- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

following on the anomalous map
by CPMAS Chen 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

Hi, All Phenix users, I am following this topic. http://www.phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2014-April/020622.html. Here is the point I am not clear. If I am using phenix.refine to generate LLG map, how do I pick the anomalous group since I have not placed them in the model yet? By the way, when I choose ion_placement and specify Br, the result comes with no Br. Let me make my situation clear first. I want to find whether the Br-containing ligand is seen in my protein which I have a high resolution structure available. I have data collected at Br wavelength, peak or higher position. Phenix.xtriage reported that the anomalous signal is present to about 4A. However, both AutoSol or MR-SAD cannot identify the Br position. Simply say, AutoSol or MR-SAD can not generate any solution. Well, of course, the simple answer would be that there is no such ligand cocrystallized. Anyway, I am trying to see if the anomalous difference map or LLG(generated by phenix.maps, this would be the initial one I assume) can tell me anything more useful. So, my question on this topic would be what is a better way you guys would recommend to identify these Br-ligands? By the way, I did have the native datasets for the same protein with ligand. Thanks! Charles -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************

2 3

Header accuracy after only refining ligands
by Katherine Sippel 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

Hi all, I was trying to prep a structure for PDB deposition. All the protein atoms were good, but I needed to correct some ADP and ligand issues. I ran coordinate refinement only on the ligands and subsequent ADP refinement. Everything was good, except the RSMD values output are clearly only for the ligands. Now I am wondering which values in the header I can trust as far as deposition goes. I tried to do a workaround where I ran refine with 0 macrocycles to see if I could get the proper values, but obviously the bulk solvent is different and I get higher R values. I am wondering if I can run validation to get the correct RMSD values or if there are other header values that might have been affected by not refining all the coordinates? Cheers, Katherine -- "Nil illegitimo carborundum"* - *Didactylos

2 1

DEN refinement
by marinabb phenix 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

Dear all, I am trying to use DEN refinement as implemented in the Phenix-1.9 release to refine a structure at 3.6 Angstrom resolution. The asu consists of 8 copies of hetero-dimers (of roughly 40 KDa sunbunits each). The structure of one of the subunits has already been solved at about 2 Angstrom, whereas for the other no homologous model is available. After automatic + manual building, I have now a model with Rfree = 28 / R = 23, with some protomers better built than others. I have used this pdb model as input for DEN refinement, adding the known higher-resolution structure as a (partial) reference model, and ncs restraints previously found (and run a DEN parameters optimisation). The final DEN Rfee got significantly worse. I would appreciate any advise for a better DEN strategy to be adopted in this case, if possible. In particular I was wondering whether it can be worth building a model for the missing subunit (or part of it) based on structural similarity of the current unrefined 3D structure. I thank you in advance for the suggestions. With kind regards, Marina ----- Marina Mapelli, PhD Department of Experimental Oncology European Institute of Oncology Via Adamello 16, 20139 Milan, Italy tel: +39-02-94375018 email: marina.mapelli(a)ieo.eu web: http://www.ifom-ieo-campus.it/research/mapelli.php -----

2 1

overlapping electron density maps
by 李翔 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

Hi everyone, I am working on a series of crystals with overall same framework structure plus a different extra part which attaches to the framework. I want to compare the electron density maps of the crystals by overlapping the frameworks and see how the extra parts differ from each other. Is there a way I can do it? Thank you very much for your help! Sincerely, Xiang -- Li Xiang Department of chemistry, Purdue University Email：lixiang1642(a)gmail.com

3 2

table_one
by Andreas Förster 24 Aug '14

24 Aug '14

Dear all, I encounter the following error when running phenix.table_one from the command line (RHEL 6.3 64-bit, phenix-dev-1769): andreas@csbstereo in blah: phenix.table_one Traceback (most recent call last): File "/csb/soft/Linux64/share/phenix-dev-1769/build/intel-linux-2.6-x86_64/../../phenix/phenix/command_line/table_one.py", line 6, in <module> phenix.automation.table_one.run(sys.argv[1:], auto_extract_labels=True, AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'run' Aunt Google insists that this is "a circular import issue". What do the developers say? Thanks. Andreas -- Andreas Förster Crystallization and X-ray Facility Manager Centre for Structural Biology Imperial College London

2 1

Low resolution refinement
by Appu kumar 24 Aug '14

24 Aug '14

Hello All, I have a data from a crystal which we can process to 4.5A, and we are able to get a good molecular replacement model and it is a tetramer in ASU. I tried refining structure with phenix.refine but Rfree stuck at 0.41. I read a paper published by David Baker and phenix developer in 2013 about the low resolution refinement using a combination of rosseta and phenix. I would appreciate if i get a help on the refinement in rosseta along with phenix. This paper convince me that its worth trying the rosseta and phenix together for low resolution structure refinement. Thank you Appu

2 2

Re: [phenixbb] Phenix Webserver Down?
by Chen Zhao 22 Aug '14

22 Aug '14

Thank you all for the info. It is been like this for me for a week, and it might just be some local issues. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Paul Adams <pdadams(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > > Appears to be okay from the Bay Area. > > On Aug 22, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Chen Zhao <c.zhao(a)YALE.EDU> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I am sorry to bother you, but I have problems connecting to > www.phenix-online.org. Does anybody have similar problem? > > > > Thank you, > > Chen > > _______________________________________________ > > phenixbb mailing list > > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > > -- > 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 Webserver Down?
by Chen Zhao 22 Aug '14

22 Aug '14

Dear all, I am sorry to bother you, but I have problems connecting to www.phenix-online.org. Does anybody have similar problem? Thank you, Chen

1 0

mr_rosetta
by Felipe Trajtenberg 20 Aug '14

20 Aug '14

Dear all I am trying to perform MR of a multidomain protein using phenix.mr_rosetta and building each domain sequentially. The first search works perfect and I have a potential solution. In the second search I am having some troubles in setting up the process. When I fixed the best first model and look for a second domain I found that rosetta only rebuilds the chain A, which was the one that already was fixed and chain B disappears. how can I fix one domain and build the second without loosing any information thanks in advance Felipe

2 1

Stereo Microscope
by jens j birktoft 20 Aug '14

20 Aug '14

Hi: I would be grateful for suggestion regarding stereo microscopes suitable for protein/dna crystal viewing and manipulation. We would need a system that fulfull all of the criteria: 1) Two polarizers one for below the sample holder and one above 2) A fully rotatable stage 3) A camera option, either one that comes included with the unit (the best) or one with a universal camera mount Thanks Jens +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jens J. Birktoft Director of Crystallography Structural DNA Nanotechnology New York University e-mail: jens.knold(a)gmail.com; Phone: 212-749-5057 very slow-mail: 350 Central Park West, Suite 9F, New York, NY 10025 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0