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  May 2010

CCP4BB May 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

ccp4 unsubscribe

From:

Shyam Bhaskaran <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Shyam Bhaskaran <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 16 May 2010 20:04:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CCP4BB automatic digest system [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CCP4BB Digest - 15 May 2010 to 16 May 2010 (#2010-132)

There are 2 messages totaling 291 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Translational pseudosymmetry? (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 15 May 2010 23:53:43 -0400
From:    Owen Pornillos <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Translational pseudosymmetry?

Dear ccp4bb –

I have questions with regards to crystal disorder that gives rise to
translational pseudosymmetry.

We have a rotationally hexameric protein that crystallized in P3, with
one hexamer in the asu.  The local 6-fold axis of the hexamer is non-
crystallographic, and is essentially parallel to the crystallographic
3-fold, which gave rise to translational pseudosymmetry.  Intensities
for the (h,h+/-3n,l) reflections were on average about 8 times
stronger than the weak reflections, and the native patterson gave an
off-origin peak about 70-80% of origin (depending on the crystal) at
fractional coordinates (2/3,1/3,0).  We are hypothesizing that the
break in local 6-fold symmetry is caused by small rigid-body
displacements of each subunit (as opposed to conformational changes in
the protein), and we are trying to estimate the magnitude of the
displacements in the crystal.

To do this, a perfectly symmetric hexamer with the local 6-fold axis
parallel to the crystallographic 3-fold was generated, and then shifts
were introduced to the atomic coordinates.  The direction of the shift
was chosen randomly for each atom, and a single magnitude applied to
all atoms, which was then changed incrementally.  Structure factors
were calculated from these models, and their pattersons were
examined.  The magnitude of the off-origin peak could be reproduced
with an atomic shift of say, 1 Å.  Because all of these calculations
were made with synthetic structure factors, this is not necessarily a
reliable estimate.  The questions are, how far off are we, and in what
direction (i.e., are these shifts underestimates or overestimates)?
Is there a way to obtain a reliable estimate?

Thanks in advance,

Owen

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 16 May 2010 14:35:35 -0400
From:    Jürgen Bosch <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Translational pseudosymmetry?

Hi Owen,

you should also make the following plot with your data:
y-axis relative intensity of off-origin peak versus x-axis resolution cutoff used for calculation (30 Å - 4 Å in 2 Å steps).

You can have multiple cases of shifts and I would start with a perfect hexamer first, take some random monomer and apply a perfect sixfold, move it along the axis where it should be in your crystal lattice (things get more complicated if you have a top/down hexamer, so keep it simple). Now if you shift your hexamer to 2/3,1/3,0 your plot should yield a straight line and be independent of resolution. Now start rotating the second hexamer relative to the first clockwise with your sixfold, I would use increments of 3 degrees, which will result in 19 models, then recalculate the off-origin peak heights and see if they match up with your data. I should note  here, if your real data does not show a strong drop in peak height of the off-origin peak, then you most likely don't have a slight rotational translation in your second hexamer.

One other important thing you should look at is the relative orientation of your sixfold axis, is it truly perfectly aligned with one of the cell axis ? If not fix this in your model, otherwise your calculations will be of academic nature. For this particular case the use of GLRF is more helpful than MOLREP (sorry Garib, but maybe Garib can come up with a solution to zoom into certain peaks like you can do in GLRF).

When the tilt is fixed you should be able to figure out the rotational translation in your second hexamer.

Enjoy your puzzle,

Jürgen

P.S. P3 is certain ? Check with pointless or by human brain visual inspection (HBVI)

On May 15, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Owen Pornillos wrote:

> Dear ccp4bb –
>
> I have questions with regards to crystal disorder that gives rise to
> translational pseudosymmetry.
>
> We have a rotationally hexameric protein that crystallized in P3, with
> one hexamer in the asu.  The local 6-fold axis of the hexamer is non-
> crystallographic, and is essentially parallel to the crystallographic
> 3-fold, which gave rise to translational pseudosymmetry.  Intensities
> for the (h,h+/-3n,l) reflections were on average about 8 times
> stronger than the weak reflections, and the native patterson gave an
> off-origin peak about 70-80% of origin (depending on the crystal) at
> fractional coordinates (2/3,1/3,0).  We are hypothesizing that the
> break in local 6-fold symmetry is caused by small rigid-body
> displacements of each subunit (as opposed to conformational changes in
> the protein), and we are trying to estimate the magnitude of the
> displacements in the crystal.
>
> To do this, a perfectly symmetric hexamer with the local 6-fold axis
> parallel to the crystallographic 3-fold was generated, and then shifts
> were introduced to the atomic coordinates.  The direction of the shift
> was chosen randomly for each atom, and a single magnitude applied to
> all atoms, which was then changed incrementally.  Structure factors
> were calculated from these models, and their pattersons were
> examined.  The magnitude of the off-origin peak could be reproduced
> with an atomic shift of say, 1 Å.  Because all of these calculations
> were made with synthetic structure factors, this is not necessarily a
> reliable estimate.  The questions are, how far off are we, and in what
> direction (i.e., are these shifts underestimates or overestimates)?
> Is there a way to obtain a reliable estimate?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Owen

-
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Phone: +1-410-614-4742
Lab:      +1-410-614-4894
Fax:      +1-410-955-3655
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

------------------------------

End of CCP4BB Digest - 15 May 2010 to 16 May 2010 (#2010-132)
*************************************************************

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