CASP6 revisited.

Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : CASP6 revisited.

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile adrianxw
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 05
Posts: 653
Credit: 11,840,739
RAC: 51
Message 15645 - Posted: 7 May 2006, 13:01:25 UTC

I see we are crunching some of the CASP6 proteins again. I was wondering, with the improvements made in the interim, how todays Rosetta results compare to the CASP6 Rosetta at that time?
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
ID: 15645 · Rating: 1 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Snake Doctor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 182
Credit: 6,401,938
RAC: 0
Message 15652 - Posted: 7 May 2006, 15:41:02 UTC - in response to Message 15645.  
Last modified: 7 May 2006, 15:42:20 UTC

I see we are crunching some of the CASP6 proteins again. I was wondering, with the improvements made in the interim, how todays Rosetta results compare to the CASP6 Rosetta at that time?


That would be interesting to see. It would alos be interesting to know for those predictions that were close in CASP6, how many models had to be done verses using todays Rosetta application.
ID: 15652 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Cureseekers~Kristof

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 05
Posts: 80
Credit: 689,603
RAC: 0
Message 15659 - Posted: 7 May 2006, 17:42:51 UTC

yes, the prviouw CASP tests, Rosetta got good results, so they have to defend it.
Since CASP6, the Rosetta code must have been optimized. Since we ran soome CASP6 structures again, they should have noticed better results, than 2 years ago.
Let keep our fingers crossed!
Member of Dutch Power Cows
ID: 15659 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : CASP6 revisited.



©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org