# Comparison of In Vitro Multiple Physiological Activities of Cys–Tyr–Gly–Ser–Arg (CYGSR) Linear and Cyclic Peptides and Analysis Based on Molecular Docking

## TL;DR

Cyclic form of CYGSR peptide shows significantly better antioxidant, whitening, and anti-wrinkle activity than its linear form, supported by molecular docking analysis.

## Contribution

Demonstrates that cyclization of CYGSR improves bioactivity and provides insights into structure–activity relationships.

## Key findings

- C-CR5 showed 22.3 times higher DPPH radical scavenging activity than L-CR5.
- C-CR5 inhibited tyrosinase by over 95%, while L-CR5 showed only moderate inhibition.
- C-CR5 reduced MMP-1 expression by 92.8%, indicating strong anti-wrinkle activity.

## Abstract

Peptide cyclization is a strategy to improve biological stability and functional activity, but direct comparison between linear and cyclic peptides with the same sequence is still limited. In this study, linear (L-CR5) and cyclic (C-CR5) forms were synthesized, and biological functions such as antioxidant, whitening, and anti-wrinkle activity were compared and evaluated. C-CR5 showed about 22.3 times of DPPH radical scavenging activity, which was significantly stronger than L-CR5, and tyrosinase inhibition increased rapidly in C-CR5 to reach inhibition of 95% or more, whereas L-CR5 showed only moderate activity in the same range (about 6.5 times). MMP-1 expression in the evaluation of anti-wrinkle activity did not show a decreasing trend in L-CR5 at all, while C-CR5 showed an anti-wrinkle effect, which was reduced by about 92.8% at 400 μg/mL. As a result of molecular docking analysis, C-CR5 exhibited lower MolDock scores than L-CR5 toward both tyrosinase and MMP-1, indicating a potentially higher binding affinity and improved binding stability. This is expected to be due to reduced structural flexibility and optimized residue directions (especially Tyr and Arg). These results indicate that peptide cyclization is an example of enhanced functional bioactivity of CYGSR and provides a positive case for the structure–activity relationship.