Hi Kyle,

I like James' suggestion.

A lightweight program to tell waters from ions used to be "xpand" by Gerard 
Kleywegt.

I just compiled this program for you. The zipfile with a "xpand" Linux binary, 
and the HTML manual "xpand_man.html" is at 
https://cloud.uni-konstanz.de/index.php/s/iEMCFF3rjXPd3Ap
It is a commandline program. When you run it, just specify "W" (for 
water-scrutinizer), and at the next prompt, the name of your PDB file. 

Tried it with 6HT2.pdb and it suggested 
# ? F-   (or other small anion)             : (          3)
out of the 122 water molecules.
Maybe this can identify the ions among your waters.

Hope this is useful,
Kay

On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:19:22 +0000, Kyle Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi James,
>
>Thank you for the suggestion. I'm getting our IT department to install phenix 
>soon so should be able to try this.
>
>Kind regards,
>Kyle
>________________________________
>From: CCP4 bulletin board <[email protected]> on behalf of James Holton 
><[email protected]>
>Sent: 13 January 2026 17:48
>To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Unusually low B-factors for 'waters'
>
>You don't often get email from [email protected]. 
>Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
>CAUTION:  This email came from outside of the University. To keep your account 
>safe, only click on links and open attachments if you know the person who sent 
>the email, or you expected to receive this communication.
>
>
>
>I think if you are seeing clear "waters" at 2.6 A then they are probably not 
>waters.
>
>Try turning them into Chlorine and refine their occupancy?  Multiply the 
>resulting occs by 8 and see how many electrons you get.
>
>Also, last I checked refmac5 does not support occupancies > 1, but phenix does 
>if you use main.occupancy_max=2.  Then you don't need to change the atom names.
>
>Just a suggestion,
>
>-James Holton
>MAD Scientist
>
>
>On 1/12/2026 5:33 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
>No - you can check any peak over the S to get some idea if expected signal but 
>maybe the data is not good enough to show anom peaks..
>
>On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 12:32, Kyle Gregory 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>Dear Eleanor,
>
>There is no visible signal in the weighted anomalous difference map at 3 
>sigma. Are there any other maps I should calculcate to check?
>
>Kind regards,
>Kyle
>________________________________
>From: Eleanor Dodson 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Sent: 12 January 2026 12:12
>
>To: Kyle Gregory <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Unusually low B-factors for 'waters'
>
>
>CAUTION:  This email came from outside of the University. To keep your account 
>safe, only click on links and open attachments if you know the person who sent 
>the email, or you expected to receive this communication.
>
>
>
>You dont say if you have checked the anomalous Fourier - want to be sure they 
>ARE waters and not CA say!
>Eleanor
>
>On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 12:02, Kyle Gregory 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Thank you everyone for your suggestions I will try to address everyone's 
>questions below.
>
>Indexing/integration was performed in DIALS followed by data reduction and 
>scaling in AIMLESS. MR with Phaser. Refinement was performed in Refmac all as 
>part of ccp4i2. I used automatic local NCS restraints and TLS restraints. I've 
>tried switching those off and the waters are still lower than protein. 
>Although I may try as Kay suggested (removing everything he said from PDB and 
>running basic Refmac settings). I've deleted the waters and re-added them, the 
>'problem' persists. I've ensured that the B-factors are reset at the start of 
>refinement, they are not automatically set to 16. 16 was an example. Some are 
>higher/lower but they are nearly always lower than the protein atoms they 
>coordinate. I truncated the data at 2.6 with a cc1/2 in outermost shell of 
>0.459 and i/sigi of 0.9. 100% completeness, with overall Rpim of 0.124, the 
>Rpim of the outermost shell is 0.872. I have ~ 350*10 residues. I have another 
>dataset (soaked with ligand) which behaves the same. The average B-factors of 
>all protein chains is 42. (33.1-49.2 range). The average B-factors for the 
>waters is 28.9.
>
>The wilson b-factor is 33.93. Some anisotropy is detected.
>[cid:[email protected]]
>
>I am not too suspicious of 10 mols as the protein forms a biological decamer. 
>The current Rwork/Rfree is 0.18/0.23. Space group is C 2. I ran Zanuda because 
>of this query by Omid. Zanuda concludes the original space group assignment 
>'seems to be correct'. The unit cell dimensions are 183.444 114.965 189.441 
>90.000 108.626 90.000.
>
>I will consider trying phenix/buster but I need to request their installation 
>by the IT department.
>
>Kind regards,
>Kyle
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Ian Tickle <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Sent: 07 January 2026 17:29
>To: Kyle Gregory <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Unusually low B-factors for 'waters'
>
>
>CAUTION:  This email came from outside of the University. To keep your account 
>safe, only click on links and open attachments if you know the person who sent 
>the email, or you expected to receive this communication.
>
>
>
>Hi Kyle
>
>You don't say what protocol you're using for the 10-fold NCS restraints (if 
>any).  If the NCS restraints are too tight compared with the differences 
>between NCS copies this will push up the protein B factors (and the R values) 
>to compensate.  So the problem may not be that the water B factors are too 
>low, rather the protein B factors are too high due to the overly tight NCS 
>restraints.  Also as Rafael asked how does the Wilson B factor compare with 
>the averages for the protein and waters - that might give a clue.
>
>Cheers
>
>-- Ian
>
>
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 14:48, Kyle Gregory 
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I have a 2.6 angstrom structure, which has 10 molecules in the ASU. I have 
>modelled approx 200 water molecules. They fit spherical density nicely and 
>make suitable contacts with the protein. The only problem is nearly every 
>single water molecule has a lower B-factor than the protein atoms they 
>coordinate. E.g protein atoms could be 30/40 while water is 16 angstrom^2.
>
>Does anyone have a suggestion as to why, and whether there are some things I 
>should be trouble shooting?
>
>Kind regards,
>Kyle
>
>________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>
>________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>########################################################################
>
>To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing 
>list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
>

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Reply via email to