Slashdot Log In
Folding@Home 2.0 - An Online Protein Folding Game
Posted by
timothy
on Thursday May 08, @05:37PM
from the folding-@-play dept.
from the folding-@-play dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Folding@home GPU2 Beta Released, Examined 149 comments
ThinSkin writes "Stanford has recently released an update to their Folding@home GPU-accelerated client, which includes notable upgrades such as support for more current Radeon graphics cards and even a visualizer to see what's going on. ExtremeTech takes a good look at the new Folding@home GPU2 client and interviews Director Dr. Vijay Pande about the project. To the uninitiated, Folding@home is a distributed computing project in which hundreds of thousands of PCs and PS3s devote a portion of their computing power to crunch chunks of biological data. The goal is 'to understand protein folding, misfolding, and related diseases.'"
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.

No Linux version and no source code (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Re:No Linux version and no source code (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No Linux version and no source code (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it that hard to actually link to the game? (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Re:Is it that hard to actually link to the game? (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
look mom, no more cancer (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Baker heads up Rosetta (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Drugs get Copyrights ya? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Unprecedented (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a sec...distributed computation, human minds, pleasant interface...starting to sound like teh Matrix.
Reply to This
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.
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.
Reply to This
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.
Reply to This
Then there's johnny (Score:5, Funny)
National Geographic
March, 2012
Reply to This
>----Joke----- (Score:3, Funny)
Re:----Joke----- (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:----Joke----- (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Well, the idea is to find out the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
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.
Reply to This
Parent