1411: Unsolved De-novo Freestyle 113 Status: Closed

# Soloists

RankPlayerGroupScorePoints
76WBarme1234 60 28  9,1493
77diamonddays 60 599  9,1483
78cbwest 60 436  9,1323
79FishKAA 60 2063  9,1273
80TastyMunchies 60 2063  9,1193
81Mydogisa T... 60 2063  9,1153
82senor pit 60 2063  9,0872
83Vincera 60 63  9,0872
84froggs554 60 2063  9,0872
85benrh 60 2063  9,0722
86pauldunn 60 1160 Go Science9,0612
87georg137 15 31 Contenders8,9912
88pfirth 60 287  8,9812
90deLaCeiba 60 2063 Italiani Al Lavoro8,9722
91stomjoh 60 108  8,9511
92mitarcher 60 2063 Go Science8,9111
93tomespen 60 2063 Gargleblasters8,9051
94fpc 14 48  8,9021
95rabamino12358 60 2063  8,8861
96boondog 60 2063  8,8711
97C_Elegans 60 2063  8,8681
98Fog Darts 60 2063  8,8401
99khendarg 60 2063  8,8371
100leannerikicheever 60 2063  8,8361

Offline
Joined: 10/02/2011
Let us mutate just a few

This puzzle is an example where letting us mutate just a few (like maybe 3) residues (of our choosing) might result in an even more stable fold. For example, residues 82-86 IRRRI - 2 oranges separated by 3 blues - make psipred think the final structure is a helix. They might make it fold as a helix too. But I'd be willing to bet it was designed as a sheet. Substituting an orange for the middle R would convince psipred that it was a sheet, and might make it actually fold into a sheet more reliably than the given sequence does.

You could give us the protein with a few mutations allowed as a separate puzzle, if you don't want to mess up the results of whatever experiment you are currently doing with us predicting foldit designs.

You could find any solutions that resemble the original design, run those mutated sequences through Rosetta, and compare the results using only backbone atoms to the original design, to see if you get better funnel-shaped graphs.