CASP 10

Author	Message
David Baker Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 705 Credit: 559,847 RAC: 0	Message 74803 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:11:31 UTC - in response to Message 74802. Is there any point in running the work named "rb" now? Since we are past August, that was put up as deadline in the first post. yes! we are now trying to improve Rosetta using the CASP proteins as test cases now that we know the correct solutions. ID: 74803 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Mad_Max Send message Joined: 31 Dec 09 Posts: 207 Credit: 23,311,272 RAC: 11,198	Message 74804 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 2:32:29 UTC Congratulations on such a successful results! Аnd thanks for the science update. ID: 74804 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Adrian Larsson Send message Joined: 18 Mar 08 Posts: 5 Credit: 32,225 RAC: 0	Message 74805 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 20:02:28 UTC - in response to Message 74803. Is there any point in running the work named "rb" now? Since we are past August, that was put up as deadline in the first post. yes! we are now trying to improve Rosetta using the CASP proteins as test cases now that we know the correct solutions. Ah! Cool! Sounds exciting and interesting. I will crunch away as usual then :) ID: 74805 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

svincent Send message Joined: 30 Dec 05 Posts: 219 Credit: 11,805,838 RAC: 0	Message 74902 - Posted: 16 Jan 2013, 0:02:48 UTC Was there a general sense after the CASP 10 results came out that the state of the art in protein folding is advancing? Because looking at the overall TM_1 and GDT_1 scores and other metrics for the highest-ranking groups in CASP 10 there doesn't seem to be any improvement over the results from previous competitions: in fact they were slightly worse. A different set of proteins certainly but still wouldn't some incremental improvements be expected? ID: 74902 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

David Baker Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 705 Credit: 559,847 RAC: 0	Message 74991 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 0:04:29 UTC - in response to Message 74902. Was there a general sense after the CASP 10 results came out that the state of the art in protein folding is advancing? Because looking at the overall TM_1 and GDT_1 scores and other metrics for the highest-ranking groups in CASP 10 there doesn't seem to be any improvement over the results from previous competitions: in fact they were slightly worse. A different set of proteins certainly but still wouldn't some incremental improvements be expected? Yes, there was definitely progress. Since most of the predictions used structures of homologues as starting points, you have to look at the improvements of the predictions relative to these starting models. we are just putting together a paper on this, and I'll post the results when we have everything together. ID: 74991 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

[VENETO] boboviz Send message Joined: 1 Dec 05 Posts: 1860 Credit: 8,151,848 RAC: 8,290	Message 75333 - Posted: 8 Apr 2013, 9:29:42 UTC I see a lot of rn_date_CASP10 wus. Are we re-run old wus of casp competition? ID: 75333 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

[VENETO] boboviz Send message Joined: 1 Dec 05 Posts: 1860 Credit: 8,151,848 RAC: 8,290	Message 75372 - Posted: 15 Apr 2013, 20:17:07 UTC - in response to Message 75333. I see a lot of rn_date_CASP10 wus. And some of old-casp9 wus.... ID: 75372 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote