Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm donating my CPU idle time to some projects, two of them are Human Proteome Folding 2 and Nutritious Rice for the World...
Human Proteome Folding 2 has a rice project too: rice major food source for a large portion of the worlds population (not done) Aren't we duplicating efforts unnecessarily? Could Nutritious Rice for the World avoid the rice task from Humam Proteome Folding 2? |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Or,
----------------------------------------Could Human Proteome Folding 2 avoid the rice task covered by Nutritious Rice for the World? Interesting question. Hope both a scientist from HPF2 and NRftW will add a response to this.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 2 times, last edit by Sekerob at May 23, 2008 5:50:20 PM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Aren't we duplicating efforts unnecessarily? Since both Rosetta and Protinfo are developed at the University of Washington, the answer is obviously no. So the question is whether or not the reasons can be easily explained to people who are not computational biologists. Lawrence |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
LinuxBlues,
Thanks for asking, I'm happy someone caught onto this. Here's our answer from the FAQ: How is Protinfo different from other approaches? Protein structure prediction is an active area of research, and no one method or methodology is "best" for all situations. The public success of projects like Folding@Home, POEM@Home, Human Proteome Folding, and Rosetta@Home are evidence of the interest in solving this computationally challenging problem. We wish to offer another approach that differs in certain subtle but significant ways that can provide complementary and competitive results. Some approaches (like Folding@Home and POEM@Home) simulate the protein folding process as we believe it occurs in real life, where physical energies are minimized. Protinfo (like Human Proteome Folding and Rosetta@Home) uses a minimization of "statistical energies" to identify likely protein structures, but with a slightly different approach. Rather than relying on a single complex energy function, Protinfo uses a simple, easily evaluated function and chooses the best structures by following up with a set of more sophisticated functions. Another difference is that Protinfo uses a novel continuous sampling methodology that enables us to explore good structures more finely. The continuous sampling methodology incurs little memory overhead and evaluating our compact energy function is very fast. This allows Protinfo to run on almost any computer. The Protinfo structure predictions have been ranked as some of the best by the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) competition since 1994. You can read more about Protinfo on the researchers' page about this project. In other words, we're using a different method, we have tools to go beyond just structure prediction (and make function predictions and protein interaction networks), and we are focused exclusively on rice right now. We are in what I'd like to term a collaborative competition with David Baker's group, makers of the Rosetta software the drives HPF2. We expect our results to differ, naturally, and comparing them will strengthen both approaches. -Michal |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thank you for the answer, it explains my doubt.
|
||
|
|
![]() |