Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 2;17(18):1693–1697. doi: 10.1002/cbic.201600330

Table 1.

Preferred binding modes after docking of (R)‐1 and (S)‐1 into the active sites of wild‐type and evolved StEH1 enzymes.

(R)‐1 (S)‐1
Enzyme C‐1[a] [%] r C−1 [b] [Å] C‐2[a] [%] r C−2 ]b] [Å] Mode[c] C‐1[a] [%] r C−1 [b] [Å] C‐2[a] [%] r C−2 ]b] [Å] Mode
StEH1 (wt) 5 3.6 95 2.7 3 7 3.0 93 2.8 3
R‐C1 3 2.8 97 2.7 1′ 15 3.0 85 2.6 3
R‐C1B1 2 2.8 98 2.8 1′ 60 2.6 40 3.0 1′
R‐C1B1D33 2 3.0 98 2.7 3 62 2.7 38 2.8 2

[a] Experimental data from ref. 3 [b] Calculated distance between D105 and C‐1/C‐2 of the epoxide ring of 1. [c] Mode 1′ involves interaction of the phenyl ring and H300; Mode 2 directs the phenyl ring of the substrate towards W/L106; in Mode 3, the phenyl substituent is sandwiched between F189 and F33 (Figure 2). Binding Modes 3 (wild type and R‐C1), 1′ (R‐C1B1), and 2 (R‐C1B1D33) provide distances between the nucleophile and the epoxide carbons in line with experimentally determined product configurations. For calculations see the Supporting Information (all docking poses in Table S2).