The SAM-T04 human predictions for CASP6 use a very similar method to the SAM-T02 method in CASP5. We start with a fully automated method: Use the SAM-T2K and SAM-T04 methods for finding homologs of the target and aligning them. Make local structure predictions using neural nets and the multiple alignments. Different neural nets are used for the SAM-T2K alignments and the SAM-T04 alignments. We currently use 7 local-structure alphabets: DSSP STRIDE STR2 an extended version of DSSP that splits the beta strands into multiple classes (parallel/antiparallel/mixed, edge/center) ALPHA an discretization of the alpha torsion angle: CA(i-i), CA(i), CA(i+1), CA(i+2) BYS a discretization of Ramachandran plots, due to Bystroff CB_burial_14_7 a 7-state discretization of the number of C_beta atoms in a 14 Angstrom radius sphere around the C_beta. DSSP_EHL2 CASP's collapse of the DSSP alphabet DSSP_EHL2 is not predicted directly by a neural net, but is computed as a weighted average of the other backbone alphabet predictions. We make 2-track HMMs with each alphabet (1.0 amino acid + 0.3 local structure) and use them to score a template library of 6400 (t04) or 9900 (t2k) templates We also used a single-track HMM to score not just the template library, but a non-redundant copy of the entire PDB. We also made a few 3-track HMMs (AA, str2, CB_burial_14_7) for finding and aligning more remote homologs. One-track HMMs built from the template library multiple alignments were used to score the target sequence (for early targets, only t2k template library was searched this way). All the logs of e-values were combined in a weighted average (with rather arbitrary weights, since we did not have time to optimize them), and the best templates ranked. Ranking was separate for predictions from the t2k and t04 multiple alignments. Alignments of the target to the top templates were made using several different alignment methods (mainly using the SAM hmmscore program, but a few alignments were made with Bob Edgar's MUSCLE profile-profile aligner). Generate fragments (short 9-residue alignments for each position) using SAM's "fragfinder" program and the 3-track HMM. Then the "undertaker" program (named because it optimizes burial) is used to try to combine the alignments and the fragments into a consistent 3D model. No single alignment or parent template was used, though in many cases one had much more influence than the others. The alignment scores were not passed to undertaker, but were used only to pick the set of alignments and fragments that undertaker would see. After the initial automatic run was finished, the results were examined by hand, and various tweaks were made to the undertaker cost function to improve the models. Many of the tweaks consisted of adding specific Hbonds, SSbonds, or distance constraints, to make the model look better to us. Undertaker uses a genetic algorithm with about 28 different operators to minimize its cost function. The cost function has many components, including various definitions of burial and compactness, sidechain rotamer preferences, steric clashes, chain breaks, predicted local backbone conformation, hydrogen bonding, disulfide bonds, and user specified constraints. The relative weights of these components were tweaked for each target, as we have not found a generally applicable set of weights. Because undertaker does not (yet) handle multimers, we sometimes added "scaffolding" constraints by hand to try to retain structure in dimerization interfaces. For multiple-domain models, we generally broke the sequence into chunks (often somewhat arbitrary overlapping chunks), and did the full method for each subchain. The alignments found were all tossed into the undertaker conformation search. In some cases, we performed undertaker runs for the subchains, and cut-and-pasted the pieces into one PDB file (with bad breaks) and let undertaker try to assemble the pieces.