introduction/main.tex: Expand on the landscape/pathway distinction

diff --git a/src/introduction/main.tex b/src/introduction/main.tex
index f55709d8191dfb6bce85ade262e355ebb9d6c59d..2fad3fdf3a537b5a6d75545ef1835165f3aedc27 100644 (file)
--- a/src/introduction/main.tex
+++ b/src/introduction/main.tex
@@ -52,15 +52,18 @@ remarkably difficult.
 \label{sec:energy-landscape}
 
 % the free energy landscape
-Folding a protein via a brute force sampling of all possible
-conformations is impossibly inefficient, due to the exponential
-scaling of possible conformations with protein length, as outlined by
-\citet{levinthal69}.  This has lead to a succession of models
-explaining the folding mechanism.  For a number of years, the
+Finding a protein's lowest energy state via a brute force sampling of
+all possible conformations is impossibly inefficient, due to the
+exponential scaling of possible conformations with protein length, as
+outlined by \citet{levinthal69}.  This has lead to a succession of
+models explaining the folding mechanism.  For a number of years, the
 ``pathway'' model of protein folding enjoyed popularity
 (\cref{fig:folding:pathway})\citep{levinthal69}.  More recently, the
 ``landscape'' or ``funnel'' model has come to the fore
-(\cref{fig:folding:landscape})\citep{dill97}.
+(\cref{fig:folding:landscape})\citep{dill97}.  Both of these models
+reduce the conformation space to a more approachable analog, and their
+success depends on striking a useful balance between simplicity and
+accuracy.
 
 \begin{figure}
   \begin{center}