From: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:43:39 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: sawsim/methods.tex: Plug sec:salt from sec:sawsim:rate:other summary
X-Git-Tag: v1.0~46
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=da5f6ce6df5e353792e7924385fdbbba45f376a0;p=thesis.git

sawsim/methods.tex: Plug sec:salt from sec:sawsim:rate:other summary

Remind folks about the end goals, and ease of re-analysis.

Thanks, Prof. Cruz.
---

diff --git a/src/sawsim/methods.tex b/src/sawsim/methods.tex
index 623c248..29a2c92 100644
--- a/src/sawsim/methods.tex
+++ b/src/sawsim/methods.tex
@@ -570,7 +570,11 @@ it may be more robust in the face of noisy data.
 How to choose which unfolding model to use?  For proteins with
 relatively narrow folded and transition states, the Bell model
 provides a good approximation, and it is the model used by the vast
-majority of earlier work in the field.
+majority of earlier work in the field.  I will use the Bell model in
+my analysis of ion-dependent unfolding (\cref{sec:salt}), but
+analyzing my unfolding data with a different transition rate model is
+just a matter of changing some command line options and rerunning the
+\sawsim\ simulations.
 
 \subsubsection{Assumptions}
 \label{sec:sawsim:rate:assumptions}