“…Therefore, we assumed that the putative active cavity of SMO should be strictly shaped by surrounding residues and the mutations could hardly change the orientation of the substrate. The reversal of enantioselectivity for the mutant Y73V during the epoxidation of 1-phenylcyclohexene was unexpected because all other experimentally assigned SMOs display the same enantioselectivity (Bernasconi et al, 2000;Di Gennaro et al, 1999;Lin et al, 2010;Panke et al, 1998;Park et al, 2005;Tischler et al, 2009;van Hellemond et al, 2005), and the overall structure of the active cavity of SMOs should not be flexible enough to generate complementary enantiomers. Moreover, the mutants from directed evolution were also reported to produce (S)-enantiomers (Gursky et al, 2010).…”