Yeah, totally.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:19 pmcompletely agreePhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:54 pmThey're open sourced, I'm not sure that they use AI.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:41 pm
speed and specificity?
i’d honestly gave to look more closely at them all, but i’d assume that the two new AI technologies have outperformed those that you cited in the relevant competitions (presuming they participated in those or similar competitions)
are those other three open source as well?
from what i’ve read, at least with AlphaFold, it does a much better job of replicating the results of x-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy, but does so with a fraction of the time and cost
I just don't know how you can trust a computer derived 3d structure de novo.
I mean, I think it's great for, let's say the spike protein on the coronavirus, which has been crystalyzed gets another mutation and you want to see how that changes the protein structure...that's great, you have a REAL structure to start with, the computer gives you the most likely structure based on changing 1 or a few amino acids. Fast, cheap, reliable. On the other hand, lets say there's a new pathogen that shows up tomorrow and they want to determine the structure of a completely novel protein...sorry, but I'm only going to put so much trust into a structural prediction, until it gets its structure determined experimentally.
but i think this tech at least gives a starting point in such a case
in what i do, where epitope variation can drastically affect the efficacy of an antibody therapy, it’d be good to know where those differences are likely to be without investing the time and money into experimental procedures unnecessarily...particularly in a predictive way
Just was curious why this specifically warranted a Nature article when there are lots of 3D structure predictors. I guess it must be a big advance in quality or the technology used.