Predictor and Rosetta

[Brucifer]

Sort of a long and convoluted question. In taking a peek at the Predictor site, it looks like it will probably be tomorrow before they start releasing more work units. They have just bee going through a bit of an update/revamp. What were/are they doing in this upgrade process?

There was a short blurb somewhere I read regarding the differences between Predictor and Rosetta. Can anyone put it in nice simple terms as to what the differences are between the two projects?

Is there going to be, or is there already the "preferred" project to crunch on between these two for the amd-users team to try and maximize team postioning?

[NeoGen]

Taken with(out) permission from Rosetta@Home's forums...


What IS the difference between Predictor@home and Rosetta@home?

Both projects are similar in that both are trying to improve methods for protein structure prediction. Rosetta@home includes protein design and prediction of complexes. Rosetta@home uses a software package called Rosetta, which has been proven to be one of the best methods out there for protein structure prediction in repeated CASP experiments (See our About page). Rosetta is also being used for the Human Proteome Folding Project, which is trying to predict folds for many proteins in the human genome. While they, in collaboration with us, are applying Rosetta to the human genome and other genomes like malaria (P falciparum), we are trying to conduct research to make it better. David Baker's work has been published in today's issue of Science. It is exciting work. Thank you for your interest in helping our and similar projects, like Predictor@home!!!

How Is Rosetta Different Than Folding@home?

The Rosetta@home project goals are very different from those of Folding@home. The goal of Folding@home, I believe, is to determine how long proteins take to fold, given the sequence of the protein and knowledge of its three dimensional structure. The goal of Rosetta@home is to predict the three dimensional structure from the amino acid sequence. As explained in the Daily Telegraph article and the press releases, Rosetta has been the best method for structure prediction for quite some time (WIRED magazine had a nice article as well: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.07/blue.html?pg=1).

[AMDave]

...wish their validator had the same reputation as ther computation method :evil:

[ed]
but thanks for the update.
I had not seen those texts.
ever the investigator NeoGen :D
[/ed]

[Brucifer]

...wish their validator had the same reputation as ther computation method :evil:

[/ed]

Boy isn't that the truth!!