“…Indeed, the respective correlation coefficients are negative (Table 5). It is interesting to note that similar conclusions were drawn for CT The following LP were taken into account: Ltc 1, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, and 7, nine molecules in total Antibacterial activity is assumed to be a value reciprocal to MIC, and the values of MIC were taken from [28] a Full charge at pH 7 (as reported in Table 1) b The number of positively charged residues (Arg and Lys, reported in Table 1) c The result is obtained taking into account only the number of negatively charged residues d In the DG scale (see details in Table 3) e In the DG scale (the values in the brackets correspond to the conditions of protonation of Asp, Glu, and His residues) f Hydrophobicity was assumed to be the value proportional to the reciprocal of the concentration of AMP necessary to disrupt planar membranes composed from DPhPC; see Table 3 for the values [108,112] and linear AMP of different origin [113,114]. Of note, for LP an optimal charge, required to reach the maximal antimicrobial effect, depends on the overall length of the peptide [115,116] and distribution of charged residues along the amino acid sequence [37].…”