Difference between F@H and R@H?

[bunker]

I've read this on the R@H site:

Dr David Baker "The Rosetta@home project goals are very different from those of Folding@home. The goal of Folding@home, I believe, is to determine how long proteins take to fold, given the sequence of the protein and knowledge of its three dimensional structure. The goal of Rosetta@home is to predict the three dimensional structure from the amino acid sequence."

Dr David Kim "Our project is similar to Predictor@home, in that we are trying to improve our methods by conducting research that is only possible with the computing power that a grid computing project can provide."

I read that and I can see that there is a difference between the projects, but I don't fully understand that difference. The way I see it, they're both studying proteins to potentially cure some diseases.

What am I missing?

EDIT: I'm sure this has probably been posted before, but I'll be damned if I can get the search function to work.

 

[BlackMountainCow]

As far as I know the the difference is that Folding@Home looks how, why and how fast Proteins fold, while Rosetta looks at what shape they fold into and one could predict that shape.

 

[Crazee]

This is from something I posted over at BBR:

Folding@Home and Rosetta@Home are similar in that they both deal with protein folding however they differ in a few aspects.

Rosetta@home's main goal is to determine the 3D structure and function of as many proteins as possible, and to make this information available to researchers worldwide at no cost. Currently the most accurate protein folding predictions are made by humans with computing assistance taking months for a single protein, however Rosetta and some other computational methods are closing in on their accuracy levels taking far less time.

Folding@Home uses molecular dynamics (the laws of physics) to study the protein folding and understand misfolding diseases such as Alzheimer's. It is more concerned about the actual folding process and its steps rather than the end result.

Both projects have their benefits and applications and both are extremely important. Both projects have been recognized throughout the scientific community. Folding@Home is a more mature DC project, but the science project of Rosetta has been around longer than you might think (Dr. Baker has participated in every CASP which date back to 1994). They have been working with a linux cluster in their lab for quite some time. This project is just a natural progression to take it to the next level by harnessing the power of DC.

This is a link to an article in wired from 2001 talking about Dr. Baker and CASP4 (I believe) »www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.07/blue.html