JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  March 2008

CCP4BB March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: [phenixbb] Rant: B vs TLS, anisou, and PDB headers

From:

Dale Tronrud <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dale Tronrud <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:03:56 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (139 lines)

Dear Pavel and Frank

    It is my recollection that one of the primary goals in the
creation of the PDB format was the interchange of information
between software packages.  While it has certainly failed to
meet that (difficult) goal it has been useful at least in the
interchange between refinement programs, except in the cases
where refinement package authors have ignored the specs.

    That said, my reading of the specs for the PDB format is
that the column in question on the ATOM and HETATOM cards is
to contain the isotropic B factor of the atom.  There already
is redundancy in the format, because if there is an ANISOU
card defining the anisotropic B the isotropic component is
still listed on the ATOM card, not some residual quantity.

    That said, I DON'T CARE.  The most important thing is to
get some consistency here so we can pick up a PDB file and have
some idea what it contains.  I think everyone agrees on the
definitions of the elements of the TLS tensors, agrees on what
an anisotropic B is, and agrees on what an isotropic b is.
All this fight is over is how the numbers are arranged in a
simple text file.

    I have a collection of models I've pulled from the PDB
that I can't figure out, and I'm usually pretty good at this
stuff.  What will the person do who pulls these models twenty
years from now, when memories of the idiosyncrasies of today's
Phenix and Refmac have been forgotten?

    Please, could the authors of Phenix, Restrain, and Refmac
get together and agree on something?  I'm confident that the
wwPDB would go with whatever is agreed upon.

Dale Tronrud

Pavel Afonine wrote:
> Dear Frank,
> 
> it's not a secret that phenix.refine ALWAYS writes total B-factor into 
> ATOM records, there are strong reasons for this and this is clearly 
> stated in the manual.
> 
> Reasons to write total B-factor:
> 1) Easy analysis (Easy color by B-factor in graphics: no prior model 
> manipulations are necessary);
> 2) All you need to reproduce the R-factors are the ATOM records and 
> structure factor formula (and not ATOM records, PDB header with TLS 
> records that sometimes may be lost or manipulated and specific 
> converting programs to add TLS contribution). Also note, that not all 
> programs extract TLS information from PDB header to compute R-factors, 
> but ALL programs can read ATOM records.
> 3) Residual B-factors should obey Hirshfeld's rigid bond test (minus 
> deviations due to internal rotational degrees of freedom), so writing a 
> flat distribution of residual B into ATOM record is not really informative.
> 
> I'm sure I had in mind more, but this is what immediately comes to my mind.
> 
> phenix.refine writes the complete TLS information into PDB file header. 
> This is not the duplication but a way to compute the residual B-factors 
> for those who really wants to do this.
> 
> phenix.refine writes out a complete information set into PDB file header 
> under REMARK 3, ready-to-deposit into PDB. It is up to PDB how to treat 
> this information.
> 
> Doing refinement in phenix.refine it is not assumed that the user jumps 
> back and forth between refinement packages, so no special effort is made 
> to assure easy and straightforward transferability of refinement states 
> / results between refinement packages.
> 
> Reasons to write out residual B-factor:
> - I do not see any.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> All the best!
> Pavel.
> 
> ---
> Pavel V. Afonine, Ph.D.
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Berkeley CA, USA (http://www.lbl.gov/)
> CCI: Computational Crystallography Initiative (http://cci.lbl.gov/)
> PHENIX (http://phenix-online.org/)
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/29/2008 10:35 AM, Frank von Delft wrote:
>> Just spent an hour trawling docs, BBs (recent threads) and logs to 
>> figure out what the hell my B column is telling me (phenix vs refmac vs 
>> pdb).
>>
>> Oh dear, it's a disaster area, quite Heissenbergian... the most 
>> important number (uncertainty) is itself unknowable:
>>
>> * Phenix writes total ADP, Refmac writes residual ADP.
>> * Refmac writes a remark -- pdbdep strips it (!?!!?)
>> * Phenix writes no remark (I think?)
>> * Refmac writes different numbers to TLSOUT and pdb header (trace of S)
>> * Phenix duplicates the information in header (TLS) and ANISOU cards, 
>> the latter thereby making implicit what should be explicitly stored:  
>> how the ADPs are connected.
>> * Refmac, given phenix TLS-originating ANISOUs, flattens them into first 
>> number, but does not remove them
>> * PDB does not care
>>
>>
>> I'd like to appeal for an urgent consensus -- which should be unusually 
>> easy, since it involves only two programs and one repository.
>>
>> My strong recommendation, from first principles of usability:  residual 
>> B into ATOM, no TLS in ANISOU, and the rest into the header.  I know 
>> it's religious, but here's the reasoning: 
>> ==> the end-user looks *locally*, that's what ATOM and ANISOU are for. 
>> ==> global stuff (cell, symmetry, NCS, and yes, TLS) belongs in the 
>> header -- as do what's still missing, namely twinning, lattice 
>> modulations, scatter factors, and restraints.
>>
>> Yes, we crystallographers want easy B-factor stats (phenix's reason), 
>> but then lets fix the analysis programs to look at the header as well.  
>> And yes, packing and internal motions (TLS) are all very important for 
>> analysis - but that is why it should be explicit in the header, so that 
>> graphics tools have easy access to it.
>>
>> End rant (but not end hope :)
>> phx.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> phenixbb mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> phenixbb mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager