Hi! I’m confused about the hierarchy of possible solutions.
I just started, so I I’m taking into account what I’ve read so far (0.00001% of the total information) in this order:
- “at most n in a row”
- RNA specs (1rst dot plot, 2nd melt plot)
I reviewed several submitted design from other users, trying to understand what a good design is, and I see some of them don’t meet those criteria. But they are being submitted to labs anyway.
So, I’m not even sure how to start asking the tons of questions this has generated in my mind.
Maybe it would be a good strategy to just leave this topic here, and wait for someone to rescue me, since any reply to whatever question you think I have, I probably do have
In the lab you get to make a hypothesis as to how the shape will fold (your design) and have your design actually created so you can “see” if your hypothesis was correct. The lab discussion is a guideline as to what to look for or what to do. Put your “guess” as to what your design will do in the notes discussion so when created so you can easily determine if you were correct and possibly help science along the way. As an example you may ask: what makes this pseudoknot tick and submit lab designs investigating your question backed up by text as to what you did.
Thanks! That explains a lot of the background idea. I was stuck at the surface of the game, but I see now that this system encourages “citizen scientists” to take a step into a field normally beyond their reach. So interesting!
I will look more closely at tertiary structures.
The door is open, that’s awesome