The Date: 21 July 2015 (Tuesday) Add your questions to this post!</a>
The location: #veteran, IRC (Get help with chat here.)
The Time: 1800-1900 (or so, but the official chat ends after an hour) GMT (aka 11am-12pm Pacific)
The Time Zone Converter: Right this way!
The Topics: Science chat! (more details will be announced closer to the chat date)
Looking for inspiration? Follow-up on previous topics? Read our previous chats.
We can't wait to see you there.
Good afternoon. Thank you for your attention to my questions.
1) Why can not we do the most frequent genetic algorithms are combinations of protein? To find the best solutions.
2) If the protein has a common model model - why not make a neural network that will seek solutions based on the total of the best players in action?
3) If I'm in something wrong, or the application of these technologies is impossible to tell why.
Thank you very much.
Why do small peptides like 2 or 3 bridges? Doesn't 1 bridge already reduce the available conformations (entropy) enormously? Don't 2 bridges have a 50% chance of mis-folding, and 3 bridges 66%-84%?
A kind of "support" for MS HoloLens, to really work in 3D with proteins
Could the mutate function be adjusted to put fewer glycines in? Once a glycine has been in for a while is very hard to get rid of it, and if another amino acid were put in that spot early on the scripts we run would have a chance to adjust things around it and make it fit.
Are you running simulations on our Marburg binders? Will you tell us the results (good or bad)?
…we're actually looking into that. :)
Not really a science issue, but I certainly agree with Aotearoa, Susume, and others that more feedback is necessary. Some of the recent blog posts have been really useful here and it would be great to have a post mortem after each puzzle.
The post a while back about Tony Origami reaching Thermodynamic Lawbreaker status was interesting. First, what constitutes a "move" for record-keeping purposes?
More generally, does the science team look only at the final results, or at the process used to reach the result? There's a list of most-used recipes in CASP 10, so we know statistics can be gathered at the recipe level. What additional information is collected? I can't imagine that foldit central gets a clickstream containing every little change to the protein….
As others have requested, it would be interesting to see how the "revisiting" results compare to the originals.
Even more interesting would be to factor in the effect of faster computers and more complex recipes.
Given that foldit has some level of move-tracking (see my previous post), it seems like it might be possible to approximate how much "work" went into a given solution. I'd be curious to know whether the paleo-folders with their primitive stone tools were actually better than today's high-tech script kiddies. (Economists seem to be unable to detect productivity gains from the tech boom, but maybe that's because…they're economists….)