SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Optimal cleavage and oxidative folding of α-conotoxin TxIB as a therapeutic candidate peptide.

Mar Drugs · 2013-09-17

DOI: 10.3390/md11093537PMID: 24048271

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Alpha6beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of several neuropsychiatric diseases, including addiction and Parkinson's disease. Alpha-conotoxin (α-CTx) TxIB is a uniquely selective ligand, which blocks α6/α3β2β3 nAChRs only, but does not block the other subtypes. Therefore, α-CTx TxIB is a valuable therapeutic candidate peptide. Synthesizing enough α-CTx TxIB with high yield production is required for conducting wide-range testing of its potential medicinal applications. The current study optimized the cleavage of synthesized α-CTx TxIB resin-bounded peptide and folding of the cleaved linear peptide. Key parameters influencing cleavage and oxidative folding of α-CTx TxIB were examined, such as buffer, redox agents, pH, salt, co-solvent and temperature. Twelve conditions were used for cleavage optimization. Fifty-four kinds of one-step oxidative solution were used to assess their effects on each α-CTx TxIB isomers' yield. The result indicated that co-solvent choices were particularly important. Completely oxidative folding of globular isomer was achieved when the NH₄HCO₃ or Tris-HCl folding buffer at 4 °C contained 40% of co-solvent DMSO, and GSH:GSSG (2:1) or GSH only with pH 8~8.7.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.