- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] paired refinement in phenix gui
by Kay Diederichs 28 May '13

28 May '13

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 15:08:26 -0700, Nat Echols wrote: >> >It would be nice if you could confirm if my settings are ok, or if there are >> >still some settings in the background which I overlooked, because we see >> >small changes in R and Rfree. > Changes relative to what? It is not expected that feeding the output > PDB file back to phenix.refine (or another program) will exactly > reproduce the R-factors from the previous round of refinement, because > the precision of the atomic parameters is limited by PDB format. > (Using mmCIF instead would be more reliable, but we don't think a > change in R-factor of 0.0004 is worth worrying about anyway.) > >> >I added the model refined at higher resolution (e.g. 1.5A) and the mtz file >> >cut at CC (e.g.1.5A) in the ?Input data? tab, and set High resolution cutoff >> >in ?X-ray data and experimental phases? box to (e.g. 1.8A) >> >In the refinement setting strategy tab I uncheck everything and set Number >> >of cycles = 1. >> >In ?other options? I uncheck everything too. > This sounds correct, but it's much easier to simply run the validation > GUI, because the underlying code (specifically phenix.model_vs_data) > is designed to calculate identical R-factors to what phenix.refine > shows you. From what I've seen, recent phenix.model_vs_data works correctly and reproduces the statistics from phenix.refine within the numerical accuracy that one can expect. > >> >Alternatively adding a file to the input data with > I don't recommend this - using parameter files as input is fine for > large repetitive parameter blocks such as custom geometry restraints, > selections from the TLSMD server, or nucleic acid base pairs, but > anything that attempts to override the controls in the main GUI may > not work. > >> >2. For whatever reason I would like to do that (molprobity) - can I (and how >> >can I do this) add the command line commands also in the gui? > Could you please clarify? > >> >3. In december 2012 there was a discussion about weak data and refinement. I >> >would like to know if there are new data available showing that ?Whether the >> >benefit they describe is considered cosmetic or non-trivial,.....? > Maybe Kay could comment on this... There is not a single answer that fits all situations. When done correctly (e.g. keeping Rfree flags, keeping refinement strategy), in those cases that I looked at, using weak reflections (cutoff at <I/sigma>~0.5 to 1, cc1/2~0.15-0.25) improved the model's Rfree at lower resolution (paired refinement!) by a few percent, compared to cutting the data at I/sigma>2. Just try it and see if the improvement is worth it, according to your own judgement! > >> >4. Additionally could one short comment on what phenix is doing with strong >> >(weak) reflections marked as aliens in XDS. > Assuming that XDS doesn't actually remove these, phenix.refine may or > may not discard them at the outlier filtering stage (which can be > disabled). I don't know how the different methods for flagging > suspect resolutions compare; Kay and/or Pavel would know more about > this. The "Alien" list in CORRECT.LP was only (originally) meant to alert the user to ice reflections, zingers, and cosmic rays (not sure if the latter play a role, but the former certainly do!). If the "Alien" list just shows reflections at very high resolution, in low-<intensity> resolution shells, then this is due to the fact that Wilson statistics does not hold in these shells, and therefore the algorithm for deciding about "Aliens" is no longer valid. If this happens, you should (as identified in analysis together with James Holton) prevent CORRECT from marking "Aliens" as outliers by changing REJECT_ALIEN from 20 (the default) to 100 or so. Otherwise the mean intensity in that resolution shell will drop (due to rejecting the strongest reflections), and that is bad for applying the Wilson&French algorithm. The XDSCONV in the latest XDS package (identifying itself as March-30-2013) has two fixes for dealing with weak data (again, based on an exchange with James Holton). Unfortunately, a small bug (affecting very few datasets) was identified by Graeme Winter (thanks!) in the XDS program of that package, so be prepared to download the XDS package again in a few days. hope that helps, Kay > >> >According to the supplementary of P. Andrew Karplus, Kay Diederichs ?Linking >> >Crystallographic Model and Data Quality? >> >I would like to do >> >anisotropic refinement, with additional options >> >?ordered_solvent.new_solvent=anisotropic >> >adp.individual.anisotropic="not element H" >> >fix_rotamers=True?. > If your resolution really is 1.5?, I wouldn't recommend making waters > anisotropic. There is some difference of opinion whether anisotropic > refinement of protein atoms is acceptable; it's probably good to try > both ways. (It would be interesting to know whether including the > weak high-resolution data allows you to parameterize the model more > aggressively.) > > -Nat > -- Kay Diederichs http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de email: Kay.Diederichs(a)uni-konstanz.de Tel +49 7531 88 4049 Fax 3183 Fachbereich Biologie, Universität Konstanz, Box M647, D-78457 Konstanz This e-mail is digitally signed. If your e-mail client does not have the necessary capabilities, just ignore the attached signature "smime.p7s".

1 0

PDB deposition
by Kay Diederichs 28 May '13

28 May '13

Dear Phenix developers, the following questions came up today, during an attempt to answer the questions that the PDB asks at deposition time: a) For Bulk solvent modeling, what should be given as value for K sol and B sol ? My understanding is that the new solvent model does no longer result in these values; the table is Total model structure factor: F_model = k_total * (F_calc + k_mask * F_mask) k_total = k_isotropic * k_anisotropic Resolution Compl Nwork Nfree R_work <Fobs> <Fmodel> kiso kani kmask 37.014-13.525 85.34 95 4 7.2146 38.755 318.867 0.937 1.000 0.300 13.240-10.663 91.82 91 10 7.1453 40.328 328.027 0.901 1.000 0.309 10.640-8.570 93.27 202 6 7.4011 38.069 318.901 0.905 1.002 0.310 8.548-6.875 95.70 380 21 7.2679 31.166 258.647 0.901 1.000 0.309 6.871-5.523 95.40 731 36 7.1964 29.485 241.669 0.908 1.001 0.302 5.520-4.439 90.49 1347 61 7.3445 39.504 329.514 0.934 1.001 0.281 4.438-3.568 92.52 2610 150 7.3166 41.793 347.063 0.961 1.000 0.280 3.567-2.867 94.10 5191 231 7.2983 33.593 278.704 0.965 1.000 0.024 2.867-2.304 92.97 9835 476 7.3098 23.922 198.755 0.984 1.000 0.000 2.304-1.852 92.81 18869 947 7.3097 18.746 155.751 1.053 1.000 0.000 1.852-1.488 90.33 35341 1797 7.3288 10.914 90.931 1.035 0.999 0.000 1.488-1.196 86.49 64979 3561 7.2975 6.848 56.810 1.028 0.998 0.000 1.196-1.081 53.28 29672 1567 7.1776 5.351 43.737 0.986 1.000 0.000 Approximation of k_total with k_overall*exp(-b_overall*s**2/4) k_overall=1.0149 b_overall=-0.0072 So what can we do here? b) there is the question about Overall Anisotropic values B11; B22; B33; B12; B13; B23.... but the logfile offers overall anisotropic scale matrix: V0: -0.0214,0.0415,-0.0249,0.0006,-0.0515,-0.0161 V1: -0.0055,-0.0022,0.0080,-0.0001,-0.0020,0.0011 So which of these should be given? I've tried to locate the information about these two questions in the documentation, but it seems I missed it! thanks, Kay

2 1

command line molprobity tools
by Engin Özkan 28 May '13

28 May '13

Hi everybody, I want to create a comprehensive, human-readable log file by running validation using molprobity tools within phenix command-line. I do not have structure factors/maps. Apparently, the GUI runs validation through phenix.model_vs_data (according to the .eff file), but in command-line, I cannot get phenix.model_vs_data to run without an mtz/hkl. I guess I could provide it a fake data file, and then set the comprehensive flag to "True"? BTW, the log file produced by the GUI is not comprehensive at all. I could not find a related mmtbx or cctbx function either. Another mentioned tool, phenix.validate, does not even exist in my installation (dev 1361). Thanks, Engin -- Engin Özkan Post-doctoral Scholar Laboratory of K. Christopher Garcia Howard Hughes Medical Institute Dept of Molecular and Cellular Physiology 279 Campus Drive, Beckman Center B173 Stanford School of Medicine Stanford, CA 94305 w ph: (650)-498-7111 cell: (650)-862-8563

4 13

Fwd: [ccp4bb] "Formageddon" is upon us... Important news from wwPDB!
by Paul Adams 25 May '13

25 May '13

Begin forwarded message: > From: Gerard DVD Kleywegt <gerard(a)XRAY.BMC.UU.SE> > Subject: [ccp4bb] "Formageddon" is upon us... Important news from wwPDB! > Date: May 24, 2013 11:20:51 AM PDT > To: CCP4BB(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Reply-To: info(a)wwpdb.org > > Dear colleagues, > > I would like to draw your attention to a notification from the wwPDB partners about "Deposition and Release of PDB Entries Containing Large Structures" - see: > > http://www.wwpdb.org/news/news_2013.html#22-May-2013 > > There are major changes afoot in the way large structures are handled in the PDB, as well as in the deposition and annotation procedures and software used by the wwPDB sites. This is of immediate relevance for depositors and users of large structures, but also for software developers and anyone who routinely processes the entire PDB archive or its weekly releases (bioinformatics resources, etc.). From 2014, it will affect essentially everyone who deposits, uses or processes PDB entries. > > If you have any questions about the new deposition system or the procedures for handling large structures or any of the other changes, please contact: info(a)wwpdb.org > > Please pass on this information to anyone likely to be affected by the upcoming changes. Thanks! > > > On behalf of the Worldwide Protein Data Bank, > > --Gerard Kleywegt > > --- > Gerard J. Kleywegt, PDBe, EMBL-EBI, Hinxton, UK > gerard(a)ebi.ac.uk ..................... pdbe.org > Secretary: Pauline Haslam pdbe_admin(a)ebi.ac.uk -- 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

Invitation to Participate in a NSF-funded workshop/conference
by Sibo Jiang 25 May '13

25 May '13

Invitation to Participate in a NSF-funded workshop/conference Dear Colleagues in Structural Biology, Recently we have received a NSF grant helping to build the community networks and find solutions for the challenging problems. We have also discussed with the program officer of US National Science Foundation on planning for a research conference/workshop series proposal to US NSF. This conference/workshop series will particularly focus on the technical issues and practical challenges in structural biology of nucleic acids, protein-nucleic acid complexes and small molecule-nucleic acid complexes. These challenges include crystallization, derivatization, phasing and high-resolution structure determination. You are invited to participate in this conference/workshop series. If you are interested in our invitation, please reply this email or send your email to huang(a)gsu.edu<mailto:[email protected]>. In your email, please let us know your name, research interests (up to five key words), affiliation and phone number. The details will be announced later. Colleagues in academia are encouraged to forward this email to your friends and colleagues in industry. Colleagues in industry are particularly welcome. Sincerely, The Planning Committee of the NSF-funded Conference/Workshop

1 0

FW: need suggestion
by afshan490＠yahoo.com 25 May '13

25 May '13

<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone

2 1

From Dmitri Svergun and Matthias Wilmanns: 11th International Conference: Biology and Synchrotron Radiation (BSR)
by Terwilliger, Thomas C 25 May '13

25 May '13

11th International Conference: Biology and Synchrotron Radiation (BSR) 8-11 September 2013, EMBL Hamburg, Germany Abstract submission deadline is approaching – 1st June 2013! Join us in Hamburg, Germany for BSR 2013! Scientists at all possible career levels are invited to this meeting. Check out our preliminary programme to learn more! http://www.bsr2013.org/BSR13-01/programme/index.html Young researchers are highly welcome to apply for a travel grant from the International Union of Crystallography when registering. http://www.bsr2013.org/BSR13-01/info/index.html Present your work! Selected talks and poster sessions provide great opportunities for participants to present their work. Unique networking opportunities are also available to meet colleagues, friends and future collaboration partners from all over the world. Discover the city of Hamburg! BSR 2013 includes a social programme with boat trips and day and night excursions. Accompanying persons will enjoy special rates! http://www.bsr2013.org/BSR13-01/attractions/index.html A tour of DESY’s most impressive research infrastructures - including PETRA, FLASH and the future X-FEL – is included in the registration fee. http://www.bsr2013.org/BSR13-01/desy/index.html Dates at a glance: · Registration and abstract submission: 1 June 2013 · Registration without abstract: 1 August 2013 Take a look at the updated BSR webpage (www.bsr2013.org<http://www.bsr2013.org>) for more information and to register. CONTACT Diah.Yulianti(a)embl.de<mailto:[email protected]> Alternatively, contact us on the event facebook page https://www.facebook.com/events/332259356868854/

1 0

Call for Proposals: IMAGINE, a New Neutron Crystallography Diffractometer
by Meilleur, Flora 24 May '13

24 May '13

IMAGINE, Neutron Crystallography Diffractometer High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), Oak Ridge National Laboratory Call for proposals for experiments anticipated to run from August through December 2013 You are invited to apply for beam time on the neutron quasi-Laue diffractometer IMAGINE, at the High Flux Isotope Reactor. Proposal will be accepted via the web-based proposal system until NOON Wednesday, July 31, 2013. This call is for experiments anticipated to run from August through December 2013. Please see the attached flyer for additional information. For technical information about the capabilities of IMAGINE go to neutrons.ornl.gov/imagine/<http://neutrons.ornl.gov/imagine/> or contact Flora Meilleur, meilleurf(a)ornl.gov, or Andrey Kovalevsky, kovalevskyay(a)ornl.gov. Flora Meilleur, Ph. D Assistant Professor, Molecular and Structural Biochemistry North Carolina State University IMAGINE lead scientist, Neutron Sciences Directorate Oak Ridge National Laboratory Phone: 865-242-5747

1 0

conflicting bond_simple restraints
by Jianxun Qi 24 May '13

24 May '13

Hi, I had a phosphoserine (SEP) in my structure that is attached in this message. The data_link file for SEP already exists in the mon_lib (data_link_SEPC-N) and the corresponding cif_link I used is as follow: refinement.pdb_interpretation { apply_cif_link { data_link = "SEPC-N" residue_selection_1 = "chain C and resname PHE and resid 3" residue_selection_2 = "chain C and resname SEP and resid 4" } apply_cif_link { data_link = "SEPC-N" residue_selection_1 = "chain C and resname SEP and resid 4" residue_selection_2 = "chain C and resname ARG and resid 5" } } When I run the phenix.refine (my version is phenix-1.8-1069), it said conflicting bond_simple restraints: Sorry: Conflicting bond_simple restraints: 1. definition from: residues: PHE + SEP 2. definition from: residues: PHE + SEP atoms: "ATOM 3121 C PHE C 3 .*. C " "ATOM 3192 N SEP C 4 .*. N " Has anyone ever experienced this case before? Any hints are welcome. Regards Jianxun Qi May 22,2013

2 1

Ca occupancy in multiple soaked structures
by Daniel Slade 23 May '13

23 May '13

Hi Everyone, I have a complex case of data analysis I would love some opinions on. I have a group of structures of a protein that binds 6 calciums, and we want to know the order/concentration at which they fill. The crystals were soaked with calcium from 0-10 mM and all are 1.6-2.1 A in resolution. I determine the order of the calcium binding, and now I am working on the percent occupancy at each concentration. To do this, I have removed the calciums, and then performed simulated annealing for each structure from 2.1-30A resolution to 'normalize' them. I then look at the omit map and scroll out to find the peak sigma intensity of where the calciums should be. The curves fit very well for each calcium, and the numbers correspond well with other solution studies we have. My thought is that I need to normalize this in another way, so I thought choosing a water molecule that is present in all of the structures and removing it, then performing simulated annealing would be a good idea to normalize the peak intensity for each calcium soak concentration, since this water molecule shouldn't change occupancy. Is this the proper way to do this, or can you guys suggest a better way to go about this. I also looked at B factor and e/A3, but that isn't as consistent as peak sigma. Thanks in advance. Dan Daniel J. Slade, Ph.D. Research Associate Thompson Lab The Scripps Research Institute 130 Scripps Way Jupiter, FL 33458 (561) 228-3213

4 3