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  April 2016

CCP4BB April 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Twin and tNCS

From:

Randy Read <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Randy Read <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

Yes, that’s true, but you also see relatively high TFZ values associated with poor packing in other cases, such as pseudosymmetry misidentified as crystallographic symmetry.  Very incomplete models also tend to pile up on symmetry operators, leading to poor packing, which is something we’d like to recognise and compensate for.

Best wishes,

Randy

-----
Randy J. Read
Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
Cambridge Institute for Medical Research    Tel: +44 1223 336500
Wellcome Trust/MRC Building                         Fax: +44 1223 336827
Hills Road                                                            E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.                               www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 20:14, Keller, Jacob <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I believe static/statistical disorder would produce good TFZs with poor packing.
> 
> See the paper below for example.
> 
> JPK
> 
> Sapan A Shah, Axel T Brunger, The 1.8 å crystal structure of a statically disordered 17 base-pair RNA duplex: principles of RNA crystal packing and its effect on nucleic acid structure1, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 285, Issue 4, 29 January 1999, Pages 1577-1588, ISSN 0022-2836, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1998.2385.
> (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283698923853)
> Abstract: The crystal structure of a 17 base RNA oligomer, r(CACCGGAUG GUUCGGUG), has been solved to a resolution of 1.8 Å through a combination of molecular replacement, multiple isomorphous replacement phasing, and analysis of observed intensity distributions. The oligomer, which forms a stem-loop in solution, crystallized as a pseudo-infinite duplex in spacegroup P321. The asymmetric unit of the crystal contains four superimposed orientations of the duplex that are out of register, such that backbones superimpose, but base identity differs. This static disorder was initially discovered by brominating a single residue per strand in the sequence, and observing four peaks per strand in difference maps phased with a native molecular replacement solution. The presence of four superimposed duplex “motifs” related by non-crystallographic hypersymmetry was detected by computing 〈I2〉/〈I〉2 and Wilson ratios for the observed intensities. The observed ratios matched those produced from calculated intensities of a 4-fold statically disordered model. Multi-conformer simulated annealing refinement against a maximum-likelihood target incorporating experimental phase information was used to refine the 4-fold disordered model to an Rfree and R of 29.35% and 25.5%, respectively. The resulting structure reveals four distinct conformations of the duplex, with an average pairwise backbone rmsd of 2.35 Å. The structural differences between the four conformations, which can be attributed to differences in packing environment, highlight the possible influence of crystal packing forces on nucleic acid X-ray structures. Analysis of inter-helical packing between symmetry-related molecules reveals an RNA “zipper” that mediates direct phosphate oxygen-2′ hydroxyl interactions between close-packed phosphate-sugar backbones. This may be a general mode for RNA tertiary interaction that does not depend on metal ions or primary sequence.
> Keywords: X-ray crystallography; RNA; disorder; intensity statistics; Wilson ratio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Randy Read
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Twin and tNCS
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On your point 2, if this isn’t already a frequently asked question somewhere it should be!  With twinning, you have to decide first whether or not the crystal appears to be twinned.  This is done on the basis of the twin tests that depend only on the distribution of intensities but not on a twin law, such as the second moments test or the L-test.  If those tests say that your crystal is twinned, then you start to think about what the twin law is.
> 
> The tests based on twin laws compare the reflections related by twin laws to see if they are more closely related to each other than you would expect them to be randomly.  Unfortunately, if you have assigned a symmetry that is too low, then there are reflections that are unrelated by the symmetry you have assigned, but they are related by the symmetry that you have missed in your space group assignment, and those symmetry operators are also possible twin laws in the lower symmetry space group.  So the various tests that depend on twin laws will say that you have perfect twinning, because the supposedly “twin-related” reflections are almost perfectly correlated to each other.  If you reprocess your data in point group P622, you will find that there are no twin laws identified, and nothing in xtriage or truncate will say that your crystal is twinned.
> 
> As for the RMS value, I agree with Ray that the value of 1.5A often works well for NMR structures.  You could also try something more optimistic, like 1-1.25A.
> 
> I’m not sure why you’re getting solutions with high TFZ that fail to pack.  However, I’d like to see the results of searching in what I think is the correct point group first.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Randy
> 
> -----
> Randy J. Read
> Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research    Tel: +44 1223 336500
> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building                         Fax: +44 1223 336827
> Hills Road                                                            E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.                               www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk
> 
>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 17:49, Qixu Cai <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Dr. Read,
>> 
>> 1, Yes, I have tried to turn off the tNCS option in phaser and still got the similar result that the high TFZ solutions were rejected because of packing clash.
>> 
>> 2, According to the result of Xtriage, the twin fraction seems to be close to perfect twin. What's the relation between twin and tNCS? Are they independent?
>> 
>> 3, The model I used for MR in phaser is NMR structure. The sequence is 100% identical but because it's NMR structure, I don't know how to judge RMS in phaser.
>> 
>> Do you think that the rejection of high TFZ solution is related to the twinning of the dataset?
>> 
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Best wishes,
>> Qizu CAI
>> 
>> Qixu Cai
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-04-21 22:41 GMT+08:00 Randy Read <[log in to unmask]>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> There are some odd things that I would want to sort out.
>> 
>> First, xtriage thinks that your data merge in much higher symmetry, i.e. point group P622 rather than P3.  Using the ccp4i cell content analysis option under Molecular Replacement -> Analysis, 2 copies of your DNA in P622 should give 50% solvent.  That would fit with the apparent translational NCS.  However, I would want to keep in mind the possibility that, if your DNA adopts some helical arrangement, that would also generate large Patterson peaks.  So you could test the result of telling Phaser not to apply the tNCS correction.
>> 
>> Second, it's not clear whether there is any twinning.  After correcting for tNCS, Phaser says the second intensity moment is very nearly 2, which would imply no twinning.  The L-test in xtriage might, however, imply at least partial twinning.  If the crystal is twinned, then you would indeed have to consider that the true point group might be lower than the apparent P622.
>> 
>> Third, I would worry about the presence of a lot of outliers.  There appears to be a large number of reflections with significant net negative intensities, which implies that something might have gone wrong in the integration step. Maybe these come from the weak direction of diffraction, because the diffraction is strongly anisotropic.
>> 
>> You've told Phaser that the model is 100% identical, from which it is inferring a rather small RMS.  However, it sounds like you have greater uncertainty about the quality of your model, so you might be better off describing model quality in terms of expected RMS error.
>> 
>> By the way, we've only just realised that Phaser wasn't dealing properly with cell content analysis for nucleic acids.  The development version now takes into account the different partial specific volumes of protein and nucleic acids, but the distributed version doesn't give the right results for the solvent content. 
>> 
>> Good luck!
>> 
>> Randy Read
>> 
>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 14:39, Qixu Cai <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have a twinning dataset with translational NCS. And I cannot get molecular replacement solution while lots of solutions with high TFZ (>10) are rejected because of packing.
>>> 
>>> The log files of xtriage and phaser are attached.
>>> 
>>> Could you please give me any suggestion?
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Qixu Cai
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> <xtriage_4.log><3_phaser_MR.log>
>> 
>> ------
>> Randy J. Read
>> Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
>> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research      Tel: + 44 1223 336500
>> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building                   Fax: + 44 1223 336827
>> Hills Road                                    E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.                       www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk
>> 
>> 

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