From 17f76839f730aea8e925643e71ee34e6b8e62d87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "W. Trevor King" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:02:04 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] introduction/main.tex: 'as' -> 'because' for drug-designer consumption I think this reads a bit more clearly. --- src/introduction/main.tex | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/introduction/main.tex b/src/introduction/main.tex index b34aead..20f6481 100644 --- a/src/introduction/main.tex +++ b/src/introduction/main.tex @@ -190,16 +190,16 @@ so knowledge about the unfolding behavior \emph{does} shed light on the folding behavior. Practically, the distinction between folding and unfolding makes -little difference, as drug designers and doctors are not consuming -SMFS results directly. For researchers calibrating molecular dynamics -simulations, it doesn't matter if you compare simulated folding -experiments with experimental folding experiments, or simulated -unfolding experiments with experimental unfolding experiments. The -important thing is to compare your simulation against \emph{some} -experimental benchmarks. If your molecular dynamics simulation -successfully predicts a protein's unfolding behavior, it makes me more -confident that it will correctly predict the protein's native folding -behavior. +little difference, because drug designers and doctors are not +consuming SMFS results directly. For researchers calibrating +molecular dynamics simulations, it doesn't matter if you compare +simulated folding experiments with experimental folding experiments, +or simulated unfolding experiments with experimental unfolding +experiments. The important thing is to compare your simulation +against \emph{some} experimental benchmarks. If your molecular +dynamics simulation successfully predicts a protein's unfolding +behavior, it makes me more confident that it will correctly predict +the protein's native folding behavior. \section{Thesis outline} -- 2.26.2