Re:Protein folding: Much more intricate than we thought (2017)
by lowkeynthorough on Thursday December 03, 2020 @12:36AM
(#25285772)
DeepMind actually solved harder problems than most of the ones mentioned. All the proteins mentioned in the article (except for the chaperones) are 100 amino-acid and shorter, the therapeutic ones are even shorter, dozen(s) of AA. Thus, great preview of what is to come, though its from (2017). C&EN is truly the quantamagazine of biochem...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Protein folding: Much more intricate than we thought (2017)
by catominor on Thursday December 03, 2020 @02:33AM
(#25286508)
sorry, I think I'm out of the loop, what do you mean regarding the quanta magazine reference? Is that a good or bad thing?
Re:Protein folding: Much more intricate than we thought (2017)
by est on Thursday December 03, 2020 @03:15AM
(#25286748)
I guess it's good for outsiders but pretty bad, inaccurate and overhyped for insiders.
Re:Protein folding: Much more intricate than we thought (2017)
by arolihas on Thursday December 03, 2020 @08:23AM
(#25288546)
Wait quanta is bad? I like their articles damn...
Re:Protein folding: Much more intricate than we thought (2017)
by Enginerrrd on Thursday December 03, 2020 @10:15AM
(#25289581)
I wouldn't call quanta overhyped. Implications are at best embellished very modestly for entertainment purposes, but they do a very good job of staying true to the original paper and communicating some of the main ideas in a less-dumbed-down version than SA, and less ridiculously inaccurate/overhyped way than say physorg.
Maybe the physics/math editor/writers are better than the biology. I don't read the bio articles, so I can't comment directly about them. I just read the compsci/physics/math and they're not that bad.