[phenixbb] Overlapping ligand-protein side chain density

Oleg Sobolev osobolev at lbl.gov
Thu Mar 1 10:57:33 PST 2018

Hi Jason,

> The ligand and APHE got pushed away from one another and off of their
> respective densities. Occupancies for both were reduced to 0.5 for the
> refinement. What am I doing wrong here? Does the ligand need to have an
> altloc as well? But I don’t see an alternative conformation.

Yes, the ligand also needs an altloc, and it should be different from PHE
altloc. This way the refinement will know that these atoms don't see each
other. You don't have to put two alternative conformations for the ligand,
you can have just one with partial occupancy (<1.0) which will mean that
the ligand is not always there.

Best regards,
Oleg Sobolev.

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 5:35 PM, van den Bedem, Henry <
> vdbedem at slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> If the phe is a gatekeeper, shouldn’t the ligand be refined at partial
> occupancy; i.e. occupancies not necessarily have to ‘add up’ as you
> suggest? Maybe this link is helpful too: www.biorxiv.org/content/
> early/2018/01/24/253419
> H
> *From: *<phenixbb-bounces at phenix-online.org> on behalf of "Phan, Jason" <
> jason.phan at vanderbilt.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 1:30 PM
> *To: *"phenixbb at phenix-online.org" <phenixbb at phenix-online.org>
> *Subject: *[phenixbb] Overlapping ligand-protein side chain density
> All,
> A piece of a ligand and the side chain of a “gate-keeper” Phe occupy the
> same space with well-defined features observed for both (resolution is 1.7
> A). It looks about 50:50. How do you refine both ligand and protein side
> chain in this case? A couple of phenixbb suggestions for dealing with
> ligand-ligand overlapping density have been considered. With the first
> suggestion, the two entities still clashed and moved apart off of their
> respective densities. The second suggestion is not applicable in this case
> since the other molecule is not a ligand but part of the protein but it was
> tested anyway. Although there was no bumping, the occupancies don’t add up,
> resulting in a big blob of negative density around the ligand piece.
> ------------------------------
> Only two comments:
>    1. At that resolution, constrained group occupancy refinement should
>    work reasonably well (provided you can model the 2 entities). Then you also
>    do not have clashes between the molecules, because Occ(A)+Occ(B)=1, meaning
>    when one (A) is there, the other one (B) is not. This works with refmac
>    (external keyword file); if you need more sophisticated occupancy
>    re/constraints SHELXL may offer more opportunities.
>    2. There is no necessity for the two NCS copies of the binding site to
>    look exactly the same (non-equivalent). Maybe there is a good reason/story
>    (accessibility, contacts etc) for one site to be occupied differently than
>    the other one.
> Best, BR
> ——————————————
> Modeling two molecules that occupy overlapping binding sites in a
> structure simply involves designating them as alternate conformers, with
> the same chain and residue number, and an occupancy that sums to 1.0. For
> example, if you have an AMP and an ADP that occupy the same binding site,
> you would define them as
> AAMP B 501
> BADP B 501
> and initially set the occupancies for the atoms in each conformer to the
> ratio (50:50, 30:70, etc.) that you observe in the density.
> Refinement in this manner is straightforward in PHENIX.
> Diana
> ----------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
> Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave at phenix-online.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20180301/e032b9e9/attachment.htm>

More information about the phenixbb mailing list