From the front page.
----------------------------
Sep 25, 2006A
The predicted model from Rosetta@home for CASP7 target T0363 and the users whose computers generated the lowest energy models have been posted on the top predictions page. Congratulations!

-----------------
Frederic Salve
SafeAggie
bjoped
rkern (Team SaR Hessen)

Comparison of native structure (blue) and template (red) based prediction (green) with Rosetta@home, 1.65 Angstroms over 47 residues. Thanks to the many users who contributed to this prediction! The users who produced the lowest energy predictions for the workunits used in the prediction are listed above. Congratulations!



-----------------

---

Team mauisun.org

-So what causes, in the model procedure, to not get it exact ?

-Has it given you any ideas for how to improve it ?

-What is it ?

---

Team mauisun.org

Indeed, a simple word from the project team about this prediction would be good :)
* For me (non-technical) the picture doesn't say alot. I looks pretty good to me but...
* Is this result good/the best/poor/...?
* How was the result of Rosetta compared with other parties?

---

Member of Dutch Power Cows

Hi fluffy,

The resolution of 1.65 Angstroms is pretty close to the native structure and almost within the error margin of a crystalized structure (which is about 1.5 Angstrom iirc). So the question shouldn't be why is it not exact but why is it so damn close. I don't know fur sure but I think with any structure being withn 2 Angstroms the project staff is pretty happy.

From the front page.
----------------------------
Sep 25, 2006A
The predicted model from Rosetta@home for CASP7 target T0363 and the users whose computers generated the lowest energy models have been posted on the top predictions page.

....

Comparison of native structure (blue) and template (red) based prediction (green) with Rosetta@home, 1.65 Angstroms over 47 residues.

.....

Hi,
I noticed that the comparison in this picture is made among 3 different structures:
1. Native (green) structure, as published by CASP I guess, letting no questions arise about whre it comes from and why it takes part to this comparison.
2. Lowest energy (blue) R@H prediction, hence R@H best guess for the protein structure, also letting no basic questions arise.
3. A template (red) structure, the origin of which is not very clear to me... could someone tell me where this structure comes froma, and what should it add to the comparison between the native (or, better, CASP-published) structure and the R@H best guess one?

Thanks

darkpella

---

3. A template (red) structure, the origin of which is not very clear to me... could someone tell me where this structure comes from, and what should it add to the comparison between the native (or, better, CASP-published) structure and the R@H best guess one?

I think we're dealing with one of the refinement targets. The red structure is perhaps a structure, which is close to the native but not quite, which CASP released so the contestants could refine it.

- Knorr

---

Indeed, a simple word from the project team about this prediction would be good :)
* For me (non-technical) the picture doesn't say alot. I looks pretty good to me but...
* Is this result good/the best/poor/...?
* How was the result of Rosetta compared with other parties?

I just posted an explanation in my journal of the prediction. it is certainly very good on an absolute scale as it is close to the native strucutre. but remember we won't learn until the end of November at the casp meeting how our predictions compare to those of other groups.

---