- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Modify methionine to acetylated methionine in coot
by Anshul Bhardwaj 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Hello, How to replace 'M' with 'AME' in coot itself? an option like mutate residue, etc. I couldn't figure out right away so I worked my way around by simply copying AME from one of the pdb from RCSB database and replaced methionine in my model. Linked AME to residue# 2 in coot and refinement was straightforward after generating restraints for the modified model. So it worked for now but still curious as there has to be a way to replace 'M' with 'AME' in coot, isn't it (?). Thanks, Anshul Bhardwaj P.S. Hope it's okay to cross-post on both ccp4bb and phenixbb to get an answer quickly. The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for emergent or urgent health care matters.

1 0

Coot 3D for Geforce GTX 970 Graphics card on Windows 7 and Fedora
by Xiao Lei 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Hi Phenixbb members, My lab has a desktop PC which has Windows 7 with Geforce GTX 970 Graphics card, is this card ok for the Coot 3D function with 3D monitor and Nvidia 3D kit? Do I need to do some settings before I can use the Coot 3D function? I'm also thinking installing Fedora 23 on the PC and use coot 3D, is there any settings in the Fedora environment before using coot 3D? Thanks ahead.

1 0

Changing NCS groups
by Marie Elizabeth Fraser 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Hello, I would like to edit the NCS information for a model with two chains. I've tried running find_ncs and editing the phil file, but I get an error when I try to use my edited file in the next cycle of refinement. I've tried using the utility to detect NCS groups, then edited in the little windows - also no success. How are other people defining NCS when they aren't content with the equivalences the program finds? Thank you for your insight, Marie

5 5

Xtriage systematic results is not consistent with HKL2000
by Alex Lee 23 Jan '16

23 Jan '16

Dear All, I scaled a dataset of SG P2221 in HKL2000 and got systematic absence results as below, it seems clearly HKL2000 showed the data had systematic absence violations, but when I used the .sca file from HKL2000 as input in Xtriage, the result did not show any systematic violations. Which result should I rely on? HKL200 Results: Summary of reflections intensities and R-factors by shells R linear = SUM ( ABS(I - <I>)) / SUM (I) R square = SUM ( (I - <I>) ** 2) / SUM (I ** 2) Chi**2 = SUM ( (I - <I>) ** 2) / (Error ** 2 * N / (N-1) ) ) In all sums single measurements are excluded Shell Lower Upper Average Average Norm. Linear Square limit Angstrom I error stat. Chi**2 R-fac R-fac Rmeas Rpim CC1/2 CC* 50.00 5.60 2819.0 103.7 44.8 0.607 0.033 0.040 0.037 0.017 0.998 0.999 5.60 4.45 1801.5 63.8 28.1 0.914 0.043 0.050 0.048 0.022 0.997 0.999 4.45 3.88 1435.3 52.6 25.5 0.980 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.024 0.997 0.999 3.88 3.53 738.7 31.8 20.5 1.117 0.068 0.067 0.075 0.032 0.996 0.999 3.53 3.28 489.7 26.5 20.1 1.134 0.092 0.080 0.102 0.043 0.996 0.999 3.28 3.08 236.3 19.8 17.4 0.975 0.147 0.108 0.162 0.069 0.993 0.998 3.08 2.93 93.4 16.4 16.0 0.850 0.296 0.277 0.327 0.138 0.947 0.986 2.93 2.80 62.9 16.3 16.0 0.737 0.422 0.384 0.467 0.197 0.921 0.979 2.80 2.69 42.6 16.7 16.5 0.677 0.622 0.515 0.688 0.291 0.879 0.967 2.69 2.60 29.3 20.0 19.9 0.680 0.924 0.842 0.000 0.440 0.659 0.891 All reflections 798.1 37.4 22.6 0.873 0.064 0.050 0.068 0.031 Intensities of systematic absences h k l Intensity Sigma I/Sigma 0 0 3 -0.4 1.3 -0.3 0 0 5 10.4 3.0 3.5 0 0 7 11.4 3.9 2.9 0 0 9 8.7 4.3 2.0 0 0 11 18.6 6.4 2.9 0 0 13 182.9 17.1 10.7 0 0 15 3.0 7.8 0.4 0 0 17 11.9 9.2 1.3 0 0 19 30.0 14.3 2.1 0 0 21 7.4 11.1 0.7 0 0 23 54.2 15.6 3.5 0 0 25 43.1 16.1 2.7 0 0 27 12.5 18.9 0.7 0 0 29 -16.6 20.9 -0.8 0 0 31 31.0 25.4 1.2 0 0 33 3.4 29.2 0.1 0 0 35 -24.2 32.0 -0.8 0 0 37 50.9 42.5 1.2 0 0 39 -53.3 66.4 -0.8 0 0 41 65.8 50.6 1.3 0 0 43 -24.3 46.8 -0.5 0 0 45 -6.1 48.3 -0.1 0 0 47 -14.8 45.8 -0.3 0 0 49 1.1 53.5 0.0 0 0 51 -7.9 64.2 -0.1 Phenix Xtriage Results: ----------Space group identification---------- Analyses of the absences table indicates a number of likely space group candidates, which are listed below. For each space group, the number of systematic absence violations are listed under the '+++' column. The number of non-absence violations (weak reflections) are listed under '---'. The last column is a likelihood based score for the particular space group. Note that enantiomorphic spacegroups will have equal scores. Also, if absences were removed while processing the data, they will be regarded as missing information, rather then as enforcing that absence in the space group choices. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | space group | # absent | <Z>_absent | <Z/sigZ>_absent | +++ | --- | score | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P 2 2 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 4 | 0.000e+00 | | P 2 2 21 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 4 | 0.000e+00 | | P 2 21 2 | 5 | 3.07 | 16.77 | 5 | 4 | 1.038e+01 | | P 2 21 21 | 5 | 3.07 | 16.77 | 5 | 4 | 1.038e+01 | | P 21 2 2 | 5 | 1.89 | 15.21 | 5 | 4 | 1.250e+01 | | P 21 2 21 | 5 | 1.89 | 15.21 | 5 | 4 | 1.250e+01 | | P 21 21 2 | 10 | 2.48 | 15.99 | 10 | 4 | 2.288e+01 | | P 21 21 21 | 10 | 2.48 | 15.99 | 10 | 4 | 2.288e+01 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------List of individual systematic absences---------- Note: this analysis uses the original input data rather than the filtered data used for twinning detection; therefore, the results shown here may include more reflections than shown above. P 2 2 2: no systematic absences possible P 2 2 21 (input space group): no absences found P 21 2 2 ( 5, 0, 0): i/sigi = 21.0 ( 7, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.8 ( 9, 0, 0): i/sigi = 14.3 ( 11, 0, 0): i/sigi = 15.2 ( 13, 0, 0): i/sigi = 18.3 ( 15, 0, 0): i/sigi = 12.7 ( 17, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.1 P 2 21 2 ( 0, 3, 0): i/sigi = 21.3 ( 0, 5, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 7, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 9, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 11, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 13, 0): i/sigi = 14.5 ( 0, 17, 0): i/sigi = 10.4 ( 0, 21, 0): i/sigi = 14.4 ( 0, 23, 0): i/sigi = 0.8 ( 0, 25, 0): i/sigi = 2.3 ( 0, 27, 0): i/sigi = 2.0 P 21 21 2 ( 0, 3, 0): i/sigi = 21.3 ( 0, 5, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 7, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 9, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 11, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 13, 0): i/sigi = 14.5 ( 0, 17, 0): i/sigi = 10.4 ( 0, 21, 0): i/sigi = 14.4 ( 0, 23, 0): i/sigi = 0.8 ( 0, 25, 0): i/sigi = 2.3 ( 0, 27, 0): i/sigi = 2.0 ( 5, 0, 0): i/sigi = 21.0 ( 7, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.8 ( 9, 0, 0): i/sigi = 14.3 ( 11, 0, 0): i/sigi = 15.2 ( 13, 0, 0): i/sigi = 18.3 ( 15, 0, 0): i/sigi = 12.7 ( 17, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.1 P 2 21 21 ( 0, 3, 0): i/sigi = 21.3 ( 0, 5, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 7, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 9, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 11, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 13, 0): i/sigi = 14.5 ( 0, 17, 0): i/sigi = 10.4 ( 0, 21, 0): i/sigi = 14.4 ( 0, 23, 0): i/sigi = 0.8 ( 0, 25, 0): i/sigi = 2.3 ( 0, 27, 0): i/sigi = 2.0 P 21 2 21 ( 5, 0, 0): i/sigi = 21.0 ( 7, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.8 ( 9, 0, 0): i/sigi = 14.3 ( 11, 0, 0): i/sigi = 15.2 ( 13, 0, 0): i/sigi = 18.3 ( 15, 0, 0): i/sigi = 12.7 ( 17, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.1 P 21 21 21 ( 0, 3, 0): i/sigi = 21.3 ( 0, 5, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 7, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 9, 0): i/sigi = 21.4 ( 0, 11, 0): i/sigi = 20.7 ( 0, 13, 0): i/sigi = 14.5 ( 0, 17, 0): i/sigi = 10.4 ( 0, 21, 0): i/sigi = 14.4 ( 0, 23, 0): i/sigi = 0.8 ( 0, 25, 0): i/sigi = 2.3 ( 0, 27, 0): i/sigi = 2.0 ( 5, 0, 0): i/sigi = 21.0 ( 7, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.8 ( 9, 0, 0): i/sigi = 14.3 ( 11, 0, 0): i/sigi = 15.2 ( 13, 0, 0): i/sigi = 18.3 ( 15, 0, 0): i/sigi = 12.7 ( 17, 0, 0): i/sigi = 4.1 Thanks ahead

2 1

Change of PHIL definitions in phenix.find_alt_orig_sym_mate
by R.D. Oeffner 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

I have changed the PHIL definitions in this program from AltOrigSymMates.moving_pdb to AltOrigSymMates.moving.pdb and from AltOrigSymMates.fixed_pdb to AltOrigSymMates.fixed.pdb. I'm not sure if it is being used elsewhere but let me know if you encounter an error due to this. Regards, Rob

1 1

anomalous completeness from Phenix Xtriage result
by Alex Lee 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

Dear All, After check my data with Phenix Xtriage, I got a warning of "the anomalous completeness is 42.34%". I do not know if I need to pay attention to this? I did not do experimental phasing and I did not add heavy metal to my crystal nor there is selenium on my protein. I even don't know why I still get the anomalous signal. But from the detailed summary below I guess in my case it's not a problem? ----------Summary---------- File name: P2_rejoutput.sca Data labels: I(+),SIGI(+),I(-),SIGI(-) Space group: P 1 2 1 Unit cell: 72.255, 46.617, 134.086, 90, 90.052, 90 Data type: xray.intensity Resolution: 49.1682 - 2.5855 Anomalous: True Number of reflections (non-anomalous): 27184 Completeness (non-anomalous): 95.42% Number of reflections (all): 38285 Completeness (all): 69.98% Anomalous completeness: 42.34% Completeness (non-anomalous) is the completeness of the data after merging Friedel pairs. Completeness (all) is the completeness of the data before merging Friedel pairs. Completeness (anomalous) is the completeness of the anomalous data. The anomalous completeness is calcluated by dividing the number of measured acentric, Bijvoet mates by the total possible number of acentric indices. Completeness (non-anomalous) should be used to determine if there is sufficient data for non-anomalous purposes (refinement, model-building). A value greater than 90% is generally desired, while a value less than 75% is considered poor. Values in between will provide less than optimal results. Completeness (anomalous) should be used to determine if there is sufficient data for anomalous purposes (phasing, finding anomalous atoms, refinement of anomalous occupancies or scattering factors). A value greater than 80% is generally desired, while a value less than 50% is considered poor. Values in between will provide less than optimal results. Thanks.

2 1

Specify a chain in Phenix Autobuild
by Xiao Lei 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

Hi Phenixbb members, I am using Phenix autobuild for a protein-DNA complex. There are three chains for protein (F, H, I) and two chains for DNA (A and B). I know Autobuild can only build one chain at a time and I'm only going to build chain F. In the autobuild GUI, I can find an option of Chain type "Auto", "protein" , "DNA" and "RNA". Is there a place in the GUI which I can specify only building protein chain "F"? Thanks ahead.

2 1

ligand modification / combination in REEL
by andre.stiel 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

Hi, I have a phosphatidyl inositol ligand without an existing CIF file only smiles. When I construct the ligand from the smiles ELBOW regards the sugar as just an aromatic ring. So I see three possibilities how to end up with a proper constraints file for my ligand (that is: tails like in the smiles but with a proper sugar (chair) conformation on top): 1. Can I edit the aromatic ring in REEL in a way to push it into the desired boat/chair conformation? I did not find a command to that end although he can clearly „see“ this conformation as I know from another ligand. 2. Can I chop the sugar part from the .CIF of another ligand and somehow fuse it to my tails? 3. There is a sugar editor in REEL (which however crashes at the moment for me (Version 1-10-2155)) can I use this to construct the desired sugar and somehow fuse it to the rest… basically like option 2? I have not found a very extensive documentation on how to play such tricks with REEL. Or would I have to rebuild a complete ligand with this SCALES? Other suggestion how to get my ligand are also welcome. Thanks André Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH) Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1 85764 Neuherberg www.helmholtz-muenchen.de Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. Guenther Wess, Dr. Alfons Enhsen, Renate Schlusen (komm.) Registergericht: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 6466 USt-IdNr: DE 129521671

2 1

N-acetylgalactosamine lacking amide planarity restraint
by Tristan Croll 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

Hi, I'm refining a structure that includes an O-linked N-acetylgalactosamine (NGA) residue, and from the way it's behaving the N-acetyl amide clearly has no restraints on its planarity. It's currently twisted almost 45 degrees from planar despite having no close contacts. Cheers, Tristan

2 2

how not to refine residue X?
by Murpholino Peligro 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

Hi. How to tell phenix.refine to leave residue X during refinement? I already tried in the .eff >>> strategy = *individual_sites *individual_sites_real_space rigid_body \ *individual_adp group_adp tls *occupancies group_anomalous sites { individual = not (chain A and resid 97) <<< But resid 97 is being moved to another position. I am using phenix.refine_1.10.1-2155 Thanks

2 2