Hi all,

As you know, I've been thinking about ways to better explain what Rosetta@home does, and especially how that contributes to curing diseases.

I've written up answers to four basic questions about the science behind Rosetta (plus a bonus fifth question), and it's available here. I'm trying to make it understandable to anyone who's interested in Rosetta@home (without talking down to anyone or being simple to the point of inaccuracy).

Any constructive criticism would be appreciated! Things that still aren't explained well enough, vocabulary, style, things that are over-emphasized, important questions that didn't make the list, etc.

Thanks,
Ian

---

I think it's excellent. very nice and clear.
I know they aren't running right now (or are they?), but you didn't explain the RNA work units. Also I've read rumors of designing enzymes that would catalyze carbon fixation or artificial photosynthesis or something like that.. I don't know if there's any truth to them, but I think that non-disease related potential for messing with proteins is quite fascinating as well, so maybe you could mention that? just a thought.

---

very nice, however you might want to drop the active work unit reference as that is NOT up to date and never has been. We are doing CAPRI here in Sept. and its still referring to stuff that was crunched in april.

there was one tiny spelling mistake. but your simplified explanation was very nice read. the human chain reference was also very good.

well done!

---

A very interesting read, it's all clear and simple even for me who doesn't know anything at all about proteins and the like.

---

very nice i gotta say

Ian, this is great! Language we can all understand, and analogies to help with visualizing what's going on. And links to get more detailed information.

...but it's taken me until now to feel I had the time to read through the whole thing. So, my main critique is that I think it's too long. I note that there are a few cases where the same concept is expressed in more then one paragraph of the document. If these could be combined and reworded, it could be a bit shorter. It might also condense nicely if you incorporate the answers to Q5 throughout the document.

I feel you've already done a nice job of TRYING to keep it concise (believe me when I say I know how difficult it is). So I guess my suggestion is to try and break it in to two documents. One which is a basic introduction, which would be about 1/3rd of the current size, and then a link to another with more details, or perhaps a link at the end of each section to more information. THEN you could expand further on the detailed page. Offering more examples and describing more situations. Perhaps introducing more of the scientific terms, with links to wikis and other web sites with more information on the scientific concept.

For example, the concepts of side-chains and pair bonds aren't really needed in the very basic introduction. Better to use the real estate to explain disease and treatment. But if you have another page with a more detailed explanation, that would give you some room, and the audience with interest in that topic, to get in to more detail then you presently have about why the existence of the sidechains is important, and how they are a key part of what makes the protein shape unique. And to further describe that the "pairs" you are most concerned about are not the pairs of AAs that are "holding hands".

A couple of graphics would be nice. Help further lighten it up and illustrait concepts.

Looking forward to seeing more of your work.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Thanks for doing this, Ian!

---