Igand binding site for a D-Ala- D-Ala dipeptide into an endo-1,4xylanase scaffold was discussed. Designs by the employed design software ROSETTA did not show the predicted high affinity in the experimental tests underscoring the challenge of protein-ligand interface design [15]. In this respect long-range electrostatics andComputational Design of Binding Pocketsdynamics, accurate modeling of solvation and electrostatics at the interface, as well as the inclusion of explicit water molecules have been named as most problematic areas [13?6]. In order to improve protein-ligand interface design and to overcome current limitations it will be necessary to test design protocols more systematically. In this respect, we noticed that in computational design studies there is a lack of more general benchmark sets. Related molecular modeling techniques are regularly assessed using test sets. For example protein-ligand docking algorithms have been compared in detail [17?8] [19?0]. Also the CASP and CAPRI experiments allow unbiased testing of protein structure prediction and protein-protein docking methods [21]. In contrast only a few computational design studies tested their employed methodology. One example is the redesign of the binding pocket of ribose binding protein for its native ligand using molecular mechanics methods. Among the resulting binding pocket sequences, the wild type sequence was Tetracosactrin custom synthesis ranked second best, while the first and third ranks had only a single mutation and bound ribose with tenfold decreased affinity [22]. Also the aforementioned algorithm to introduce one key interaction to a ligand using loop modeling techniques was tested on eight proteins. For six of them the method produced a loop of the same length and similar configuration as in the crystal structures [9]. Both 
benchmark tests are very specific, they cannot be used to generally and systematically assess a method’s proficiency in designing binding to a small molecule. Also the broader benchmark set that was used to assess the ability of the enzyme design methods ROSETTAMATCH and SCAFFOLDSELECTION to identify suitable scaffold proteins that can host a desired catalytic machinery [23?4] are not suited for this purpose. Such a test set, however, would be very helpful for assessing the potential and the shortcomings of available methods. 23727046 In this study, we present POCKETOPTIMIZER, a computational pipeline that can be used to predict mutations in the binding pocket of proteins, which increase the affinity of the protein to a given small molecule ligand. It can be used for the analysis of few mutations as well as for the design of an entire binding pocket. It uses several molecular modeling modules. Side chain flexibility is sampled by a conformer library, which we compiled following Boas and Harbury [22]. The use of conformer libraries has been reported to be advantageous, especially in the context of bindingsite geometries [25] [26?7]. A receptor-ligand scoring function is used to calculate protein ligand binding strength. The modular architecture of POCKETOPTIMIZER Rebaudioside A site allows easy and systematic comparison of methods that perform the same task. As the first test we utilize this to examine two scoring functions in this study, the scoring function provided by CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. In order to assess the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER and other methods that address the same task, we compiled a benchmark set. It consists of mutational variants of proteins and their s.Igand binding site for a D-Ala- D-Ala dipeptide into an endo-1,4xylanase scaffold was discussed. Designs by the employed design software ROSETTA did not show the predicted high affinity in the experimental tests underscoring the challenge of protein-ligand interface design [15]. In this respect long-range electrostatics andComputational Design of Binding Pocketsdynamics, accurate modeling of solvation and electrostatics at the interface, as well as the inclusion of explicit water molecules have been named as most problematic areas [13?6]. In order to improve protein-ligand interface design and to overcome current limitations it will be necessary to test design protocols more systematically. In this respect, we noticed that in computational design studies there is a lack of more general benchmark sets. Related molecular modeling techniques are regularly assessed using test sets. For example protein-ligand docking algorithms have been compared in detail [17?8] [19?0]. Also the CASP and CAPRI experiments allow unbiased testing of protein structure prediction and protein-protein docking methods [21]. In contrast only a few computational design studies tested their employed methodology. One example is the redesign of the binding pocket of ribose binding protein for its native ligand using molecular mechanics methods. Among the resulting binding pocket sequences, the wild type sequence was ranked second best, while the first and third ranks had only a single mutation and bound ribose with tenfold decreased affinity [22]. Also the aforementioned algorithm to introduce one key interaction to a ligand using loop modeling techniques was tested on eight proteins. For six of them the method produced a loop of the same length and similar configuration as in the crystal structures [9]. Both benchmark tests are very specific, they cannot be used to generally and systematically assess a method’s proficiency in designing binding to a small molecule. Also the broader benchmark set that was used to assess the ability of the enzyme design methods ROSETTAMATCH and SCAFFOLDSELECTION to identify suitable scaffold proteins that can host a desired catalytic machinery [23?4] are not suited for this purpose. Such a test set, however, would be very helpful for assessing the potential and the shortcomings of available methods. 23727046 In this study, we present POCKETOPTIMIZER, a computational pipeline that can be used to predict mutations in the binding pocket of proteins, which 
increase the affinity of the protein to a given small molecule ligand. It can be used for the analysis of few mutations as well as for the design of an entire binding pocket. It uses several molecular modeling modules. Side chain flexibility is sampled by a conformer library, which we compiled following Boas and Harbury [22]. The use of conformer libraries has been reported to be advantageous, especially in the context of bindingsite geometries [25] [26?7]. A receptor-ligand scoring function is used to calculate protein ligand binding strength. The modular architecture of POCKETOPTIMIZER allows easy and systematic comparison of methods that perform the same task. As the first test we utilize this to examine two scoring functions in this study, the scoring function provided by CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. In order to assess the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER and other methods that address the same task, we compiled a benchmark set. It consists of mutational variants of proteins and their s.
