sharing with scientists

Case number:699969-2011288
Opened by:Bruno Kestemont
Opened on:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 - 20:21
Last modified:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 - 20:21

It may happen that a lot of different designs are available, but the number of shares to scientists being limited, I wonder what you prefer us to do:

1-sharing 2 very similar secondary and tertiary structures but slightly different primary structure (1-2 mutated AAs)

2-sharing a low wiggle power solution with perfect bonus achievement or the same at high wp one with competitive score but slightly lower bonus (e.g. with 1 non ideal loop or a slower core interface)

3-sharing a perfect SS with all achieved bonus but only simple first hand primary structure, very low score, or the same with competitive score and little amount of "red" residues (which would ask us several days more evolution to check it's energy potential).

4-if we want to stop working on a second best solution and still share it to scientists: what would be the minimum achieved points you would consider when receiving a nice 3D structure: positive points ? 50% of the top score? 80% ?

5-it might happen I develop 2 competitive parallel tracks starting from same first design (e.g. with good HBN). After days, the 2 solutions might look like very similar to my eyes even if, for sure, the details are different (sidechains positions etc). Is it still interesting to share the 2 results?

(Tue, 03/02/2021 - 20:21  |  0 comments)


Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons