Re: [phenixbb] Dummy atoms

Unfortunately, UND is undecane, but UNP and UNR are not specified yet. On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Boaz Shaanan wrote:

UNP - for unknown peptides, UND- for DNA, UNR for RNA, UNL- for ligands and UNK for things that we don't know that we don't know (quoting D. Ramsfeld).            Boaz

----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Evans Date: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:29 Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Dummy atoms To: PHENIX user mailing list

...

I was thinking of the case (which we have had) where we could place the peptide plausibly (eg in a helix) but not identify the side chain. Maybe there should be different UNK-likes, for unknown amino-acid, unknown nucleotide, unknown thing

Phil

On 28 Jul 2010, at 23:34, Pavel Afonine wrote:

...

I agree with Phil about UNK - it seems to be good indeed to call unknown (undefined) residue as it appears on the map rather than call ALA something that in fact is TYR, and then later on getting confused about the mismatch between actual sequence and the one derived from PDB file. This is actually what I get confused all the time looking at results of model building programs, because the first thing I always do is I compare the real actual sequence with the one derived from PDB file - just to validate the result of model building.

However, I agree with Tom too about loosing identity in cases where we really do know what to expect: polypeptide or rna/dna.

Hm... interesting situation -:)

I guess UNK is may be still better, ONLY IF you go one level deeper and look at atom names (or make sure you do that consistently). Say you name a "residue" as UNK and name corresponding atoms within this residue as CA, N, C, O (kind of peptide pattern) - then you have a chance to guess what it is. Of course how you then know where you place those CA,N,C and O...

Pavel.

...

One disadvantage of using UNK is that it is often a loss of information. For example in the case Phil mentions...we do think

...

-Tom T

On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Phil Evans wrote:

...

UNK residues have another valid use where you can see

...

...

Phil

On 28 Jul 2010, at 19:12, Pavel Afonine wrote:

...

Dear Ed,

> I think it is very important to be able to include unknown atoms > in a deposited pdb file (with echoing the caveat about flooding > the structure with UNK's to lower the R-factor).

yes, as I wrote in original reply, including these atoms

may improve the map and in turn may reveal or improve some its other important (biologically) places. The only point is: please define these dummy atoms properly, providing all the information, such as scattering element type that you or your

...

...

...

> For one thing, these structures are produced not just for

structure-factor

...

> calculation and validation. Many of the end users will never even > bother to do a structure factor calculation.

The ability to reproduce the R-factor is not only for someones pleasure but for the validation purposes at least. If I've got a PDB file for which I can't compute the R-factors (and, by the way, even the map too), then I don't need the deposited Fobs too, unless I'm going to re-determine the structure from scratch.

> It important for the > depositor to be able to refer to an unknown but likely significant>>>>> ligand and for the reader to be able to go and look at that position > (ideally surrounded by electron density).

Sure, it is important.

> For another thing, the structure factor calculation will give exactly > the same result whether the dummy atoms are omitted or are flagged>>>>> with zero occupancy or atom-type X to be ignored in sf calculation.

If you look in PDB you will find that very often the occupancies are not set up to 1. Plus, as I mentioned, often the B-factors for these atoms are set to some funny numbers (looks

...

...

...

Are we sure that these programs were ignoring these dummies in Fcalc calculations? If so how the B-factor were refined, or

...

...

...

Again, if it is defined properly, for example, like this:

ATOM   1959  O   DUM A

1      -8.762   8.060 25.324  1.00 31.23           O

...

or

ATOM   1959  O   UNK A

1      -8.762   8.060 25.324  1.00 31.23           O

...

then it is absolutely OK to have such entries, because it

is completely defined and can be used in any calculations without any unnecessary guesswork. But if you start masking

On 7/28/10 3:19 PM, Tom Terwilliger wrote: that we have a polypeptide.  By labelling protein residues UNK we no longer distinguish them from DNA, or depending on HETATM vs ATOM identification, from ligands. peptide but not assign a sequence register. A poly-Ala model in that case is better labelled UNK than ALA, since it isn't ALA program used for such an approximation. like they were refined). they were made up? things with X or blanks then I (and the software I write) will start asking all these nasty questions...

...

...

...

All the best! Pavel.

_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

Thomas C. Terwilliger Mail Stop M888 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545

Tel:  505-667- 0072                 email: [email protected] Fax: 505-665- 3024                 SOLVE web site: http://solve.lanl.gov PHENIX web site: http:www.phenix-online.org ISFI Integrated Center for Structure and Function Innovation web site: http://techcenter.mbi.ucla.edu TB Structural Genomics Consortium web site: http://www.doe- mbi.ucla.edu/TB>> CBSS Center for Bio-Security Science web site: http://www.lanl.gov/cbss>>

_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list

[email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D. Dept. of Life Sciences Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva 84105 Israel Phone: 972-8-647-2220 ; Fax: 646-1710 Skype: boaz.shaanan‎ _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

-- Nigel W. Moriarty Building 64R0246B, Physical Biosciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720-8235 Phone : 510-486-5709     Email : [email protected] Fax   : 510-486-5909       Web  : CCI.LBL.gov