigel W. Moriarty Building 64R0246B, Physical Biosciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720-8235 Phone : 510-486-5709 Email : NWMoriarty(a)LBL.gov Fax : 510-486-5909 Web : CCI.LBL.gov

1 0

Estimation of ligand binding affinity by occupancy refinement
by Zoran Stefanic 01 May '12

01 May '12

Dear all, I have a question about sensitivity of occupancy refinement in phenix. I have a series of datasets done at our home instrument of relatively modest resolutions from 2.8 to 3 A. These are performed on crystals soaked in progressively higher ligand concentrations. We are trying to see to which of the several active sites the ligand binds first so we went from low to high ligand concentrations. We wanted to estimate the amount of ligand bound by refining the occupancies of the ligand. We expect one active site to bind more strongly than the other two active sites. This was indeed what we observed but when we refine the occupancies of the ligands in weaker binding sites starting at 0.2 occupancies they rise to 0.5-0.6 although some atoms are totally out of density and some are in. B factors are reasonable, i.e. don't go wild. My question would be: how reliable is this estimation of ligand binding by occupancy refinement? Why doesn't the occupancy of ligands stay low if afterwards the density fit of the ligand looks rather unconvincing? Thank you in advance Zoran -- Dr. Zoran Stefanic Division of Physical Chemistry Rudjer Boskovic Institute Bijenicka 54 P.O. Box 180 Zagreb Croatia Phone: 00 385 1 457 1203 Fax: 00 385 1 468 0245

7 6

metal coordination
by Panne Daniel 30 Apr '12

30 Apr '12

Hi all, I had a question concerning metal coordination (zinc in this case). I have used phenix.metal_coordination to generate geometry restraints for refinement. However phenix.refine does not write out the necessary LINK records into the PDB file. This seems to lead to problems later during validation, as the metal coordination is not properly recognized. What would be the best way to generate the LINK records in Phenix? Thanks, Daniel

2 1

Error of Sculptor
by Zhang yu 26 Apr '12

26 Apr '12

Dear Phenixer, When I used Sculptor to generate a new model, there is a error which I can not figure out. I input a PDB file (*.pdb) and an alignment file (*.aln). The following is the log file (contents in ######). There seems something wrong with the *.aln file. ################# Reading PDB file ---------------- File name: **/**/******/******/**.pdb Separating solvent from macromolecules... Reading alignment files ----------------------- 1. **/**/**.aln ##################### The following is the content of the alignment file: **_** MVYSYTEKKRIRKDFGKRPQVLDVPYLLSIQLDSFQKFIEQDPEGQY----GLEAAFRSV **_** ---------MEIKRFGRIREVIPLPPLTEIQVESYRRALQADVPPEKRENVGIQAAFRET * **: :*: :* * .**::*::: :: * : *::****.. What is the problem with the alignment file? Thank you in advance! Fish

2 5

cut-out mtz edition
by Dialing Pretty 26 Apr '12

26 Apr '12

Dear All, I just cut out a fragment of chain and the corresponding electron density from the whole molecule. Will you please give me some suggestion on how to edit the attached file so that those electron density not from the protein fragment can be erased? Or do you have other methods to produce high quality figure which just shows the fragment chain and the fragment eletron density? Cheers, Dialing

4 7

Geometry Restraints - UPDATE
by Mario Sanches 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

Last week I asked a question about geometry restraints at low resolution. I would like to thank you all that took the time to answer, specially Pavel for looking at the data. First, here is the original question: __________________________________________ I am refining a low resolution structure (2.9A) using phenix.refine. As I continue the refinement Rwork/Rfree are dropping but my geometry statistics in general are very bad. My clashscore is getting worst and the RMS(angle) is really high. I have tried to play with the "wxc_scale" parameter and also ran phenix selecting the "Optimize X-ray/ADP weight" option. All attempts end with a RMS(angle) of ~3.8 and a Clashscore of ~190. Is there a known procedure to deal with this? I feel that my geometry weighing term is too loose but I don't know exactly how to tighten it other than decreasing the wxc_scale parameter. I have gone and manually corrected bad positions before but given the low resolution nature of the structure the clashes tend to be reestablished during refinement. Thank you in advance for your help, __________________________________________ It turns out that the reason to my nightmares was a highly anisotropic dataset. When I tried to fix geometry related problems in coot, phenix.refine was twisting the geometry back again, probably because it was trying to fit a lot of noise due to the anisotropy. Everything was getting worst, geometry, clashscore, and Ramachandran. Pavel finally corrected it by using this server: http://services.mbi.ucla.edu/anisoscale/ I should have been more diligent regarding that, since I could clearly see that my data was anisotropic from the diffraction images. I just didn't know how important this parameter could be. Anyways, phenix.xtriage will tell you if your data is anisotropic. The lesson is to pay attention to it. In my case, the quality of the electron density improved considerably, the geometry improved massively (manual intervention in coot was absolutely necessary, but now it stays correct after I manually fix the problems), clashscore lowered, etc. As a side note, it worked better without hydrogens in my case than with. It is certainly a parameter to try if you are having problems. Thank you all again for the tips. Mario Sanches -- Mario Sanches Postdoctoral Researcher Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute Mount Sinai Hospital 600 University Ave Toronto - Ontario Canada M5G 1X5 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mariosanches

3 4

labelit.index with compatibility file
by "Weiergräber, Oliver H." 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

Hello, I have used labelit.check_pdb_symmetry to evaluate a P1 dataset and model for possible higher symmetry. C2 turned out to be a candidate solution. When I used the new asymmetric unit content file (xyz_coset0.pdb) to force indexing in the new SG: labelit.index /path/to/my/images/template_####.img 1 90 compatibility_file=xyz_coset0.pdb, the program crashes with AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'mosaicity_spot_coverage' This happens with the version included in phenix-1.7.3 as well as with the latest standalone labelit package. Any ideas what might be causing this? Maybe the new cell fails to refine? It is absolutely possible that forcing the higher symmetry SG leads to significant positional rmsd - I actually believe that P1 is correct, but it's definitly not far from C2. Best regards ================================================ PD Dr. Oliver H. Weiergräber Institute of Complex Systems ICS-6: Structural Biochemistry Tel.: +49 2461 61-2028 Fax: +49 2461 61-1448 ================================================ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app

2 3

twinning question
by Patrick Loll 20 Apr '12

20 Apr '12

Dumb question here: When one runs the various twinning tests (e.g. phenix.xtriage), is one meant to use data processed in the higher symmetry SG, or the lower symmetry SG? A concrete example: I can process a data set in a 622 point group w/ reasonable merging statistics, but an abnormally low solvent content raises my suspicions. So do I process as P6, and submit these data to the twinning test? Or do I submit the data processed as P622? Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D. Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Director, Biochemistry Graduate Program Drexel University College of Medicine Room 10-102 New College Building 245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192 USA (215) 762-7706 pat.loll(a)drexelmed.edu

6 5

Geometry Restraints
by Mario Sanches 20 Apr '12

20 Apr '12

I am refining a low resolution structure (2.9A) using phenix.refine. As I continue the refinement Rwork/Rfree are dropping but my geometry statistics in general are very bad. My clashscore is getting worst and the RMS(angle) is really high. I have tried to play with the "wxc_scale" parameter and also ran phenix selecting the "Optimize X-ray/ADP weight" option. All attempts end with a RMS(angle) of ~3.8 and a Clashscore of ~190. Is there a known procedure to deal with this? I feel that my geometry weighing term is too loose but I don't know exactly how to tighten it other than decreasing the wxc_scale parameter. I have gone and manually corrected bad positions before but given the low resolution nature of the structure the clashes tend to be reestablished during refinement. Thank you in advance for your help, -- Mario Sanches Postdoctoral Researcher Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute Mount Sinai Hospital 600 University Ave Toronto - Ontario Canada M5G 1X5 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mariosanches

4 9

inverting a set of phase angles
by Mooers, Blaine H.M. (HSC) 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

Does phenix have a reflection file utility for correctly inverting a set of phase angles? Blaine Mooers Assistant Professor Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center S.L. Young Biomedical Research Center Rm. 466 Letter address: Shipping address: P.O. Box 26901, BRC 466 975 NE 10th Street, BRC 466 Oklahoma City, OK 73190 Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5419 office: (405) 271-8300 lab: (405) 271-8313 fax: (405) 271-3910 e-mail: blaine-mooers(a)ouhsc.edu<mailto:[email protected]> webpage: http://www.oumedicine.com/department-of-biochemistry-and-molecular-biology/…

2 4

torsion NCS and SA
by dirk.reinert＠boehringer-ingelheim.com 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

Dear all, Is it safe to use torsion NCS (refinement.ncs.type="torsion") and torsion SA (refinement.main.simulated_annealing_torsion= "true") as a default? Thanks for advice, Dirk --- Dr. Dirk Reinert Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG Dept. Lead Identific. and Optim. Sup. Ge Tel.: +49 (7351) 54-97892 Fax: +49 (7351) 83-97892 mailto:[email protected] Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR A 22206; Komplementär Boehringer Ingelheim Deutschland GmbH; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Engelbert Günster (Vorsitzender), Ursula Fuggis-Hahn, Ralf Gorniak, Michael Klein, Dr. Martin Wanning; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Barner; Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR B 23260 Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Sie kann besonderem rechtlichen Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind, senden Sie bitte diese E-Mail an den Absender zurück, löschen die eingegangene E-Mail und geben den Inhalt der E-Mail nicht weiter. Jegliche unbefugte Bearbeitung, Nutzung, Vervielfältigung oder Verbreitung ist verboten. / This e-mail is confidential and may also be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please reply to sender, delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any person. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited.

2 2

Can the Update Waters routine ignore specified waters?
by John Pascal 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

Hello All, While using Update Waters in the phenix GUI, several waters that have been defined around a metal binding site are removed. I am happy with the placement of these waters - can I specify somewhere that Update Waters should leave them alone? and that their positions, etc. are still refined during the run? Thanks. Best Regards, John -- *John M. Pascal, PhD* Assistant Professor Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry Kimmel Cancer Center Thomas Jefferson University 233 South 10th Street, BLSB Room 804 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Email: John.Pascal(a)KimmelCancerCenter.org <mailto:[email protected]> Phone: (215) 503-4596 Fax: (215) 923-2117

6 10

(no subject)
by Tom Burnley 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

1 0

Re: [phenixbb] Bulk Solvent
by Nathaniel Echols 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

Garib's response below, since the server wouldn't let him post. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Garib N Murshudov <garib(a)MRC-LMB.CAM.AC.UK> To: "Steiner, Roberto" <roberto.steiner(a)kcl.ac.uk> Cc: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:11:24 +0100 Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Bulk Solvent Dear all I cannot say much without data. Only thing I can say that there were some problems in some of the versions in 5.5, and there are some improvements in recent versions. 5.7 series may perform better. Before claiming that improvement is due to particular feature I would do a little bit more analysis. regards Garib On 17 Apr 2012, at 18:03, Steiner, Roberto wrote: difference density on the backbone can also arise (more often) due to suboptimal ADP refinement/restraints..or a bug in a particular build.. best wishes roberto PS I cc-ed this email to Garib in case he's got some info specific for 5.5.0102 On 17 Apr 2012, at 17:22, Timothy Springer wrote: As I said, I cant say that, it is a guess based on two facts. 1) Looking at the output of refinement steps, and seeing that the largest decrease in R during refinement comes in the bulk solvent correction step. 2) It is also based on the common occurrence in the Refmac but not Phenix maps of negative difference density on backbone. This is a symptom of errors in bulk solvent correction. Tim On Apr 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Steiner, Roberto wrote: Hi Tim, How can you say the difference is really down to bulk solvent correction? there's several other parameters that affect differences in R factors.... Just curious R On 17 Apr 2012, at 16:27, Timothy Springer wrote: no, it just takes me two years to write up sometimes--- So this is a historical question. But there is a ref in that powerpoint to following ref. If this was implemented in Phenix and not Refmac 2 years ago, I should cite it. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2005 Jul;61(Pt 7):850-5. Epub 2005 Jun 24. A robust bulk-solvent correction and anisotropic scaling procedure. Afonine PV, Grosse-Kunstleve RW, Adams PD. Source Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Building 64R0121, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. pafonine(a)lbl.gov Tim On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Jeff Headd wrote: Hi Tim, If you are using Phenix 1.5.2, that would not have had the new bulk-solvent model that Pavel is talking about. Are you using that old of a version for your tests? Jeff On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Pavel Afonine <pafonine(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > this is because recently (a few weeks ago) we introduced a novel bulk-solvent model and a new overall anisotropic scaling procedure. > > Some detailed overview is here: > > http://www.phenix-online.org/presentations/PhenixSantaFe2012_PA.pdf > > This is going to be published soon. > > Pavel > > > On 4/17/12 7:59 AM, Timothy Springer wrote: > > In one of the structures I have refined, I found phenix 1.5_2 gave 1 to 1.5% lower Rfree and Rwork than REFMAC 5.5.0102. > Can I propose in a publication that "We attribute these differences to methods for handling bulk solvent in PHENIX that are less adversely affected by deficiencies in the crystallographic data."? > This is a guess, because there is a large contribution to refinement from bulk solvent, rather than factual information. I did cross-refinement, and found it going from structures refined in REfmac to Phenix, and vice versa. The Phenix maps looked better, too. > Is this a reasonable suggestion, and would there be a relevant reference? > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <ATT00001..c> Roberto Steiner, PhD Group Leader Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics King's College London Room 3.10A New Hunt's House Guy's Campus SE1 1UL, London, UK Tel 0044-20-78488216 Fax 0044-20-78486435 roberto.steiner(a)kcl.ac.uk _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb <ATT00001..c> Roberto Steiner, PhD Group Leader Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics King's College London Room 3.10A New Hunt's House Guy's Campus SE1 1UL, London, UK Tel 0044-20-78488216 Fax 0044-20-78486435 roberto.steiner(a)kcl.ac.uk Dr Garib N Murshudov Group Leader, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology Hills Road Cambridge CB2 0QH UK Email: garib(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk Web http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk

1 0

Bulk Solvent
by Timothy Springer 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

In one of the structures I have refined, I found phenix 1.5_2 gave 1 to 1.5% lower Rfree and Rwork than REFMAC 5.5.0102. Can I propose in a publication that "We attribute these differences to methods for handling bulk solvent in PHENIX that are less adversely affected by deficiencies in the crystallographic data."? This is a guess, because there is a large contribution to refinement from bulk solvent, rather than factual information. I did cross-refinement, and found it going from structures refined in REfmac to Phenix, and vice versa. The Phenix maps looked better, too. Is this a reasonable suggestion, and would there be a relevant reference? Tim

4 6

Re: [phenixbb] Sugar woes
by Matthew J. Whitley 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

Hi Simon, I have been struggling with very similar issues over the last few weeks, but I (finally!) got it to work appropriately using just the procedure you described. In my case, I was trying to fit and refine a pentasaccharide consisting of MAN and BMA. Adapting what I did to your case, I would suggest the following steps: After loading NAG and MAN monomers into Coot and manually placing them into the electron density in approximately correct positions, save the coordinates and then manually delete the appropriate hydrogens and oxygen from the PDB file. You specifically stated that you did NOT remove the hydrogens, but I found it to be absolutely necessary to delete these atoms, even though my feeling is that Phenix is supposed to remove automatically the appropriate atoms based on the type of glycosidic linkage specified (although I could be wrong on that). In fact, I just deleted all hydrogen atoms from the sugars for purposes of refinement, knowing that I could add them back in later if desired. To determine the appropriate atoms for removal from the coordinate file in order to form the desired glycosidic linkage, run the command phenix.where_mon_lib_list_cif and then look in the specified file for the type of glycosidic linkage you want. For Beta1-2, you get this: BETA1-2 . DEL-HO2 pyranose . DEL-O1 pyranose glycosidic_bond_beta1-2 This means that, in your example, > apply_cif_link { > data_link = "BETA1-2" > residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 5 > residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname MAN and resid 4 > } you should delete the O1 atom from Man 4 of chain Z and the HO2 atom from Nag 5 of chain Z. If the PDB file contains an O1 for Man4 or an HO2 for Nag5, the refinement will fail, and I think that's the cause of the error you're receiving. If everything works as desired, the result should be that C1 of MAN will be connected to O2 of NAG, thus the 1-2 linkage. If you then load the appropriate .CIF files into Coot and/or Phenix, you should be able to refine the sugars as desired. Alpha2-6 links are not included in the mon_lib_list.cif file. If you want to refine such a linkage, my (admittedly limited) understanding is that, unfortunately, you'd have to manually create a CIF file containing the appropriate restraints - bond lengths, angles, etc. Hope you find something useful in all this. I was was ready to pull out my hair several times over the past few weeks, but now that I got it to work, it doesn't seem so bad anymore. Best of luck. Matthew --- Matthew J. Whitley, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow Angela Gronenborn Lab Department of Structural Biology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:00 AM, phenixbb-request(a)phenix-online.org wrote: > > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:18:57 +0100 > From: Simon Kolstoe <s.kolstoe(a)ucl.ac.uk> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: [phenixbb] Sugar woes > Message-ID: <7BD08A7C-5B94-4448-8E8A-CBA4437E00B6(a)ucl.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi phenixbb, > > Every couple of years I come to build a sugar chain into a protein structure and hope the process is less painful than last time, however it seems things still are not smooth yet! > > I'm trying to build a fairly standard sugar chain onto a protein and am encountering many problems. What I am doing is using coot to get the coordinates for each sugar using the "File-> Get monomer" option and then putting the appropriate link in my phenix.refine .def file after renumbering the sugars. For example: > > apply_cif_link { > data_link = "BETA1-2" > residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 5 > residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname MAN and resid 4 > } > apply_cif_link { > data_link = "BETA1-4" > residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname GAL and resid 6 > residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 5 > } > > For some reason I keep getting the following error: > > --------------- > > Chain: "Z" > Number of atoms: 220 > Number of conformers: 1 > Conformer: "" > Sorry: Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/pdb_interpretation.py", line 1042, in apply_mod > mod_mon = self.monomer.apply_mod(mod_mod_id) > File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/cif_types.py", line 399, in apply_mod > result.delete_atom_in_place(mod_atom.atom_id) > File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/cif_types.py", line 316, in delete_atom_in_place > raise RuntimeError("delete_atom_in_place: unknown atom_id: %s" % atom_id) > RuntimeError: delete_atom_in_place: unknown atom_id: HO2 > apply_mod failure: > pdbres="NAG Z 5 " segid="Z " > comp id: NAG-b-D > mod id: DEL-HO2 > > ------------------ > > I haven't deleted the hydrogens that came with the sugars so what I thought it was doing was trying to delete an atom that isn't there, however adding a dummy atom with the name HO2 didn't work - any ideas? > > Also it seems happy with BETA1-4 links but not ALPHA2-6 links? How do I specify this link? > > Thanks, > > Simon

2 1

Sugar woes
by Simon Kolstoe 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

Hi phenixbb, Every couple of years I come to build a sugar chain into a protein structure and hope the process is less painful than last time, however it seems things still are not smooth yet! I'm trying to build a fairly standard sugar chain onto a protein and am encountering many problems. What I am doing is using coot to get the coordinates for each sugar using the "File-> Get monomer" option and then putting the appropriate link in my phenix.refine .def file after renumbering the sugars. For example: apply_cif_link { data_link = "BETA1-2" residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 5 residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname MAN and resid 4 } apply_cif_link { data_link = "BETA1-4" residue_selection_1 = chain Z and resname GAL and resid 6 residue_selection_2 = chain Z and resname NAG and resid 5 } For some reason I keep getting the following error: --------------- Chain: "Z" Number of atoms: 220 Number of conformers: 1 Conformer: "" Sorry: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/pdb_interpretation.py", line 1042, in apply_mod mod_mon = self.monomer.apply_mod(mod_mod_id) File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/cif_types.py", line 399, in apply_mod result.delete_atom_in_place(mod_atom.atom_id) File "/Applications/PHENIX-1.7.3-928/Contents/phenix-1.7.3-928/cctbx_project/mmtbx/monomer_library/cif_types.py", line 316, in delete_atom_in_place raise RuntimeError("delete_atom_in_place: unknown atom_id: %s" % atom_id) RuntimeError: delete_atom_in_place: unknown atom_id: HO2 apply_mod failure: pdbres="NAG Z 5 " segid="Z " comp id: NAG-b-D mod id: DEL-HO2 ------------------ I haven't deleted the hydrogens that came with the sugars so what I thought it was doing was trying to delete an atom that isn't there, however adding a dummy atom with the name HO2 didn't work - any ideas? Also it seems happy with BETA1-4 links but not ALPHA2-6 links? How do I specify this link? Thanks, Simon

2 1

Phaser-MR issues?
by Noinaj, Nicholas (NIH/NIDDK) [F] 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

Hi, I just installed the latest installer (1036) and having issues with Phaser-MR. i have a multi-domain structure (6-domains) and trying to search for the domains individually but starting with the most conserved first using the Direct search method. However, my issues are... 1- Phaser-MR appears to still be using the 'automatically determined search order' instead of the order I have selected despite me having this turned OFF 2- Phaser-MR appears to still be using the 'FAST method' despite me having DIRECT method chosen Anyone else seeing this or could i be doing something wrong here? Thanks in advance for any feedback! Cheers, Nick

2 1

alternate conformation clashes with its symmetry mate
by Page, Rebecca 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

Dear phenix BB, I am having an alternate conformation clashing problem that I am having difficulty resolving: I have a protein in which the N-terminal residue is in two conformations.When the residue is in the 'A' conformation, the sidechain overlaps with the 'A' conformation sidechain density of its symmetry mate. I have modeled the occupancy at 50%. However, every time I refine, phenix pushes the 'A' conformer out of the density, likely due to clashing with its symmetry mate. Is there anyway to get around this? Thanks in advance, Rebecca

2 2

help with validating a very low res structure
by Yunji Wu 14 Apr '12

14 Apr '12

Hi there-- Any old school experimental phasing experts want to help me out? I have an 8 angstrom structure solved using molecular replacement, refined to Rwork 0.38 and Rfree of 0.47. I also have a heavy atom (not SeMet) derivative data set to 10 angstroms. The idea is to get as much information from these data as possible so as to validate my current MR model. My approach is to calculate a difference map using the isomorphous difference Fouriers OR anomalous difference Fouriers as the amplitudes, with phases derived from the MR model-- then using the difference map to locate putative heavy atom sites. I would use various controls and experiments to (computationally) validate the credibility of these sites (e.g. cross-phasing with only iso/ano differences). Anyone have any suggestions for how to do this using Phenix? I use the GUI (generally the nightly builds), and am a newcomer to Phenix. Thanks!!

7 7

Re: [phenixbb] on the protonation state of HIS
by Ho Leung Ng 14 Apr '12

14 Apr '12

Hi Dialing, What resolution is your structure? We are developing a method to predict hydrogen atom positions from structures of more modest resolution (out to about 1.7 A). We'd be happy to take a look at the histidines in your structure. Ho Ho Leung Ng University of Hawaii at Manoa Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry hng(a)hawaii.edu

1 0

Windows installer now available
by Paul Adams 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, as a result of some very hard work by several members of the Phenix Team, especially Nat Echols, I'm happy to report that we now have an experimental Windows installer for Phenix available for testing in the latest nightly builds. This includes most of the Phenix components, including the GUI, and should run on Windows XP or newer. Coot and PyMOL integration is supported if these are installed. Details are available here: http://www.phenix-online.org/platforms/windows.html We encourage anyone using this to submit the automatic bug reports, or email us concerning any other problems at bugs(a)phenix-online.org. An official, fully supported Windows installer, including 64-bit version, will be available later this year. The Phenix Team -- 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 ] --

4 3

amazing good statistics
by Christian Roth 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Dear Phenix people, is there a major improvement in the algorithm? I have refined a 2.2 Ang. room temperature dataset with very good data statistics (I think) Rmerge 3.7%(8.9%) completeness 96%(92%) I/sigI 16,6(8,8) in parentheses are the values for the highest resolution shell. After refinement I have a R/Rfree of 0.1294/0.1670. In some shells there are values close to 0.100 and in the lowest shell Rfree is lower than Rwork. The quality of the data are really quite good, what is probably one of the reasons, but I am close or below to the border of the Range of R values in the pdb. Great for me, but I wanna be sure that it is really true. It was a MolRep with a close homolog, but I run a torsion angle sim annealing to decouple R/Rfree and the MolRep was done with an poly-Ala model to prevent too much model bias. Best Regards Christian

5 7

Unrestrained refinement and reported RMSD values
by Yuri 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

Hi all, I wonder if there is a way of turning off (loosening) restraints for certain residues and a ligand specifically, and will the bond/angle rmsd be printed out somewhere? Thanks -- Yuri Pompeu

2 1

Limit Ramachandran restrain to certain region
by Nian Huang 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear all, Is it possible to limit Ramachandran restrain to specified residues in phenix.refine? I have a couple of loops with very poor density. The refinement process always made some residues fall out of ramachandran plot no matter how I tightened the weight and adjusted the residues back. Because the diffraction is about 2.3 A, I don't want the ramachandran restrain to impact the rest of structure. Thanks. Nian Huang

2 2

modelling a flexible peptide
by intekhab alam 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Hi All I have a 3.0A dataset (SG P1211) of a protein-protein complex having mol.wt 60 and 8 Kda respectively. Molecular repalcement (60Kda protein as template) with Phaser gave a solution with 6 molecules in ASU. A continuous density is also obersved near two different chains which i consider as the second protein. I refined the density using a poly Alanine model but still i can't recognise the side chains confidently for modelling. Considering the fact that the smaller protein partner is rich in lysine, arginine, Asp and Glutamate with only 3 tyr and 4 phe, i tried to modell fragments one by one but the B-factor of the segments are quite high (in the range of 110) what will be the best strategy to improve the map for modelling. regards -- INTEKHAB ALAM LABORATORY OF STRUCTURAL BIOINFORMATICS KOREA UNIVERSITY, SEOUL

2 1

fwd: Application deadline approaching: CCP4 summer school at APS, in USA
by Nathaniel Echols 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Sanishvili, Ruslan" <rsanishvili(a)anl.gov> To: "'phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org'" <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> Cc: "Sanishvili, Ruslan" <rsanishvili(a)anl.gov> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:19:36 -0500 Subject: Application deadline approaching: CCP4 summer school at APS, in USA Dear Colleagues, We would like to point out that the application deadline for the 5th annual CCP4 Summer School “From data collection to structure refinement and beyond” is April 17, 2012. The school will take place from June 19 through June 26, 2012 at the Advanced Photon Source (APS) near Chicago. There is no registration fee for the school. The students will be responsible for their own travel and lodging expenses. These and other details (The program, the list of speakers, the application process, accommodations, site access, contacts etc) can be found at the workshop website at http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/schools/APS-2012/index.php The school will cover all aspects of macromolecular structure determination and validation. Some of the world’s leading experts will be providing instruction and hand-on help. We are looking forward to another productive school this summer. Garib, Ronan and Nukri Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri), Ph.D. GM/CA-CAT Biosciences Division, ANL 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne, IL 60439 Tel: (630)252-0665 Fax: (630)252-0667 rsanishvili(a)anl.gov

1 0

Trueblood Award Nominations
by Paul Adams 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, on behalf of the selection committee I'd like to draw your attention to the the Trueblood award: http://www.amercrystalassn.org/content/pages/main-award-descriptions This will next be awarded in 2013, however nominations are sought now so that the winner can be announcement this Summer. The award will be presented at the 2013 ACA meeting. Please follow this link to obtain the nomination form: http://www.amercrystalassn.org/documents/ACAnomNEW.pdf Note that the deadline for nominations is May 1st, which should be sent to marcia(a)hwi.buffalo.edu. Here is a summary of the award: Kenneth N. Trueblood Award To recognize exceptional achievement in computational or chemical crystallography. The award is established in memory of Professor Kenneth N. Trueblood, UCLA 1949-1998, who was a major force in the early use of computers and the development of crystallographic computer programs. He applied these programs to the examination of chemical and molecular details of many structures at the frontiers of research. His contribution to the famous work on vitamin B12 is one example. Professor Trueblood was a leader in the development of techniques for analysis of anisotropic motion and was also a superb teacher and a lucid author. Established in 2001, the award will be given every three years and consist of an honorarium of $1,500 and up to $1,500 in travel expenses to accept the award. -- 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 ] --

1 0

Exhaustive List of Phenix Commands
by Matthew J. Whitley 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Hello all, I was wondering if somewhere, either on the web or in hardcopy, there is an exhaustive or nearly exhaustive list of Phenix commands. For example, from a Phenix BB thread earlier in the day I learned of the existence of the phenix.r_factor_statistics command for gaining insight into where your R/Rfree values place you in regard to structures of similar resolution. As I read more of the messages posted to the Phenix BB, I become aware of more and more nifty things that Phenix can do that I simply was not aware of, and I was wondering if some kind of master list of Phenix commands is available somewhere. Thanks to all the developers for making this amazing program available to the x-ray community. Thanks, Matthew --- Matthew J. Whitley, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow Angela Gronenborn Lab Department of Structural Biology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

3 2

amazing good statistics add
by Christian Roth 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

In general the Rvalues of course fit very well Rmerge. A good sign that it should be fine, as far as I remember correctly about the theoretical limits for the Rvalues after refinement compared to the experiment. Best Regards Christian

1 0

Creating dictionary restraints for a LINK
by Mario Sanches 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

I have a question regarding link dictionary generation. Nigel helped me with a molecule dictionary last week (thank you Nigel) so the molecule is refining well now. This molecule is covalently bound to on of the residues. I tried generating a dictionary that describes both the molecule and the link but so far phenix.refine is ignoring it. Again, the molecule itself refines very well but the link is not there. What is the best way to define it? Thank you very much. -- Mario Sanches Postdoctoral Researcher Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute Mount Sinai Hospital 600 University Ave Toronto - Ontario Canada M5G 1X5 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mariosanches

3 5

DEN refinement is crashing
by Mario Sanches 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

I am running phenix.refine using the graphical interface. Under "global refinement paramerters..." I am selecting "DEN". The problem is that Python crashes all the time, always at the same point (see portion of the log output below). Is it a known bug? Is DEN incompatible with some of the options in refinement? My resolution is 2.9A by the way. Thank you for your inputs. Mario Sanches ___________________________ Log output final portion: tardy dynamics: number of bodies: 3678 number of degrees of freedom: 3713 number of atoms * 3: 38220 ratio: 0.097 = 1/10.29 temperature degrees of freedom: cartesian (38220) kinetic energy sensitivity to generalized velocities: n: 3713 min: 3.61771e-06 max: 0.0300001 mean: 0.00410663 time step: 0.00100 pico seconds velocity scaling: True suppressing allowed origin shifts: False new target temperature: 2500.00 K step= 1 temperature= 2500.0 rmsd=0.0446 r_work=0.3010 r_free=0.3214 -- Mario Sanches Postdoctoral Researcher Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute Mount Sinai Hospital 600 University Ave Toronto - Ontario Canada M5G 1X5 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mariosanches

4 7

labelit.index is too precise not to allow 0.000001 deg difference
by fukamitka＠chugai-pharm.co.jp 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Dear Phenix developers, I had a problem in indexing by labelit.index in phenix-1.7.3-928, getting the error below: InputFileError: Input error: All images must have same oscillation range (delta phi). My dataset was collected by inhouse R-axis with 0.8 deg oscillation. Image header values of oscillation range fluctuate between 0.799999 - 0.800004 degrees. When I specified two images whose delta phi angles were different, say 0.799999 and 0.800003, labelit.index stopped with the error above. I don't think a goniometer have such a precision, therefore I think line 249 in /phenix-1.7.3-928/labelit/command_line/imagefiles.py should be modified not to use == instead of similar_delta_phi() or something. 246 if False in [similar_wavelength(self.images[0],self.images[x]) for x in xrange(1,Nimages)]: 247 raise InputFileError("""All images must have similar wavelength.""") 248 249 if False in [self.images[0].deltaphi==self.images[x].deltaphi for x in xrange(1,Nimages)]: 250 raise InputFileError("""All images must have same oscillation range (delta phi).""") Best regards, Takaaki Fukami ----- Dr. Takaaki Fukami (mailto:[email protected]) Discovery Research Dept. (Biostructure Gr.) Roche Group: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd.

2 2

very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
by Bosch, Juergen 31 Mar '12

31 Mar '12

really fascinating, bringing back the discussion for a repository for your collected frames. Jürgen Acta Cryst. (2012). F68, 366-376 doi:10.1107/S1744309112008421<http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S1744309112008421> Detection and analysis of unusual features in the structural model and structure-factor data of a birch pollen allergen B. Rupp<http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/citedin?search_on=name&author_name=Rupp,%20B.> Abstract: Physically improbable features in the model of the birch pollen structure Bet v 1d (PDB entry 3k78<http://pdb.pdb.bnl.gov/pdb-bin/opdbshort?3k78>) are faithfully reproduced in electron density generated with the deposited structure factors, but these structure factors themselves exhibit properties that are characteristic of data calculated from a simple model and are inconsistent with the data and error model obtained through experimental measurements. The refinement of the 3k78<http://pdb.pdb.bnl.gov/pdb-bin/opdbshort?3k78>model against these structure factors leads to an isomorphous structure different from the deposited model with an implausibly small R value (0.019). The abnormal refinement is compared with normal refinement of an isomorphous variant structure of Bet v 1l (PDB entry 1fm4<http://pdb.pdb.bnl.gov/pdb-bin/opdbshort?1fm4>). A variety of analytical tools, including the application of Diederichs plots, R plots and bulk-solvent analysis are discussed as promising aids in validation. The examination of the Bet v 1d structure also cautions against the practice of indicating poorly defined protein chain residues through zero occupancies. The recommendation to preserve diffraction images is amplified. ...................... 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/

1 0

Problems fitting NADH
by Phillip Steindel 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

Dear all, I'm trying to fit a NADH into a 1.7 Å structure. LigandFit worked with just the three-letter code (NAI), however phenix.refine won't work with just the model. If I use eLBOW to create restraints, meanwhile, the ligand gets distorted during refinement (non-tetrahedral phosphates, mainly). I'm not sure exactly how I'm supposed to be generating these restraints- any help is appreciated. Thank you, Phillip Steindel Theobald Lab Department of Biochemistry Brandeis University

4 3

Re: [phenixbb] [ccp4bb] a small trick for protein and organic compound cocrystallization.
by Bryan Lepore 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Jacob Keller <j-keller2(a)fsm.northwestern.edu> wrote: > What's the harm? have you seen usenet/Google groups? -Bryan

1 0

a small trick for protein and organic compound cocrystallization.
by Kevin Jin 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

Dear All, Here is way I have used for protein and hydrophobic organic compound cocrystallization. Via this method, less amount of DMSO will be used to aviod protein ppt. I hope you can use for your research. http://www.jinkai.org/Xtal.html Regards, -- Kevin Jin Sharing knowledge each other is always very joyful...... Website: http://www.jinkai.org/

2 1

Re: [phenixbb] need help for crystallization
by Kevin Jin 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

My pleasure ! Since this may be help for other people, I also cc it to CCP4BBS. According to your email, I guess the buffer is phosphate buffer at pH 7.4. You can do a quick buffer exchange before crystallization. Since PO4 is a competitor in this case, I will also avoid PO4 and Cocodylate buffer from screen kits. Here is what you can do, 1. concentrate your protein using an amicro centrocon with 3KD cutoff. 2. Measure how much buffer has been spin down, then add equal amount of Tris with same pH back to the top. 3. Then, spin down again. 4. Repeat several times, 5 times may be good enough. 5. Most of Phosphate buffer should be removed. That's what I used before. Let me know if it works. Best, Kevin Jin On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Afshan Begum <afshan490(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Kevin > > I have seen your website and come to you to discuss my problem actually i > want to co-crystallized my enzyme with inhibitor but problem is that the > phosphate ion come to the active site and occupied the cavity and my > inhibitor not bind to the active center i purchase this enzyme from a > commercial source and they purify with phosphate buffer that's why also > phosphate is occupied the cavity how can i get ride of it from the active > center could you kindly help me regarding this i would be really thankful to > you. > > > Best Regards > > AFSHAN > =========================================== > Dr. Afshan Begum > University of Hamburg > Institute of Biochemistry and Molecularbiology > Laboratory for Structural Biology of Infection and Imflammation > c/o DESY, Build. 22a > Notkestr. 85 > 22603 Hamburg > Germany > Home phone: +49 40 22888618 > Fax: +49 40 8998-4747 > E-mail: afshan490(a)yahoo.com > -- Kevin Jin Sharing knowledge each other is always very joyful...... Website: http://www.jinkai.org/

1 0