). I have neither the time nor the craft to make such stats, especially on a daily (or more) basis.
Wikipedia wrote:On March 8, 2004, Genome@home was terminated and was merged into Folding@home. Professor Vijay Pande outlines the difference between Folding@Home and Rosetta@home in the following quote: [1]
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.
I read somewhere that stealing cpu-cycles can be a pretty serious offense in some countries. I believe it was in the US. Can't find the source though. But I'd think twice before running this program under my own credentials at the university.bertaboy wrote: Oh yeah, despite GLUE's efforts, thought I'd just let you know that I just joined my university's group, and one of the 'users' is running boinc on 415 of our CAE computers, all of which are either 3, 3.2, 3.4, and possibly 3.6ghz P4's. Now I know why my university has its own coal power plant....
