Table 1.
Representative examples of proteins designed using various approaches
| Design principles, methodsa | Parameters introduced/optimized | Representative citations |
|---|---|---|
| Substitution of amino acids by rational design | ||
| Visual inspection, Docking, ISM | Substrate specificity Stereoselectivity | [1] |
| CAVER, ISM | Activity, Stabiliy | [3, 4] |
| B-Fit, ISM | Thermostability | [5] |
| MD-simulations | Enantioselectivity | [6, 7] |
| Prediction of pKa | pH Optimum | [8–11] |
| Computational design | ||
| FRESCO | Thermostability | [12] |
| CASCO Rosetta Design | Enantioselectivity | [13] |
| Rosetta Design/Rosetta match | Introducing new chemical activities | [14–17] |
| Minimalist design | Introducing new chemical activities | [18–20] |
| De novo design of protein folds | ||
| Semiempirical computation | Introducing catalysis | [21] |
| Introduction of noncanonical amino acids | ||
| Rational, substrate docking | Introducing new chemical activities | [22] |
| Rosetta | Protein–peptide interface, metal cofactor binding | [23, 24] |
| Redesign of the existing or introduction of new cofactors | ||
| Introducing metal cofactors into proteins | [25] | |
| Substitution of metal ions in existing cofactors | Introducing new chemical activities | [26] |
| Transition metal complexes anchored by biotin conjugation | [27] |
Note the list is by no means exhaustive
ISM iterative saturation mutagenesis, MD molecular dynamics, FRESCO framework for rapid enzyme stabilization by computational libraries, CASCO catalytic selectivity by computational design