- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Re: [phenixbb] Example datasets
by mohamed noor 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Dear Phenix users Is there some examples datasets involving 3-wavelength MAD phasing available? I would like to learn from indexing to structure solution with a combination of CCP4 and Phenix if possible. Thanks.

2 1

cbf file
by Theresa H 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi all Is there a utility to convert cbf file from Pilatus detector to mtz in Phenix? Thank you. Theresa

3 2

Re: [phenixbb] alternative conformation of residues
by Subhani Bandara 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi all, I have a protein where three consecutive amino acids have alternative conformations. I edited the PDB file to have those altloc and made total occupancy of A and B to 1.00. But after refinement both A and B are overlapping and I could see the positive density for one conformation away from that (may be b'se I didn't change coordinates of B conformation). How can I move the B altloc in to the positive density. Do I have to edit the coordinates on PDB and if so how can Ido that? Thanks in advance for any help Subhani

4 3

problems when adding Free_R_flag
by G Y 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Dear experts I use *Reflection file editor* in phenix GUI to generate Free_R_flag in my mtz file. The original input .mtz file contains arrays of FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO and ISYM. I just simply click *COPY ALL ARRAYS* and tag on *Generation R free flags if not already present*, then run the software. The problem is that in the output .mtz from phenix I found the value of F and DANO becomes more or less same for each reflection. This is unreasonable for a reflection file. Phenix changed something on the columns of my .mtz file. How? Why? What should I do to keep my .mtz in correct and unchanged form? Thank you very much for your advice. The columns in the original input .mtz file look like H K L FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO ISYM 0 0 12 319.30 2.64 2.23 5.27 0.00 0 0 16 424.00 3.50 -8.38 7.00 0.00 0 0 20 177.60 1.48 1.77 2.96 0.00 0 0 24 155.10 1.30 3.97 2.61 0.00 0 0 28 195.80 1.64 1.13 3.28 0.00 The output from phenix looks like (FP and DANO become similar in value for each reflection) H K L FP SIGFP DANO SIGDANO ISYM FreeRflag 0 0 12 320.41 3.73 318.19 3.73 0.00 0.00 0 0 16 419.81 4.95 428.19 4.95 0.00 0.00 0 0 20 178.48 2.09 176.72 2.09 0.00 0.00 0 0 24 157.09 1.85 153.11 1.85 0.00 0.00 0 0 28 196.37 2.32 195.23 2.32 0.00 0.00

2 1

Computation Crystallography Newsletter
by Nigel Moriarty 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Folks The latest issue of the Computational Crystallography Newsletter is available on-line at http://www.phenix-online.org/newsletter for download. The articles are of general interest to protein crystallographers and are listed below. Enjoy Nigel Moriarty Articles CCTBX tools for derivative-free optimization Short communications phenix.find_alt_orig_sym_mate Using force field generated models in the refinement of crystallographic structures containing carbohydrates Viewing diffraction images in CCTBX On contribution of hydrogen atoms to X-ray scattering -- Nigel W. Moriarty, Ph.D. 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

Statistics from 'Scalepack' log file and 'Xtriage' log file
by Zhang yu 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Dear Phenixer, What is the reason for the inconsistent data statistics from 'Scalpack' and 'Xtriage' ? I scaled my data with 'Scalepack' and got the following statistics (take completeness as an example) Shell I/Sigma in resolution shells: Lower Upper % of of reflections with I / Sigma less than limit limit 0 1 2 3 5 10 20 >20 total 40.00 8.93 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.5 22.6 97.3 0.0 97.3 8.93 7.10 0.8 1.7 2.7 4.1 7.1 35.8 99.2 0.0 99.2 7.10 6.20 2.0 4.6 7.6 10.9 18.4 56.6 99.5 0.0 99.5 6.20 5.64 2.9 6.5 11.1 16.3 27.5 65.0 99.0 0.0 99.0 5.64 5.24 4.1 8.2 13.7 19.2 33.0 67.3 97.4 0.0 97.4 5.24 4.93 4.3 9.4 14.8 19.9 33.1 67.6 96.1 0.0 96.1 4.93 4.68 5.2 10.1 15.9 21.8 33.9 67.8 95.6 0.0 95.6 4.68 4.48 5.4 11.2 17.6 24.7 37.8 69.0 94.5 0.0 94.5 4.48 4.31 5.8 11.0 18.1 25.1 39.8 71.2 94.0 0.0 94.0 4.31 4.16 6.4 14.3 23.6 32.7 47.2 73.6 93.7 0.0 93.7 4.16 4.03 8.2 16.7 27.2 36.7 53.0 76.5 93.1 0.0 93.1 4.03 3.91 9.3 20.5 32.4 42.6 57.8 79.1 93.5 0.0 93.5 3.91 3.81 9.6 23.1 37.2 47.7 61.4 81.6 93.6 0.0 93.6 3.81 3.72 11.6 26.5 41.3 51.7 66.1 84.5 92.9 0.0 92.9 3.72 3.63 11.6 30.9 47.8 58.4 71.0 86.5 93.7 0.0 93.7 3.63 3.55 14.9 34.4 50.7 62.0 74.3 88.9 94.5 0.0 94.5 3.55 3.48 15.4 37.1 54.7 64.6 76.2 89.5 93.4 0.0 93.4 3.48 3.42 17.2 41.5 60.1 69.4 79.6 90.8 94.0 0.0 94.0 3.42 3.36 18.3 44.6 62.3 70.9 79.7 89.4 92.1 0.0 92.1 3.36 3.30 20.8 46.9 64.2 71.9 79.7 88.3 90.3 0.0 90.3 All hkl 8.6 19.9 30.0 37.4 48.7 72.4 94.9 0.0 94.9 In summary, the overall completeness is 94.9%, while completeness of the lowest shell is close to 100%, and highest shell is 90.3%. But when I input the *.sca file into 'Xtriage', I got the following statistics (also completeness as an example). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Res. Range | I/sigI>1 | I/sigI>2 | I/sigI>3 | I/sigI>5 | I/sigI>10 | I/sigI>15 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 40.02 - 8.19 | 51.1% | 50.9% | 50.7% | 50.2% | 38.9% | 5.1% | | 8.19 - 6.51 | 50.5% | 49.1% | 47.7% | 45.0% | 27.4% | 3.2% | | 6.51 - 5.69 | 49.0% | 45.7% | 42.9% | 37.1% | 18.0% | 1.4% | | 5.69 - 5.17 | 47.2% | 43.3% | 39.9% | 33.0% | 15.3% | 1.3% | | 5.17 - 4.80 | 45.8% | 41.6% | 38.4% | 31.6% | 14.6% | 1.2% | | 4.80 - 4.52 | 44.4% | 39.7% | 35.9% | 29.1% | 13.5% | 1.1% | | 4.52 - 4.29 | 43.4% | 38.2% | 33.6% | 26.4% | 11.5% | 0.8% | | 4.29 - 4.10 | 41.1% | 34.0% | 29.0% | 21.6% | 9.5% | 0.5% | | 4.10 - 3.95 | 36.1% | 29.2% | 24.6% | 18.5% | 7.6% | 0.3% | | 3.95 - 3.81 | 30.8% | 24.8% | 20.8% | 15.3% | 5.5% | 0.1% | | 3.81 - 3.69 | 27.4% | 21.6% | 17.7% | 12.4% | 3.8% | 0.0% | | 3.69 - 3.59 | 23.8% | 18.7% | 15.2% | 10.2% | 3.0% | 0.1% | | 3.59 - 3.49 | 20.3% | 15.5% | 12.6% | 8.3% | 1.9% | 0.0% | | 3.49 - 3.41 | 17.4% | 12.7% | 10.1% | 6.5% | 1.4% | 0.0% | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, based on statistics from 'Xtriage', the data is quite incomplete, with only ~50% completeness even at lowest resolution shell. I convert the '*sca' into '*.mtz' file with "Reflection editor", and input the '*.mtz file' into 'Xtriage', I got another totally different statistics (completeness as an example) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Res. Range | I/sigI>1 | I/sigI>2 | I/sigI>3 | I/sigI>5 | I/sigI>10 | I/sigI>15 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 39.67 - 8.19 | 96.5% | 96.2% | 95.8% | 94.9% | 74.0% | 10.0% | | 8.19 - 6.51 | 96.3% | 94.4% | 92.1% | 87.3% | 54.5% | 7.0% | | 6.51 - 5.69 | 92.6% | 88.1% | 83.3% | 72.7% | 36.2% | 3.5% | | 5.69 - 5.17 | 88.6% | 83.4% | 77.7% | 64.9% | 30.7% | 3.4% | | 5.17 - 4.80 | 85.6% | 80.0% | 74.8% | 62.3% | 29.4% | 3.3% | | 4.80 - 4.52 | 82.6% | 76.4% | 70.1% | 57.4% | 26.9% | 3.0% | | 4.52 - 4.29 | 80.6% | 73.4% | 65.7% | 52.3% | 23.2% | 2.2% | | 4.29 - 4.10 | 74.4% | 65.2% | 56.6% | 42.7% | 19.5% | 1.3% | | 4.10 - 3.95 | 64.2% | 55.7% | 48.2% | 36.7% | 15.5% | 1.0% | | 3.95 - 3.81 | 55.3% | 47.3% | 40.8% | 30.4% | 11.2% | 0.4% | | 3.81 - 3.69 | 48.7% | 40.9% | 34.7% | 24.8% | 8.1% | 0.2% | | 3.69 - 3.59 | 41.8% | 35.8% | 29.7% | 20.2% | 6.1% | 0.1% | | 3.59 - 3.49 | 35.3% | 29.4% | 24.5% | 16.6% | 4.1% | 0.0% | | 3.49 - 3.41 | 30.1% | 24.1% | 19.8% | 13.2% | 2.9% | 0.0% | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am confused by the inconsistent statistics, could some explain it? Thanks. Yu

4 7

(no subject)
by intekhab alam 11 Feb '12

11 Feb '12

Hi all I have a 3A dataset for a protein-protein complex. I have successfully build the first protein and refined it to R/Rfree 24/28. I can see some density for my second protein but the density is a bit noisy. I have attached the coot image of the density. I want to model the aminoacid having sequence as given peptide: MGKKGKNKKGRGRPGVFRTRGLTDEEYDEFKKRRESRGGKYSIDDYLADREREEELLERDEEEAIFGDGFGLE 1.Based on map features which segemnt should i start with. 2. Is there anyway that i can build the best fit segment of my second protein. I tried autobuild but it failed to build any peptide for my second protein. Your help is highly appreciated. regards -- INTEKHAB ALAM LABORATORY OF STRUCTURAL BIOINFORMATICS KOREA UNIVERSITY, SEOUL

3 2

phenix.ready_set
by Jianghai Zhu 11 Feb '12

11 Feb '12

Hi, I am using phenix.ready_set (version 1.7.3) to add hydrogens to my structure. I found out that it makes a few mistakes when dealing with glycans. It adds hydrogens to C1, O4, O3, O6 even when these atoms have formed covalent bonds with other sugars and residues. Subsequent phenix.refine aborts because of these incorrect hydrogens. However, when I use phenix.reduce directly, all hydrogens are placed correctly. I assume something went wrong in phenix.ready_set. The problem with phenix.reduce is that it doesn't know how to deal with ligand whereas phenix.ready_set does when a cif file is provided. -- Jianghai

5 6

sa_omit map calculation
by Ursula Schulze-Gahmen 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

I want to calculate a sa-omit map around the same small region in the 3 molecules in the au. I have 2 questions: Can I include the 3 regions in the same omit box file? What does the following advice in the manual mean: (Note: be sure to use the weights in both resolve_composite_map.mtz and omit_region.mtz). I am not sure what weights we are talking about? Thanks for any help. Ursula -- Ursula Schulze-Gahmen, Ph.D. Assistant Researcher UC Berkeley, QB3 356 Stanley Hall #3220 Berkeley, CA 94720-3220

2 1

Assigned occupancy refinement
by Fischer 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Hello PhenixBB, We are interested in refining 3 distinct backbone conformations of a loop (A, B, C). Our crystals are very high resolution and the density is fairly distinct for each of these conformations. In the simplest case - each individual backbone conformation has one residue in two alternative side chain conformations. (A1,A2; B1,B2; C1,C2). We'd like to keep each pair of conformations assigned to the respective loop and then refine all six occupancies. Is there such an option similar to the free parameters in shelx also available in phenix? Thanks, Marcus

2 1