Comparison of computed and experimental Pareto optimal plots.

<p>A Pareto plot of computed design parameters <i>S^seq</i> vs. <i>S^epi</i>. B Experimental analog of the computed Pareto plot. An integrated score for experimentally measured molecular function (<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003988#pcbi.1003988.e003" target="_blank">equation 3</a>) is plotted vs. a global score for experimentally determined immunoreactivity (<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003988#pcbi.1003988.e007" target="_blank">equation 4</a>). C Experimental Pareto plot of normalized, reciprocal T_m vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. D Experimental Pareto plot of normalized K_m vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. E Experimental Pareto plot of normalized, reciprocal k_cat vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. F Experimental Pareto plot of normalized, reciprocal k_cat/K_m vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. G Experimental Pareto plot of averaged, normalized, reciprocal k_cat and T_m vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. H Experimental Pareto plot of averaged, normalized, reciprocal k_cat/K_m and T_m vs. Global Quantitative Immunoreactivity. Pareto optimal enzymes are shown as blue circular markers, sub-optimal 4-mutation variants are shown as orange circular markers, and wild type P99βL is shown as a red square. Note that the computed Pareto plot best captures overall molecular performance, as represented by integrated performance values (e.g. averaging kinetic parameters with thermostability parameters).