Re: [ccp4bb] translational pseudo symmetry

2013-11-19 Thread Eleanor Dodson
You would get a different MR solution in P41212 than in P43212 so you
shouldnt test the SAME pdb in both SGS?
Not sure I am understanding this though.
Eleanor

On 19 November 2013 05:02, #CHEN DAN# chen0...@e.ntu.edu.sg wrote:
 Hi Eleanor,

 I checked P43212 and P41212 by changing the header of mtz file and running 
 refmac for the same PDB input. P43212 is a better match than P41212.

 Sincerely,
 Dan

 
 From: CCP4 bulletin board CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK on behalf of Eleanor Dodson 
 eleanor.dod...@york.ac.uk
 Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:47 PM
 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
 Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] translational pseudo symmetry

 I guess you have checked that P43212 is a better match than P41212?
 (And that you are running REFMAC against an mtz file with the same
 symmetry as the input PDB - you may need to change the SG in the mtz
 header by hand.
 mtzutils hklin P41212.mtz hklout P43212.mtz
 symm P43212
 end

 Or vice versa..

 Sorry - THIS IS CRAZY but there you are..

 Re the pseudo translation -Randy summs up the situation very clearly.
 I would build my model by hand actually but I am sure PHASER  does itwell too!


 Something I dont understand but maybe it is to do with your patterson 
 sampling.


 Peak 3 is a consequence of Pk 1 and Pk2 -
  Pk 5 is the consequence of Pk 1 and Pk4
 but the peak heights dont exactly fit..

 Eleanor

 On 18 November 2013 10:19, Randy Read rj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 Dear Dan,

 First, you don't want to reprocess in the smaller cell.  What xtriage is
 saying is that, if *and only if* the translation detected in the Patterson
 map were an exact crystallographic translation, then you would get the
 smaller cell.  However, in order for that to be a plausible hypothesis, the
 Patterson peaks would have to be near to 100% of the origin peak.

 You actually seem to have a very interesting case, where the Patterson peaks
 are related by multiples of approximately the same translation.  If you take
 a translation of 1/2,1/2,1/6 and multiply it by 1, 2 and 3, you get
 something close to the three biggest peaks in your Patterson (taking account
 of lattice translations), and these are related by the Patterson inversion
 centre to what you get if you multiply by 4 and 5.  So the six molecules
 should be related to each other by something close to a repeated translation
 of 1/2,1/2,1/6.  (You should check this in the solution that you already
 have.)  If this were exact, you would have a smaller cell, but it's not
 exact, and one way in which it is not exact is that the translations along z
 are not exactly multiples of 1/6.

 This is reminiscent of a structure that we recently collaborated with
 Mariusz Jaskolski and Zbyszek Dauter to solve (paper accepted for
 publication in Acta D).  In that case, there are seven translations of
 approximately 0,0,1/7.  The difficulty with cases like this is figuring out
 how to break the exact symmetry.  Any solution that has approximately the
 right translations will basically fit the data, but you need to find the
 right combination of deviations from the exact symmetry to get an optimal
 answer.  If you get the wrong deviations from exact symmetry, the refinement
 will stall, and this may be the problem that you're facing.

 You can deal with problems like this in Phaser by using the TNCS NMOL 6
 command (to say that there are 6 copies related by repeated applications of
 the same translation).  You should tell Phaser to use the 1/2,1/2,0.174
 vector (TNCS TRA VECTOR 0.5 0.5 0.174), and hopefully this will break the
 symmetry in a way that subsequent rigid-body refinement can deal with.  I'm
 happy to give you more advice on this, off-line, because this kind of case
 isn't something that we've figured out how to deal with automatically yet.
 The optimal approach probably involves getting a deeper understanding of
 commensurate modulation, which is another way of thinking about
 pseudo-translations.

 Best wishes,

 Randy Read

 On 18 Nov 2013, at 09:19, #CHEN DAN# chen0...@e.ntu.edu.sg wrote:

 Dear experts,

 I am working on one dataset (2.5A) which  was processed using space group
 P43212 ( 107.9, 107.9, 313.7; 90, 90, 90).
 After running MR with 6 molecules in ASU and one round of refmac, the R
 factors are high (38%/45%).
 I ran phenix.xtriage and found that translational pseudo symmetry is likely
 present. It suggested that the space group is I4122 with the unit cell about
 1/3 smaller (I paste the patterson analyses below).
 I tried to reprocess the data to get the suggested space group and unit cell
 using HKL2000. But the index always gives a long c axis about 313A.
 Could you provide any suggestions on how to proceed?

  Patterson analyses
 --

  Largest Patterson peak with length larger than 15 Angstrom

  Frac. coord.:0.5000.5000.174
  Distance to origin  :   93.757
  Height (origin=100) :   55.763
  p_value(height) :3.018e-05


The reported

Re: [ccp4bb] translational pseudo symmetry

2013-11-18 Thread Eleanor Dodson
I guess you have checked that P43212 is a better match than P41212?
(And that you are running REFMAC against an mtz file with the same
symmetry as the input PDB - you may need to change the SG in the mtz
header by hand.
mtzutils hklin P41212.mtz hklout P43212.mtz
symm P43212
end

Or vice versa..

Sorry - THIS IS CRAZY but there you are..

Re the pseudo translation -Randy summs up the situation very clearly.
I would build my model by hand actually but I am sure PHASER  does itwell too!


Something I dont understand but maybe it is to do with your patterson sampling.


Peak 3 is a consequence of Pk 1 and Pk2 -
 Pk 5 is the consequence of Pk 1 and Pk4
but the peak heights dont exactly fit..

Eleanor

On 18 November 2013 10:19, Randy Read rj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 Dear Dan,

 First, you don't want to reprocess in the smaller cell.  What xtriage is
 saying is that, if *and only if* the translation detected in the Patterson
 map were an exact crystallographic translation, then you would get the
 smaller cell.  However, in order for that to be a plausible hypothesis, the
 Patterson peaks would have to be near to 100% of the origin peak.

 You actually seem to have a very interesting case, where the Patterson peaks
 are related by multiples of approximately the same translation.  If you take
 a translation of 1/2,1/2,1/6 and multiply it by 1, 2 and 3, you get
 something close to the three biggest peaks in your Patterson (taking account
 of lattice translations), and these are related by the Patterson inversion
 centre to what you get if you multiply by 4 and 5.  So the six molecules
 should be related to each other by something close to a repeated translation
 of 1/2,1/2,1/6.  (You should check this in the solution that you already
 have.)  If this were exact, you would have a smaller cell, but it's not
 exact, and one way in which it is not exact is that the translations along z
 are not exactly multiples of 1/6.

 This is reminiscent of a structure that we recently collaborated with
 Mariusz Jaskolski and Zbyszek Dauter to solve (paper accepted for
 publication in Acta D).  In that case, there are seven translations of
 approximately 0,0,1/7.  The difficulty with cases like this is figuring out
 how to break the exact symmetry.  Any solution that has approximately the
 right translations will basically fit the data, but you need to find the
 right combination of deviations from the exact symmetry to get an optimal
 answer.  If you get the wrong deviations from exact symmetry, the refinement
 will stall, and this may be the problem that you're facing.

 You can deal with problems like this in Phaser by using the TNCS NMOL 6
 command (to say that there are 6 copies related by repeated applications of
 the same translation).  You should tell Phaser to use the 1/2,1/2,0.174
 vector (TNCS TRA VECTOR 0.5 0.5 0.174), and hopefully this will break the
 symmetry in a way that subsequent rigid-body refinement can deal with.  I'm
 happy to give you more advice on this, off-line, because this kind of case
 isn't something that we've figured out how to deal with automatically yet.
 The optimal approach probably involves getting a deeper understanding of
 commensurate modulation, which is another way of thinking about
 pseudo-translations.

 Best wishes,

 Randy Read

 On 18 Nov 2013, at 09:19, #CHEN DAN# chen0...@e.ntu.edu.sg wrote:

 Dear experts,

 I am working on one dataset (2.5A) which  was processed using space group
 P43212 ( 107.9, 107.9, 313.7; 90, 90, 90).
 After running MR with 6 molecules in ASU and one round of refmac, the R
 factors are high (38%/45%).
 I ran phenix.xtriage and found that translational pseudo symmetry is likely
 present. It suggested that the space group is I4122 with the unit cell about
 1/3 smaller (I paste the patterson analyses below).
 I tried to reprocess the data to get the suggested space group and unit cell
 using HKL2000. But the index always gives a long c axis about 313A.
 Could you provide any suggestions on how to proceed?

  Patterson analyses
 --

  Largest Patterson peak with length larger than 15 Angstrom

  Frac. coord.:0.5000.5000.174
  Distance to origin  :   93.757
  Height (origin=100) :   55.763
  p_value(height) :3.018e-05


The reported p_value has the following meaning:
  The probability that a peak of the specified height
  or larger is found in a Patterson function of a
  macro molecule that does not have any translational
  pseudo symmetry is equal to  3.018e-05.
  p_values smaller than 0.05 might indicate
  weak translational pseudo symmetry, or the self vector of
  a large anomalous scatterer such as Hg, whereas values
  smaller than 1e-3 are a very strong indication for
  the presence of translational pseudo symmetry.

 The full list of Patterson peaks is:

   x  y  zheight   p-value(height)
 ( 0.500, 0.500, 0.174 ) :   55.763   (3.018e-05)
 ( 0.500, 0.500, 

Re: [ccp4bb] translational pseudo symmetry

2013-11-18 Thread #CHEN DAN#
Hi Eleanor,

I checked P43212 and P41212 by changing the header of mtz file and running 
refmac for the same PDB input. P43212 is a better match than P41212. 

Sincerely,
Dan 


From: CCP4 bulletin board CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK on behalf of Eleanor Dodson 
eleanor.dod...@york.ac.uk
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] translational pseudo symmetry

I guess you have checked that P43212 is a better match than P41212?
(And that you are running REFMAC against an mtz file with the same
symmetry as the input PDB - you may need to change the SG in the mtz
header by hand.
mtzutils hklin P41212.mtz hklout P43212.mtz
symm P43212
end

Or vice versa..

Sorry - THIS IS CRAZY but there you are..

Re the pseudo translation -Randy summs up the situation very clearly.
I would build my model by hand actually but I am sure PHASER  does itwell too!


Something I dont understand but maybe it is to do with your patterson sampling.


Peak 3 is a consequence of Pk 1 and Pk2 -
 Pk 5 is the consequence of Pk 1 and Pk4
but the peak heights dont exactly fit..

Eleanor

On 18 November 2013 10:19, Randy Read rj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 Dear Dan,

 First, you don't want to reprocess in the smaller cell.  What xtriage is
 saying is that, if *and only if* the translation detected in the Patterson
 map were an exact crystallographic translation, then you would get the
 smaller cell.  However, in order for that to be a plausible hypothesis, the
 Patterson peaks would have to be near to 100% of the origin peak.

 You actually seem to have a very interesting case, where the Patterson peaks
 are related by multiples of approximately the same translation.  If you take
 a translation of 1/2,1/2,1/6 and multiply it by 1, 2 and 3, you get
 something close to the three biggest peaks in your Patterson (taking account
 of lattice translations), and these are related by the Patterson inversion
 centre to what you get if you multiply by 4 and 5.  So the six molecules
 should be related to each other by something close to a repeated translation
 of 1/2,1/2,1/6.  (You should check this in the solution that you already
 have.)  If this were exact, you would have a smaller cell, but it's not
 exact, and one way in which it is not exact is that the translations along z
 are not exactly multiples of 1/6.

 This is reminiscent of a structure that we recently collaborated with
 Mariusz Jaskolski and Zbyszek Dauter to solve (paper accepted for
 publication in Acta D).  In that case, there are seven translations of
 approximately 0,0,1/7.  The difficulty with cases like this is figuring out
 how to break the exact symmetry.  Any solution that has approximately the
 right translations will basically fit the data, but you need to find the
 right combination of deviations from the exact symmetry to get an optimal
 answer.  If you get the wrong deviations from exact symmetry, the refinement
 will stall, and this may be the problem that you're facing.

 You can deal with problems like this in Phaser by using the TNCS NMOL 6
 command (to say that there are 6 copies related by repeated applications of
 the same translation).  You should tell Phaser to use the 1/2,1/2,0.174
 vector (TNCS TRA VECTOR 0.5 0.5 0.174), and hopefully this will break the
 symmetry in a way that subsequent rigid-body refinement can deal with.  I'm
 happy to give you more advice on this, off-line, because this kind of case
 isn't something that we've figured out how to deal with automatically yet.
 The optimal approach probably involves getting a deeper understanding of
 commensurate modulation, which is another way of thinking about
 pseudo-translations.

 Best wishes,

 Randy Read

 On 18 Nov 2013, at 09:19, #CHEN DAN# chen0...@e.ntu.edu.sg wrote:

 Dear experts,

 I am working on one dataset (2.5A) which  was processed using space group
 P43212 ( 107.9, 107.9, 313.7; 90, 90, 90).
 After running MR with 6 molecules in ASU and one round of refmac, the R
 factors are high (38%/45%).
 I ran phenix.xtriage and found that translational pseudo symmetry is likely
 present. It suggested that the space group is I4122 with the unit cell about
 1/3 smaller (I paste the patterson analyses below).
 I tried to reprocess the data to get the suggested space group and unit cell
 using HKL2000. But the index always gives a long c axis about 313A.
 Could you provide any suggestions on how to proceed?

  Patterson analyses
 --

  Largest Patterson peak with length larger than 15 Angstrom

  Frac. coord.:0.5000.5000.174
  Distance to origin  :   93.757
  Height (origin=100) :   55.763
  p_value(height) :3.018e-05


The reported p_value has the following meaning:
  The probability that a peak of the specified height
  or larger is found in a Patterson function of a
  macro molecule that does not have any translational
  pseudo symmetry is equal to  3.018e-05