Protein Modeling C

User avatar
eagerlearner102
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: December 29th, 2017, 5:20 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby eagerlearner102 » February 6th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Also, the research paper was talking about the significance of asp14. I am kind of confused by what they meant. Do they mean that occupying the phosphate lock loop prevents guide RNA from being formed (target heteroduplex)? I am confused.
2020 events: Protein Modeling, Ping Pong Parachute, Designer Genes
2019 events: Protein Modeling, Sounds of Music, Fermi Questions
Competition: 2019 Northern California Bay Area Regional
Fermi Questions: 2nd
Sounds of Music: 4th
Protein Modeling: 9th :?

shivanirao21
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 3rd, 2018, 4:32 pm

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby shivanirao21 » February 7th, 2019, 3:53 pm

thoughts on adding the sgRNA to the model? for regionals, my partner and i built just the AcrIIA4 with significant side chains... and i think adding more would have earned us more points. we want to add on for states. would adding the sgRNA be too much??
Codebusters
Forensics
Protein Modeling

User avatar
CookiePie1
Member
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: February 15th, 2018, 5:05 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Location: Am I here? Or there? Or both...?

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby CookiePie1 » February 7th, 2019, 4:18 pm

thoughts on adding the sgRNA to the model? for regionals, my partner and i built just the AcrIIA4 with significant side chains... and i think adding more would have earned us more points. we want to add on for states. would adding the sgRNA be too much??
I don't think it's too much; rather it's important to the Cas9 protein, but AcrIIA4 doesn't directly affect the sgRNA. Therefore, you might be better off adding some of the parts that AcrIIA4 directly interacts with.
South Brunswick High School '22
2019 Events: Thermodynamics, Protein Modeling, Mission Possible, Wright Stuff

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-Albert Einstein

Check out my userpage!

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby Unome » February 8th, 2019, 1:37 pm

Rules clarification as of today: the points distribution is 20% pre-build, 40% onsite build, and 40% test. This might be one of the latest rules clarification ever issued, and it's a rather major one too.

https://www.soinc.org/events/rules-clarifications
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

User avatar
EastStroudsburg13
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3028
Joined: January 17th, 2009, 7:32 am
Division: Grad
State: MD
Location: At work trying to be a real adult
Contact:

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby EastStroudsburg13 » February 8th, 2019, 4:52 pm

Rules clarification as of today: the points distribution is 20% pre-build, 40% onsite build, and 40% test. This might be one of the latest rules clarification ever issued, and it's a rather major one too.

https://www.soinc.org/events/rules-clarifications
I'm really curious about the reasoning behind it. For the rules clarification to happen this late, and for it to be one that has such a big impact, there has to be some major reason they felt like they had to do it.
East Stroudsburg South Class of 2012, Alumnus of JT Lambert, Drexel University Class of 2017

Helpful Links
Wiki
Wiki Pages that Need Work
FAQ and SciOly FAQ Wiki
Chat (See IRC Wiki for more info)
BBCode Wiki


If you have any questions for me, always feel free to shoot me a PM.

User avatar
CookiePie1
Member
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: February 15th, 2018, 5:05 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Location: Am I here? Or there? Or both...?

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby CookiePie1 » February 8th, 2019, 6:17 pm

Rules clarification as of today: the points distribution is 20% pre-build, 40% onsite build, and 40% test. This might be one of the latest rules clarification ever issued, and it's a rather major one too.

https://www.soinc.org/events/rules-clarifications
I'm really curious about the reasoning behind it. For the rules clarification to happen this late, and for it to be one that has such a big impact, there has to be some major reason they felt like they had to do it.
Maybe it goes to some of the 'pay-to-win' type things. I think some schools are sinking a ton of money into it and they probably just don't want that.
South Brunswick High School '22
2019 Events: Thermodynamics, Protein Modeling, Mission Possible, Wright Stuff

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-Albert Einstein

Check out my userpage!

primitivepolonium
Member
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: August 3rd, 2013, 9:00 am
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby primitivepolonium » February 8th, 2019, 9:06 pm

Rules clarification as of today: the points distribution is 20% pre-build, 40% onsite build, and 40% test. This might be one of the latest rules clarification ever issued, and it's a rather major one too.

https://www.soinc.org/events/rules-clarifications
I'm really curious about the reasoning behind it. For the rules clarification to happen this late, and for it to be one that has such a big impact, there has to be some major reason they felt like they had to do it.
Maybe it goes to some of the 'pay-to-win' type things. I think some schools are sinking a ton of money into it and they probably just don't want that.
So I'm a States supervisor for Protein Modeling. I can't say much, but my understanding is that there really isn't a lot of...safety around the prebuild rubric. It is pay-to-win.

The general gist is: if things haven't changed too much since 2015/6, I have pretty good reason to suspect that a good chunk of teams (including top teams) have the model and rubric. When I did PMod then, my Protein partner and coach got their hands on the prebuild rubric; I knew people at other schools who did the same.

The final straw was an incident of widespread distribution of the rubric. Afterwards, MSOE probably decided that it wasn't really fair to put so much value on the prebuild section and thus adjusted the score accordingly. It's a bit late to really do much else towards changing the event.
Div D! I really like chem, oceanography, and nail polish--not in that order.

Troy HS, co2016.

Feel free to PM me about SciOly or college or whatever! I really enjoy making online friends.

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby Unome » February 9th, 2019, 5:09 am

I'm really curious about the reasoning behind it. For the rules clarification to happen this late, and for it to be one that has such a big impact, there has to be some major reason they felt like they had to do it.
Maybe it goes to some of the 'pay-to-win' type things. I think some schools are sinking a ton of money into it and they probably just don't want that.
So I'm a States supervisor for Protein Modeling. I can't say much, but my understanding is that there really isn't a lot of...safety around the prebuild rubric. It is pay-to-win.

The general gist is: if things haven't changed too much since 2015/6, I have pretty good reason to suspect that a good chunk of teams (including top teams) have the model and rubric. When I did PMod then, my Protein partner and coach got their hands on the prebuild rubric; I knew people at other schools who did the same.

The final straw was an incident of widespread distribution of the rubric. Afterwards, MSOE probably decided that it wasn't really fair to put so much value on the prebuild section and thus adjusted the score accordingly. It's a bit late to really do much else towards changing the event.
I get the feeling that this was inevitable, considering the way the rubric is held in secret.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

User avatar
Person
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 143
Joined: September 4th, 2015, 6:27 pm
Division: C
Location: ento

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby Person » February 9th, 2019, 9:52 am

Does the final alpha helix begin at Glu71, or Glu70?
In Jmol, you can just do 'color structure' and hover your mouse on where the last helix begins (I think its purple for a 3-10 helix)
I think I'm confused because looking at this, it would appear to start at Glu71, but looking at Jmol, it seems to start at Glu70. I noticed this with the other helices too - according to the sequence chain view, the first helix starts at Ile3, but the prebuild visualization environment colors it magenta starting from Asn2, etc. Should I just follow the sequence chain view from the PDB?
I am a Person.
Past events: Solar Systems, Crave the Wave, ENTOMOLOGY, Dynamic Planet, Scrambler, Invasive Species, Forensics, Hydrogeology, Optics, Herpetology, Astronomy, Remote Sensing
#TehEntoCult ENTO IS LUV ENTO IS LYFE
Most Original Username 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫

juakk700
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: February 24th, 2018, 3:56 pm
Division: C
State: IN

Re: Protein Modeling C

Postby juakk700 » February 9th, 2019, 8:44 pm

Hello! I was looking at past rubrics from this event in the past. I was wondering if anyone knew the differences between Loops and Turns they mention? Rubric from 2010 is below.

https://scioly.org/wiki/images/2/2e/201 ... Onsite.pdf
North Central HS


Return to “2019 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests