Re: Global min. in protein folding

[ryszard %! at !% msi.com (Ryszard Czerminski X 285)]

 > >  Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 13:12:56 GMT
 > >  From: jpj %! at !% lotus.medicine.rochester.edu (Jeffrey P. Jones)
 > >  Subject: Global min. in protein folding
 >
 > >
 > >   While I am not a protein folding person I have conducted an informal
 poll
 > >  of protein folding folks and found that the above generalization is
 true.
 > >  They all site the small proteins that refold as an example. If the
 protein
 > >  cannot be refolded it is an experimental problem since it doesn't
 agree
 > >  with the theory.
 > >
 >
 > I too, am not a protein folding person, and neither am I an
 > experimental chemist.  However...
 >
 > IMHO, if the experimental data does not fit the theory, then the
 > problem should be with the theory and not the experimental data.
 >
 > I would think that *any* theory would at the least, try to explain the
 > existing experimental results.
 I too, am not a protein folding person, so it seems that this
 leg of interesting disscussion is going out of the track, but just
 for the record.
 In my opinion "if the experimental data does not fit the theory"
 than there is a signal that there is something interesting going
 on.
 THIS DOES NOT MEAN NECESSERILY THAT THEORY IS WRONG
 (although it may as well be).
 See for example:
  (1)  Copernicus (his theory at the time had lower
       explanatory power than well entrenched Ptolomeus theory!)
  (2)  Einsteins general relativity. As I have learned recently
       early experimental confirmations of this theory where to large
       extend results of wishful thinking.
 I am sure that there are many others examples of this kind.
 Ryszard Czerminski
 Molecular Simulations
 ryszard %! at !% msi.com