In addition to in the information given in the pictures, researchers provide further descriptions for the figure stating:Players were also able to restructure b-sheets to improve hydrophobic burial and hydrogen bond quality. Automated methods have difficulty performing major protein restructuring operations to change b-sheet hydrogen-bond patterns, especially once the solution has settled in a local low-energy basin. Players were able to carry out these restructuring operations in such scenarios as strand swapping (Fig. 3) and register shifting. In one strand-swap puzzle, Foldit players were able to get within1.1 A° of the native structure, with the top-scoring Foldit prediction being 1.4 A° away. A superposition between the starting Foldit puzzle, the top-scoring Foldit solution, and model 1 of the native NMR structure 2kpo (Protein Data Bank) are shown in Fig. 3b. Rosetta's rebuild and refine protocol, however, was unable to get within 2 A ° of the native structure (Fig. 3a, yellow points). This example highlights a key difference between humans and computers. As shown in Fig. 3c, solving the strand-swap problem required substantially unraveling the structure (Fig.3c, bottom), with a corresponding unfavorable increase in energy (Fig. 3c, top). Players persisted with this reconfiguration despite the energy increase because they correctly recognized that the swap could ultimately lead to lower energies. In contrast, although the Rosetta rebuild and refine protocol did sample some partially swapped conformations (Fig. 3a, leftmost yellow point), these were not retained in subsequent generations owing to their relatively high energies, resulting in the top-scoring Rosetta prediction being further from the native than the starting structure. Human players are also able to distinguish which starting point will be most useful to them. Figure 3d, e shows a case where players were given ten different Rosetta predictions to choose from. Players were able to identify the model closest to the native structure, and to improve it further. Given the same ten starting models, the Rosetta rebuild and refine protocol was unable to get as close to the native structure as the top-scoring Foldit predictions.1. Based on these descriptions, describe the trends and patterns shown in the figure. (10 sentences minimum) and explain how those trends are relevant to predicted experimental outcomes. (4 sentences minimum) Cas!Rosetta energy This figure comes from an article about predicting protein structures with a multiplayer onlinegame and is titled, “Puzzles in which human predictors significantly outperformed the Rosettarebuild and refine protocol". It is given the following description:a. Comparison of Foldit player solutions (green) to the low-energy structures sampled inRosetta rebuild and refine trajectories (yellow) for blind Foldit puzzle 986875 based onthe recently determined structure of 2kpo. The x axis is the all-atom r.m.s.d. to 2kpo,and the y axis is the Rosetta energy. The starting Foldit puzzle was 4.3 AⓇ away fromthe native structure (shown by the black dot on the plot); Foldit players sampled manydifferent conformations, with the top-scoring submission (the lowest scoring Rosettaenergy) 1.4 A away from the native structure, whereas the automated Rosetta protocoldid not sample below 2 A°. The blue dots and lines correspond to the trajectory of asingle Foldit player in c.b. Superposition of the top scoring Foldit prediction in green with the experimentallydetermined NMR model 1 in blue. The starting puzzle is in red, where the terminalstrand is incorrectly swapped with its neighbour; 8% of all Foldit players were able toswap these strands correctly (Supplementary Table 2).c. A score trajectory with selected structures for the top-scoring player in puzzle 986875over a 2-h window, showing how the player explores through high-energy conformationsto reach the native state. The y axis shows the Rosetta energy and the x axis theelapsed time in hours. The starting structure had a Rosetta energy of 2243. Each pointin the plot represents a solution produced by this player. The first structure (1) is nearthe starting puzzle structure, shown as the black dot in panel a. The following structures(2-6) are shown as blue dots in panel a. In structures 2-4, the player must explorehigher energies to move the strand into place, shown by the blue lines. In structures 5and 6, the player refines the strand pairing.d. Comparison of Foldit player solutions (green) to the low-energy structures sampled inRosetta rebuild and refine trajectories (yellow) for blind Foldit puzzle 986698 based onthe recently determined structure of 2kky. Foldit players were able to get the best Folditscore by correctly picking from multiple alternative starting Rosetta models (black) themodel that was closest to the native structure.e. The native structure is shown in blue with the top scoring Foldit prediction shown ingreen. The top-scoring Rosetta rebuilds and refine prediction given the same tenstarting models (shown in yellow) was unable to sample as close to the native structureas the Foldit players.

Question

In addition to in the information given in the pictures, researchers provide further descriptions for the figure stating:Players were also able to restructure b-sheets to improve hydrophobic burial and hydrogen bond quality. Automated methods have difficulty performing major protein restructuring operations to change b-sheet hydrogen-bond patterns, especially once the solution has settled in a local low-energy basin. Players were able to carry out these restructuring operations in such scenarios as strand swapping (Fig. 3) and register shifting. In one strand-swap puzzle, Foldit players were able to get within1.1 A° of the native structure, with the top-scoring Foldit prediction being 1.4 A° away. A superposition between the starting Foldit puzzle, the top-scoring Foldit solution, and model 1 of the native NMR structure 2kpo (Protein Data Bank) are shown in Fig. 3b. Rosetta's rebuild and refine protocol, however, was unable to get within 2 A ° of the native structure (Fig. 3a, yellow points). This example highlights a key difference between humans and computers. As shown in Fig. 3c, solving the strand-swap problem required substantially unraveling the structure (Fig.3c, bottom), with a corresponding unfavorable increase in energy (Fig. 3c, top). Players persisted with this reconfiguration despite the energy increase because they correctly recognized that the swap could ultimately lead to lower energies. In contrast, although the Rosetta rebuild and refine protocol did sample some partially swapped conformations (Fig. 3a, leftmost yellow point), these were not retained in subsequent generations owing to their relatively high energies, resulting in the top-scoring Rosetta prediction being further from the native than the starting structure. Human players are also able to distinguish which starting point will be most useful to them. Figure 3d, e shows a case where players were given ten different Rosetta predictions to choose from. Players were able to identify the model closest to the native structure, and to improve it further. Given the same ten starting models, the Rosetta rebuild and refine protocol was unable to get as close to the native structure as the top-scoring Foldit predictions.1. Based on these descriptions, describe the trends and patterns shown in the figure. (10 sentences minimum) and explain how those trends are relevant to predicted experimental outcomes. (4 sentences minimum) Cas!Rosetta energy This figure comes from an article about predicting protein structures with a multiplayer onlinegame and is titled, “Puzzles in which human predictors significantly outperformed the Rosettarebuild and refine protocol&#34;. It is given the following description:a. Comparison of Foldit player solutions (green) to the low-energy structures sampled inRosetta rebuild and refine trajectories (yellow) for blind Foldit puzzle 986875 based onthe recently determined structure of 2kpo. The x axis is the all-atom r.m.s.d. to 2kpo,and the y axis is the Rosetta energy. The starting Foldit puzzle was 4.3 AⓇ away fromthe native structure (shown by the black dot on the plot); Foldit players sampled manydifferent conformations, with the top-scoring submission (the lowest scoring Rosettaenergy) 1.4 A away from the native structure, whereas the automated Rosetta protocoldid not sample below 2 A°. The blue dots and lines correspond to the trajectory of asingle Foldit player in c.b. Superposition of the top scoring Foldit prediction in green with the experimentallydetermined NMR model 1 in blue. The starting puzzle is in red, where the terminalstrand is incorrectly swapped with its neighbour; 8% of all Foldit players were able toswap these strands correctly (Supplementary Table 2).c. A score trajectory with selected structures for the top-scoring player in puzzle 986875over a 2-h window, showing how the player explores through high-energy conformationsto reach the native state. The y axis shows the Rosetta energy and the x axis theelapsed time in hours. The starting structure had a Rosetta energy of 2243. Each pointin the plot represents a solution produced by this player. The first structure (1) is nearthe starting puzzle structure, shown as the black dot in panel a. The following structures(2-6) are shown as blue dots in panel a. In structures 2-4, the player must explorehigher energies to move the strand into place, shown by the blue lines. In structures 5and 6, the player refines the strand pairing.d. Comparison of Foldit player solutions (green) to the low-energy structures sampled inRosetta rebuild and refine trajectories (yellow) for blind Foldit puzzle 986698 based onthe recently determined structure of 2kky. Foldit players were able to get the best Folditscore by correctly picking from multiple alternative starting Rosetta models (black) themodel that was closest to the native structure.e. The native structure is shown in blue with the top scoring Foldit prediction shown ingreen. The top-scoring Rosetta rebuilds and refine prediction given the same tenstarting models (shown in yellow) was unable to sample as close to the native structureas the Foldit players.

Accepted Answer

Based on the figure and the descriptions you have provided, here is a summary of the trends and…

This figure comes from an article about predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online ame and is titled, “Puzzles in which human predictors significantly outperformed the Rosetta ebuild and refine protocol". It is given the following description: