And if I receive a work unit with a relatively high gen number, does that mean it's closer to completion?
Yes I see. Well I am learning so much now, thanks a lot everyone

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
First, a "trajectory" is a path through which a protein folds, starting in some shape at T=0 and continuing until T="long enough" There are an infinitely number of starting shapes, and from each one of them, there are lots and lots of possible paths that the atoms can take to get to "finished" Those two concepts are somehow related to Runs and Clones.iceman1992 wrote:P.S. I still don't know what runs, clones, and gens mean![]()
Dan wrote a more colorful explanation and we put it in the Wiki. http://fahwiki.net/index.php/Runs,_Clones_and_Gensiceman1992 wrote:Wow thanks bruce for taking the time to write such a detailed explanation, I really appreciate it.
Gens are like a relay-raceSo the finished shape of gen N is the start shape of gen N+1?
I think this should be split off to a new topic about PRCG numbers? So other people can find it more easily.
Or even better, be made into a FAQ
Oh yeah I forgot there's a wikibruce wrote:Dan wrote a more colorful explanation and we put it in the Wiki. http://fahwiki.net/index.php/Runs,_Clones_and_Gens
My "relay race" explanation covers the "normal" use of "Gen" sufficiently for most people. (It does neglect some rather obscure situations that really don't matter much.)
The magic of science perhaps?bruce wrote:Just don't ask me to explain why with thousands of different blind relay teams, starting at different points and heading in different directions nearly everybody eventually ends up at the same finish line.
Pretty much. Note the "nearly everybody" statement. For reasons that are hard to explain fully, sometimes the runners get all turned around and confused, and the baton ends up off the normal track completely. Since they'd never win that way, the crowd doesn't like that and unless some official comes down and sets things straight, everyone ends up booing. Statistical chances of that occuring, but the amazing part is that most of the time the proper finish line is found.iceman1992 wrote:The magic of science perhaps?bruce wrote:Just don't ask me to explain why with thousands of different blind relay teams, starting at different points and heading in different directions nearly everybody eventually ends up at the same finish line.
By "the runners get all turned around and confused" do you mean bad WUs?Jesse_V wrote:Pretty much. Note the "nearly everybody" statement. For reasons that are hard to explain fully, sometimes the runners get all turned around and confused, and the baton ends up off the normal track completely. Since they'd never win that way, the crowd doesn't like that and unless some official comes down and sets things straight, everyone ends up booing. Statistical chances of that occuring, but the amazing part is that most of the time the proper finish line is found.
Misfolding proteins that unless protein chaperones can fix them, may end up causing disease.iceman1992 wrote:By "the runners get all turned around and confused" do you mean bad WUs?Jesse_V wrote:Pretty much. Note the "nearly everybody" statement. For reasons that are hard to explain fully, sometimes the runners get all turned around and confused, and the baton ends up off the normal track completely. Since they'd never win that way, the crowd doesn't like that and unless some official comes down and sets things straight, everyone ends up booing. Statistical chances of that occuring, but the amazing part is that most of the time the proper finish line is found.
I think the extended analogy is failing rapidly...iceman1992 wrote:I thought by "everyone ends up booing" you were talking about bad WUs
Misfolding proteins are the primary objects of research, no? Can we possibly know when a WU is a misfolded one?
Well if the WU protein isn't properly folded, that's what PG is trying to simulate right? So it should be even more valuable than correctly folded ones (which are still very valuable themselves). And do they research other molecules beside proteins?Jesse_V wrote:I think the extended analogy is failing rapidly...![]()
Well yes, from what I've read it seems that the research focuses on understanding how proteins misfolding, although there are many other aspects that F@h can study as well. How does the protein fold? What is the folding influenced by? Why does that folding process matter? If I confine it between a whole lot of other stuff does that cause problems? How long does it stay folded? What other molecules can it attach to, and how tightly can it bind to them? Does it reshape itself during this binding process? If it's in an abnormal configuration, does it cause disease, and if so, how? These are all scientifically valuable questions that F@h can help address. I don't think there's any way for you to know if a WU is "misfolded". The WU represents a protein that's in a particular 3D shape, and it's probably pretty difficult for us regular folk to know if its the proper shape or not. Even if the WU isn't, its still very scientifically valuable.
Thanks! I like your summary, it very clearly sums up the whole pageJesse_V wrote:Also, here's a related thread, where I ended up trying to determine the exact definition of the PRCG numbers, and discovered that there's no single definite definition. Still, it might be helpful to you: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20095
I think so. I know Dr. Kasson studies membrane fusion and things like that, so there's probably more there than just proteins. Cellular infection by viruses involves all sorts of different molecular changes. GROMACS, what F@h uses the most, is "a molecular dynamics package primarily designed for biomolecular systems such as proteins and lipids." That seems to be the range of what F@h simulates. As I already mentioned F@h can tackle problems like protein-proteins docking and binding, since that has implications to drug design. I'm not sure if GROMACS does that as well or if they use a different software package for that.iceman1992 wrote:Well if the WU protein isn't properly folded, that's what PG is trying to simulate right? So it should be even more valuable than correctly folded ones (which are still very valuable themselves). And do they research other molecules beside proteins?
Okay thanks, Jesse_V. So not all proteins thenJesse_V wrote:I think so. I know Dr. Kasson studies membrane fusion and things like that, so there's probably more there than just proteins. Cellular infection by viruses involves all sorts of different molecular changes. GROMACS, what F@h uses the most, is "a molecular dynamics package primarily designed for biomolecular systems such as proteins and lipids." That seems to be the range of what F@h simulates. As I already mentioned F@h can tackle problems like protein-proteins docking and binding, since that has implications to drug design. I'm not sure if GROMACS does that as well or if they use a different software package for that.