This is a challenge, even for someone who has professionally used the breadth of proteins. I really like the test. I'm actually kind of surprised at my own pulling on knowledge to make a guess - it's an orthogonal way to think about the question than is usually posed.
I wonder if there's a way to ease the difficulty by filling in 'correct' features of the guesses: if your guess is a 'transmembrane' then it reveals that as a property. On the other hand, I don't think the annotations are clean enough - and are often designed for 'at all' rather than 'primary' features. For one of the examples, once I noticed it was an adhesion protein, it would have been interesting to sift through classes or cell types as opposed to just continuing to shoot in the dark based on the structure alone.
I presume you're showing even the 'low confidence' portions of the predicted structure? Please do.
You could also show the primary amino acid sequence too - there's a weird familiarity with those given how often the structures themselves have historically not been so accessible. BLASTING each of the guesses would be another interesting thing to see.
I wonder if there's a way to ease the difficulty by filling in 'correct' features of the guesses: if your guess is a 'transmembrane' then it reveals that as a property. On the other hand, I don't think the annotations are clean enough - and are often designed for 'at all' rather than 'primary' features. For one of the examples, once I noticed it was an adhesion protein, it would have been interesting to sift through classes or cell types as opposed to just continuing to shoot in the dark based on the structure alone.
I presume you're showing even the 'low confidence' portions of the predicted structure? Please do.
You could also show the primary amino acid sequence too - there's a weird familiarity with those given how often the structures themselves have historically not been so accessible. BLASTING each of the guesses would be another interesting thing to see.