Message boards : Number crunching : SIMAP, ROSETTA, FOLDING@HOME
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
senatoralex85

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 4,221
RAC: 0
Message 12378 - Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 18:50:12 UTC

While there is a lull in crunching, I was wondering if anyone could tell me the difference between these three projects. They all are involved in sequencing proteins. Right? So why have 3 seperate projects been created for the same purpose? Anyone shed some light on this?
ID: 12378 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Michael Karlinsky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 163
Credit: 1,682,370
RAC: 0
Message 12381 - Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 18:59:08 UTC - in response to Message 12378.  

While there is a lull in crunching, I was wondering if anyone could tell me the difference between these three projects. They all are involved in sequencing proteins. Right? So why have 3 seperate projects been created for the same purpose? Anyone shed some light on this?


This link
finds some threads at R@H which should answer your questions.

Michael

Team Linux Users Everywhere
ID: 12381 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12383 - Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 19:03:45 UTC - in response to Message 12382.  
Last modified: 24 Jan 2006, 19:05:15 UTC

While there is a lull in crunching, I was wondering if anyone could tell me the difference between these three projects. They all are involved in sequencing proteins. Right? So why have 3 seperate projects been created for the same purpose? Anyone shed some light on this?


Add Predictor@home to the list...

They either do it differently, or in the case of Rosetta are not actually doing it at all but are looking for better ways to do it.

See the wiki draft article about this, and the Project Comparison thread on Rosetta for more info

edit:
ps - nice one Michael - we were posting at the same time but a Google search is a useful thought
ID: 12383 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
senatoralex85

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 4,221
RAC: 0
Message 12389 - Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 5:48:09 UTC - in response to Message 12383.  

While there is a lull in crunching, I was wondering if anyone could tell me the difference between these three projects. They all are involved in sequencing proteins. Right? So why have 3 seperate projects been created for the same purpose? Anyone shed some light on this?


Add Predictor@home to the list...

They either do it differently, or in the case of Rosetta are not actually doing it at all but are looking for better ways to do it.

See the wiki draft article about this, and the Project Comparison thread on Rosetta for more info

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the clarification. If you ask my opinion, they would be much better off if they combined their resources into on or two big projects instead of four. That would significantly reduce infrastructure costs and at the same time, become more productive..............

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

edit:
ps - nice one Michael - we were posting at the same time but a Google search is a useful thought


ID: 12389 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12396 - Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 9:54:02 UTC - in response to Message 12389.  


Thank you for the clarification. If you ask my opinion, they would be much better off if they combined their resources into on or two big projects instead of four. That would significantly reduce infrastructure costs and at the same time, become more productive


Just like crunching, science is a weird combination of cooperation and competition.

The different groups are trying different approaches partly because they each hope to get a significant published result first - that is the competitive part. You might as well say that a planned economy is more efficient that a competitive one - it is the same argument - efficiency, economies of scale, etc etc, but at present the planet seems to have gone for the competitive model not the massively planned one.

The different groups are also each trying different strategies as nobody yet knows which will work best. By working on all fronts in parallel there is the best chance that at least one group will reach a breakthrough. This is the cooperative aspect of the multiple approach.

Once anyone does make a breakthrough their results will be published - gaining precedence for them (competition) but sharing the info with others freely (cooperation).

River~~
ID: 12396 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12398 - Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 10:34:16 UTC

Another good comparison between the protein projects is here - including responses from the scientists at both the Human Genome project and Bakerlab about their different approaches to the Rosetta program.

Thanks to Dimitris Hatzopoulos of Einstein@home for this link :)

R~~
ID: 12398 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Professor Ray

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 05
Posts: 39
Credit: 435,286
RAC: 42
Message 12424 - Posted: 25 Jan 2006, 23:34:47 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jan 2006, 23:36:09 UTC

I posted to the Project Comparison thread referenced in post #12389 (see post #9868 there)
ID: 12424 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12437 - Posted: 26 Jan 2006, 9:55:02 UTC

and we now have the view from from Predictor, posted here by one of their project scientists

R~~
ID: 12437 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : SIMAP, ROSETTA, FOLDING@HOME


©2024 CERN