Table 2. Summary of evolution-based peptide design results.
| Comparison items a | Weight of evolutionary profile energy | ||||
| 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | |
| Number of unique designs | 992 | 991 | 966 | 877 | 695 |
| Number of better binders b | 757 | 636 | 392 | 340 | 226 |
| EvoEF2 binding energy | -48.1±2.5 | -47.2±2.2 | -46.1±1.7 | -45.8±1.6 | -45.5±1.6 |
| EvoEF2 total energy | -824.6±2.0 | -823.4±2.2 | -818.4±2.3 | -813.3±1.9 | -809.7±2.3 |
| Profile energy c | 6.7±2.7 | -0.8±3.6 | -13.3±3.3 | -21.6±2.0 | -25.6±1.6 |
| EvoEF2+profile energy | -824.6±2.0 | -823.6±1.8 | -825.0±1.4 | -829.5±1.2 | -835.3±1.4 |
| Sequence identity (%) | 33.7±5.6 | 39.1±5.5 | 44.2±5.1 | 46.2±5.6 | 48.3±6.0 |
| Sec. Str. match rate (%) d | 95.7±3.3 | 96.2±3.0 | 97.5±2.7 | 97.5±2.5 | 97.7±2.4 |
a The units for the EvoEF2 and profile energies are EEU. b The EvoEF2 binding energy of the wild-type peptide binder was -46.46 EEU; this row shows the number of designed peptide binders with EvoEF2 binding energies lower than -46.46 EEU. c The profile energy of wild-type peptide binder was -22.2 EEU. d Secondary structure match rate.