Re: [phenixbb] Twinning Refinement
Dear Joe, It is not uncommon for proteins to crystallize in different crystal forms when in complex with different substrates or inhibitors. Trust that the absurdly high R factors (38% in the lowest resolution shell!?!?) despite the great lengths you went through with error models, etc. and the fact that scalepack is trying to throw out 20% of your data is a hint that you may be in the wrong spacegroup. Also, most of your "systematic absences" have an I/sig >2.5 and so probably are not absent. Were the predictions falling on spots during integration? This may provide another clue. I think you need to go back to HKL and reprocess pretending that you don't know that the crystals are "well characterized". You may have a new crystal form. good luck, Eric __________________________ Eric Larson, PhD MSGPP Consortium Department of Biochemistry Box 357742 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:13:07 +0000 From: Joseph Brock
To: Subject: [phenixbb] Twinning Refinement Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Phenix Users,
I'm currently using version: Version: 1.4 Release tag: 3 cctbx tag: 2008_12_07_1353 Platform: mac-intel-osx osx-10.5.6
I am working on characterising substrate/inhibitor interactions of a protein, the structure has been solved many times so its unit cell dimensions, contents (1 molecule per ASU) and space group (P3121) are well characterized.
However, I have recently encountered several crystals that appear exhibit merohedral twinning, and am having trouble converging the R-factors to reasonable levels. The details of one such data set is described below:
Diffraction to ~1.9A was recorded using a high and low resolution pass of 180? each. When processed with HKL2000 separately or together, Scalepack wanted to reject huge amounts of my data (~20%). I was forced to increase the error scale factor to 2 and adjust my error model to the very high R-factors of the low-resolution shells. The summary table from my final round of scalepack is: Shell Lower Upper Average Average Norm. Linear Square limit Angstrom I error stat. Chi**2 R-fac R-fac 50.00 4.09 7648.3 1498.7 182.7 1.030 0.376 0.424 4.09 3.25 3885.1 568.9 64.1 1.410 0.416 0.480 3.25 2.84 1609.7 225.0 26.1 1.227 0.451 0.517 2.84 2.58 807.9 97.1 25.3 1.958 0.439 0.561 2.58 2.39 496.6 59.7 22.0 1.060 0.257 0.268 2.39 2.25 335.5 53.0 18.1 0.717 0.275 0.238 2.25 2.14 221.7 19.0 17.4 2.389 0.354 0.298 2.14 2.05 143.1 19.5 17.5 1.537 0.459 0.351 2.05 1.97 87.0 20.2 17.1 1.079 0.663 0.480 1.97 1.90 54.6 20.3 16.7 1.073 0.990 0.696 All reflections 1588.3 269.2 41.9 1.350 0.400 0.444
In addition, many systematic absences appear to be present:
Intensities of systematic absences h k l Intensity Sigma I/Sigma
0 0 5 177.7 56.7 3.1 0 0 7 255.5 70.6 3.6 0 0 8 264.8 73.2 3.6 0 0 10 595.0 164.2 3.6 0 0 11 2343.5 1289.9 1.8 0 0 13 321.3 125.4 2.6 0 0 14 66.5 21.8 3.1 0 0 16 238.0 76.3 3.1 0 0 17 394.3 109.1 3.6 0 0 19 13.0 7.1 1.8 0 0 20 650.1 179.5 3.6 0 0 22 199.6 55.6 3.6 0 0 23 953.9 372.0 2.6 0 0 25 192.2 62.2 3.1 0 0 26 1038.7 405.0 2.6 0 0 28 96.3 28.9 3.3 0 0 29 2303.0 897.0 2.6 0 0 31 12.0 11.5 1.0 0 0 32 1622.4 516.5 3.1 0 0 34 11.5 13.8 0.8 0 0 35 22.8 14.8 1.5 0 0 37 27.9 18.0 1.5 0 0 38 154.3 45.6 3.4 0 0 40 55.8 27.8 2.0 0 0 41 35.5 23.7 1.5 0 0 43 -25.3 34.4 -0.7 0 0 44 67.7 32.1 2.1
The data has an overall completeness of 99.7%.
When I run the data trough xtriage, it tells me:
Statistics depending on twin laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Operator | type | R obs. | Britton alpha | H alpha | ML alpha | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | -h,-k,l | M | 0.307 | 0.301 | 0.256 | 0.022 | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson analyses - Largest peak height : 5.288 (corresponding p value : 0.86552)
The largest off-origin peak in the Patterson function is 5.29% of the height of the origin peak. No significant pseudotranslation is detected.
The results of the L-test indicate that the intensity statistics are significantly different than is expected from good to reasonable, untwinned data. As there are twin laws possible given the crystal symmetry, twinning could be the reason for the departure of the intensity statistics from normality. It might be worthwhile carrying out refinement with a twin specific target function.
I also estimated the twin fraction with the following server:
http://nihserver.mbi.ucla.edu/Twinning/
And found it to about 20% (using data from 6-3A).
After phasing the data with rigid body refinement in Refmac with intensity based twin refinement (brings both R-factors to ~36%), I have tried doing a twin refinement with Phenix:
%phenix.refine model.pdb data.mtz twin_law="-h,-k,l" strategy=rigid_body+individual_sites+group_adp
The R_factors consistently diverge to the following values:
Final R-work = 0.3392, R-free = 0.4360
Simulated annealing/TLS/ordered solvent/messing with wxc/wxu weights does not seem to improve the situation. I have also tried this with and without prior detwinning with the CCP4 program "Detwin", with similar results.
Reindexing to -h,-k,l gives similar R-factors after rigid body refinement but after refinement with Phenix, things get even worse: Final R-work = 0.3919, R-free = 0.5059
I was surprised to see that the fit to the map using both indexing conventions are comparable even though this should effectively reverse the hand of the structure. I assume this is because twin refinement is basically doing the job of "partial reindexing" on those parts of the lattice which are twinned?
I have been working on this for about a week now and can't for the life of me find a way forward. If anyone can offer any suggestions It would greatly be appreciated. Im slowly beginning to lose my sanity....
BTW I don't think my problems stem from misindexing, although the beam was wondering all over the place during this block of data collection, I have previously solved another structure at the same d and xbeam ybeam values without any trouble.
Sorry about the v.long post. Thought it would be better to give too much information rather than not enough =)
Many thanks for all your suggestions in advance and for everything I have learned from this community in the past. Cheers,
Joe PhD student.
_________________________________________________________________ Get personal with Windows. Download a free gift for your PC. http://experience.windows.com
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530). Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data. Thanks ram
Hi, phenix.refine removes F-obs outliers for refinement. See .log file for the number of such reflections. Also, it automatically removes Fobs=0. Do phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz to see the content of your MTZ file. Pavel. On 3/27/10 1:26 PM, r n wrote:
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530).
Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data.
Thanks ram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi Pavel, I have 2 important waters at 2.12 A distance after refinement. They are ligands of Mg2+. How can I restrain this distance to 2.3A (to pass pdb validation)? Is it in the ordered solvent that I need to change the default h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2 Maia Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi,
phenix.refine removes F-obs outliers for refinement. See .log file for the number of such reflections. Also, it automatically removes Fobs=0. Do phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz to see the content of your MTZ file.
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 1:26 PM, r n wrote:
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530).
Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data.
Thanks ram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi Maia, I assume that these waters are already present in your structure. Then run phenix.phenix.metal_coordination model.pdb That will create a restraints file for you Mg2+. Edit it, if necessary, to satisfy your expectations. These two waters should be there. Run phenix.refine and give it that restraints file. If you run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" option, then phenix.refine may or may not remove these two waters. If you absolutely need to keep these waters, run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" untill the last moment, then add two waters and run it again with "ordered_solvent=false". Something like this... Pavel. On 3/27/10 3:50 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Hi Pavel,
I have 2 important waters at 2.12 A distance after refinement. They are ligands of Mg2+. How can I restrain this distance to 2.3A (to pass pdb validation)? Is it in the ordered solvent that I need to change the default h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Maia
Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi,
phenix.refine removes F-obs outliers for refinement. See .log file for the number of such reflections. Also, it automatically removes Fobs=0. Do phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz to see the content of your MTZ file.
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 1:26 PM, r n wrote:
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530).
Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data.
Thanks ram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Pavel, I have done the things that you suggested, and I have all the restraints for the Mg2+ and I see those 2 waters, but they are at 2.12A distance. I think there should be some general restraints that should keep h_bonds at least at > 2.2A. That is why I asked you about those defaults (1.8A etc). Why are they at 1.8A? Should not they be at least at 2.2A? Maia Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I assume that these waters are already present in your structure.
Then run phenix.phenix.metal_coordination model.pdb
That will create a restraints file for you Mg2+. Edit it, if necessary, to satisfy your expectations. These two waters should be there.
Run phenix.refine and give it that restraints file. If you run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" option, then phenix.refine may or may not remove these two waters. If you absolutely need to keep these waters, run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" untill the last moment, then add two waters and run it again with "ordered_solvent=false". Something like this...
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 3:50 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Hi Pavel,
I have 2 important waters at 2.12 A distance after refinement. They are ligands of Mg2+. How can I restrain this distance to 2.3A (to pass pdb validation)? Is it in the ordered solvent that I need to change the default h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Maia
Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi,
phenix.refine removes F-obs outliers for refinement. See .log file for the number of such reflections. Also, it automatically removes Fobs=0. Do phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz to see the content of your MTZ file.
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 1:26 PM, r n wrote:
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530).
Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data.
Thanks ram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi Maia,
I have done the things that you suggested,
great!
and I have all the restraints for the Mg2+ and I see those 2 waters, but they are at 2.12A distance.
Are these two waters located in the centers of corresponding density peaks? If this is the case then I don't see the subject of your worries. If this is not the case (these waters are off the peaks) then edit the file that defines restraints for water-Mg2+ interactions.
I think there should be some general restraints that should keep h_bonds at least at > 2.2A.
Yes. You wrote it yourself in your previous email: h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2 Just change the values to what you like!
That is why I asked you about those defaults (1.8A etc). Why are they at 1.8A? Should not they be at least at 2.2A?
Honestly, I don't remember why I put these values (this is pretty old code in phenix.refine that I wrote several years ago). All I recall is that I had a reason for this. I probably need to run through the whole PDB and see how the density peaks (actual, residual, omit-residual) are distributed w.r.t. macromolecule, and write it somewhere for the future reference. This could be a project for a few weeks, but it will definitely yield a rock-solid conclusion about "good" distances. Meanwhile feel free to edit the available parameters. By the way, this is what CNS is using: {* minimum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} min=2.6; {* maximum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} max=4.0; {* minimum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmin=2.0; {* maximum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmax=3.2; Pavel.
Hi Pavel, what is h_bond_min_mac and h_bond_min_sol. which one should I change to 2.2 so that it will not affect the coordination distances of Mg2+ (around 2A)? Maia Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I have done the things that you suggested,
great!
and I have all the restraints for the Mg2+ and I see those 2 waters, but they are at 2.12A distance.
Are these two waters located in the centers of corresponding density peaks? If this is the case then I don't see the subject of your worries. If this is not the case (these waters are off the peaks) then edit the file that defines restraints for water-Mg2+ interactions.
I think there should be some general restraints that should keep h_bonds at least at > 2.2A.
Yes. You wrote it yourself in your previous email:
h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Just change the values to what you like!
That is why I asked you about those defaults (1.8A etc). Why are they at 1.8A? Should not they be at least at 2.2A?
Honestly, I don't remember why I put these values (this is pretty old code in phenix.refine that I wrote several years ago). All I recall is that I had a reason for this. I probably need to run through the whole PDB and see how the density peaks (actual, residual, omit-residual) are distributed w.r.t. macromolecule, and write it somewhere for the future reference. This could be a project for a few weeks, but it will definitely yield a rock-solid conclusion about "good" distances. Meanwhile feel free to edit the available parameters.
By the way, this is what CNS is using:
{* minimum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} min=2.6; {* maximum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} max=4.0;
{* minimum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmin=2.0; {* maximum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmax=3.2;
Pavel.
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi Maia, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you have that specific water in your structure already (and you run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=false"), then changing the h_bond_min_mac or h_bond_min_sol will not change anything since these parameters are used in water update. However, if you are at the stage of water picking and the distance between Mg2+ and prospective water peak is 2.2A then the water will be placed there (providing that the corresponding peak satisfies the other criteria). Could you please explain what exactly the problem is, and then I will try my best to give you the solution? Thanks! Pavel. On 3/27/10 5:23 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Hi Pavel, what is h_bond_min_mac and h_bond_min_sol.
which one should I change to 2.2 so that it will not affect the coordination distances of Mg2+ (around 2A)?
Maia
Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I have done the things that you suggested,
great!
and I have all the restraints for the Mg2+ and I see those 2 waters, but they are at 2.12A distance.
Are these two waters located in the centers of corresponding density peaks? If this is the case then I don't see the subject of your worries. If this is not the case (these waters are off the peaks) then edit the file that defines restraints for water-Mg2+ interactions.
I think there should be some general restraints that should keep h_bonds at least at > 2.2A.
Yes. You wrote it yourself in your previous email:
h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Just change the values to what you like!
That is why I asked you about those defaults (1.8A etc). Why are they at 1.8A? Should not they be at least at 2.2A?
Honestly, I don't remember why I put these values (this is pretty old code in phenix.refine that I wrote several years ago). All I recall is that I had a reason for this. I probably need to run through the whole PDB and see how the density peaks (actual, residual, omit-residual) are distributed w.r.t. macromolecule, and write it somewhere for the future reference. This could be a project for a few weeks, but it will definitely yield a rock-solid conclusion about "good" distances. Meanwhile feel free to edit the available parameters.
By the way, this is what CNS is using:
{* minimum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} min=2.6; {* maximum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} max=4.0;
{* minimum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmin=2.0; {* maximum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmax=3.2;
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
Hi Pavel, I have waters that are part of the Mg2+ coordination. They should be at ~2.1A from Mg2+. At the same time, they should be at a hydrogen-bonding distance from each other (minimum 2.2A otherwise the validation at the PDB complains). The two waters after refinement without restraints had closer (2.12A) distance between them, so I managed to restrain the distance to 2.23A using pdb_interpretation. But my question was, should not the refinement automatically restrain close distances between any atoms, including waters? (By the way, I picked them manually). Maia Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I'm not sure I understand the question. If you have that specific water in your structure already (and you run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=false"), then changing the h_bond_min_mac or h_bond_min_sol will not change anything since these parameters are used in water update.
However, if you are at the stage of water picking and the distance between Mg2+ and prospective water peak is 2.2A then the water will be placed there (providing that the corresponding peak satisfies the other criteria).
Could you please explain what exactly the problem is, and then I will try my best to give you the solution?
Thanks! Pavel.
On 3/27/10 5:23 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Hi Pavel, what is h_bond_min_mac and h_bond_min_sol.
which one should I change to 2.2 so that it will not affect the coordination distances of Mg2+ (around 2A)?
Maia
Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I have done the things that you suggested,
great!
and I have all the restraints for the Mg2+ and I see those 2 waters, but they are at 2.12A distance.
Are these two waters located in the centers of corresponding density peaks? If this is the case then I don't see the subject of your worries. If this is not the case (these waters are off the peaks) then edit the file that defines restraints for water-Mg2+ interactions.
I think there should be some general restraints that should keep h_bonds at least at > 2.2A.
Yes. You wrote it yourself in your previous email:
h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Just change the values to what you like!
That is why I asked you about those defaults (1.8A etc). Why are they at 1.8A? Should not they be at least at 2.2A?
Honestly, I don't remember why I put these values (this is pretty old code in phenix.refine that I wrote several years ago). All I recall is that I had a reason for this. I probably need to run through the whole PDB and see how the density peaks (actual, residual, omit-residual) are distributed w.r.t. macromolecule, and write it somewhere for the future reference. This could be a project for a few weeks, but it will definitely yield a rock-solid conclusion about "good" distances. Meanwhile feel free to edit the available parameters.
By the way, this is what CNS is using:
{* minimum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} min=2.6; {* maximum distance between water and any atom *} {===>} max=4.0;
{* minimum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmin=2.0; {* maximum hydrogen bonding distance between water and O or N *} {===>} hmax=3.2;
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
phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Pavel, I just want to restrain the distance between 2 particular waters. Is it in the pdb_interpretation? Maia Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Maia,
I assume that these waters are already present in your structure.
Then run phenix.phenix.metal_coordination model.pdb
That will create a restraints file for you Mg2+. Edit it, if necessary, to satisfy your expectations. These two waters should be there.
Run phenix.refine and give it that restraints file. If you run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" option, then phenix.refine may or may not remove these two waters. If you absolutely need to keep these waters, run phenix.refine with "ordered_solvent=true" untill the last moment, then add two waters and run it again with "ordered_solvent=false". Something like this...
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 3:50 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Hi Pavel,
I have 2 important waters at 2.12 A distance after refinement. They are ligands of Mg2+. How can I restrain this distance to 2.3A (to pass pdb validation)? Is it in the ordered solvent that I need to change the default h_bond_min_mac = 1.8 h_bond_min_sol = 1.8 h_bond_max = 3.2
Maia
Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi,
phenix.refine removes F-obs outliers for refinement. See .log file for the number of such reflections. Also, it automatically removes Fobs=0. Do phenix.mtz.dump data.mtz to see the content of your MTZ file.
Pavel.
On 3/27/10 1:26 PM, r n wrote:
Hi all I observed that for the same data set and resolution, number of reflections for the refinement is different values both in phenix (9488), refmac5 (9423) and refmac using coot interface (9530).
Please anyone can let me know why the differences between the programs for same resolution and data.
Thanks ram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi Maia, not sure if it makes sense to me, but anyway, technically you can do that: just define a custom bond between these two atoms as described in: http://www.phenix-online.org/version_docs/1.6.1-353/refinement.htm#anch80 And to make sure phenix.refine doesn't remove any of these two waters, run it with "ordered_solvent=true". Pavel. On 3/27/10 4:55 PM, Maia Cherney wrote:
Pavel, I just want to restrain the distance between 2 particular waters. Is it in the pdb_interpretation? Maia
participants (4)
-
Eric Larson
-
Maia Cherney
-
Pavel Afonine
-
r n