- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

Van der waals interaction in phenix
by subhash bihani 16 Jul '12

16 Jul '12

Hi all, In one of my structure I have to put some water molecule in alternate confimation with amino acid residues and in another case with ligand. How do I do it in Phenix. Regards -- Subhash Bihani Scientific Officer Solid State Physics Division Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Trombay, Mumbai-85 Ph. 25594688 (o) alternate email: subhashbihani(a)yahoo.co.in

3 2

default treatment of Intensities and structure factors in phenix.refine
by Yarrow Madrona 16 Jul '12

16 Jul '12

Hi, I recently noticed from reviewing the phenix.refine log file that phenix is scaling the input intensities using the French-Wilson Method. However, I have already run Truncate in CCP4 and have structure factors in my MTZ. So it appears that Phenix.refine ignores structure factors and uses intensities regardless. The reason I am concerned is that Nat recently mentioned that the default for the sigma I cutoff is zero. However, The default in Truncate I thought was -3. If I understand correctly, the treatment in truncate allows weak reflections to be scaled and converted to structure factors. It seems that setting the I sigma cutoff to zero would cause you to loose some useable data. Currently, the sigma_fobs_rejection_criterion and sigma_ibos_rejection_criterion = None. This is the default I guess which would be 0. So my questions are: 1. Will setting: sigma_iobs_rejection_criterion = -3 result in Phenix using a sigma I cutoff of -3? 2. How do I tell phenix to use the structure factors created by Truncate? Thanks for your help. I apologize if I have some misconceptions as I am still relatively new to crystallography. -Yarrow -- Yarrow Madrona Graduate Student Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Dept. University of California, Irvine Natural Sciences I, Rm 2403 Irvine, CA 92697

5 7

average temperature factor
by Ursula Schulze-Gahmen 15 Jul '12

15 Jul '12

Is there an easy way to calculate average temperature factors in phenix or another program after ADP + TLS refinement in phenix? Ursula -- Ursula Schulze-Gahmen, Ph.D. Assistant Researcher UC Berkeley, QB3 356 Stanley Hall #3220 Berkeley, CA 94720-3220

6 8

output of labelit.check_pdb_symmetry
by "Weiergräber, Oliver H." 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello, I am using labelit.check_pdb_symmetry in order to evaluate a crystal structure with sg P21 (2 copies/asu) and all angles indistinguishable from 90 degs for potential higher (i.e. orthorhombic) symmetry. Comparison of refinement statistics clearly indicates that the most likely scenario is perfect pseudomerohedral twinning of a true P21 crystal (Rfree=0.21). Accordingly, labelit.check_pdb_symmetry reports a striking discrepancy between Rsymop(Iobs) and Rsymop(Icalc): 8 % vs 31 %, i.e. there is an additional (apparent) 2-fold symmetry in the data which cannot be explained by the model. In an attempt to force a solution for comparison and visualization purposes, I have increased the r_symop_tol parameter to 0.35; the program starts to evaluate possible space groups with fTF, yielding scores (these are correlation coefficients, right?) way above 90 %. Still, in the end it reports there are no higher symmetry solutions. Why is this? Does the program check for the contrast between the best solution and the others? Changing peak_cutoff to a "discriminative" value did not help... Best regards, Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kennen Sie schon unseren neuen Film? http://www.fz-juelich.de/film Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app

6 9

Re: [phenixbb] phenixbb Digest, Vol 80, Issue 6
by Yuri 13 Jul '12

13 Jul '12

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:13:15 -0700, phenixbb-request(a)phenix-online.org wrote: > Send phenixbb mailing list submissions to > phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > phenixbb-request(a)phenix-online.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > phenixbb-owner(a)phenix-online.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of phenixbb digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: segmented rigid body refinement (Nathaniel Echols) > 2. Re: segmented rigid body refinement (Pavel Afonine) > 3. Re: average temperature factor (David Cobessi) > 4. Re: segmented rigid body refinement (Gino Cingolani) > 5. Re: average temperature factor (Pavel Afonine) > 6. Re: output of labelit.check_pdb_symmetry (Nicholas Sauter) > 7. Re: average temperature factor (Nathaniel Echols) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:40:41 -0700 > From: Nathaniel Echols <nechols(a)lbl.gov> > To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > Subject: Re: [phenixbb] segmented rigid body refinement > Message-ID: > <CALeAa1NE=F6Quwvsm=ijGf_j-QMxwN1KqStpwiE6NJ7bmyKnsw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Gino Cingolani < > Gino.Cingolani(a)jefferson.edu> wrote: > >> The latter....something more analytical to split individual chains >> into >> smaller groups >> (e.g. like to define tls groups). >> > > Airlie McCoy just added some functionality to do this in Phaser using > normal mode analysis. It is still somewhat experimental and in flux > (i.e. > the program name isn't even finalized), but I will email you off-list > with > details. > > -Nat >

1 0

segmented rigid body refinement
by Gino Cingolani 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Hi all, I'm refining a large oligomeric structure at low res (~6A). I'd like to define groups to use for 'segmented rigid body refinement'. Is there any rational way to define 'segments'? My macromolecule is already an oligomer on its own, so, intuitively, each protomer is a segment. Thanks, Gino ****************************************************************************** Gino Cingolani, Ph.D. Associate Professor Thomas Jefferson University Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 233 South 10th Street - Room 826 Philadelphia PA 19107 Office (215) 503 4573 Lab (215) 503 4595 Fax (215) 923 2117 E-mail: gino.cingolani(a)jefferson.edu Website: http://www.cingolanilab.org ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) ________________________________________ From: phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org [phenixbb-bounces(a)phenix-online.org] on behalf of Nathaniel Echols [nechols(a)lbl.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:44 AM To: PHENIX user mailing list Subject: Re: [phenixbb] RFZ is higher than TFZ On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:38 AM, 周文昌 <wenchangyu2006(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I had one problem using phaser-MR to solve my structure. Phaser-MR gives me > one solution with TFZ=15.4 and LLG=165 which seems to be promising but > phenix.refine does not give me a low R values (0.4884/0.5424). I went back > and checked the solution from phaser-MR, I found RFZ=18.8, higher than TFZ. > Does anyone think this is a problem to solve my structure? > > The space group is C121, I believe there are 4 copies of my search model in > ASU. What is the resolution, and what is the sequence identity of the search model? I don't know whether the high RFZ means anything, but the first thing I would check is whether the packing of the MR solution makes sense; Phaser will do a good job preventing molecules from overlapping (unless you changed it to use much less conservative criteria), but it won't guarantee that the molecules pack into a nice continuous lattice. If there are big gaps, it may not be a real solution. I think we need to add an entire FAQ page for high R-factors. However, there are an increasing number of tools and/or tricks in Phenix to deal with problems like this - in approximate order of runtime: - run phenix.refine for more cycles - at least 20. See this paper for an example of why this can be important: http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2012/07/00/kw5044/index.html - use phenix.morph_model (refer to previously mentioned paper) - use phenix.den_refine (or DEN in CNS) - use MR-Rosetta Also, if you're willing to share your data with us, we're collecting difficult-to-refine structures for benchmarking new methods. (It will of course be kept confidential.) -Nat _______________________________________________ phenixbb mailing list phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

3 5

v1.8 bug ? memory allocation crash in map calculation (phenix.refine, phenix.maps)
by Phil Jeffrey 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

This is in F432 in a=b=c=340A at 2.85A resolution. Mac OSX 10.5.8, the machine has 8Gb memory of which something like 6Gb is hanging around begging to be used. 1,327,104,000 if that's in bytes doesn't seem all that excessive. On the other hand, 340*340*340= 39,419,600 so it's perhaps a little greedy. Limits set by shell: phil% limit cputime unlimited filesize unlimited datasize unlimited stacksize 65532 kbytes coredumpsize 0 kbytes memoryuse unlimited descriptors 256 memorylocked unlimited maxproc 266 phenix.refine does the same thing right at the end, which is kind of a shame since it takes quite a long time to run. phenix.maps does the same thing even if I ask it just to generate F,phase in MTZ format. [snip] Compute maps. Python(632) malloc: *** mmap(size=1327104000) failed (error code=12) *** error: can't allocate region *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug show_stack(1): /usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/cctbx/miller/__init__.py(3067) double_step_filtration show_stack(2): /usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/maps/__init__.py(416) map_coefficients_from_fmodel show_stack(3): /usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/cctbx_project/mmtbx/maps/__init__.py(543) __init__ show_stack(4): /usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/build/mac-intel-osx/../../cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/maps.py(325) run show_stack(5): /usr/local/phenix-1.8-1069/build/mac-intel-osx/../../cctbx_project/mmtbx/command_line/maps.py(402) <module> Bus error (Python call stack above) This crash may be due to a problem in any imported Python module, including modules which are not part of the cctbx project. To disable the traps leading to this message, define these environment variables (e.g. assign the value 1): BOOST_ADAPTBX_FPE_DEFAULT BOOST_ADAPTBX_SIGNALS_DEFAULT This will NOT solve the problem, just mask it, but may allow you to proceed in case it is not critical.

3 8

RFZ is higher than TFZ
by 周文昌 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Dear all, I had one problem using phaser-MR to solve my structure. Phaser-MR gives me one solution with TFZ=15.4 and LLG=165 which seems to be promising but phenix.refine does not give me a low R values (0.4884/0.5424). I went back and checked the solution from phaser-MR, I found RFZ=18.8, higher than TFZ. Does anyone think this is a problem to solve my structure? The space group is C121, I believe there are 4 copies of my search model in ASU. thanks, Wenchang

2 1

sigma_iobs_rejection_criterion
by Yarrow Madrona 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hello, I am refining a structure using a.eff file that I generated in Phenix version 1.7 GUI and later ran in the command line. When I try to run the same refinement in Phenix V.1.8 I get the following error: For French and Wilson scaling, sigma_iobs_rejection_criterion must be set between -4.0 and -1.0 I see that it was set to zero previously. My questions are: 1. Is this the same observed criterion that is reported in the RCSB Deposition? 2. To be honest I don't understand what this is. Is it a limit for the error in Iobs, below which the reflection will be discarded? 3. What is a reasonable setting for this input and how does it change the refinement? Thank you (I appreciate your help as I know these may be very basic questions). -Yarrow -- Yarrow Madrona Graduate Student Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Dept. University of California, Irvine Natural Sciences I, Rm 2403 Irvine, CA 92697

3 4

Phenix autosol error 2L MAD
by Graeme Winter 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hi Folks, 2L MAD data set where SHELXC/D/E works fine I (repeatedly) get this error, through GUI or scripts... resolution: 1.7 recommended_resolution: 1.9 datafile_for_hyss: /Users/graeme/projects/test/12287_build/AutoSol_run_10_/TEMP0/ANISO_subset_PHX_I(+)_WAVE1.sca_ano_1.sca aniso_corrected: True aniso_b_min: 13.2 aniso_range_of_b: 6.8 RUNNING HYSS on ANISO_subset_PHX_I(+)_WAVE1.sca_ano_1.sca from PDS as miller arrays *************ERROR ENDING ******************* ******************************************************************************** Failed to carry out AutoSol_hyss: HYSS failed...Probably no iso or ano differences... ******************************************************************************** *************ERROR ENDING ******************* The data set works fine with a third (radiation damaged) data set. There is also a massive anomalous signal in the data (2L) as it stands. here's the PHIL: autosol { seq_file = 12287.seq sites = 8 atom_type = Se crystal_info { unit_cell = 51.59 51.59 157.69 90 90 90 space_group = "P 43 21 2" solvent_fraction = 0.52 chain_type = PROTEIN resolution = 0 change_sg = True } wavelength { data = subset.mtz lambda = 0.97966 f_prime = -9.9 f_double_prime = 3.9 labels = 'I(+)_WAVE1 SIGI(+)_WAVE1 I(-)_WAVE1 SIGI(-)_WAVE1' } wavelength { data = subset.mtz lambda = 1.00000 f_prime = -3.3 f_double_prime = 0.5 labels = 'I(+)_WAVE2 SIGI(+)_WAVE2 I(-)_WAVE2 SIGI(-)_WAVE2' } } Have I done something wrong? Thanks, Graeme

2 1