Hello, everyone!
I'm aiming to study the impact of two AA substitutions on 3D conformation in a 29AA-peptide for which there is no available 3D structure in PDB.
I came accross with a previous report investigating a similar issue which employed an homology-based approach (Phyre2) to obtain 3D models, but then I wondered if this approach couldn't bias the analysis by minimize the effect of variation, and if de novo models could work better for this purpose by considering force field changes caused by AA substitution. Does this hipothesis makes sense? If it does, could anyone indicate me a reference supporting this.
Additional question: I've already obtained models for the wild-type structure using the homology-based approache (Phyre2) and knowledge-based de novo approaches (QUARK, I-TASSER and Rosetta). And also obtained refined models using FG-MD, ModRefiner and PREFMD and analyzed raw and refined structures using PROCHEK and PROSA. Which parameters should I consider more when choosing the more reliable approach (that which generate more reliable structures)?