This page archives raw data that may be useful for deep dives.
Mother's Day Survey — Full Response Data
Complete tallied responses from the 40-person survey conducted at our Mother's Day Outreach event, covering all five questions and every distinct response category, not just the headline figures discussed there. Responses are recorded as originally written down during the interviews, including a few ambiguous or joking answers; counts across some questions do not sum to exactly 40 because a small number of respondents gave multi-part or unclear answers.
Daily plastic use
| Response | Count |
|---|---|
| 0 items/day | 6 |
| 1 item/day | 5 |
| 1–2 items/day | 7 |
| 2 items/day | 3 |
| 2–3 items/day | 2 |
| 3 items/day | 2 |
| 4 items/day | 0 |
| More than 5 items/day | 4 |
| Rarely / not everyday | 5 |
| Everyday / every time / a lot | 5 |
Plastic type used most
| Response | Count |
|---|---|
| Plastic bags | 15 |
| Plastic bottles (water, juice) | 8 |
| Plastic bags & bottles | 5 |
| Plastic meal boxes | 0 |
| Plastic garbage bags | 2 |
| “花袋” (striped plastic bags) | 3 |
| Plastic tableware | 1 |
| No plastics | 2 |
| Unclear / joking response | 1 |
| Plastic meal boxes & bags | 1 |
| Plastic bottles & meal boxes | 1 |
| Plastic bags & mouthwash cap | 1 |
Recycling frequency
| Response | Count |
|---|---|
| Yes, daily / often / every time | 25 |
| No, never / doesn't use plastic | 6 |
| Depends on school or cleaning team rules | 3 |
| Rarely | 1 |
| “1個” (one item) | 1 |
| Uses plastic bags to pack up trash | 4 |
Support for GMO-based plastic recycling
| Response | Count |
|---|---|
| Yes! | 29 |
| Doesn't know / unclear / too hard to answer | 3 |
| No | 3 |
| Prefers incineration over GMO recycling | 1 |
| Ambiguous, references NASA/3D printing | 1 |
| Only if it doesn't create air pollution | 1 |
| Only for microorganisms, not crops | 2 |
Exposure to plastic pollution in the news
| Response | Count |
|---|---|
| Yes, a lot / often / everyday (turtles, jellyfish, ocean debris) | 20 |
| Not really a lot | 6 |
| “有播就會看” (watches if it's on) | 1 |
| Doesn't watch news/TV much | 3 |
| Wasn't asked | 1 |
| Sometimes (every few weeks to months) | 3 |
| Notes heavy local (Taipei) pollution | 1 |
| Saw it in school/cartoons/commercials | 3 |
| General scientific knowledge | 2 |
PETosome AI Toolkit — Ranked Results
Full ranking tables and comparison charts from the ESM2/ESMFold pipeline described on the Software page. This is real, verified model output (ESM2–650M / ESMFold v1) — not placeholder data — but as explained there, the composite ranking in both tables is currently misleading: the linker table's own distance metric argues against its own top pick, and the mutant table's pocket-volume term is identical across all rows (a bug) with two of its ESM2 scores hardcoded rather than computed. See the caveat and the embedded verification report for the full diagnosis before using either ranking to choose a construct.
Linker candidates — full ranking
Nine candidate linkers were generated (five rational glycine–serine repeats, four AI-guided); the four retained after review, ranked by composite score. Note: every GS-repeat candidate's real active-site distance is shorter than the native baseline's (opposite of the intended direction) — GS_len25 wins on composite score only because of its ESM2/pLDDT terms.
| Candidate | Linker sequence | Length | ESM2 score | pLDDT | Active-site distance (Å) | Composite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GS_len25 | GGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGS | 25 | −0.18 | 0.80 | 11.2 | 68.9 |
| GS_len20 | GGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGS | 20 | −0.27 | 0.80 | 9.3 | 58.2 |
| GS_len15 | GGGGSGGGGSGGGGS | 15 | −0.61 | 0.70 | 16.0 | 52.9 |
| Native (baseline) | TSGGGDDGGSGG | 12 | −1.70 | 0.70 | 17.8 | 40.0 |
Download petosome_verification_report.html · Download petosome_full_explainer.html
MHETase mutant candidates — full ranking
ESM2 scanned 11 pocket-lining residues and 8 candidate mutants were generated; ranked against the wild type and our existing rational design (TfCaWA). Note: pocket free volume came out identical (3550.8 ų) for every row and contributes nothing to the ranking, and the WT/TfCaWA ESM2 scores shown are hardcoded placeholders rather than computed values — so "WT wins" here is not a genuine finding.
| Candidate | ESM2 score | pLDDT | Pocket free volume (ų) | Composite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT (native) | −0.22 † | 0.79 | 3550.8 ‡ | 60.0 |
| TfCaWA (I69W/V376A, control) | −0.75 † | 0.78 | 3550.8 ‡ | 23.5 |
| mut_I69F | −2.59 | 0.79 | 3550.8 ‡ | 23.2 |
| mut_I69F_V376A | −2.66 | 0.79 | 3550.8 ‡ | 21.1 |
† hardcoded placeholder, not computed by ESM2 for this row. ‡ identical across all rows — the metric doesn't register single side-chain substitutions in its current form.
