Table 3.

In silico relative docking binding energy and in vivo activity of Cupriavidus taiwanensis AAAH (wild‐type and mutants) using phenylalanine or tryptophan as substrate

AAAH	in silico RBEa		Preference (Phe/Trp)	in vivo activityb		Preference (Phe/Trp)
	Phe	Trp		Phe → Tyr	Trp → 5HTP
CtAAAH (wt)	1.00	1.00	1.00	86.8 ± 5.7	10.5 ± 0.4	8.3
wt L113Y	0.83	0.84	0.99	73.8 ± 2.3	24.1 ± 0.9	3.1
wt W192F	0.75	0.86	0.87	79.1 ± 3.7	57.8 ± 1.2	1.4
wt Y222H	0.78	0.82	0.95	41.9 ± 2.9	25.0 ± 0.8	1.6
wt S223C	0.90	0.80	1.12	63.7 ± 3.1	21.6 ± 0.9	2.9
wt P229A	0.81	0.90	0.90	59.5 ± 3.5	35.4 ± 1.0	1.7
wt Y244C	0.81	0.84	0.96	48.8 ± 2.7	33.5 ± 1.2	1.5

^aRBE, relative binding energy estimated using AutoDock Vina v1.1.2 20.

^bActivity estimated as μM · h⁻¹ · OD₆₀₀ ⁻¹. All data are reported as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) from three independent experiments.