Table 1.

Examples rate enhancements and specificities of computationally designed enzymes.^a

Name	Reaction	$log\frac{k_{\mathrm{cat}}}{k_{\mathrm{uncat}}}$	$log\frac{k_{\mathrm{cat}}}{K_M}$	→log KTS	Ref.
P7D2	Ester hydrolysis	2.26	0.43	6.03	39
G4-DFtet	Phenol oxidation	≈3b	1.42	6.08	18
RA61	Retro-Aldol	4.36	-0.15	8.04	19
KE07	Kemp Elimination	4.19	1.11	7.04	20
→KE07*c	Kemp Elimination	6.07	3.40	9.34	20
KE70	Kemp Elimination	5.08	2.10	8.04	46
→KE70*c	Kemp Elimination	6.63	4.75	10.7	46
HG-3d	Kemp Elimination	5.77	2.63	8.56	79
DA_20_00	Diels-Aldere	0.61	-1.26	3.90	21
→DA_20_10f	Diels-Aldere	1.93	0.73	5.90	21,83
→CE6	Diels-Aldere	1.96	1.94	7.11	83

^aA ’ →’ indicates the design has been developed from the closest design above.

^bOnly an approximate rate enhancement was reported by the authors.

^cThe 'R7 10/11G’ variant of KE07,[20] and 'R6 4/8B’ variant of KE70,[46] evolved by directed evolution and containing 8 and 14 mutations compared to their respective progenitor.

^dRefined in three generations using a combination of small-molecule placement,[11] MD and experimental techniques.

^eA bimolecular reaction, reported values therefore contain k_cat/(K_M1K_M2).

^fEvolved from DA_20_00 by rational design and contains 6 mutations with respect to the progenitor

^gEvolved from DA_20_10 by exchanging an unstructured loop on the fringe of the active site to a helix-turn-helix motif that better encapsulates the substrates. The design was found by employing the community of FoldIt[16] players.