Folding@home vs. Rosetta@home

Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Folding@home vs. Rosetta@home

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Gen_X_Accord
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jun 06
Posts: 154
Credit: 279,018
RAC: 0
Message 18453 - Posted: 11 Jun 2006, 8:21:09 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2006, 8:24:37 UTC

I found this on Wikipedia while reading the info on Rosetta on Wikipedia.
Here\'s some links and a small quote from the Folding@home\'s page on Wikipedia. This should generate some interesting discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding%40home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta%40home

Folding@home vs. Rosetta@home

Quote from Mr. Vijay Pande http://forum.folding-community.org/viewtopic.php?p=125338#125338

I know Baker and Ranganathan and their work very well and (like the rest of the protein community) find their work very important and impressive. However, Rosetta@home and Folding@Home are addressing very different problems.

Rosetta only predicts the final folded state, not how do proteins fold (and Rosetta has nothing to do with protein misfolding). Thus, those methods are not useful for the questions we\'re interested in and the diseases we\'re tackling (Alzheimer\'s Disease and other aggregation related diseases).

Also, one should note that accurate computational protein structure prediction is still very challenging compared to what one can do experimentally, whereas the information obtained from Folding@home on the nature of folding and misfolding pathways matches experiment (eg with quantitative validation in rates, free energy, etc) and then goes beyond what experiment can tell us in that arena. While Rosetta has gone a long way and is a very impressive project, given the choice between a Rosetta predicted structure and a crystal structure, one would always chose the crystal structure. I bet that will be changing due to their great efforts, but that may still be a ways off for that dream to be realized.

So, both are valuable projects IMHO, but addressing very different questions. I think there are some misunderstandings out there, though. Some people think FAH is all about structure prediction (which it is not -- that\'s Rosetta\'s strength) and some think Rosetta is about misfolding related disease (which it\'s not, that\'s Folding@Home\'s strength). Hopefully this post helps straighten some of that out.


ID: 18453 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Hoelder1in
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 05
Posts: 169
Credit: 3,910,927
RAC: 0
Message 18454 - Posted: 11 Jun 2006, 8:58:23 UTC - in response to Message 18453.  

See the thread What is the difference between all these protein related projects?, discussing exactly these things over the last couple of weeks. I don\'t think it makes sense to duplicate what was said there in this new thread.

Team betterhumans.com - discuss and celebrate the future - hoelder1in.org
ID: 18454 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
FluffyChicken
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Nov 05
Posts: 1260
Credit: 317,557
RAC: 0
Message 18510 - Posted: 12 Jun 2006, 13:22:23 UTC

You may also find that the wikipedia entry was written using the talk already on mentioned here in this forum.

Team mauisun.org
ID: 18510 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Folding@home vs. Rosetta@home



©2017 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org