Slashdot Mirror


Supercomputer Performs Simulation of Virus

moller writes to tell us Red Herring is reporting that researchers from the University of California at Irvine and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have announced that they created a computer simulation of a virus. From the article: "Using one of the world's fastest computers at the U.S. National Center for Supercomputing Applications, located at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the researchers ran a computer program devised to reverse engineer the dynamics of all atoms making up the virus particle and a tiny drop of water containing it." Nature also has an interesting write up on the research surrounding this project.

20 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. This is why we do scientific computing by macklin01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is just fascinating, and precisely why we do high performance scientific computing. This quote piqued my interest in particular:

    The model also shows that the virus coat collapses without its genetic material. This suggests that, when reproducing, the virus builds its coat around the genetic material rather than inserting the genetic material into a complete coat. "We saw something that is truly revolutionary," Schulten says.

    So, by doing this simulation of a tiny span of time, the team was able to get new insight into the process of viral replication that would be extremely difficult to come by with experimental techniques. It also is fascinating, since we often think of viruses as little static particles that float around until they interact with a cell, and yet the simulation showed the surface pulsing. Very cool! -- Paul

    --
    OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
  2. Next thing you know... by markov_chain · · Score: 4, Funny

    They will be writing computer simulations of spores!

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  3. And within minutes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    a McAfee AntiVirus update immediately wiped this program and all associated files from the face of the earth.

  4. Exchange... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny
    Later that day, the virus infected their simulation of a MS Exchange server. Fortunately, it was so slow that it was discovered before infecting all the simulated Outlook users.

    The virus later choked to death on a SMTP configuration file.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. And God spoke: by Amonimous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you, pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that we believe one of your humans is infringing God's copyrighted materials. Specifically, God is the owner of the copyright and trademarked materials, wich includes all life forms. The aforementioned human reverse engineered a virus without authorization, thereby infringing upon God's copyrights and trademarks. Accordingly, God demands that you act expeditiously immediatelly stop and remove all acquired data from that procedure in order for you to claim a safe harbor under the DMCA from liability for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Sincerely, God

    1. Re:And God spoke: by brianerst · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dear God,

      Thank you for your letter, dated 14 March, 2006, in which you expressed concern in re:possible DMCA copyright violations in our research activities. On the advise of counsel, we have concluded that your copyrights and/or patent applications on "life" are invalid due to prior art, namely, yourself. In that you stand outside of time, you infinitely predate your subsequent creations (rendering any patent claims moot) and any copyrights on your works predate English Common Law, which form the sole basis for your tort.

      Sincerely,

      Orobouros Corporation
      What goes around, comes around

  6. possible? by spectrokid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I once read that if you converted all the sand of the earth into processors, it would still take ages to accurately simulate the folding of a protein. Is this just "zooming out" and ignoring things like protein folding?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  7. And *That* is what computers are for! by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bigger problems, and bigger computers to solve them on. This is certainly a fun example, and aesthetically pleasing as well.

    Unfortunately, we're still a few generations of supercomputer off from being able to simulate ribosomes (at which point most of the cellular machinery will be suitable for in-silicio biochemical investigation), but this is an excellent step along the way. It's also a good to showcase Schulten's group's work on efficient parallelization of complex simulations. He's had to solve a lot of algorithmic issues in order to be able to run that simulation, so this is not just an example of "wait for a bigger computer". If you check out their web-page http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/, you'll find discussions of the underlying technology, which has required collaboration between biophysicists and computer science. My hat is off to them, especially as they not only achieved the proof of concept (we can simulate a small virus), but also gained biochemical insights (we didn't know they collapsed without the genetic payload). Bully for the Biophysicists!

    Note: I don't work for them, but I admire the scale of simulations they do, and their willingness to make available to the community the tools they use.

    --
    the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  8. Big PC + Fancy Virus/cancer stuff = nature paper by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTA:
    The simulations followed the life of the satellite tobacco mosaic virus, but only for a very brief time,

    The nature article mentions a runtime of 50 times a billionth of a second, which I guess is 50 nanosecond, or 50 femtosecond, depending on how you define 'billion'. 50 nanoseconds is pretty good for a simulation nowadays, especially for a system of that size.

    Look, it al seems very nice that they did this, fancy pictures and nature paper garantueed, but this really won't help us much further. This is no big scientific step forward. Virus processes happen at least in the micro/millisecond timescale, there's a lot of protein diffusion and refolding going on. Since the short simulation done here was an immense effort, it means that going to the timescales studying the real important processes is still way too far away. But who knows, maybe in ten years.

    Right now, you could better use the same computer power used for this single project to study a lot more smaller projects that actually will give us insight into real molecular processes. Or maybe I'm just jealous ;)

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  9. No, this is scientific showboating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I realize that the /. crowd is going to fellate any researcher who uses high-performance computing to draw pretty pictures, but from the Nature summary this sounds like a classic scientific case of showboating.

    The researchers were using a technique called molecular dynamics, which attempts to model the movements of atoms in a 3D structure by integrating over Newton's equations. Force, however, is calculated using a coarse, empirical function of atom positions and their chemical properties. This model is weak, and it fails to produce physically-reasonable results on a whole variety of smaller problems, so it's an exaggeration to suggest that this simulation produced anything of physical or experimental relevance. And drawing strong physical conlusions from it? That's just crazy.

    Before I get flamed by the MD crowd, I'll say that I am NOT suggesting that MD is useless. It's just that, it has a very short track record on problems of this size, and even in much smaller systems (i.e. fewer atoms), it's success rate is questionable. We can't even predict the dynamics of a single protein with this stuff -- it's absurd to suggest that it will work on an entire virus.

    In short: don't be fooled. This experiment got into Nature because of its hubris and glamour, not necessarily because of its science.

    P.S. I work in this field, so I'm posting anonymously.

    1. Re:No, this is scientific showboating. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny
      I realize that the /. crowd is going to fellate any researcher who uses high-performance computing to draw pretty pictures, but from the Nature summary this sounds like a classic scientific case of showboating.


      Now that's just unfair. I'd be talking 2nd base at best.
      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:No, this is scientific showboating. by AFairlyNormalPerson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Force, however, is calculated using a coarse, empirical function of atom positions and their chemical properties."

      You give them too much credit... force field people compute *some* of the forces and ignore most of them. Long-range electrostatics are often omitted entirely (and people wonder why their RNA strands fall apart once it flops around a bit - I mean jebus, people!).

      People do these simulations to "gain atomic level insight" into the problem; however, it's very rare to hear anyone say anything "insightful" about the chemistry AND do it in a believable way.

      More "fascinating" simulations involve including a small region which is treated "quantum mechanically" and thus allow for bond formation/breaking; however, the QM models are so crude themselves that they need to be parameterized to get the "correct" answer. That's right - you heard it. It's the big secret. In order to get the more "trustable" simulations to produce something in the ballpark of remotely representing reality, you have to know "the answer" before you do the simulation and then teach the model to reproduce that "answer"... then you can write a paper and show that you're model "get's the answer" - and that's about the limit of "insight" that's often gained from these sort of simulations.

    3. Re:No, this is scientific showboating. by protovirus · · Score: 5, Funny

      [you have to know "the answer" before you do the simulation and then teach the model to reproduce that "answer"]

      Wait a minute... isn't that completely backwards for QM... shouldn't a QM simulation know the answer even before you ask the question? :)

    4. Re:No, this is scientific showboating. by Decaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, if you read the actual journal article (Structure, not Nature) you'll note that everything that was found in this study is consistent with experimental results.

      Of course it is. I have worked in this field. When you do this kind of thing, you set up the parameters so that you already know that almost everything about it is going to be consistent with experimental results. There are other approaches - called 'ab initio' - in which you make no assumptions, but that involved a phenomenal amount of computing for very small systems. The point of this kind of thing is to set almost everthing to be realistic, with all sorts of approximations and fine-tunings, in order to test your assumptions about small parts of the model.

    5. Re:No, this is scientific showboating. by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      In order to get the more "trustable" simulations to produce something in the ballpark of remotely representing reality, you have to know "the answer" before you do the simulation and then teach the model to reproduce that "answer"... then you can write a paper and show that you're model "get's the answer" - and that's about the limit of "insight" that's often gained from these sort of simulations.

      You are, of course, absolutely right. Things haven't changed since I started to do this kind a long time (20 years) ago. However, you can gain some sort of insights, as you can find out which interactions (even thought they are simplified) can matter in the real world. By trying to simulate the real world, you can find out more about it, even if you aren't able to make many predictions.

  10. Good luck, God... by Urusai · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...on finding a lawyer. I hear most of them end up downstairs.

  11. You can run this yourself (theoretically) by sidney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finally, I can say this for real: Imagine a Beowulf cluster (link is to Biowulf) of these!

    The modeling software they used is called NAMD, free open source "parallel molecular dynamics code designed for high-performance simulation of large biomolecular systems" that will run on commodity clusters of tens of Linux PCs on gigabit ethernet. In other words, you too can run the virus simulation on your own Beowulf cluster, if you don't mind it taking some years to run. According to NCSA's own press release about the virus simulation, it "only" took 35 processor-years, so if you have a 100 fast Linux PCs on a gigabit network lying around you can do it yourself in not much more than 4 months.

    1. Re:You can run this yourself (theoretically) by tskirvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also of note: we've done a series of cluster-building workshops specifically focusing on the software and hardware required to run these kinds of simulations. Copies of the presentations and tutorials are linked off of that page.

      And if you want to see how we designed our clusters, I've got full specifications up here.

  12. More/better information... by tskirvin · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. The full research page for this project is here. This is a lot better than the stuff linked through Nature and such.

    2. The image was actually generated by our group, and specifically Anton Arkhipov, using our software package VMD. NCSA didn't have anything to do with it.

  13. Re:Philosophical question by svkal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Your argument hinges on the assumption that "the world is quite deterministic in any large enough scale", which tends not to be true, quite a few natural systems exhibit chaotic behaviour at any reasonable scale, and quantum mechanics dictate that we will always have incomplete information about the world. Currently, the "Oracle supercomputer" seems infeasible from a scientific point of view: there are simply too many factors to track(in infinite detail, if perfect accuracy is required) to run accurate simulations of complex systems on extreme scales. Note that this simulation of a virus is probably not "perfect": there are errors, and however small and insignificant they may be at this scale, they may introduce crippling inaccuracies the moment you try to simulate a larger system with a certain number of viruses(each introducing their own error factors), or one system over a more significant amount of time.

    Philosophically, however, the question is interesting and has, as most interesting philosophical questions, been discussed before. Look up "Laplace's demon" sometime(the demon being the closest thing an 18th century mathematician could imagine to a supercomputer with access to infinite information): if one assumes that the world is inherently deterministic(from our point of view, this assumes the "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics) and proposes that some kind of being could in theory have access to unlimited information about it, then concepts such as time lose much of their meaning, since things are "destined" to happen before they actually do happen(and in what absolute sense can they then be said not to have happened already?).

    Obviously, free will in the absolute sense is also non-existent from this point of view.