I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix. The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin law -h,-k,l. In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement. In the last refinement step, I use the option to optimize the values for wxu_scale and wxc_scale. These values are optimizes to 0 for wxc_scale and close to 0 for wxu_scale (0.2) When I tried this at earlier refinement stages wxu_scale was also here optimized in some refinement macrocycles to 0. Interestingly I obtain better R values (0.1948/0.2184), than without the optimization by using the default values (0.1391/0.2438 Rwork/Rfree). In addition to that the statistics are better: clashscore 14.41 (compared to 25.73 without wxc_scale & wxu_scale optimization), rotamer outliers 2.33% (compared o 4.66%) and Ramachandran favoured (Molprobity). How is it possible that wxu_scale and wxc_scale can be optimized to 0 by having better statistics? The total refinement target is defined as Etotal= wxc_scale x wxc x Exray + wc x Egeom As I understand it, the crystallographic refinement target (Exray) would now not be considered in the refinement procedure. Would this refinement procedure be valid? And how is wxc (output of target weights: x-ray data) defined? Thank you very much for your help Michaela Here is the output belonging to the optimization: Refinement Macrocycle 1 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 1.649809 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 93.128 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.888942 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 85.407 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2118 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2181 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 1.6498 r_free= 0.2336 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 2.4747 r_free= 0.2379 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 3.2996 r_free= 0.2412 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.0999 r_free= 0.2297 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.8249 r_free= 0.2245 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.6599 r_free= 0.2226 2 Best r_free = 0.2181 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2181 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2247 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.8889 r_free= 0.2262 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 1.3334 r_free= 0.2293 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 1.7779 r_free= 0.2310 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.5926 r_free= 0.2236 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.4445 r_free= 0.2221 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.3556 r_free= 0.2208 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.2963 r_free= 0.2203 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.2540 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.2222 r_free= 0.2191 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.1975 r_free= 0.2186 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.1778 r_free= 0.2183 0 Best r_free = 0.2183 Refinement Macrocycle 2 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 1.737535 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 89.612 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.228155 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 155.392 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2179 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2223 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 1.7375 r_free= 0.2272 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 2.6063 r_free= 0.2310 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 3.4751 r_free= 0.2332 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.1584 r_free= 0.2267 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.8688 r_free= 0.2258 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.6950 r_free= 0.2269 2 Best r_free = 0.2223 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2223 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2228 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.2282 r_free= 0.2235 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 0.3422 r_free= 0.2256 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 0.4563 r_free= 0.2275 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.1521 r_free= 0.2219 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.1141 r_free= 0.2213 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.0913 r_free= 0.2207 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.0761 r_free= 0.2204 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.0652 r_free= 0.2201 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.0570 r_free= 0.2197 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.0507 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.0456 r_free= 0.2194 0 Best r_free = 0.2194 Macrocycle 2 of 3 ========================== Target weights: x-ray data ========================= |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | XYZ refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxc * wxc_scale + Echem * wc | | wxc = 2.157676 wxc_scale = 0.500 wc = 1.000 | | angle between x-ray and geometry gradient vectors: 93.409 (deg) | | | | ADP refinement: T = Eexperimental * wxu * wxu_scale + Eadp * wu | | wxc = 0.228399 wxc_scale = 1.000 wc = 1.000 | | angle between Xray and ADP gradient vectors: 140.390 (deg) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ================================ xyz refinement =============================== Start r_free = 0.2163 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2189 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 2.1577 r_free= 0.2299 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 3.2365 r_free= 0.2340 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 4.3154 r_free= 0.2341 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 1.4385 r_free= 0.2282 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 1.0788 r_free= 0.2255 1 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.8631 r_free= 0.2249 2 Best r_free = 0.2189 ================================ ADP refinement =============================== ----------Individual ADP refinement---------- Start r_free = 0.2189 scale= 0.0000 total_weight= 0.0000 r_free= 0.2218 0 scale= 1.0000 total_weight= 0.2284 r_free= 0.2231 0 scale= 1.5000 total_weight= 0.3426 r_free= 0.2250 1 scale= 2.0000 total_weight= 0.4568 r_free= 0.2272 2 scale= 0.6667 total_weight= 0.1523 r_free= 0.2215 0 scale= 0.5000 total_weight= 0.1142 r_free= 0.2209 0 scale= 0.4000 total_weight= 0.0914 r_free= 0.2201 0 scale= 0.3333 total_weight= 0.0761 r_free= 0.2197 0 scale= 0.2857 total_weight= 0.0653 r_free= 0.2195 0 scale= 0.2500 total_weight= 0.0571 r_free= 0.2193 0 scale= 0.2222 total_weight= 0.0508 r_free= 0.2191 0 scale= 0.2000 total_weight= 0.0457 r_free= 0.2190 0 Best r_free = 0.2190 Michaela Kramer PhD student Institute of Biochemistry Winterthurerstrasse 190 8057 Zuerich Switzerland
Hi Michaela, which version of PHENIX you are using? Please make sure you are using the latest version.
I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix. The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin law -h,-k,l.
In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement.
Just a suggestion to quickly try out... What happens if you turn off the NCS restraints and do some refinement without using NCS (with and/or without optimizing the weights)? I know it depends on many factors, but I've seen a good number of cases at around 2A resolution where the refinement was better if NCS is not used.
In the last refinement step, I use the option to optimize the values for wxu_scale and wxc_scale. These values are optimizes to 0 for wxc_scale and close to 0 for wxu_scale (0.2)
It's all relative, the absolute values don't tell you much. If the R-, R-free and Rfree-R are better after wxc_scale and/or wxu_scale optimization and the geometry makes sense, then you got better model.
Interestingly I obtain better R values (0.1948/0.2184), than without the optimization by using the default values (0.1391/0.2438 Rwork/Rfree).
Clearly, (0.1948/0.2184) is much better than (0.1391/0.2438). Some 10% gap between R and Rfree at 2.1A resolution is bad.
How is it possible that wxu_scale and wxc_scale can be optimized to 0 by having better statistics?
The total refinement target is defined as
Etotal= wxc_scale x wxc x Exray + wc x Egeom
As I understand it, the crystallographic refinement target (Exray) would now not be considered in the refinement procedure.
Would this refinement procedure be valid?
It doesn't happen in all macro-cycles and this is important. You can also try to play with the weights manually by trying different values for wxc_scale and wxu_scale.
And how is wxc (output of target weights: x-ray data) defined?
See phenix.refine documentation page: http://phenix-online.org/documentation/refinement.htm section "8. Target weights calculation". With some variations, the implementation is very close to what's described there. Please let us know if you have any other questions or problems! Pavel.
Hi all, I am wondering if it is normal to have very low (0.007-0.008) r.m.s.d.s between different molecules in the same NCS restraint group at 3.3A resolution? Maia
I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix. The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin law -h,-k,l.
In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement.
Just a suggestion to quickly try out... What happens if you turn off the NCS restraints and do some refinement without using NCS (with and/or without optimizing the weights)? I know it depends on many factors, but I've seen a good number of cases at around 2A resolution where the refinement was better if NCS is not used.
I can't not respond: I've never had a case where *careful* evaluation and assignment of NCS groups did /not/ allow me to tighten NCS restraints (without screwing Rfree, of course). But of course, it requires work: the default procedures aren't good enough yet. phx
Hi Frank, I think it's about where you draw the line... It's very unlikely that at 3.5A the use of NCS will be a bad idea, and it's very likely that at 1.0A the use of NCS will be a good one. I don't know which side of that line the cases at around 2A resolution are (I believe the only systematic and careful study can answer this; or may be someone did it then I would appreciate a reference), and, as you rightfully pointed out - the automatic procedures are not perfect, so I usually try both -:) Pavel. On 11/26/2008 3:34 PM, Frank von Delft wrote:
I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix. The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin law -h,-k,l.
In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement.
Just a suggestion to quickly try out... What happens if you turn off the NCS restraints and do some refinement without using NCS (with and/or without optimizing the weights)? I know it depends on many factors, but I've seen a good number of cases at around 2A resolution where the refinement was better if NCS is not used.
I can't not respond: I've never had a case where *careful* evaluation and assignment of NCS groups did /not/ allow me to tighten NCS restraints (without screwing Rfree, of course). But of course, it requires work: the default procedures aren't good enough yet.
phx _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi all, I am wondering if it is normal to have very low (0.007-0.008) r.m.s.d.s between different molecules in the same NCS restraint group at 3.3A resolution? Maia
Yes. This is what you'd expect with tight restraints between the molecules in the group. At that resolution the data isn't going to define the atomic positions very well, so unless there is some obvious deviation between the molecules (i.e. clear density) I would expect, and want, the molecules to be effectively identical. On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:47 PM, chern wrote:
Hi all, I am wondering if it is normal to have very low (0.007-0.008) r.m.s.d.s between different molecules in the same NCS restraint group at 3.3A resolution?
Maia
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
-- Paul Adams Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Lab Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology Building 64, Room 248 Tel: 510-486-4225, Fax: 510-486-5909 http://cci.lbl.gov/paul Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 64R0121 Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Administrator: Kristine Sawyer [ [email protected] ][ 1-510-486-4151 ] --
participants (7)
-
chern
-
Frank von Delft
-
Maia Cherney
-
Michaela Kramer, Biochemisches Inst.
-
Paul Adams
-
Pavel Afonine
-
Pavel Afonine