Dear Eva and Harry and others,
 
I am not sure that an overall B-factor is the best solution for a 3.2 Å 
structure. In general, the true B-factors will vary a lot for different parts 
of the protein and poor diffracting proteins often have parts which are 
partially or completely disordered. An overall B-factor is a very poor estimate 
of such a true B-factor distribution and together with the low-resolution data 
will create a lot of model bias i.e. very nice density for side chains which 
are, in fact, disordered.
 
I have struggled a long time with a 3.2 Å antithrombin data set and as luck 
would have it, the most interesting and unknown part of the structure was a 
loop with extremely high temperature factors. All standard protocols I tried 
produced very nice density for the model I put in, but did not tell me anything 
of how to build the unknown parts.
 
A side remark by Randy Read finally helped me to solve this problem, which was 
to reduce model bias by using very tight geometric restraints (e.g. not allow 
the xyz positions produce bias) and individual temperature factors. What I 
oberved was that wrongly fitted residues would be pushed out of the density due 
to the tight geometric restraints, the artificially good electron density of 
some flexible parts would get weaker and most importantly: electron density 
appeared were I could fit the important reactive site loop. It worked in this 
case, it may not work in other cases and at 3.2 Å one should always proceed 
very cautiously and try to use whatever information (biochemical, mutations) is 
available to validate the model.
 
This was my experience and I have never used an overall B-factor afterwards.
 
Herman Schreuder


________________________________

        Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Harry 
M. Greenblatt
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 14:38
        An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
        Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Stop Refmac from refining B factors?
        
        
        BS"D 

        Dear Eva,

          You should be refining an overall temperature factor at that 
resolution.  It's one of the choices in the list, instead of "isotropic".



                Hi,
                
                I have a little problem with B-factor refinement. I'm using the 
CCP4i interface, Refmac 5.2.0019, a resolution of 30-3.2 A (I tried 8-3.2 A as 
well, it doesn't make a big difference for this problem), and a current Rfree 
of 30.4%.
                
                Refmac refines the B-factors so that they are nearly the same 
for main chain and side chain, and I don't like that (or could it make sense in 
any way?). Moreover, my structure is a protein complex, and Refmac is mainly 
doing this for one component of the complex. If I take the B-factors from the 
original uncomplexed protein (around 18, 1.75 A) and add 44 to them with 
moleman to get them in the range they are in the complex, Refmac "flattens" 
them remarkably in only 5 cycles of restricted refinement. Does anyone have an 
explanation for this? I am pretty sure that the complex components are in the 
right place, I see beautiful density and everything I should see at this 
resolution. 
                
                Here is what I tried further:
                
                * I de-selected "Refine isotropic temperature factors" in the 
Refmac interface. There was no REFI BREF ISOT any more in the com file. But 
there was also no difference in the B-factors compared to when there _was_ REFI 
BREF ISOT in the com file... So does Refmac just _ignore_ my wish not to refine 
B-factors? (The REFI keywords were as follows: type REST - resi MLKF - meth 
CGMAT - is there any B-factor-thing hidden in this?) 
                
                * I played around with the geometric parameters. If I select 
the B-factor values there (the keywords are TEMP|BFAC 
<wbskal><sigb1><sigb2><sigb3><sigb4>), it does not make _any_ difference, what 
values I fill in there, the resulting B-factors are always the same (but 
different from when I don't use the TEMP keyword, and even "flatter"). Default 
for WBSCAL is 1.0, I tried 10, 1.0, 0.1, 0.01, and the equivalent numbers for 
the sigbs.
                
                Thanks for any thoughts on this,
                
                Eva
                


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

        Harry M. Greenblatt

        Staff Scientist

        Dept of Structural Biology           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

        Weizmann Institute of Science        Phone:  972-8-934-3625

        Rehovot, 76100                       Facsimile:   972-8-934-4159

        Israel 



Reply via email to