conway2016 correction on beta-nov15?

Member Site › Forums › Rosetta 3 › Rosetta 3 – Applications › conway2016 correction on beta-nov15?

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • March 15, 2017 at 12:26 pm #2619
      Anonymous

        conway2016 correction was shown to be a useful improvement when applied to talaris2014. I just wonder if it makes sense to apply it to the new generation of scoring functions, say, beta-nov15 in Rosetta3.8 ?

      • March 15, 2017 at 1:39 pm #12229
        Anonymous

          I’m pretty sure it’s not safe to apply Talaris14 corrections to beta15.  I expect Conway’s work is considered in beta15 (don’t let the dates fool you – beta15 will have a 17 name when we make it the official scorefunction).  I’ve asked for clarification.

        • March 15, 2017 at 1:39 pm #12750
          Anonymous

            I’m pretty sure it’s not safe to apply Talaris14 corrections to beta15.  I expect Conway’s work is considered in beta15 (don’t let the dates fool you – beta15 will have a 17 name when we make it the official scorefunction).  I’ve asked for clarification.

          • March 15, 2017 at 1:39 pm #13271
            Anonymous

              I’m pretty sure it’s not safe to apply Talaris14 corrections to beta15.  I expect Conway’s work is considered in beta15 (don’t let the dates fool you – beta15 will have a 17 name when we make it the official scorefunction).  I’ve asked for clarification.

            • March 16, 2017 at 3:34 am #12232
              Anonymous

                Frank (DiMaio) lets me know that the Conway corrections will be “merged” with beta15 for beta16 (which I think is probably available, if unpublicized, in 3.8).  So, don’t try to combine them yourself, but do give beta16 a spin.

              • March 16, 2017 at 3:34 am #12753
                Anonymous

                  Frank (DiMaio) lets me know that the Conway corrections will be “merged” with beta15 for beta16 (which I think is probably available, if unpublicized, in 3.8).  So, don’t try to combine them yourself, but do give beta16 a spin.

                • March 16, 2017 at 3:34 am #13274
                  Anonymous

                    Frank (DiMaio) lets me know that the Conway corrections will be “merged” with beta15 for beta16 (which I think is probably available, if unpublicized, in 3.8).  So, don’t try to combine them yourself, but do give beta16 a spin.

                  • March 15, 2017 at 3:49 pm #12230
                    Anonymous

                      Thanks for the quick answer! 

                      I was more concerned if it is a good idea to apply conway2016 correction to beta-nov15, rather than Talaris14 correction to beta (just curious: how could you possibly do that, apart from writing you own correction file containing Talaris2014 weights? )

                      Conway 2016 (ProteinSci) does not cite Park2016 (JCTC), neither does Park2016 cite Conway2016

                    • March 15, 2017 at 3:49 pm #12751
                      Anonymous

                        Thanks for the quick answer! 

                        I was more concerned if it is a good idea to apply conway2016 correction to beta-nov15, rather than Talaris14 correction to beta (just curious: how could you possibly do that, apart from writing you own correction file containing Talaris2014 weights? )

                        Conway 2016 (ProteinSci) does not cite Park2016 (JCTC), neither does Park2016 cite Conway2016

                      • March 15, 2017 at 3:49 pm #13272
                        Anonymous

                          Thanks for the quick answer! 

                          I was more concerned if it is a good idea to apply conway2016 correction to beta-nov15, rather than Talaris14 correction to beta (just curious: how could you possibly do that, apart from writing you own correction file containing Talaris2014 weights? )

                          Conway 2016 (ProteinSci) does not cite Park2016 (JCTC), neither does Park2016 cite Conway2016

                        • March 15, 2017 at 5:23 pm #12231
                          Anonymous

                            By “Talaris2014 corrections”, I meant “the Conway corrections to Talaris2014”.  I’m assuming they are corrections to 2014 – I don’t remember off the top of my head.  I’m no longer academic so I can’t readily grab the paper to check, and it’s not written into the code in such a way that I can grep for it.

                            Both papers are out of the DiMaio lab, so I think it’s safe to assume that beta15 contains the ideas from both sources; I can’t comment on why they don’t cross-cite.

                          • March 15, 2017 at 5:23 pm #12752
                            Anonymous

                              By “Talaris2014 corrections”, I meant “the Conway corrections to Talaris2014”.  I’m assuming they are corrections to 2014 – I don’t remember off the top of my head.  I’m no longer academic so I can’t readily grab the paper to check, and it’s not written into the code in such a way that I can grep for it.

                              Both papers are out of the DiMaio lab, so I think it’s safe to assume that beta15 contains the ideas from both sources; I can’t comment on why they don’t cross-cite.

                            • March 15, 2017 at 5:23 pm #13273
                              Anonymous

                                By “Talaris2014 corrections”, I meant “the Conway corrections to Talaris2014”.  I’m assuming they are corrections to 2014 – I don’t remember off the top of my head.  I’m no longer academic so I can’t readily grab the paper to check, and it’s not written into the code in such a way that I can grep for it.

                                Both papers are out of the DiMaio lab, so I think it’s safe to assume that beta15 contains the ideas from both sources; I can’t comment on why they don’t cross-cite.

                              • March 16, 2017 at 8:21 am #12233
                                Anonymous

                                  Thank you very much for the clarification! 

                                  Indeed, in the help page for beta16, conway16 correction is introduced:

                                  https://www.rosettacommons.org/docs/latest/Updates-beta-nov16

                                  cheers,

                                • March 16, 2017 at 8:21 am #12754
                                  Anonymous

                                    Thank you very much for the clarification! 

                                    Indeed, in the help page for beta16, conway16 correction is introduced:

                                    https://www.rosettacommons.org/docs/latest/Updates-beta-nov16

                                    cheers,

                                  • March 16, 2017 at 8:21 am #13275
                                    Anonymous

                                      Thank you very much for the clarification! 

                                      Indeed, in the help page for beta16, conway16 correction is introduced:

                                      https://www.rosettacommons.org/docs/latest/Updates-beta-nov16

                                      cheers,

                                  • Author
                                    Posts
                                  Viewing 6 reply threads
                                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.