- phenixbb - phenix-online.org

error TLS refinement
by Marjolein Thunnissen 01 Sep '09

01 Sep '09

I'm trying to finish refining a structure that has been almost refined completely about a year ago with an older version of Phenix.refine. When I start TLS refinement I get the following error message: RuntimeError : mean_weighted() argument is an empty array Traceback: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/phenix-1.4-3/phenix/wxGUI2/Refine.py", line 259, in OnExcept raise event.data RuntimeError: mean_weighted() argument is an empty array I do not get this error when refining without TLS, only when I switch it on. The program advises me to post the error here so... Thanks Marjolein ________________________________________________________________________ Marjolein Thunnissen Phone +46-(0)46-22 24584 Associate Professor Fax +46-(0)46-22 24692 Dept of Molecular Biophysics, Lund University http://www.mbfys.lu.se PO-Box 124 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Scientific coordinator I911 (Max-lab): MAD and fixed-wavelength stations for macromolecular crystallography ________________________________________________________________________

2 1

Specifying the number of processors to run phenix with
by Sam Stampfer 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hi- anyone know how to specify the number of processors to run phenix under in linux? Or how to tell what the default is? I'm running linux (fedora) with 4 processors and can't tell whether phenix is using all of them or not. I do the refinement with .csh files and tried doing "myfile.csh --nproc=4". The file ran but no faster- I can't tell if it is using 4 by default or if that's the incorrect command to specify the use of 4 processors. Thanks for your help! -Sam

3 3

Best first map for RESOLVE after MR
by Peter Grey 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hello all, I try to solve the structure of a big complex at rather low resolution. I have a molecular replacement solution with a partial model from Phaser. I would like to use RESOLVE for density modification. I ask for your advice regarding the first map that should be the input into RESOLVE. Should it be the 2mFo-DFc map directly from Phaser or would it be better to do rigid body refinement in phenix.refine and use the bulk solvent corrected 2mFo-DFc map ? Many thanks in advance for your suggestions, Peter.

3 5

high resolution bin statistics
by Sebastiano Pasqualato 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hi there, i just wanted to know how is determined the number of bins for which the statistics of refinement are given in the header of the pdb refined with phenix.refine, and if there's a way to have more than the number of bins that is default output. For example, what if I'd like to have statistics for the 2.6-2.5 bin, here: REMARK 3 FIT TO DATA USED IN REFINEMENT (IN BINS). REMARK 3 BIN RESOLUTION RANGE COMPL. NWORK NFREE RWORK RFREE REMARK 3 1 32.4159 - 3.9625 0.99 2545 131 0.1921 0.2232 REMARK 3 2 3.9625 - 3.1460 1.00 2447 116 0.1650 0.2289 REMARK 3 3 3.1460 - 2.7486 1.00 2433 121 0.1917 0.2682 REMARK 3 4 2.7486 - 2.4974 1.00 2405 130 0.2244 0.2890 thanks a lot in advance, ciao s -- Sebastiano Pasqualato, PhD IFOM-IEO Campus Dipartimento di Oncologia Sperimentale Istituto Europeo di Oncologia via Adamello, 16 20139 - Milano Italy tel +39 02 9437 5094

2 2

question about kick map
by crystallogrphy 29 Aug '09

29 Aug '09

Hi, I am trying to use kick map to remove model bias with the following script phenix.refine MR.1_refine_data.mtz MR.1_refine_001_refine_001.pdb output.prefix=refine-090828a simulated_annealing=True simulated_annealing.start_temperature=8000 strategy=individual_sites refine.params However, the program says: Sorry: Unknown file format: refine.params I do not understand why the format of refine.params cannot be read, which has the following contents. Does anyone know why? refinement { electron_density_maps { map { mtz_label_amplitudes = 2FOFCWT mtz_label_phases = PH2FOFCWT likelihood_weighted = True obs_factor = 2 calc_factor = 1 kicked= True fill_missing_f_obs_with_weighted_f_model=True } map { mtz_label_amplitudes = FOFCWT mtz_label_phases = PHFOFCWT likelihood_weighted = True obs_factor = 1 calc_factor = 1 kicked= True fill_missing_f_obs_with_weighted_f_model=True } }

3 2

reflection file utility and use of modified phases in refinement
by Engin Ozkan 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Hi everybody, I had some trouble with the reflection file utility today. I've been trying to import Rfree-flag column from one of the mtz's to my combined mtz, and it never does. The R-free flag is always left out of the output even when I have it selected. Have you guys seen this (I'm using 147)? Another question I have is about the output of phenix.autobuild. Phenix.autobuild tells me to use modified phase probabilities (HLAM, etc.) in refinement. I am assuming this is density-modified phases. But I've always thought that this would be bad practice (possibly because of unrealistically high FOMs and possible flattening of loops, etc, but maybe resolve does a better job than, say DM). Any ideas on that one? Thanks, Engin -- Engin Özkan Post-doctoral Scholar Dept of Molecular and Cellular Physiology Howard Hughes Medical Institute Stanford University School of Medicine ph: (650)-498-7111

3 5

Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution
by Gino Cingolani 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Hi Phenix community, I'm tracing a 3.3A averaged electron density map of a large macromolecular complex (~18,500 residues in the asymmetric unit). The map has great continuity and appears quite 'tubular'. While it is easy to interpret in a-helical regions, b-strands are more challenging, as I can't see the 'bump' corresponding to the carbonyl. If I built b-strands into the tubular density, refinement usually 'undoes' them and turns them into pseudo-loops/turns. On the positive side, a related molecule (~70% identical to mine) was solved to 1.9A resolution. So my question is, is there a way in Phenix to use a 'reference model' during refinement to force a given stretch of polypeptide chain to 'stay' b-stranded during refinement? Thanks in advance for the feedback, 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 ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120)

6 7

Re: [phenixbb] Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution
by Gino Cingolani 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Sean, thanks to you and to whoever else responded to my email. Yes, I'd like to get your script. Thanks in advance! 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 ****************************************************************************** "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:35:08 +0100 >From: Wai-Ching Hon <hon(a)mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> >Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Tracing and refining b-strands at 3.3A resolution >To: PHENIX user mailing list <phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org> > >Dear Sean, > >That sounds wonderful. Can I have your scripts too? > >many thanks > >waiching. > >Sean Johnson wrote: >> Gino, >> >> My lab recently refined a 3.4 A structure and dealt with similar >> problems. We found that using secondary structure restraints was the >> only effective way to maintain reasonable geometry during refinement. It >> is kind of a daunting task to input all of the definitions by hand, so >> we wrote a couple python scripts that are integrated with PyMol to write >> the appropriate restraint definition files. All you have to do is click >> on the atoms that you want restrained. You are welcome to the scripts if >> you like. Feel free to contact me if you are interested. >> >> Sean Johnson >> >> >> Gino Cingolani wrote: >> >>> Hi Phenix community, >>> >>> I'm tracing a 3.3A averaged electron density map of >>> a large macromolecular complex (~18,500 residues in the asymmetric unit). The map has great continuity and appears quite 'tubular'. While it is easy to interpret in a-helical regions, b-strands are more challenging, as I can't see the 'bump' corresponding to the carbonyl. If I built b-strands into the tubular density, refinement usually 'undoes' them and turns them into pseudo-loops/turns. On the positive side, a related molecule (~70% identical to mine) was solved to 1.9A resolution. So my question is, is there a way in Phenix to use a 'reference model' during refinement to force a given stretch of polypeptide chain to 'stay' b-stranded during refinement? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for the feedback, >>> >>> 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 >>> ****************************************************************************** >>> "Nati non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" >>> ("You were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge") >>> Dante, The Divine Comedy (Inferno, XXVI, vv. 119-120) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> phenixbb mailing list >>> phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >>> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb >>> >>> >> >> >________________ >hon.vcf (1k bytes) >________________ >_______________________________________________ >phenixbb mailing list >phenixbb(a)phenix-online.org >http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

1 0

P43212 spacegroup change to C2221?
by Leigh Allen 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Hello Phenix users. I recently solved the structure of my enzyme using SAD to a resolution of 1.9A. The R values were 0.19/0.25 and the space group was P43212 with a unit cell ~80, 80, 220. I then starting collecting datasets cocrystallized with ATP analogs and noticed that a lot of my datasets have a different unit cell when scaled in P43212. It comes out to be ~60, 60, 220 and I can NOT get a solution in Phaser with this data. If I scale it in C2221, then the unit cell is the same (80, 80, 220), but upon refinement, the R factors don't go much below 0.26/0.32. Has anyone ever seen something like this happen? I'm unsure if I should feel like the solution is C2221 since there are space groups of higher symmetry with similar residuals that seem plausible in indexing just the smaller unit cell. Should I keep trying to get a solution out of the data that leads to different unit cell parameters, but has higher symmetry? Xtriage seems to find twinning, but I think it's from NCS since my ASU contains a homodimer. I could also be wrong about this... Thanks in advance for any advice! ******* Leigh Allen Ph.D Candidate McCafferty Lab Duke University Department of Chemistry

9 13

Questions about molecular replacement.
by Yuan Cheng 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hi, I am working on solving a protein structure using phenix.automr. There is likely four monomers in a ASU based on phenix.xtriage.I am using a search model with 30% identity with my protein. After finding three monomers in a ASU, the LLG is 1740 and R factor is 56%. After finding the fourth monomer, the LLG increased to 2080,but the R factor also increased to 58%. I have several question here: 1) how much should LLG and R factor be if the model from molecular replacement is correct? I guess the answer might not be a exact number. But I am still wondering what should be the correct range. 2) Whether R factor and LLG should always be positively correlated? I used phenix.refine to refine the model with 3 monomers and the model with 4 monomers in a ASU. The Rwork and Rfree are similar for these two models,47% and 53% respectively. I think that one more monomer should either improve or ruin the model.I don't quite understand why one extra monomer doesn't matter too much here. In addition, do you think it is worthy to keep doing model building and refinement in consideration such high R factors. All you suggestions and opinions will be greatly appreciated! Yuan

2 1