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  January 2016

CCP4BB January 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Spacegroups, screw axes and ordering

From:

George Sheldrick <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

George Sheldrick <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:18:43 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (640 lines)

I may have accidentally released the P1 'red herring' so I should make 
it clear that I would not recommend trying to solve a macromolecule in 
P1, one usually needs all the symmetry there is. Expanding to P1 is 
useful in small molecule crystallography because, for reasons that I do 
not fully understand but may involve getting not trapped in false 
minima, small molecule 'direct methods' of solving the phase problem 
tend to work better in P1. One then has the advantage that these P1 
phases provide a very reliable way to determine the true space group and 
origin shift. All further calculations are then performed in this space 
group of course.

It might be possible to use this idea when 'direct methods' are used to 
locate the heavy atoms in SAD or MAD phasing, but it would probably be 
better just to try all possible space groups and orientations since 
there are so few possibilities. For a primitive orthorhombic cell there 
are 8 possibilities for a protein but (if I have counted correctly) 111 
for a small molecule.

Trying all possible space groups (in the Laue group) and orientations 
would be a good approach for an automated multi-CPU phasing pipeline, 
then it would not need to worry about systematic absences, but it should 
still if necessary reorient the cell after the space group has been 
determined in this way to finish up with a conventional setting.

George


On 01/30/2016 04:23 AM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 06:42 PM, Quyen Hoang wrote:
>> Hmm...really?
>> Imagine a scenario where you built a structure consisting of a 
>> residue with a sidechain existing in two conformations (bu‎ilt as 
>> alternative conformations with 0.5 occupancy) and upon expanding to 
>> P1 you find each monomer having a full occupancy of each 
>> conformation. I have not seen one, but would not it be a possibility?
>>
> I think the reason this can't happen is that, if the higher symmetry 
> is in fact correct, the two molecules are in precisely the same 
> crystallographic environment. There is no way for one side chain to 
> know whether it is in monomer A or monomer B, because the 
> crystallographic symmetry is such that each has exactly the same 
> surrounding. However there may be cases where the crystallographic 
> symmetry is broken ever so slightly and the true symmetry is lower, 
> but the structure so nearly conforms to the higher symmetry that you 
> could never tell it from merging statistics. Then it might be useful 
> to refine in the lower symmetry and look for differences - but be very 
> careful not to be fooled. Consider the case of 1CHR and 2CHR.pdb.
>
>
>> I am not advocating for changing the way things are done, and I don't 
>> want it to change either. Just curious how people feel because I like 
>> to look at my models in P1 when possible (not just symmetry generated).
>>
>> Quyen
>>
>> Quyen
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>> *From: *Ethan A Merritt
>> *Sent: *Friday, January 29, 2016 5:36 PM
>> *To: *Quyen Hoang
>> *Cc: *[log in to unmask]
>> *Subject: *Re: [ccp4bb] Spacegroups, screw axes and ordering
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 29 January, 2016 16:46:35 Quyen Hoang wrote:
>>
>> > Let get back to science for a moment, assuming that there is enough 
>> data (as stated in my original post about this) would you not agree 
>> that the models build into a P1 space group would represent the 
>> content of the unit cell more accurately than a higher space group 
>> (albeit could be insignificant)?
>>
>> Two possibilities:
>>
>> 1) No, the models come out identical and therefore the accuracy is 
>> the same
>>
>> 2) No, the models come out differently, so you have done something 
>> wrong.
>>
>> If the true symmetry of the crystal is greater than P1 there is nothing
>>
>> to distinguish one crystallographic symmetry-related molecule from 
>> another,
>>
>> so you cannot gain anything by describing them as two distinct 
>> entities [*].
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>> [*] This is assuming we are dealing with non-centrosymmetric crystals.
>>
>> If there are D- and L- copies of a molecule present then yes they can
>>
>> be distinguished from each other by handedness. But you still do not
>>
>> gain anything by treating them separately in model-building or 
>> refinement.
>>
>> > After your refinement has converged, don’t you always expand to 
>> look at the packing and potential oligomeric states of your molecule? 
>> Let's say that you have a true tetramer, what would be lost if you 
>> report your structural model in P1 instead of P212121?
>>
>> > I mean, is there a theoretical or scientific reason against 
>> reporting P1 for a crystal system consisting of higher symmetry?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Cheers,
>>
>> > Quyen
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > On Jan 29, 2016, at 4:27 PM, CHAVAS Leonard 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > Sorry if I don't buy it. Just personal feeling. I don't see how 
>> someone capable of navigating through the coordinates, see meaningful 
>> interactions, highlight those and understand them, would not be able 
>> to press these buttons. While some programs indeed do not have these 
>> options (which makes me wonder about the usefulness of these programs 
>> by the way), most of those would. Let me join also Jacob's comment on 
>> the non usefulness of P1 in here, and send these non-experts either 
>> to PISA or to other experts more knowledgeable, say the people who 
>> solved these structures for instance.
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > Your point on the mtz file is interesting. We are now moving 
>> things toward some non-crystallographers in need to install quite a 
>> few programs, if not at least libraries, and put in these mtz files 
>> enough information to reproduce all the non-standard refinement 
>> procedures experts do apply for their structure refinement. Not to 
>> mention 5A structures for which auto build might be trickier to run 
>> than building in 1A maps.
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > Leo
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > >> On 29 Jan 2016, at 22:02, Quyen Hoang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>
>>
>> > >> No, I wasn’t talking about crystal packing, I was thinking about 
>> potential homo oligomeric interactions that might be important for 
>> function.
>>
>> > >> If we are talking about the simplicity of pushing couple buttons 
>> and saving disk space and bandwidth, then I guess the same argument 
>> could be made that a simple MTZ file containing phases should suffice?
>>
>> > >> The non-crystallographer would simply press a few buttons to 
>> generate a model with auto build?
>>
>> > >> But I have a feeling those couple of buttons might not be so 
>> obvious to people in other fields.
>>
>> > >>
>>
>> > >> Quyen
>>
>> > >>
>>
>> > >>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:16 PM, CHAVAS Leonard 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>> > >>> Not sure I fully understand. Are we really talking about 
>> non-crystallographer scientists, often willing to understand how a 
>> biologically meaningful molecule / entity looks like? Are these 
>> non-crystallographers really interested in crystal packing issues? Is 
>> it so much difficult to press on a couple of buttons in the program 
>> with which you do open your coordinates to generate the symmetry 
>> related molecules? I am feeling we are a bit off here...
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>> > >>> Leo
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>> > >>>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 20:52, Quyen Hoang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Sure, but you would need to expand space group X in order to 
>> see the intermolecular interactions that would have been seen in P1. 
>> Also, it is often discussed here about how non-crystallographers 
>> might use our structural models deposited in the PDB‎, I doubt that 
>> many of them would know how to expand.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> I am not advocating, just discussing.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Cheers,
>>
>> > >>>> Quyen
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>>
>> > >>>> From: Keller, Jacob
>>
>> > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 2:20 PM
>>
>> > >>>> To: Quyen Hoang; [log in to unmask]
>>
>> > >>>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Spacegroups, screw axes and ordering
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> I mean, would it not be more informative to have a P1 unit 
>> cell filled with molecules compared to a single molecule representing 
>> only a fraction of the unit cell?
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> No, it would not be more informative: a model in space group X 
>> can easily be expanded to P1.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> JPK
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Cheers,
>>
>> > >>>> Quyen
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Keller, Jacob 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> Sure, but wouldn’t the same could be achieved by NCS averaging?
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Yes, with complete “NCS” constraints it would be the same. But 
>> why do P1 if so—you’d have all the same issues when deciding which 
>> parts of the “NCS” to constrain (it would be tantamount to SG 
>> determination.) Using unmerged data, however, would have some 
>> advantages (one could model the variations between reflections in a 
>> more direct way.)
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> I guess the final goal would be to reproduce as accurately as 
>> possible the diffraction images. Thus, crystallographic refinement 
>> becomes data-faking (I guess all science is this same data-faking, in 
>> a way.)
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> JPK
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Ed, regarding the fractional problem with molecular 
>> replacement and data to parameter ratio problem in refinement, I am 
>> sure that you know how to get around these problems ;)
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Quyen
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Bernie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Precision is always better when averaging is applied. Mirror 
>> planes and rotations will be perfect rather than exact within 
>> experimental error. There are also singularities in the refinement 
>> process that can force the structure to be symmetrically imperfect.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 8:10 AM, Quyen Hoang <[log in to unmask]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Given enough data and modern computing powers, why don’t we 
>> just use P1?
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Quyen
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 8:45 AM, George Sheldrick 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> The collection and scaling requires the Laue group but not the 
>> space group. For small molecule structure determination, many more 
>> space groups have to be considered and the choice may be ambiguous 
>> (like I222 and I212121) or difficult, so my current small molecule 
>> structure solution program SHELXT only uses the input space group to 
>> deduce the Laue group. After solving the structure with the data 
>> expanded to P1 it uses the phasesto determine the space group and 
>> origin shift. In practice this is much more reliable than using 
>> systematic absences. This was not my idea (see papers by Giacovazzo 
>> and Palatinus), I just wrote a little program to implement it. How 
>> the user has chosen a, b and c is irrelevant, the program outputs the 
>> solution in the conventional setting for the space group in question 
>> (as the correct enantiomorph based on the Friedel differences where 
>> appropriate). It also finds the most compact arrangement of atoms and 
>> centers it is the unit-cell.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Whether this was worth the effort is debatable. SHELXT has 
>> been freely available for the last couple of years, but the open 
>> access paper that explains how it works (Acta A71 (2015) 3-8) is 
>> rarely cited.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> George
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On 01/29/2016 01:06 PM, Ian Tickle wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Hi Kay
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> You are seriously misrepresenting how this works in practice. 
>> Isomorphism always takes precedence over convention: convention is 
>> not an absolute requirement! Convention is the _default_ in the 
>> absence of all other criteria (that's why we have conventions!). Only 
>> the _first_ crystal in an isomorphous series would be indexed by 
>> convention, the others would be indexed using that as a reference 
>> (i.e. based on the intensity correlation, _not_ the unit cell or the 
>> assumed space group which may not be reliable, using REFINDEX, which 
>> is what we have always used, or POINTLESS) - very simple! At Astex we 
>> have be doing this for our large fragment screens for 15 years with 
>> no problem.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> In any case we find that assignment of screw axes by axial 
>> reflexions is very unreliable (we have been stung on several 
>> occasions!) and we always postpone choice of space group until 
>> _after_ the experimental phasing or MR step, or even after the 
>> structure refinement step, i.e. doing MR and/or refinement in _all_ 8 
>> possible space groups. So space groups #16, 17, 18 & 19 would always 
>> be initally assigned as space group #16 (P222): that's what XDS does 
>> anyway, so no change there! I would _always_ recommend that procedure 
>> over relying on the axial reflexions for space-group assigment. For 
>> some datasets many of the reflexions on one of the axes were not even 
>> measured! (i.e. where the crystal happens to be aligned along an axis 
>> and only a single scan is done).
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Contrary to what you are asserting, the convention you propose 
>> has been the source of great confusion & muddle in the past, whereas 
>> the internationally-agreed one is very clear and has been largely 
>> free from confusion (obviously because it was very carefully designed 
>> to be that way). What happened on a number of occasions in the past 
>> (and quite possibly still happens in some labs) was that the space 
>> group was initally assigned as P222 according to the clear procedure 
>> described above, with the conventional cell correctly assigned as a 
>> <= b <= c. What should happen then is that once the correct space 
>> group has been decided, the space group in the header is changed to 
>> that - simple, end of story. However some people think they have to 
>> re-index to the 'standard setting' for SGs 17 & 18 (note that the 
>> standard setting has nothing to do with the conventional cell defined 
>> in ITC). So they end up with files indexed differently - a recipe for 
>> disaster, since they can easily
>> forget to also transform the co-ordinate file from the MR step, or 
>> they do manage to transform it but then mix up the files, thus 
>> R-value = random! I have had to sort out peoples' mess on a number of 
>> occasions which is why I specified the above idiot-proof procedure 
>> when we designed the Astex fragment-screening pipeline back in 2000.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> See these papers by Alan Mighell at NIST (one of the original 
>> authors of the conventional cell tables in ITC) for why we need 
>> conventions.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/106/6/j66mig.pdf
>>
>> > >>>> http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/107/4/j74mig.pdf
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> The most important feature of an international convention is 
>> that it is documented in detail, otherwise how on earth will anyone 
>> know how to apply the convention? The document for the IUCr 
>> conventional cells is the ITC, based in part on the proposals in the 
>> above papers. I'm not aware of any documentation (for all 230 space 
>> groups BTW!) for the convention that you are proposing. I just don't 
>> understand why after we've all agreed on a convention (or at least 
>> our national representatives on the relevant IUCr committees on 
>> conventions have on our behalf), why you then want to go and do 
>> something completely different?
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Cheers
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> -- Ian
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On 29 January 2016 at 09:30, Kay Diederichs 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>> Good morning Graeme,
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> as may be obvious from earlier conversations about this, I 
>> have a rather strong opinion about this: even in 2016,
>>
>> > >>>> - the a < b < c ordering has no scientific advantage in any 
>> way; it may appear more aesthetic to some
>>
>> > >>>> - the ordering has a clear disadvantage if two cell edges are 
>> about the same length, because then, for different measurements, you 
>> may end up with different symmetries. This would be even worse if all 
>> three a,b,c are approximately the same. What a nightmare e.g. in 
>> serial crystallography!
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Crystallography is difficult enough. Our choices should be 
>> such that we make it easier for novices to understand it, and to 
>> avoid errors. Failure to find (or think about) the proper re-indexing 
>> is one of the most often occurring problems.
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> best,
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> Kay
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:13:16 +0000, Graeme Winter 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> Good morning all,
>>
>> > >>>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> It is with some trepidation I raise the following question: 
>> does anyone still care about reindexing orthorhombic lattices so that 
>> the unique axis is C? I.e. P21221 => P21212
>>
>> > >>>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> Back in the day certain programs would express unhappiness if 
>> you fed them P21 2 21 (say) data - I am certain that this problem has 
>> gone away. Is there any reason in 2016 that (say) xia2 should write 
>> out symmetry based not cell based data? I am leaning towards indexing 
>> these so that a < b < c and then the screw axes are whatever they are.
>>
>> > >>>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> How do people feel about this?
>>
>> > >>>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> Thanks & best wishes Graeme
>>
>> > >>>>>
>>
>> > >>>>> --
>>
>> > >>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, 
>> copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the 
>> intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an 
>> authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by 
>> returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or 
>> disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
>>
>> > >>>>> Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the 
>> individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
>>
>> > >>>>> Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail 
>> or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept 
>> liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of 
>> software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
>>
>> > >>>>> Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). 
>> Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond 
>> House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, 
>> OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>> > >>> -
>>
>> > >>> Leonard Chavas
>>
>> > >>> -
>>
>> > >>> Synchrotron SOLEIL
>>
>> > >>> Proxima-I
>>
>> > >>> L'Orme des Merisiers
>>
>> > >>> Saint-Aubin - BP 48
>>
>> > >>> 91192 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex
>>
>> > >>> France
>>
>> > >>> -
>>
>> > >>> Phone: +33 169 359 746
>>
>> > >>> Mobile: +33 644 321 614
>>
>> > >>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> > >>> -
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > -
>>
>> > > Leonard Chavas
>>
>> > > -
>>
>> > > Synchrotron SOLEIL
>>
>> > > Proxima-I
>>
>> > > L'Orme des Merisiers
>>
>> > > Saint-Aubin - BP 48
>>
>> > > 91192 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex
>>
>> > > France
>>
>> > > -
>>
>> > > Phone: +33 169 359 746
>>
>> > > Mobile: +33 644 321 614
>>
>> > > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> > > -
>>
>> > >
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Ethan A Merritt
>>
>> Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health Sciences Bldg
>>
>> MS 357742, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742
>>
>>
>


-- 
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or -33068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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