puzzle picture
775: Player-Solution Redesign: Negative Design
Status: Closed

Summary

Name: 775: Player-Solution Redesign: Negative Design
Status: Closed
Created: 09/06/2013
Points: 100
Expired: 09/13/2013 - 16:00
Difficulty: Advanced
Description: In this puzzle you can redesign a player solution from Puzzle 742. The starting structure is the monomer subunit for a top-scoring solution by Galaxie, jamiexq, and tokens. See if you can find a higher-scoring sequence that stabilizes the design fold! This puzzle has an RMSD condition, so don't stray too far from the starting fold. We've also included alignments to two decoy folds—alternative high-scoring folds for the same amino acid sequence. New designs that also destabilize the decoy folds will be prime candidates for synthesis in the Baker lab! See the puzzle comments for more details.
Categories: Design, Overall

Top Groups

RankGroupScorePoints
1Russian team9,956100
2Gargleblasters9,91780
3Beta Folders9,89863
4Anthropic Dreams9,83949
5Contenders9,83037

Top Evolvers

Top Soloists

RankPlayerGroupScorePoints
1Grom 42 559 Russian team9,912100
2cbwest 78 57  9,89199
3pvc78 78 26 Beta Folders9,86597
4hpaege 78 38  9,86095
5Sadler 78 1437 Russian team9,85893


Need this puzzle? Log in to download.  

Comments

bkoep's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/15/2012
Groups: None
Negative design

After Puzzle 742 closed, scientists at the Baker lab flagged this solution as a promising design, and we sent the design sequence to Rosetta@home for ab initio folding simulations. Those simulations produced hundreds of thousands of structure predictions; each prediction is represented in the graph below as a single red dot, according to its potential energy ('score') and its dissimilarity to the design ('rmsd').

The good thing is that the predictions with the lowest potential energy are within 2 Ă… RMSD of the design (i.e. the most stable structure predictions are very similar to the design structure). However, we're a little worried about the two funnels on the right side of the plot, which represent 'decoy' structure predictions. Those structures have very different folds from the design although they are nearly as stable.

Before we try to make this protein in the lab, we want to be sure that the design structure is the most stable fold for the design sequence. This is our first attempt in Foldit towards what we call "negative design." We want to see if you can widen the energy gap between the design structure and these two decoys, by making mutations that destabilize the decoy folds.

gitwut's picture
User offline. Last seen 33 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 05/18/2012
Groups: Contenders
Please clarify

IANAMB, and am somewhat dense too. :)

What are we supposed to do with this puzzle? At first it seemed simple:

See if you can find a higher-scoring sequence that stabilizes the design fold! This puzzle has an RMSD condition, so don't stray too far from the starting fold.

Then you add decoy alignments to the mix.

What are we supposed to do with the two decoy alignments?

Are we supposed to overlay our above stabilized protein with each of the alignments and see what happens?

Are we supposed to find the highest scoring solution for each of the alignments?

bkoep's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/15/2012
Groups: None
Clarification

First, I'll clarify that the decoy alignments play no role in the scoring. So if you are just playing for the best rank on this puzzle, you can ignore the decoy alignments. However, if you get bored with that, or if you like the extra challenge, you can try to make mutations that cause the other alignments score badly.

marie_s is correct in her comment below. If you align the starting structure to any of the templates, then shake and wiggle, you'll notice that they all have similar scores. You want a design that scores well when aligned to TMPL1, and that scores poorly when aligned to TMPL2 or TMPL3. A simple and effective approach to checking your progress could be to: align to the decoy, shake and wiggle, compare score to design.

marie_s's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/18/2008
Groups: None
usage of the templates

If I understant the goal is to make a sequence with big score in tmpl1 and bad score in tmpl2 and tmpl3 after shaking.

bkoep's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/15/2012
Groups: None
This is correct

(Oops: The alignments were meant to have more descriptive titles, but I must have overlooked this when posting the puzzle. TMPL1 is the design; TMPL 2 and 3 are the decoys. Apologies for any confusion...)

tokens's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/28/2011
Trimer

Another question: As this is supposed to be a trimer, how do you make sure that we don't destroy the interface to the other two subunits when we start mutating? With only one subunit present in the puzzle, it seems likely that our mutations could remove the sidechains creating this interface.

bkoep's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/15/2012
Groups: None
Trimer

Good question. In fact, I would have liked to post this puzzle as a trimer, but there were some technical problems (read: Foldit bug) using the alignment tool with a symmetric puzzle. Rather than wait for another update to fix the issue, we opted to try the negative design puzzle for the monomer. Even if you destroy the trimer interface, a successful negative design puzzle would be pretty cool in and of itself!

utaca's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/18/2012
Groups: Void Crushers
Banding

It is not possible to use banding scripts like ravens BiS Flu because the exploration score gets immediatly higher than 2.0 and the score is lined out. Same issue if you move the protein with the pink cross (moving tool?). It's difficult to get the protein back on the grey line.
How can I align the protein back to the grey "exploration line"?

brow42's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 5 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
Groups: None
Compress

I've released http://fold.it/portal/recipe/46884 to do compress on puzzles that have conditions. It uses AreConditionsMet() instead of restore credit best. It may not get as many points, but it will give some.

utaca's picture
User offline. Last seen 15 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/18/2012
Groups: Void Crushers
Workaround

Thanks silver and brow!

After playing a little around i found that it's the best to minimize from time to time the exploration number by using the pink cross.
For raven's GAB BiS I found the best lined-out score in cntrl-3 and moving back by handwork. But does every script save a lined-out score?

Why shouldn't I get the points when the protein is only a little displaced? I understand that the devs need a tool to determine if the the fold is similar to the original but the grey line as a part of the score is too static.

Happy folding

Uta

P.S.:Another trick I tried didn't work: Loading the reset version as a guide and then align to guide.

Get Started: Download
  Windows    OSX    Linux  
Windows
(7/8/10)
OSX
(10.7 or later)
Linux
(64-bit)

Are you new to Foldit? Click here.

Are you a student? Click here.

Are you an educator? Click here.
Search
Only search fold.it
Recommend Foldit
User login
Soloists
Evolvers
Groups
Topics
Top New Users
Sitemap

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, RosettaCommons