Which is better?

[perkam]

Hey Guys,

Might start folding coming this sept when I get my new comp together. Was wondering which one benefits cancer research more ? D20l or F@H ??

Or is there another alternative ??

Thx.

Perkam

[Disposibleteen]

DDOL is looking for candidates to lead to cures for the world's major diseases not cancer. Im not sure what f@h looks for though.

[pythagoras]

Heres the current progress on F@H and its cancer research:

http://folding.stanford.edu/news.html

Here are all the papers published to date by F@H:

http://folding.stanford.edu/papers.html

Regards

John.

[Ackbar]

Take a look at my thesis on these chemistry related distributed computing projects: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60999

Personally, I feel that DDOL has been suspicious with their usage of the data. F@H is more well founded with what they've done with the data (ie. several publications). But my opinion is that F@H is less important for actual drug development since it is not a search for drugs. It actually is looking at how molecules fold to understand how they work and eventually use that has ground work for chemistry research and possibly work towards drugs. DDOL does what's called "docking" whereby they try and see if a molecule will bind to another molecule, if it does, maybe they can use it to block a specific molecule from doing what it needs to in a cancer cell for example. DDOL makes several more assumptions in its calculations than F@H does since docking is very simplistic in theory compared to what's actually happening while F@H is still simplistic in theory compared to actual events but to a much lesser extent. In the end, both methods are simplistic and inefficient, so just choose what you think we you feel you'd rather support. It's like giving $1 to cancer research, even though it doesn't make much of a difference, at least you're trying to help what you think is a good cause.

[pythagoras]

This is a thesis and explains the accuracy of F@H simulations with in vivo experiments:

http://vsp27.stanford.edu/papers/SnowNature2002.pdf

Regards

John.

[[XC] moddolicous]

D2OL looks for cures for alot of big diseases. F@H also looks for cures as far as I know. Its more of an opinion point. BTW, D2OL is almost #1 in the WORLD, so we can always use help getting there.

[Ackbar]

This is a thesis and explains the accuracy of F@H simulations with in vivo experiments:

http://vsp27.stanford.edu/papers/SnowNature2002.pdf

Regards

John.

Good article! The thing to realize about MM/MD is that it depends on the force fields used and the situation you're trying to simulate. So quantifying errors and such versus experiment is necessary for all cases if you want to be picky about it. Otherwise, your results are always suspect. From my experience, you can always find some force field that works well in certain situations, but there's no single force field that works well for all situations. So you usually have to make sure that every case works for what you're trying to do, this is a pretty well established method. So really this article only says that for this particular force field and this particular molecule they got good results, but this is still useful! Since you now know related molecules may work with this force field.

In my opinion, all these things are a little hookey. Just fight for the cause that you think is most worthy of your (computational) time.

[perkam]

Good to know guys :up: Thx ;)

I'll most likely be joining Folding @ Home then...if D20L doesnt contribute as much to cancer research.

Perkam

[pythagoras]

I look forward to you joining the team Perkam :toast:

Regards

John.

[salamanzer]

Ive joined and just done my first 4 WU's :) username JBIO

[pythagoras]

Welcome to the team salamanzer :toast:

Regards

John.

[salamanzer]

Woot - thats my first 12WU done :)

That didnt take as long as i thought :)

Sala