Baker Lab scientist bkoep recently sat down with Foldit players' designs from Puzzle 1018 for a visual inspection, which is the first step in our analysis of Foldit designs. Join us as we take a critical look at the latest symmetric proteins designed by Foldit players and voice some thoughts about the really cool things Foldit players are demonstrating in protein design!
In the video, you'll also hear brief discussion on the following topics:
- hydrogen bond networks
- core packing
- hydrophobic interfaces
- special considerations when designing with GLY, CYS, and MET residues
We apologize for the inconsistent sound quality—subtitles can be accessed on YouTube with the "CC" button below the video frame.
Check it out and leave your questions in the comments below!
Thank you very much for posting this :D I love it :)
Thank you
Perhaps someone is smart enough to make a summary…things like having a small interface between each monomer…fewer hydrophobics between them and goods bonds…I think also you mentioned the monomer needing to be soluble and voids between monomers to be (avoided)…not sure about that last one.
Thanks again.
Can you upload a better video quality version?
I bet the players and teams who worked on the structures you showed would like to see their names on the screen. While each structure is on the screen, you could list its Foldit score, its rank (solo or evo), the team name, the soloist, and any evolvers who worked on it.
and a masterclass in Pymol thrown in :D
I would love to see more of these reviews, without you having to take the time to show score and names, but it would be good to get an idea of the relative score of the ones you thought were good but were not high scoring.
A big take out for me was the 'soluble monomer' concept and that maximising the 'contact' along the 'length' of the monomer is not necessarily essential.
thanks
Your explanation definitely helped. My solution was more intricate than the top scoring solutions.
I agree with the comments of spmm. It would be nice to have another video commenting on some of the lower scoring solutions. You've given examples of mostly good designs. What would be helpful is to critique other designs in the 11-100 rankings. Otherwise I feel there will be an influx of similar looking designs in the future, which may or may not be what you want.
Sorry for the poor video (and audio) quality. We'll keep this in mind for future videos.
In accordance with our Terms of Service, we do not associate analysis and player information without explicit consent from the player in question. It is unlikely we will include Foldit usernames or ranking statistics in such videos.
In addition, I'd like to stress that we do not look at player information when evaluating Foldit designs. This video is intended strictly to communicate scientific concerns in protein design; I would not want to give any false impressions about the use of player data.
I am encouraged that so many players found this video helpful—perhaps we will do another one in the future.
Note that the only high-scoring structures addressed are the three designs between 16:00 and 22:00. All of the previous designs were "Shared with Scientists" and the final two exciting structures were buried deep in the stack of clustered solutions.
