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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  June 2011

CCP4BB June 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

refmac problem with anisotropic Us

From:

Matthew Franklin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Matthew Franklin <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:33:10 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

Hi all -

I seem to be encountering a problem with Refmac refinement of a
structure containing anisotropic B factors. I have been using TLS
refinement and individual anisotropic B refinement, which may not be
correct technique, but it does lower my R and Rfree versus aniso B
refinement alone (see below). I am asking Refmac to output the TLS
contribution to the ANISOU lines, presumably in addition to the aniso B
refinement contribution. I also reset the temperature factors to 20 at
the beginning of each refinement round. The refinement resolution is 75
to 1.8 A, and the space group is C2, if it matters.

The problem comes when I take the output from such a run, model build in
Coot, and feed it back in for the next round of refinement. As you can
see from the summary table below (trimmed for brevity), the refinement
blows up rather badly, making the R factors and the geometry
substantially worse.

     Ncyc Rfact Rfree FOM -LL -LLfree rmsBOND zBOND
rmsANGL zANGL rmsCHIRAL $$
$$
        0 0.3376 0.3576 0.556 115671. 6318.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
        5 0.2676 0.2921 0.680 109411. 6009.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
        9 0.2529 0.2785 0.703 108589. 5978.4 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
       10 0.2516 0.2787 0.710 108459. 5975.2 0.0170
0.829 1.534 0.731 0.097
       15 0.2503 0.2876 0.711 108711. 6042.1 0.0241
0.998 1.729 0.833 0.111
       20 0.2739 0.3152 0.672 110787. 6147.3 0.0268
1.103 1.837 0.885 0.119
       25 0.2949 0.3388 0.638 112219. 6215.4 0.0255
1.049 1.808 0.866 0.116
       30 0.3114 0.3575 0.609 113094. 6257.7 0.0243
1.006 1.794 0.854 0.114

This refinement also throws out an enormous number of warnings about
adjacent atoms' B factors being substantially different. Most of these
warnings appear to involve the autobuilt riding hydrogens and their
adjacent heavy atoms.

If I use pdbcur to strip out the ANISOU lines, but otherwise keep the
file and refinement protocol unchanged, it goes along nicely:

     Ncyc Rfact Rfree FOM -LL -LLfree rmsBOND zBOND
rmsANGL zANGL rmsCHIRAL $$
$$
        0 0.2912 0.3233 0.667 112220. 6151.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
        5 0.2476 0.2787 0.751 107853. 5934.7 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
        9 0.2468 0.2764 0.754 107501. 5915.6 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
       10 0.2469 0.2763 0.754 107480. 5914.2 0.0170
0.829 1.534 0.731 0.097
       15 0.1933 0.2387 0.810 101501. 5723.3 0.0238
0.994 1.791 0.868 0.118
       20 0.1849 0.2327 0.817 100446. 5694.7 0.0239
0.992 1.826 0.884 0.120
       25 0.1818 0.2316 0.821 100034. 5681.0 0.0223
0.925 1.775 0.855 0.114
       30 0.1804 0.2296 0.824 99820. 5669.4 0.0221
0.913 1.763 0.848 0.113

(Without TLS refinement, the final R and Rfree would be 0.1896 and 0.2503.)

So, what's happening here? Does Refmac not like ANISOU lines in the
input PDB file? I don't usually work with structures at a resolution
high enough to warrant aniso B refinement, so I haven't encountered this
before.

Thanks for any advice,

Matt


--
Matthew Franklin, Ph. D.
Senior Research Scientist
New York Structural Biology Center
89 Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10027
(646) 275-7165

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
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