Hi, We are refining structures with Ca binding sites that are replaced by Mn. Using the coordination restraints in Phenix (distance only) obtained with phenix.metal_coordination, we wind up with the ligands coming somewhat too close, so there is positive density on the opposite side of the ligating residue from the metal. We may have a series of problems, including incomplete replacement of Ca by Mn. However, the bigger issue I want to address is coordination number. In the work by Shannon and Prewitt, such as Acta Cryst. B25, 925, metal oxides are examined, and the point is made that the Mn-O distance with a coordination number of 6 is shorter than for 7. Ca commonly has either 6 or 7 ligands, and with 7 ligands (most common) the O cannot squeeze as tightly together and are farther away from Ca. Mn more commonly has 6 ligands, but can have 7. What are the distance restraints in Phenix based on? They seem similar to those in Harding MM, Acta Cryst D62, 678 (2006). This paper lumps measurements for different coordination numbers together for Mn-O and Ca-O distances, but not for Co, Cu, and Zn. It does seem to help to add metal ion restraints in Phenix. Things don't seem to come out as well without them. Would it be helpful to treat 6 and 7-coordinate metals differently? Or should we just loosen the restraints? How does Refmac treat metals? One does not need to add restraints in its case. With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
Tim
I did a survey of the literature some time ago and used Harding, Acta
Cryst. D62 (2006), 678-682 for the data used in
phenix.metal_coordination. I recently added the data from Zheng et al.
Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 102 (2008) 1765-1776 and plan to
include it soon.
You are quite correct that the coordination number affects the bond
length. This is currently ignored in PHENIX but it may well be useful.
I'll read Shannon and Prewitt with a view to improving the
coordination code.
One thing you can do is add the slack option to the edits giving the
bond potential a flat bottom. This allow complete freedom for the
metal to use the electron density for fitting within the slack
distance of the ideal.
refinement.geometry_restraints.edits {
bond {
action = *add
atom_selection_1 = chain F and resid 1 and name FE1
atom_selection_2 = chain A and resid 69 and name SG
distance_ideal = 2.35
sigma = 0.1
slack = 0.1
}
}
I'm very interested in discussing your situation and making it better.
If you send me your model (off line) we can investigate a better
solution.
Nigel
NB. Any files sent to me will be held in strictest confidence.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Timothy Springer
Hi, We are refining structures with Ca binding sites that are replaced by Mn. Using the coordination restraints in Phenix (distance only) obtained with phenix.metal_coordination, we wind up with the ligands coming somewhat too close, so there is positive density on the opposite side of the ligating residue from the metal. We may have a series of problems, including incomplete replacement of Ca by Mn. However, the bigger issue I want to address is coordination number. In the work by Shannon and Prewitt, such as Acta Cryst. B25, 925, metal oxides are examined, and the point is made that the Mn-O distance with a coordination number of 6 is shorter than for 7. Ca commonly has either 6 or 7 ligands, and with 7 ligands (most common) the O cannot squeeze as tightly together and are farther away from Ca. Mn more commonly has 6 ligands, but can have 7. What are the distance restraints in Phenix based on? They seem similar to those in Harding MM, Acta Cryst D62, 678 (2006). This paper lumps measurements for different coordination numbers together for Mn-O and Ca-O distances, but not for Co, Cu, and Zn. It does seem to help to add metal ion restraints in Phenix. Things don't seem to come out as well without them. Would it be helpful to treat 6 and 7-coordinate metals differently? Or should we just loosen the restraints? How does Refmac treat metals? One does not need to add restraints in its case. With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology
Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Nigel, One thing I found out is that the slack keyword cannot be added into elbow.edits. After reading elbow.edits, phenix.refine will strip them off and replace them with slack=None. I think this must be a bug. -- Jianghai On Nov 23, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Nigel Moriarty wrote:
Tim
I did a survey of the literature some time ago and used Harding, Acta Cryst. D62 (2006), 678-682 for the data used in phenix.metal_coordination. I recently added the data from Zheng et al. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 102 (2008) 1765-1776 and plan to include it soon.
You are quite correct that the coordination number affects the bond length. This is currently ignored in PHENIX but it may well be useful. I'll read Shannon and Prewitt with a view to improving the coordination code.
One thing you can do is add the slack option to the edits giving the bond potential a flat bottom. This allow complete freedom for the metal to use the electron density for fitting within the slack distance of the ideal.
refinement.geometry_restraints.edits { bond { action = *add atom_selection_1 = chain F and resid 1 and name FE1 atom_selection_2 = chain A and resid 69 and name SG distance_ideal = 2.35 sigma = 0.1 slack = 0.1 } }
I'm very interested in discussing your situation and making it better. If you send me your model (off line) we can investigate a better solution.
Nigel
NB. Any files sent to me will be held in strictest confidence.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Timothy Springer
wrote: Hi, We are refining structures with Ca binding sites that are replaced by Mn. Using the coordination restraints in Phenix (distance only) obtained with phenix.metal_coordination, we wind up with the ligands coming somewhat too close, so there is positive density on the opposite side of the ligating residue from the metal. We may have a series of problems, including incomplete replacement of Ca by Mn. However, the bigger issue I want to address is coordination number. In the work by Shannon and Prewitt, such as Acta Cryst. B25, 925, metal oxides are examined, and the point is made that the Mn-O distance with a coordination number of 6 is shorter than for 7. Ca commonly has either 6 or 7 ligands, and with 7 ligands (most common) the O cannot squeeze as tightly together and are farther away from Ca. Mn more commonly has 6 ligands, but can have 7. What are the distance restraints in Phenix based on? They seem similar to those in Harding MM, Acta Cryst D62, 678 (2006). This paper lumps measurements for different coordination numbers together for Mn-O and Ca-O distances, but not for Co, Cu, and Zn. It does seem to help to add metal ion restraints in Phenix. Things don't seem to come out as well without them. Would it be helpful to treat 6 and 7-coordinate metals differently? Or should we just loosen the restraints? How does Refmac treat metals? One does not need to add restraints in its case. With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology
Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Hi, I have just added alpha1-3 and alpha1-6 fucoses to NAG. The Fucose in the monomer library has O1 in the alpha position, which is axial. However, after refinement, the fucose moves so it is linked beta in the equatorial position. I believe the alpha and beta linkages for Fucose may be reversed in Phenix. Please advise. The links are below. apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-3" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3824" } apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-6" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3823" } With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
Tim
The glycosidic bonds in PHENIX are taken from the Monomer Lib so I
think that should be OK.
O1 can be in the axial or equatorial position depending on the ring
pucker but the O1 should always be on the opposite side of the ring
(if you imagine the ring is flattened) from the C6. It is the
chirality around the C1 atom that specifies the alpha/beta linkage.
Please send me the PDB file (off-line) so I can double-check that it
is correct. Just the three carbohydrate residues would be fine.
Cheers
Nigel
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Timothy Springer
Hi, I have just added alpha1-3 and alpha1-6 fucoses to NAG. The Fucose in the monomer library has O1 in the alpha position, which is axial. However, after refinement, the fucose moves so it is linked beta in the equatorial position. I believe the alpha and beta linkages for Fucose may be reversed in Phenix. Please advise. The links are below.
apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-3" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3824" } apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-6" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3823" }
With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology
Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Nigel and others, I had reported a while ago that the phenix ALPHA1-3 linkage will convert the a-L-fucose to have a beta anomer. Actually, it was even worse; at the time the monomer library had the beta-L-fucose under the FUC-a-L entry. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13968.html At the time, I had even created a flickr site to show the problem: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46544052@N03/4274285327/ It has been a while since I thought about this, but I think that this happens specifically with L-Fucose (all other standard N-linked sugars, I believe they are D-sugars, are fine). Since this was not resolved at the time, I have resorted to this workaround: Use your own FUC.cif, where you are sure that the C1 chiral center is alpha. Use BETA1-3, BETA1-6 linkages to enforce alpha linkages. I hope my memory is serving me right on this. Since then, CNS 1.3 has incorporated the correct linkages. Please see the carbohydrate.top file in your CNS installation. There, on top of A13 and A16, there are separate A13L and A16L linkages for FUC (I guess L stands for L-sugars, which applies only to Fucose). I would really love to see this corrected in Phenix and CCP4 monomer libraries (if it has already been fixed, thank you!). Cheers, Engin P.S. Here is how CNS 1.3 does N-linked linkages: REMARKS B1N: N-linked glycan beta link from NAG and NDG to ASN (asparagine) ! note: PDB files with unusual NDG to ASN links are likely incorrect assignments ! they will be forced into the beta anomer by the B1N link. REMARKS B12: beta(1,2) link from BGC, GAL, BMA, NAG, FCB, XYP to any REMARKS B14: beta(1,4) link from BGC, GAL, BMA, NAG, FCB, XYP to any REMARKS A12: alpha(1,2) link from GLC, GLA, MAN, NDG, A2G, FCA to any REMARKS A13: alpha(1,3) link from GLC, GLA, MAN, NDG, A2G, FCA to any REMARKS A14: alpha(1,4) link from GLC, GLA, MAN, NDG, A2G, FCA to any REMARKS A16: alpha(1,6) link from GLC, GLA, MAN, NDG, A2G, FCA to any REMARKS B12L: beta(1,2) link from FUL to any REMARKS B14L: beta(1,4) link from FUL to any REMARKS A12L: alpha(1,2) link from FUC to any REMARKS A13L: alpha(1,3) link from FUC to any REMARKS A14L: alpha(1,4) link from FUC to any REMARKS A16L: alpha(1,6) link from FUC to any REMARKS A23: alpha(2,3) link from GAL to SIA REMARKS A26: alpha(2,6) link from GAL to SIA On 11/29/11 3:30 PM, Nigel Moriarty wrote:
Tim
The glycosidic bonds in PHENIX are taken from the Monomer Lib so I think that should be OK.
O1 can be in the axial or equatorial position depending on the ring pucker but the O1 should always be on the opposite side of the ring (if you imagine the ring is flattened) from the C6. It is the chirality around the C1 atom that specifies the alpha/beta linkage. Please send me the PDB file (off-line) so I can double-check that it is correct. Just the three carbohydrate residues would be fine.
Cheers
Nigel
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Timothy Springer
wrote: Hi, I have just added alpha1-3 and alpha1-6 fucoses to NAG. The Fucose in the monomer library has O1 in the alpha position, which is axial. However, after refinement, the fucose moves so it is linked beta in the equatorial position. I believe the alpha and beta linkages for Fucose may be reversed in Phenix. Please advise. The links are below.
apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-3" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3824" } apply_cif_link { data_link = "ALPHA1-6" residue_selection_1 = "chain A and resname NAG and resid 3821" residue_selection_2 = "chain A and resname FUC and resid 3823" }
With my best regards, Tim Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. Latham Family Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology
Harvard Medical School http://idi.harvard.edu/springer Immune Disease Institute [email protected] Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Dept. Medicine Div. Hematology Children's Hospital Boston 3 Blackfan Circle, Rm 3103 phone: 617-713-8200 Boston MA 02115 fax: 617-713-8232
_______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
-- Engin Özkan Post-doctoral Scholar Howard Hughes Medical Institute Dept of Molecular and Cellular Physiology 279 Campus Drive, Beckman Center B173 Stanford School of Medicine Stanford, CA 94305 ph: (650)-498-7111
participants (4)
-
Engin Özkan
-
Jianghai Zhu
-
Nigel Moriarty
-
Timothy Springer