The incidence of brain metastases (BM) in cancer patients is increasing. After diagnosis, overall survival (OS) is poor, elicited by the lack of an effective treatment. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapy has achieved remarkable success in treating both hematologic and non-central-nervous system (CNS) tumors due to their inherent targeting specificity. However, the use of mAbs in the treatment of CNS tumors is restricted by the blood–brain barrier (BBB) that hinders the delivery of either small-molecules drugs (sMDs) or therapeutic proteins (TPs). To overcome this limitation, active research is focused on the development of strategies to deliver TPs and increase their concentration in the brain. Yet, their molecular weight and hydrophilic nature turn this task into a challenge. The use of BBB peptide shuttles is an elegant strategy. They explore either receptor-mediated transcytosis (RMT) or adsorptive-mediated transcytosis (AMT) to cross the BBB. The latter is preferable since it avoids enzymatic degradation, receptor saturation, and competition with natural receptor substrates, which reduces adverse events. Therefore, the combination of mAbs properties (e.g., selectivity and long half-life) with BBB peptide shuttles (e.g., BBB translocation and delivery into the brain) turns the therapeutic conjugate in a valid approach to safely overcome the BBB and efficiently eliminate metastatic brain cells.

The characterization of biologically active peptides relies heavily on the study of their efficacy, toxicity, mechanism of action, cellular uptake, or intracellular location, using both in vitro and in vivo studies. These studies frequently depend on the use of fluorescence-based techniques. Since most peptides are not intrinsically fluorescent, they are conjugated to a fluorophore. The conjugation may interfere with peptide properties, thus biasing the results. The selection of the most suitable fluorophore is highly relevant. Here, a comprehensive study with blood–brain barrier (BBB) peptide shuttles (PepH3 and PepNeg) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) (vCPP2319 and Ctn[15-34]), tested as anticancer peptides (ACPs), having different fluorophores, namely 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein (CF), rhodamine B (RhB), quasar 570 (Q570), or tide fluor 3 (TF3) attached is presented. The goal is the evaluation of the impact of the selected fluorophores on peptide performance, applying routinely used techniques to assess cytotoxicity/toxicity, secondary structure, BBB translocation, and cellular internalization. Our results show that some fluorophores significantly modulate peptide activity when compared with unlabeled peptides, being more noticeable in hydrophobic and charged fluorophores. This study highlights the need for a careful experimental design for fluorescently labeled molecules, such as peptides.