Folding@Home 2.0 - An Online Protein Folding Game 129
a boy named woo writes "Tired of justifying your gaming addiction? Now you can really help accomplish something while you play... thanks to Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher David Baker at the University of Washington." In collaboration with others, Baker has designed a game, called "Foldit," with a practical outcome: players manipulate on-screen images of protein chains and attempt to predict their folding patterns. From the article:
"'Our main goal was to make sure that anyone could do it, even if they didn't know what biochemistry or protein folding was,' says [co-creator Zoran] Popovic. At the moment, the game only uses proteins whose three-dimensional structures have been solved by researchers. But, says Popovic, 'soon we'll be introducing puzzles for which we don't know the solution.'"
A Simpsons quote comes to mind (Score:1, Funny)
Yay, everyone's a winner!
>----Joke----- (Score:3, Funny)
Re:----Joke----- (Score:5, Funny)
Re:----Joke----- (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But there is only one solution with the lowest (free) energy.
But therein lies the crux of it - not all biological molecules follow the lowest (free) energy model. They may have been forced into a specific fold by other proteins or stabilized by other means. Just assuming lowest (free) energy fold = right fold is not correct and unfortunately the only metric available for completely unknown folds.
If you look at known sequence patterns (motifs) then you can assume it will fold the same, try to fit it and compare the fold with other proteins with the same motifs whos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You get to stand between their clothes dryer and laundry basket for the next game, and show off your '1337' folding skills.
*ducks and runs- 'cause I Am Not A Miniature Boxer either*
Well, the idea is to find out the solution (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, it's the program which knows it when it sees it. If the atoms can stay in that configuration, it's a solution. It's not known in advance, but it can be known if you reached a solution anyway.
On a more pragmatic note, though, well, the problem is that a human dragging atoms around is massively _slow_ compared to a computer. A puzzle you could realistically complete in a couple of days (i.e., before Joe Average completely loses interest, for lack of any visible progress or achievement or reward), the computer runs through them in seconds or minutes.
So basically simple proteins that you can realistically visualize and toy with as a puzzle, have been solved already anyway. Even if you managed to find a simple one that we don't already know how it folds, Folding@Home would run through it in seconds or minutes.
The problem are the big and complex ones. And I'd _really_ like to see anyone folding a beast like Hexokinase [wikipedia.org] by hand.
Or to give you an analogy, think of the game Atomino. Now think Atomino with several thousand atoms. It's not as much a puzzle, it's something straight from Call Of Chtulhu. If you even managed to wrap your mind around it all, well, it'll probably stay bent
Re:Well, the idea is to find out the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's silly of these "researchers" not to put some real brainpower on that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, Folding@Home takes an extremely long time to fold proteins of any reasonable size compared to a program like Fold.It. The s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, the idea is to find out the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
But there are certain problems that are easy for a person because humans can visualize and imagine a structure, something a computer simply cannot. This is exactly what this program is about. You look at such a molecule and can easily determine that bending it here or there allows you to crunch it further. A computer would have to try all, or at least many, combinations that you already exclude as pointless just from looking at them.
Well, that's kinda the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans can imagine and visualize _simple_ structures, yes. More complex stuff, well, I posted a link to a picture of Hexokinase. You try visualising and imagining that. If you can, well, you have a better imagination than I do
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I don't have the ability to visualize this molecule immediately either. But like IQ tests can be trained, I'm sure that with some training you can.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
OK, that's it. I'm signing up now!
(Dude, seriously, if you're not on the project staff, you should be -- on Slashdot, that sort of comment is the best recruitment invite that could possibly be written.)
No Linux version and no source code (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No Linux version and no source code (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's enough for me. It's going to be hit.
Re:No Linux version and no source code (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just in case you're tempted, I tried it under Wine. The installer ran fine, but the game itself doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. My wine is 0.9.30. I guess 3d-level release numbers for wine are not just bugfixes.
Is it that hard to actually link to the game? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is it that hard to actually link to the game? (Score:5, Funny)
Then again (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's true about everything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Outsourcing bioinformatics! (Score:5, Funny)
We should give David Baker credit for bringing forced child labor into the 21st century! Think about it: thousands of children, solving protein stuctures for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, at $0.50/hour. The prescription drug companies could lay off all their bioinformaticians, outsource their drug discovery program to Indonesia, and cure cancer in one fell swoop.
Sorry; oblig. Re:Outsourcing bioinformatics! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yougsters these days have it too easy, we used to have to work 29 hours a day, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, I could probably have my very own vat-grown ninja, thaw when needed, to get those kids off my lawn! After they've migrated here, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than Rubik's cube to test 3D skills (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention that there are simple combinations of moves that will guarantee that the cube will get solved. You can cram those in before an interview and voila! an expert 3D problem solver.
A better test for a programmer would be to say "write me a program that solves rubik's cube"... or if you want to test for 3D prowess, ... graphically.
look mom, no more cancer (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the game URL (Score:1, Redundant)
Baker heads up Rosetta (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Folding@home, BOINC, FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
BOINC sucks really really bad
Troll much?
Seriously: I know that's a bit subjective, but I (and literally millions of others) disagree with that. I run BOINC on my computers because it does *not* suck. I run several projects on each, ensuring that when/if one has a server outage or workunit lull, my BOINC clients are doing something useful for someone *else*.
Perhaps you've never heard of or used the account managers BAM or GridRepublic; they make managing projects and client computers a breeze. They're easy to use but quite flexible.
I w
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Whoever runs an account manager has to make a judgment call about which projects they are going to expose, and by virtue of exposing it, they are s
Drugs get Copyrights ya? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drugs get Copyrights ya? (Score:4, Insightful)
In an ideal world, if the fed. gov. paid for the universities to do the research, they could also pay for the universities to get the drug some preliminary FDA approval. After that, any U.S. based (generic) drug company could produce the drug (completing their part of the approval process). However, only U.S. based companies would have this right.
Unprecedented (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a sec...distributed computation, human minds, pleasant interface...starting to sound like teh Matrix.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the project actually is to determine what can make the game more fun. For me the funnest part is competing against others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Torrent here: (Score:1, Informative)
Does not have a Linux client ... (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory... (Score:1)
Re:Obligatory... (2) (Score:1)
download is about 50mb (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
this could be the next big thing (Score:5, Informative)
I no longer work as a ROSETTA developer or the "protein folding problem", but many of my lab mates do. They struggle with ROSETTA sometimes, as it comes close to predicting the real structure of a protein, and then falls away and wanders into another structure far from reality. If only it could 'see' the best structure when it came close!
The problem can be analogized with surveying a landscape. Imagine every square feet of dirt you can see is one possible protein structure, and you want to find the lowest elevation square foot. For a human, the visual search process is fairly quick and rapid. You can see a few hills out in the distance, but a much lower valley on the other side, where the land is lowest. It takes only a few seconds. On the other hand,a computer with no prior knowledge of the landscape can take a very long time to find that global minimum. The computer essentially has to drop a ball on the landscape and watch where it rolls, then pick it up, put it somewhere else and watch again (Physics and computer modelers forgive me!). It may never pick the right starting point to get over that far away hill.
Perhaps the brain can be as good at finding great protein structures as we are at finding lowest elevation points. Perhaps intuition about how a protein 'should' look can get us places a computer program never can without a ton of time and power. That's what this game is all about. The baker lab has done a fantastic job of turning a very hard scientific problem into a competitive game that is simultaneously fun, provides possible scientific information, and represents something of a human experiment on how our brains work.
This could be the next leap forward if it turns out some people have an innate knack for folding. It should be interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, this is rosetta@home, not folding@home (Score:2, Informative)
It's fun! (Score:3, Informative)
As such, I'm pretty sure genetic algorithms could give similar performance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
OMG. This is INSIDEOUS. (I've just played it) (Score:5, Informative)
With tetris it was time wasted down the tubes. At least with this you are doing something useful (and it might save somebody's life).
I can just see this thing going to cell phones, PDA's, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
froze on game 4 when I played it (Score:2)
Then there's johnny (Score:5, Funny)
National Geographic
March, 2012
QuantumThermoDynamics@home (Score:2)
The Protein Gambler (Score:2)
Know your alpha helix and beta sheets.
You never count your units when you're sittin' at the keyboard,
There'll be time enough for countin' when the protein's done.
Nintendo wii! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mario Kart Online is pretty hard to beat.
Re: (Score:1)
Do I read this correctly ? (Score:2)
Is it that usual to give username and password of database over the net ?
pfft (Score:2)
Link to movie of gameplay and UW news release (Score:2, Informative)
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=41558 [uwnews.org]
wow (Score:2)
I wonder: did you consider implementing the client in java? Will we see this game on cell phones or PDAs?