Characterization of selectivity and pharmacophores of type 1 sea anemone toxins by screening seven Na-v sodium channel isoforms

During their evolution, animals have developed a set of cysteine-rich peptides capable of binding various extracellular sites of voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC). Sea anemone toxins that target VGSCs delay their inactivation process, but little is known about their selectivities. Here we report the investigation of three native type 1 toxins (CGTX-II, delta-AITX-Bcg1a and delta-AITX-Bcg1b) purified from the venom of Bunodosoma cangicum. Both delta-AITX-Bcg1a and delta-AITX-Bcg1b toxins were fully sequenced. The three peptides were evaluated by patch-clamp technique among Nav1.1-1.7 isoforms expressed in mammalian cell lines, and their preferential targets are Na(v)1.5 > 1.6 > 1.1. We also evaluated the role of some supposedly critical residues in the toxins which would interact with the channels, and observed that some substitutions are not critical as expected. In addition, CGTX-II and delta-AITX-Bcg1a evoke different shifts in activation/inactivation Boltzmann curves in Nav1.1 and 1.6. Moreover, our results suggest that the interaction region between toxins and VGSCs is not restricted to the supposed site 3 (S3-54 linker of domain IV), and this may be a consequence of distinct surface of contact of each peptide vs. targeted channel. Our data suggest that the contact surfaces of each peptide may be related to their surface charges, as CGTX-II is more positive than delta-AITX-Bcg1a and delta-AITX-Bcg1b. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cognitive, Mood, and Electroencephalographic Effects of Noninvasive Cortical Stimulation With Weak Electrical Currents

Objectives: The use of noninvasive cortical electrical stimulation with weak currents has significantly increased in basic and clinical human studies. Initial, preliminary studies with this technique have shown encouraging results; however, the safety and tolerability of this method of brain stimulation have not been sufficiently explored yet. The purpose of our study was to assess the effects of direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) stimulation at different intensities in order to measure their effects on cognition, mood, and electroencephalogram. Methods: Eighty-two healthy, right-handed subjects received active and sham stimulation in a randomized order. We conducted 164 ninety-minute sessions of electrical stimulation in 4 different protocols to assess safety of (1) anodal DC of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC); (2) cathodal DC of the DLPFC; (3) intermittent anodal DC of the DLPFC and; (4) AC on the zygomatic process. We used weak currents of 1 to 2 mA (for DC experiments) or 0.1 to 0.2 mA (for AC experiment). Results: We found no significant changes in electroencephalogram, cognition, mood, and pain between groups and a low prevalence of mild adverse effects (0.11% and 0.08% in the active and sham stimulation groups, respectively), mainly, sleepiness and mild headache that were equally distributed between groups. Conclusions: Here, we show no neurophysiological or behavioral signs that transcranial DC stimulation or AC stimulation with weak currents induce deleterious changes when comparing active and sham groups. This study provides therefore additional information for researchers and ethics committees, adding important results to the safety pool of studies assessing the effects of cortical stimulation using weak electrical currents. Further studies in patients with neuropsychiatric disorders are warranted.