Modeling of Molecular Properties 2011
DOI: 10.1002/9783527636402.ch16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational Design of New Protein Catalysts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 61 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The total score should not be greater than the total score of the original scaffold protein. The ligand binding energy was less than −10.0 Rosetta energy units (REU) (SR_interface_1_2 < −10.0), the total score of the catalytic residue conforming to the constraint range was less than 1 (all_cst < 1.0), the number of the polar atoms that were unsaturated and buried in the ligand and catalytic residues was no more than two (SR_burunsat_pm ≤ 2), and more than 66% of the ligands’ surface was buried in the protein (SR_dsasa_1_2 > 0.66) [ 39 , 40 ]. The designed enzyme results were sorted according to the total score, and the best-designed results were experimentally characterized.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total score should not be greater than the total score of the original scaffold protein. The ligand binding energy was less than −10.0 Rosetta energy units (REU) (SR_interface_1_2 < −10.0), the total score of the catalytic residue conforming to the constraint range was less than 1 (all_cst < 1.0), the number of the polar atoms that were unsaturated and buried in the ligand and catalytic residues was no more than two (SR_burunsat_pm ≤ 2), and more than 66% of the ligands’ surface was buried in the protein (SR_dsasa_1_2 > 0.66) [ 39 , 40 ]. The designed enzyme results were sorted according to the total score, and the best-designed results were experimentally characterized.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%