- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

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

17 May '12

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

2 1

annealing omit map
by r n 16 May '12

16 May '12

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

1 1

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

16 May '12

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

1 0

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

16 May '12

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

1 0

mr.rosetta gui
by Alexander Batyuk 16 May '12

16 May '12

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

1 0

Occupancy issue
by Simon Kolstoe 15 May '12

15 May '12

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

3 4

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

15 May '12

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

2 1

refinement of peptide with non-standard aminocids
by Vitali Stanevich 15 May '12

15 May '12

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

3 4

discrepancy in MolProbity statistics
by Michael Thompson 15 May '12

15 May '12

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

2 1

phenix.model
by r n 14 May '12

14 May '12

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

4 3