Information about the objectives in this puzzle. (All objectives give +1000 points when fully satisfied.)
Most objectives have a "Show" button which should highlight areas of concern in red. (Even when fully satisfied, objectives may highlight groups which may eventually contribute.)
...is not to play.
No matter what is changed, it triggers one or more of the penalties and/or drops the score hundreds or thousands of points. Get rid of the amide... lose 300 points because cLogP is now too high. Add an oxygen to fix the cLogP... and get a Ligand Hydrogen Bond Donor penalty of 200 points. Add a nitrogen, instead... and get a thousand point penalty for having undesired groups. Why do you think half the players are still at the starting score of 19,760 points?
You've got to give us dummies some guidance on what to do, or we will walk away in frustration.
1/10... would not play, again.
... I managed to break past the starting score by literally making random changes, until something scored better. Not the best scientific approach. Is this what we want?
One of the reasons we aren't giving clear "do this to win" instructions is that we're not sure what is going to work well.
The objectives are based on real considerations -- There's certain groups which cause issues with drug development, so we penalize them. We know that the starting structure is a bit too polar (and too like a peptide) for being a good candidate. On the other hand, if you get too hydrophobic the compounds aren't good either. A good small molecule design has to strike a fine balance between the two extremes. (Enough polar groups such that it's not too hydrophobic, but not too many polar groups, and definitely not certain types of polar groups.) We might be setting the objectives a bit too tight on this puzzle, though.
Keep in mind it's very early days for small molecule design in Foldit. We're still figuring out how to dial in the objectives to get good results. Basically, think of the state of protein folding in Foldit back in 2008, or the de novo protein design puzzles back in the early 2010s. It's a learning experience on both sides -- on our side on how to set up the puzzles to get the sort of designs that are worth making in the wetlab, and on your side to figure out how to work with the puzzle setup to make compounds that score well (and are worth making in the wetlab).
The hope is that the community can come together to produce resources on how to approach small molecule design puzzles from a citizen science perspective. Crowdsourcing drug design isn't something that has a lot of precedence. Experts in big pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of time on similar sorts of problems, with a rather low success rate. There's some resources and institutional knowledge out there for experts, but currently not a lot targeted at citizen scientists.
The Foldit developers (and our collaborators at BI) are certainly willing to help out with information if we can, but we're also a bit in the dark as to what will be maximally useful for you. To some extent, you might want to view these early small molecule design puzzles as a challenge to figure out "how to play" more than one where you apply well-worn techniques. -- There's a bunch of expertise and institutional knowledge that Foldit players have built up over the years for working with proteins. We don't have that (yet) for small molecule design, so we have to muck through together to build that up.
from the 19760 base score, if you replace an atom with the same atom then wiggle your score goes up by a few points, helpful to get it started.
As to method, i just did the same as Boots, make a change, wiggle it, score goes up else reset, repeat.
Yeah i've got no idea what i'm doing and it is frustrating but thats kinda foldit in a nutshell :)
Right now it's pretty hit and miss. Mostly miss. A couple of things in particular:
As Boots has already mentioned, the size of the penalties is way too big (exception: the 5 point penalty for an amide). For example make the ligand just a little more hydrophobic by adding a random methyl group somewhere and the cLogP score can drop by 300 or so. In the context of the puzzle that might as well be a million, as there's no way a compensating improvement will be that big.
Also the random crashing continues. It's a little better now the crash on loading issue has been fixed but still the life expectancy of Foldit when playing this puzzle is less than 5 minutes. There doesn't seem anything reproducible about the crashes either. It's a pity because I like the idea of this kind of puzzle but having to restart Foldit all the time is just too tiresome.
A player can form four covalent bonds to an amine nitrogen.
Is this correct?
For this game tetra alkyl/aryl ammonium species should likely be avoided. Ideally basic amines in the suggested molecules should be also avoided as this will make it easier to install a basic centre in the protein of interest binder in the resulting PROTAC (if the target protein requires it).