But I have no idea how to decipher them. . hopefully we get some word from the lab soon (although most are probably at the conference this morning):

http://www2.predictioncenter.org/casp/casp7/public_tmp/cgi-bin/results.cgi

---

I guess the 'Rank' column here is the one to look at(?)

---

Hi,

another place to look at is here.

[EDIT]OOops, a little caveat: that page seems to be very big in transfer volume as it loads pretty slow here, so if you do not have DSL you might run into problems. Maybe it is just a slow connection, but I thought I'd rather warn you.[/EDIT]

What you see below each target is its structure and, the interesting part, a plot with orange lines. The upward axis is the deviation from the original structure in Angstroms, the horizontal line shows the percentage of residues within that deviation. The Baker team is always highlighted (lowlighted in that case?) as a black line in the link I put here.

The best possible plot would of course be a flat line at 0 Angstroms = perfect match for all percentages (or rather just a dot at 0 Angstroms / 100 percent). In reality you see curves for which a simple rule is valid: Lower is better. So everybody that is lying farther left and upward has performed worse than the Baker team ( = has got higher deviations for the same percentage of residues), everybody who is further down and right has done better ( = has lower deviation for the same percentage of residues).

Rosetta is in the lower right portion for a lot of targets, sometimes it looks like it is best overall and there are also some "dropouts" that are rather a little worse than average. But on the whole I'd say it looks pretty good.
[Edit2] Look for the T0299's and you're in for some eye-candy for Rosetta. Very nice curves there.[/Edit]

Who are those other guys worser or better than Baker ? Other labs using their own software for proteine structure predicting ?

And are all Rosetta@home users part of Baker ?

Sorry for my dumb questions, but I want to try to understand.

---

I don't know who they are, but yes, they're other groups using their own software. Everyone participating in Rosetta@home was contributing to "Baker".

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

If you click on the Protein designation (T0384 for example) - it lists all the groups that submitted a result to test. There's perhaps another list on the CASP7 web page that identifies those groups/teams, so you can tell that "Baker" = Rosetta@Home - all of us, plus the team back in the computer labs.

Back when in CASP5, when crunching for Distributed Folding - the results we were getting were in the middle of the pack. Not great on some, lousy on others.. but always middle of the pack.

It's interesting to see that the Rosetta client seems similarly consistent - although near the top of the pack for most things. Is there an easy explanation for why it looks like we hit the middle of the pack for T0285 and T0287? i.e. do any of the recent changes to Rosetta@Home improve our results enough for that type of protein that we'd match or do better than the best score?

---

i think it has already made good publiticy, I see the Teraflops went up :)

---