Dear Pramod,

To run XDS, you could try to run it via the CPP4 procedure XIA2, or via 
autoPROC from Global Phasing. What also may help is to retype the line:
NAME_TEMPLATE_OF_DATA_FRAMES=../images/WFTig1_???.mar2300  ! MAR345
I have had cases, where there were (I believe) hidden characters in there which 
caused XDS to fail. I would also check that the images XDS complains about, are 
really there and not empty. Your SPOT_RANGE line is commented out. I would 
remove the comment "!" and try different spot ranges, including all images. You 
may also want to play with STRONG_PIXEL, to find a value which finds your major 
diffraction pattern and ignores the minor pattern. Sometimes it helps, to 
specify the known(?) space group and cell dimensions, sometimes it is better to 
leave them out.

XDS output files are normally not multi-megabyte, so you could also consider to 
post the relevant output files (INIT.LP, COLSPOT.LP) to the bullitin board.

Best,
Herman
________________________________
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Pramod 
Kumar
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Juni 2013 22:59
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] str solving problem

Dear ...

Francis

Last I remember, HKL2000 bases its indexing on the 'strongest' spots on an 
image (though you could manually select spots). It could result in a misindex 
if the strongest spots come from separate lattices..

I have used both HKL2000 and mosflm giving the same results (although I have 
used manual selection of spots as a trial but results are identical).

Try a program that uses all spots for indexing, across all images (XDS for 
example) and you might get the true space group..

I have given several efforts to the XDS but its giving error  "data image of 
particular no. does not exist (initially it was saying 11th image than i change 
image range then it says 21st and so on) kindly check my data collection 
profile and XDS.INP file in attachment'

Or if the crystal is big enough, you could try shooting it in different areas 
and 'searching' for a better spot to collect data.
Or 'grow a better crystal'.

raising the crystals and struggle is on the peak...


Dear Eugene

plz find the attached scale log file, scaling table of mosflm

When you index spots in Mosflm, do your predictions agree with the spots?

plz see the snapshot of predicted spots..



Dear Eleanor
Yes both the molecule are visible in the ASU.



Dear Pozharski

Balbes pipeline hitting extremely high marks when fed into Phaser while being 
complete nonsense (it's a 150kDa multi-domain protein and resulting domain 
arrangement made absolutely no sense).  Refinement was stuck with high R-values 
and I sadly gave up on it for now.  I suspected that refmac step included in 
the pipeline artificially shifts the model so that it conforms to Patterson map 
better, which results in high score in Phaser.

My domain arrangement is as expected, two molecules in ASU.


thanks and regards

pramod









On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Eleanor Dodson 
<eleanor.dod...@york.ac.uk<mailto:eleanor.dod...@york.ac.uk>> wrote:
As others say - the Rfactors look pretty good for MR, mine usually start over 
50% even with a better model and one hopes they then decrease..
But you say you took the Balbes model into phaser? and I think Balbes 
automatically runs cycles of refinement so any comment on R factors may not 
mean much.

Have you found both molecules in the asymmetric unit? You only give LLG for one?
Eleanor




On 19 June 2013 17:44, Eugene Valkov 
<eugene.val...@gmail.com<mailto:eugene.val...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes, I would agree with Francis that diffraction shows contribution from 
several lattices, which could lead to misindexing. However, it should be 
feasible to get a model that refines from this sort of data.

Pramod - could you please post your data processing statistics from your 
scaling program? Better if you have several for different spacegroups.

Also, I have no idea how HKL200 does this, but could you please provide an 
indexing solution table from Mosflm that shows penalties associated with each 
type of space group? Was there a sharp penalty drop at some point or was it 
more gradual?

When you index spots in Mosflm, do your predictions agree with the spots? Or is 
there a substantial portion that are missed?

I would consider altering thresholds in Mosflm for indexing (see the manual).

Eugene




On 19 June 2013 17:34, Francis E. Reyes 
<francis.re...@colorado.edu<mailto:francis.re...@colorado.edu>> wrote:
On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Pramod Kumar 
<pramod...@gmail.com<mailto:pramod...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> I have a crystal data diffracted  around 2.9 A*,
>> during the data reduction HKL2000 not convincingly showed the space group 
>> (indexed in lower symmetry p1), while the mosflm given C-centered 
>> Orthorhombic, and again with little play around HKL2000 given CO
>



> no ice ring is appeared, diffraction pattern looks ok, misindexing in any 
> direction is not conclusive to me (plz see the imj attachment)

The diffraction does not look ok... there's hints of multiple lattices... which 
is not a problem if the two lattice orientations do not perfectly overlap (i.e. 
their spots are separable).

Last I remember, HKL2000 bases its indexing on the 'strongest' spots on an 
image (though you could manually select spots). It could result in a misindex 
if the strongest spots come from separate lattices (and even worse if you have 
twinning/pseudosymmetry issues).

Try a program that uses all spots for indexing, across all images (XDS for 
example) and you might get the true space group.

Or if the crystal is big enough, you could try shooting it in different areas 
and 'searching' for a better spot to collect data.

Or 'grow a better crystal'.

F



---------------------------------------------
Francis E. Reyes PhD
215 UCB
University of Colorado at Boulder



--
Dr Eugene Valkov
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Francis Crick Avenue
Cambridge Biomedical Campus
Cambridge CB2 0QH, U.K.

Email: eval...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk<mailto:eval...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 407840<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%201223%20407840>




--
************************************************
Pramod Kumar.
Graduate Student.
Crystallography lab.
Department Of Biotechnology.
Indian Institute Of Technology Roorkee
Uttranchal.247667
India
+919359189657.
************************************************

Reply via email to