As illustrated by the legends, CGTX-II (closed squares) and δ-AITX-Bcg1a (open squares) data are plotted both as data points and best fitted Hill curves (see legend for the EC50 and Hill coefficients). It appears that three isoforms, namely Nav1.5, Nav1.6 and Nav1.1, show EC50s in the region 80–150 nM. For the other isoforms we estimated EC50 values of ∼5 μM CGTX-II for Nav1.4, and values >15 μM for both

toxins in Nav1.2 and Nav1.3. A statistical evaluation of the pairs CGTX-II and δ-AITX-Bcg1a suggested that the data of the three isoforms Nav1.5, Nav1.6 and Nav1.1 were different at level of p < 0.05. On the other hand, the other isoforms were much less affected and the effects did not appear significantly different. To complete the picture, the fractional effects produced on the Ass component are included as insets to the appropriate plots. By comparing these data, it is evident that the two toxins here investigated produced a large Ass Apoptosis Compound Library purchase increase only in the isoforms Nav1.1 and Nav1.6. As compared to similar Ass data, but for ATX-II, AFT-II and BcIII, present in Oliveira et al. [23], it is evident the toxins investigated in the present

report show potencies (in the 100–500 nM range), which were similar to those shown by the other peptides. As shown in Fig. 5, the three toxins investigated were modeled and find more structurally represented, in order to get some clues about the role of some amino acids and their surfaces charges in their activities. The three models were validated and yielded Quisqualic acid values as expected, based on the template. The QMEAN scores for CGTX-II, δ-AITX-Bcg1a and δ-AITX-Bcg1b were 0.7, 0.71 and 0.74, respectively. Panel A shows the cartoon representation of each peptide, and panel B shows the molecular surfaces of the corresponding molecules in the same orientation of panel A. Also, R14 located in the flexible loop comprised from residues D9-S19 is depicted as blue spheres in panel A, as well as other

negatively charged D residues colored as red. It can be clearly seen in panel B that the overall charged molecular surface of CGTX-II is different than those δ-AITX-Bcg1a and δ-AITX-Bcg1b peptides. In that orientation, CGTX-II is more positive than δ-AITX-Bcg1a, which in turn is less negative than δ-AITX-Bcg1b. For δ-AITX-Bcg1a and δ-AITX-Bcg1b, the occurrence of D37 possibly contributes to the formation of a continuum of a negative patch that extends along the surface of the molecules. Especially in case of δ-AITX-Bcg1b which also presents the D16 amino acid (its single substitution compared to δ-AITX-Bcg1a), showing in this case its role in the formation of the dense overall negative charge of δ-AITX-Bcg1b. Considering the occurrence of an Asn in the 16th position in δ-AITX-Bcg1a, this negative patch is not as intense as in the case of δ-AITX-Bcg1b. Thus, due to this difference we may speculate that its potency may be expected to be similar to that of CGTX-II.