Hi,

Le 30/05/2012 08:29, Qixu Cai a écrit :
Thank you for your remind of the twin problem.
It is always a pleasure to be helpful ;-)
By the way, you stated the spacegoup is P321... did you check systematic absences ? could it be P3121 / P3221 ?


I checked all of the datasets by Xtriage, and found that the native is
not twinned, but the derivant1 and derivant2 are both twinned.

So is the Rfactor between derivants and native useful for the judgement
of the success of the heavy atom soaking?

Well, the unhelpful answer will be : it depends....
what is your twin fraction ? how does the scaling derivative/native perfom (in details... not only global Rfactors)

Did you try to calculate Patterson maps (isomorphous and anomalous) ?

I would try to find a good MIR tutorial (CCP4 website might be a good place to look at, but have a look at phenix website...), and try to adapt it to your specific case...

good luck !

laurent

Thanks.

Best wishes,

Qixu Cai




2012/5/30 Laurent Maveyraud <laurent.maveyr...@ipbs.fr
<mailto:laurent.maveyr...@ipbs.fr>>

    Hi,

    it is therefore likely that your spacegroup is really P321...
    hopefully, your data set is not twinned, did you check that ?

    You are left with 2 possible indexing schemes, as already
    mentionned. Chek scaling derivative / native scaling for each
    indexation of the derivative : the lowest Rfactor will likely
    indicate the right one.
    It appears that you end up with Rfactor of about 29 %, which suggest
    that your derivatives are not isomorphous to your native dataset.
    How do cell parameters compare for each data set ?
    Check also how the Rfactor varies with resolution, you might still
    have usefull phasing info at low resolution.

    hope this helps

    laurent



    Le 30/05/2012 07:50, Qixu Cai a écrit :

        At first, I processed the data at P3 space group. But after
        phenix.xtriage analysis, the Xtriage told me the space group must be
        P321, so I used P321 to process my data, and got an acceptable
        Rmerge.

        Qixu Cai



        2012/5/29 Phil Evans <p...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
        <mailto:p...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> <mailto:p...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
        <mailto:p...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>>__>


            How do you know the point group is 321? What does Pointless
        tell you
            if you put in the unmerged data?

            Despite some of the things said earlier (by me!), the possible
            indexing schemes in 321 are h,k,l and -h,-k,l
            If that doesn't work, it suggests that the point group is a
        lower
            symmetry eg P3

            Phil


            On 29 May 2012, at 16:29, Qixu Cai wrote:

         > Dear all,
         >
         > thank you for your help.
         >
         > I think I must describe my case in detail. I collected a native
            dataset and two heavy atom derivant datasets (in fact, i
        don not
            know whether these two kind of heavy atom have soked into the
            crystal, i just collect the data to check it).
         >
         > i processed all of three datasets with automar, and merged them
            by CAD. I used scaleit to get the Rfactor between datasets
        and got a
            strange result. the R factor between derivant1 and native is
        26% and
            the R factor between derivant2 and native is 59%!
         >
         > so I think it may be the problem of index (space group is
            P321).  so i exchange the h and k of derivant2 by the some awk
            script and merged to native data by CAD. After scaleit
        analysis, I
            got the R factor 29% between derivant2 and native.
         >
         > Here is my questions,
         >
         > 1, at my case, is that right to invert the hand? is that the
            special problem of the P3 or p321 space group?
         >
         > 2, I have carryed out some suggestion of yours, such as use
            pointless (use native data as reference for derivant2
        reindex), or
            reindex the derivant2 dataset by (k, h, -l), and I always
        got the
            high R factor 59% between derivant2 and native.
         >
         > Any suggestion?
         >
         > thanks a lot!
         >
         > Qixu Cai
         >
         >
         > 在 2012-5-29,下午10:36,Laurent Maveyraud
        <laurent.maveyr...@ipbs.fr <mailto:laurent.maveyr...@ipbs.fr>
        <mailto:laurent.maveyraud@__ipbs.fr
        <mailto:laurent.maveyr...@ipbs.fr>>> 写道:

         >
         >> Hi... and apologies !
         >>
         >> I was a little quick in my answer... in P321, h k l and -h -k l
            are valid indexing schemes...
         >> It is in P3 that you can have  h k l and k h -l
         >> as Ian and Phil agreed on the BB !
         >>
         >> sorry,
         >> laurent
         >>
         >> Hi,
         >>
         >> you might have several possible spacegroups possible when
            processing your data (at the indexation step). These will be
        based
            on the metrics of your cell (vector length and angles). If you
            happen to have something like a = b, and alpha=beta90° and
            gamma=120°, then it is likely that your crystal is trigonal or
            hexagonal.
         >>
         >> You will have to wait until the scaling step (or pointless after
            integration) in order to decide which spacegroup is the
        right one,
            based on the symmetry operations in your dataset and on
        systematic
            absences. There you have to choose between P3, P31, P32,
        P312, P321
            in trigonal.
         >>
         >> When comparing two datasets from trigonal crystals, even for
            identical crystals and hence identical spacegroups, you have
            different ways to index your dataset...
         >> In P321, one dataset might be indexed one way (eg. h k l), the
            other might be index the other way (k h -l). When you
        compared this
            two dataset, they will appear to be different, because both
        indexing
            schemes, although valid, are not equivalent.
         >>
         >> Take one reflection; e.g. 3 2 1 from your crystal A. The very
            same reflection will be indexed 2 3 -1 for your crystal B,
        and the
            one indexed 3 2 1 for crytal B will not be equivalent to the
        3 2 1
            reflection from crystal A.
         >> If you try to merge your two datasets, you will have huge
            Rmerge, because you are trying to average non equivalent
        reflections.
         >>
         >> You will have to ensure that the same indexing scheme is used
            for both datasets, eg reindex B using the reindex k h -l
        command in
            reindex, before being able to merge A and B.
         >>
         >> hope this helps... please feel free to as if I am not clear...
         >>
         >> best regards
         >>
         >> laurent
         >>
         >> Le 29/05/2012 16:03, Qixu Cai a écrit :
         >>> P3 is another possible alternate indexing? is that correct?
         >>>
         >>>
         >>> 2012/5/29 Ian Tickle <ianj...@gmail.com
        <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com>
        <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com>>
        <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com>

        <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com <mailto:ianj...@gmail.com>>>>
         >>>
         >>>   Mark, thanks for pointing that out, I see it now:
         >>>
         >>>   In P321 the only possible alternate indexing is (-h, -k, l):
            this is a
         >>>   2-fold || c which is an operator of the hexagonal lattice but
            is not
         >>>   an equivalent reflection.
         >>>
         >>>   The standard CCP4 a.u. is h = k, l >= 0 or h > k, k >= 0,
        so for
         >>>   example (3,2,1) would be in the standard a.u. (3 > 2 and 2 >=
            0).  In
         >>>   the alternate indexing this would be (-3, -2, 1); however
        it's
         >>>   impossible to transform this to the a.u. with any
        non-inverting
         >>>   equivalent.  The only possibility is to invert the hand, i.e.
            to (3,
         >>>   2, -1) which is again in the a.u..
         >>>
         >>>   So the required re-indexing operator to match (3, 2, -1) with
            (3, 2,
         >>>   1) is (h, k, -l) which reindex won't allow without the LEFT
            keyword
         >>>   (and you would be well-advised to avoid doing it with phase
            columns!).
         >>>
         >>>   Cheers
         >>>
         >>>   -- Ian
         >>>
         >>>   On 29 May 2012 12:55, Mark J van Raaij
        <mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es>
        <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es>__>
         >>> <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es>

        <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es
        <mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es>__>>> wrote:
         >>>> In different datasets of P321 crystals, when you index them
         >>>   separately, the hand may be different and you may need to
            invert it
         >>>   for some. They "prohibition" in reindex is really a warning,
            and can
         >>>   be overridden.
         >>>>
         >>>> Mark J van Raaij
         >>>> Laboratorio M-4
         >>>> Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas
         >>>> Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
         >>>> c/Darwin 3
         >>>> E-28049 Madrid, Spain
         >>>> tel. (+34) 91 585 4616
         >>>> http://www.cnb.csic.es/~__mjvanraaij
        <http://www.cnb.csic.es/%7Emjvanraaij>
        <http://www.cnb.csic.es/%__7Emjvanraaij
        <http://www.cnb.csic.es/%7Emjvanraaij>>
         >>> <http://www.cnb.csic.es/%__7Emjvanraaij
        <http://www.cnb.csic.es/%7Emjvanraaij>>
         >>>>
         >>>>
         >>>>
         >>>> On 29 May 2012, at 13:52, Ian Tickle wrote:
         >>>>
         >>>>> In principle there's no reason why you can't invert the hand
            of the
         >>>>> indices, as long as the program which does it also takes
        care to
         >>>>> convert any hand-dependent columns such as anomalous
        differences,
         >>>>> F+/F- etc in the appropriate manner at the same time.  The
            program
         >>>>> will also need to convert any phase or phase-coefficient
         >>>   columns, but
         >>>>> it will have to do this anyway, even if the hand is not
            inverted, in
         >>>>> those cases where the space group contains screw axes (since
         >>>   then you
         >>>>> will get phase shifts on reindexing for certain subsets of
         >>>>> reflections).
         >>>>>
         >>>>> So if the data consist only of I's or F's without anomalous
            data or
         >>>>> phases then inverting the hand will have absolutely no effect
            (it's
         >>>>> called "Friedel's Law").
         >>>>>
         >>>>> I note from the documentation that reindex will invert
        the hand
         >>>   if the
         >>>>> keyword 'LEFT' is supplied, though whether it then treats the
         >>>>> anomalous data and phases correctly is anyone's guess!
         >>>>>
         >>>>> The question is really whether it's likely ever to be
            _necessary_ to
         >>>>> invert the hand; this will depend on the reciprocal space
            asymmetric
         >>>>> unit chosen by the processing program.  One could imagine a
         >>>   situation
         >>>>> where the a.u. chosen by one processing program was on a
            different
         >>>>> hand from the a.u. required by another.  In such a
        situation you
         >>>   would
         >>>>> have no choice but to invert the hand of the indices,
        though I
         >>>   suspect
         >>>>> you would be better off doing it with CAD which will do it
            reliably,
         >>>>> rather than reindex which may not (judging by the
        comments in the
         >>>>> reindex code!).  Whether such a situation ever occurs in
            practice, I
         >>>>> don't know, maybe not.
         >>>>>
         >>>>> Cheers
         >>>>>
         >>>>> -- Ian
         >>>>>
         >>>>> On 29 May 2012 09:57, Graeme Winter
        <graeme.win...@gmail.com <mailto:graeme.win...@gmail.com>
        <mailto:graeme.winter@gmail.__com <mailto:graeme.win...@gmail.com>>
         >>> <mailto:graeme.winter@gmail.__com
        <mailto:graeme.win...@gmail.com>

        <mailto:graeme.winter@gmail.__com
        <mailto:graeme.win...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
         >>>>>> Hello Qixu Cai,
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> What you want is a reindexing operator which permutes
        the axes
         >>>   rather
         >>>>>> than one which changes the sign of an axis. The easiest
        way to
         >>>   do this
         >>>>>> is with pointless:
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> pointless hklin input.mtz hklref reference.mtz hklout
        output.mtz
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> and let pointless figure out the right operation to use. You
         >>>   may find
         >>>>>> the following helpful:
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/html/__reindexing.html
        <http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/html/reindexing.html>
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> Best wishes,
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> Graeme
         >>>>>>
         >>>>>> On 29 May 2012 09:48, Qixu Cai <caiq...@gmail.com
        <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com>
        <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com>>
         >>> <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com>
        <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com <mailto:caiq...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
         >>>>>>> Dear all,
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> I have a dataset at P321 space group. And I want to reindex
         >>>   from (h,k,l) to
         >>>>>>> (k,h,l) or (h,k,-l), because I want to merge this
        dataset to
         >>>   the native
         >>>>>>> dataset.
         >>>>>>> At first, I used the "reindex" program in CCP4i, and got an
         >>>   error:  (either
         >>>>>>> for (k,h,l) or (h,k,-l))
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> ==============================__==================
         >>>>>>> Data line--- reindex HKL h, k, -l
         >>>>>>> Data line--- end
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> $TEXT:Warning: $$ comment $$
         >>>>>>> WARNING:   !!!! Reindexing matrix INVERTS hand !!!!
         >>>>>>> $$
         >>>>>>> REINDEX:    !!!! You are NOT allowed to do this - Changing
         >>>   all signs in
         >>>>>>> reindexing matrix
         >>>>>>> Times: User:       0.0s System:    0.0s Elapsed:     0:00
         >>>>>>> ==============================__===================
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> Could you please tell me the reason?
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> At last, I converted the mtz file to CNS format, and
        write a
         >>>   script to
         >>>>>>> exchange the h and k, and converted to mtz file.
         >>>>>>> When I tried to use "cad" to merge this dataset to the
        native
         >>>   dataset, if I
         >>>>>>> chose "Automatically check and enforce consistent indexing
         >>>   between different
         >>>>>>> files",
         >>>>>>> the index would be changed back to the original index. Why?
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> Thank you very much for your attention.
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> Best wishes,
         >>>>>>>
         >>>>>>> Qixu Cai
         >>>
         >>>
         >>
         >> --
         >> ------------------------------__----------------------------
         >> Laurent Maveyraud         laurent.maveyraud AT ipbs DOT fr
         >> Université  Paul  Sabatier /  CNRS  /  I.P.B.S.  UMR  5089
         >> PICT  --  Plateforme  Intégrée  de  Criblage  de  Toulouse
         >> Département     Biologie    Structurale   et   Biophysique
         >> BP 64182  -  205 rte de Narbonne  -  31077 TOULOUSE FRANCE
         >> Tél: +33 (0)561 175 435           Fax : +33 (0)561 175 994
         >> ------------------------------__----------------------------
         >>



    --
    ------------------------------__----------------------------
    Laurent Maveyraud         laurent.maveyraud AT ipbs DOT fr
    Université  Paul  Sabatier /  CNRS  /  I.P.B.S.  UMR  5089
    PICT  --  Plateforme  Intégrée  de  Criblage  de  Toulouse
    Département     Biologie    Structurale   et   Biophysique
    BP 64182  -  205 rte de Narbonne  -  31077 TOULOUSE FRANCE
    Tél: +33 (0)561 175 435           Fax : +33 (0)561 175 994
    ------------------------------__----------------------------



--
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurent Maveyraud         laurent.maveyraud AT ipbs DOT fr
Université  Paul  Sabatier /  CNRS  /  I.P.B.S.  UMR  5089
PICT  --  Plateforme  Intégrée  de  Criblage  de  Toulouse
Département     Biologie    Structurale   et   Biophysique
BP 64182  -  205 rte de Narbonne  -  31077 TOULOUSE FRANCE
Tél: +33 (0)561 175 435           Fax : +33 (0)561 175 994
----------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to