- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

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

03 Oct '14

4 7

Problems building source
by Jason Swails 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

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

2 1

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

01 Oct '14

I think my problem in MR has been one of the chains. Anyway I tried the ideas you suggested and seems like they worked! I used ensembler to create a merged pdb of the problematic chain and used phaser giving both chains as multiple ensembles. It gave me a solution with LLG=474 (highest I have got so far) and TFZ=18.8. I also tried MRage and got a solution with LLG=294. In both these maps, the density for chain1 ("bad chain") is not as good as the other chain but is nonetheless far better than what I have got before. I am currently running autobuild on the solution hoping my Rfactors would be reasonable this time. Thanks a lot for your inputs. They really helped!! S -----Original Message----- From: Paul Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:51 PM To: Sneha Rangarajan Subject: Re: This likes normal orthorhombic data. In this case I suggest that the most likely issue is the search model (I assume your molecule is fairly small given the unit cell dimensions). I would look at ways to create the best search model using using tools like sculptor and ensembler. You can get Phaser to search for the two domains in the same run but using multiple ensembles. You might also want to try MRage in Phenix, where you can just provide the data file and the sequence and it will try to make the best model and solve the MR problem. On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > Oh I see. I tried to repeat xtriage with the scala.mtz file and am attaching the log file. > > ________________________________________ > From: Sneha Rangarajan > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:58 PM > To: Paul Adams > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: RE: > > Even i thought so but after i run mosflm and process the data in p21 or p1 and run quicksymm/quickscale it always suggests that the chosen space group is not correct and that it should be p212121. > > I will try looking into Zanuda. Thanks. > > S > ________________________________________ > From: Paul Adams [pdadams(a)lbl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:36 PM > To: Sneha Rangarajan > Cc: help(a)phenix-online.org > Subject: Re: > > It looks like your R-merge etc in P222 is very high, what leads you to think this is the correct point group? Can you send the xtriage output for the unmerged P2 data? > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Sneha Rangarajan <rsneha(a)umd.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Nat, >> >> I am attaching the Xtriage log file from p222.mtz. >> Would you need anything else (mtz,pdb)? >> >> Thanks, >> Sneha >> <xtriage_237.log> > > -- > Paul Adams > Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence > Berkeley Lab Division Deputy for Biosciences, Advanced Light Source, > Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, > U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy > Institute Laboratory Research Manager, ENIGMA Science Focus Area > > Building 64, Room 248 > Building 80, Room 247 > Building 978, Room 4126 > Tel: 1-510-486-4225, Fax: 1-510-486-5909 http://cci.lbl.gov/paul > > Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory > 1 Cyclotron Road > BLDG 64R0121 > Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. > > Executive Assistant: Louise Benvenue [ LBenvenue(a)lbl.gov ][ > 1-510-495-2506 ] > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > <xtriage_264.log> -- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Division Deputy for Biosciences, Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Laboratory Research Manager, ENIGMA Science Focus Area Building 64, Room 248 Building 80, Room 247 Building 978, Room 4126 Tel: 1-510-486-4225, Fax: 1-510-486-5909 http://cci.lbl.gov/paul Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 64R0121 Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Executive Assistant: Louise Benvenue [ LBenvenue(a)lbl.gov ][ 1-510-495-2506 ] --

1 0

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

01 Oct '14

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

3 4

refinement problem
by Sneha Rangarajan 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

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

2 2

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

29 Sep '14

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

2 1

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

26 Sep '14

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

4 5

Fo-Fc omit map for ligand in the protein-ligand structure
by Wei Shi 20 Sep '14

20 Sep '14

Hi all, I am working with a protein dimer-ligand structure (resolution: 2.8Å) and am going to make a figure showing the bound ligand superimposed with the electron density (Fo-Fc) map obtained after omit refinement. What I did is to make the ligand-free structure model and then use Phenix.refine using the following parameters plus simulated annealing (torsion angle) or (Cartesian): Default: XYZ coordinates + Real-space+ Individual B factors + Occupancies. Also click: Optimize X-ray/stereochemistry weight + Optimize X-ray/ADP weight + Secondary structure restraints + NCS. Contoured at 2σ, the Fo-Fc map generated show green density for most part of the ligand, but for several atoms in the middle of the ligand, the green density is missing... It's like this: some atoms have green density and the next few no green density and then a couple few has green density and then a couple more no green denisty.... The missing green density usually means that part is disordered in the structure, right? I am not sure why the density is missing for some atoms in the middle of the ligand. It would makes more sense if the missing green density is at the end of the ligand... Does anyone happen to have any clue about what it means for the green density missing in my case? Also, I am not sure whether I did the omit refinement right: (1). For simulated annealing, it has two options, one is Cartesian and the other is Torsion angle, and it's said that torsion angle is more suitable of low resolution data. Is there any difference about which one to choose in my case? (2). Is it Okay to run the omit refinement in the presence of the following parameters as I did: Optimize X-ray/stereochemistry weight + Optimize X-ray/ADP weight + Secondary structure restraints + NCS. Thank you so much! Best, Wei

5 24

Increase in R/R(free) after phenix.real_space_refine
by George Devaniranjan 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

Hi, I refined (phenix.refine) a 1.0Å structure but it had a few CB outliers and some rotamer outliers. I decided to try real_space_refine, to check if they could be fixed (given that it has a higher radius of convergence). (using run=local_grid_search+minimization_global in real_space_refine) But, the R/R(free) increased from 11.39/13.24( for the refine model) to 16.51/17.55 (real_space_refine model). It seemed a big increase, when I looked at the map against the structure the protein itself seemed fine. The rotamers outliers had decreased, the CB outliers were fixed..etc The solvent fit to the density had worsened in COOT. What am I doing wrong? Any suggestions, advice would be much appreciated. Thank you, George

3 2

RMS angles and comprehensive validation in phenix
by C 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

5 6