Abstract
Bispecific antibody‒drug conjugates (BsADCs) represent an innovative therapeutic category amalgamating the merits of antibody‒drug conjugates (ADCs) and bispecific antibodies (BsAbs). Positioned as the next-generation ADC approach, BsADCs hold promise for ameliorating extant clinical challenges associated with ADCs, particularly pertaining to issues such as poor internalization, off-target toxicity, and drug resistance. Presently, ten BsADCs are undergoing clinical trials, and initial findings underscore the imperative for ongoing refinement. This review initially delves into specific design considerations for BsADCs, encompassing target selection, antibody formats, and the linker–payload complex. Subsequent sections delineate the extant progress and challenges encountered by BsADCs, illustrated through pertinent case studies. The amalgamation of BsAbs with ADCs offers a prospective solution to prevailing clinical limitations of ADCs. Nevertheless, the symbiotic interplay among BsAb, linker, and payload necessitates further optimizations and coordination beyond a simplistic “1 + 1” to effectively surmount the extant challenges facing the BsADC domain.
KEY WORDS: Bispecific antibody drug conjugates, Antibody drug conjugates, Bispecific antibody, Targeted therapy, Safety, HER2, EGFR
Graphical abstract
In comparison to traditional ADCs, bispecific antibody drug conjugates present distinct design considerations and properties as the next-generation ADCs.
1. Introduction
Antibody‒drug conjugates (ADCs) comprise antibodies, linkers, and cytotoxic payloads1. Targeting tumors with ADCs is anticipated to mitigate systemic toxic effects compared to conventional chemotherapy, offering a broader therapeutic window and an elevated therapeutic index2,3. Over the last decade, ADCs have progressively matured in the treatment of both solid and hematological tumors, emerging as a revolutionary domain in anti-tumor drug research4. With the approvals of T-DM1 and DS-8201 for HER2+ breast cancer, the commercial clinical pipeline of ADCs has experienced steady growth5,6. Currently, more than 140 ADCs are in clinical development, with 15 having received approval.
While notable successes have marked ADC development, the emergence of unexpected toxicity, limited enhancements in toxicity profiles over the payload, and the onset of resistance pose formidable challenges. Various factors contribute to the prevailing clinical dilemmas, particularly in the context of solid tumors: (1) The heterogeneous nature of solid tumors constrains the clinical efficacy of targeting a singular antigen; (2) Therapeutic pressure induces antigen downregulation, epitope mutation, and the activation of bypass pathways, leading to substantial ADC resistance; (3) Factors such as target antigen expression in normal tissues, linker instability, and other variables contribute to imprecise payload release, causing off-target toxicity; (4) The resistance of the target antigen to internalization impedes a sufficiently lethal effect2,7. These unresolved issues impede the clinical advancement of ADCs. Strategic optimizations of antibodies, linkers, and payloads emerge as a promising avenue for the next-generation ADCs, holding the potential to surmount current clinical challenges.
The predominant source of ADC toxicity lies in the linker–payload complex, while the binding of antibodies to antigens also exerting a substantial influence on drug effects8. A prospective approach to address the aforementioned clinical challenges involves the conjugation of bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) to linker‒payload complex, giving rise to the concept of bispecific antibody drug conjugates (BsADCs) (Fig. 1). BsAbs are antibodies binding to two distinct epitopes on either the same or different antigens9,10. Presently, over 400 different forms of BsAbs are undergoing phase III clinical trials, with ten having received approval11. In contrast to traditional ADCs, the unique dual epitope/target binding modes of BsADCs not only enable binding to co-expressed antigens in solid tumors to enhance selectivity but also significantly improve internalization12,13. These distinctive advantages position BsADCs as a substantial force in the realm of next-generation ADCs. Currently, ten BsADCs are undergoing clinical trials (Table 1), with some early clinical trial results presented at the recent AACR and ESMO conference. Despite advancements, the safety and efficacy fall short of theoretical expectations, underscoring that the design of BsADCs is not merely “1 + 1”. Alterations in the binding patterns of BsADCs impact the overall efficacy, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive coordination and optimization of BsAbs, linkers, and payloads. Persistent challenges faced by BsADCs include limited antibody scaffolding, heterogeneous coupling orientations, inconsistent bispecific antibody generation, unknown parameters between two targets, and potential safety concerns. This review systematically encapsulates the design strategies of BsADCs, encompassing composition, design considerations, and current advancements and challenges, with the aim of paving the way for design of the next-generation ADCs.
Figure 1.
The concept and design considerations of BsADCs. (1) Antigen binding site: critical considerations for the antigen binding site encompass the selection of antigen combinations, the binding model, crosslinking internalization, and cellular transportation; (2) Fab and Fc region: pertinent issues in the Fab and Fc region include addressing chain-association challenges, BsAb generation, broadening of the antibody skeleton, and exploring combinations with FcγR and FcRn; (3) Linker‒payload complex: further optimizations are warranted for the linker–payload complex to enhance its effectiveness in the BsADC design.
Table 1.
BsADCs in clinical trials. Data source: Clinicaltrials.gov.
Type | Drug | Target | Payload | Phase | Yeara | Country | Company | Status | NCT number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BsADCs on HER2 | ZW-49 | HER2 × HER2 | N-Acyl sulfonamide auristatin | I | 2019 | U.S. | Zymeworks Co., Ltd. | Active, not recruiting | NCT03821233 |
MEDI4276 | HER2 × HER2 | Tubulysin Warhead | I | 2015 | U.S. | AstraZeneca Co., Ltd. | Completed | NCT02576548 | |
JSKN003 | HER2 × HER2 | TOPIi | I | 2022 | Australia | Alphamab Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT05494918 | |
I | 2023 | China | Recruiting | NCT05744427 | |||||
KM501 | HER2 × HER2 | Microtubule inhibitor | I | 2023 | China | Xuanzhu Co., Ltd. | Not yet recruiting | NCT05804864 | |
TQB2102 | HER2 × HER2 | TOPIi | I | 2023 | China | ChiaTai TianQing Co., Ltd. | Not yet recruiting | NCT05735496 | |
BsADCs on EGFR | AZD9592 | EGFR × c-MET | TOPIi | I | 2022 | U.S. | AstraZeneca Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT05647122 |
M1231 | EGFR × MUC1 | Hemiasterlin | I | 2021 | U.S. Canada | EMD Serono | Completed | NCT04695847 | |
BL-B01D1 | EGFR × HER3 | TOPIi | I | 2022 | China | Baili Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT05470348 | |
II | 2023 | China | Baili Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT05924841 | ||||
III | 2023 | China | Baili Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT06118333 | ||||
BsADCs on MET | REGN5093-M114 | MET × MET | Maytansinoid payload | I/II | 2021 | U.S. | Regeneron Co., Ltd. | Recruiting | NCT04982224 |
BsADCs on FRα | IMGN151 | FRα × FRα | Tubulin inhibitor, DM21 | I | 2023 | U.S. | ImmunoGen, Inc. | Recruiting | NCT05527184 |
Actual study starting date. TOPIi, topoisomerase I inhibitor; MMAE, monomethyl auristatin E; Co., Ltd., company limited; Inc., incorporated.
2. Design considerations on BsADCs
The current repertoire of known BsAb skeletons for BsADCs remains relatively confined, with targets primarily focused on HER2, EGFR, and c-MET. Despite the abundance of BsAbs, there is a need for further exploration to ascertain their suitability for constructing BsADCs14. The modular components of ADCs—antibody, linker, and payload—require independent optimizations, particularly when considering distinct tumor subtypes7. Minor modifications to any of these key components can yield substantial alterations in clinical characteristics. Merely substituting antibodies with BsAbs is insufficient for fully characterizing applicable BsADCs15,16. In designing future BsADCs, the replacement of antibodies, optimizations of the linker‒payload complex, and conjugation strategies should be viewed as interconnected networks, necessitating a holistic approach.
2.1. Design considerations on targets of BsAbs
The paramount considerations in the construction of BsADCs lie in the judicious selection of a suitable target combination. Target selection serves as a fundamental prerequisite for the successful development of ADCs, exerting a pivotal influence on the ultimate therapeutic window and systemic toxicity. Given the prevalent challenges of general off-target toxicity and clinical resistance faced by traditional ADCs, the following criteria should guide target selection:
(1) The conventional guiding principle involves identifying antigens characterized by good internalization, relatively low expression on normal tissues, and high expression on tumors17. (2) Acknowledging the heterogeneity of solid tumors, it becomes imperative to ascertain the expression levels of targets in various tumor subtypes and sites, facilitating the optimal implementation of tailored drug delivery rather than relying on a singular “magic bullet” approach18. (3) Owing to the unique dual targeting characteristics of BsADCs, a comprehensive consideration of the deep-level effects of antigen combinations is essential. This encompasses factors include internalization, recycling, rates of turnover, lysosomal degradation, and obligate mechanisms7. The thoughtful integration of these considerations is indispensable for effective BsADC design, ensuring a nuanced understanding of the dynamic interplay between antigens and their cellular processes.
Following target binding, the internalization of the ADC‒antigen complex stands as the pivotal process determining drug delivery. The types of antigens, properties of the antibody, and binding modes collectively influence the internalization of ADCs and the pace at which it occurs19. Critical antibody properties, such as valency, shape, size, isoelectric point20, and hydrophobicity21, exert a profound impact. Additionally, the binding mode and site further shape the internalization process. For instance, in the study by Hung et al., ten PD-L1 antibodies were designed to identify glycosylation sites, with only those recognizing N192 and N200 demonstrating internalization22. This implies that, even when targeting the same antigen, the internalization of ADCs may range from excellent to unacceptable. BsADCs offer an effective avenue for enhancing internalization through obligate mechanisms (e.g., hijacking and antigen aggregation). The rapid turnover targets can markedly enhance internalization speed, even in cases of lower expression on tumors (e.g., HER323 and Prolactin receptor24). Leveraging fast-turnover receptors as BsADC targets can significantly improve overall internalization effects25. Furthermore, the unique dual binding mode of BsADCs promotes the formation of larger antigen‒antibody complexes on the membrane, thereby inducing substantial endocytosis and target downregulation26. This nuanced understanding of internalization dynamics underscores the potential of BsADCs to optimize drug delivery through strategic design considerations.
Rapid turnover receptors and the formation of large antigen‒antibody complexes can redirect the internalized complex to lysosomes rather than recycling, as observed in certain contexts25. Subsequent to internalization, ADCs must traverse the endosome to reach the lysosome for efficient payload release27,28. Treatment pressure from ADCs can alter trans-endosomal transportation, resulting in decreased lysosomal delivery and increased distribution to other cell compartments or enhanced recycling27,28. This not only diminishes efficacy29 but also fosters drug resistance to ADCs30,31.
The ADC‒antigen complex can undergo internalization through various mechanisms, including Fc-mediated non-specific endocytosis32, clathrin-mediated endocytosis33,34, caveolin-mediated endocytosis33, and pinocytosis21,29,35,36. Of these, clathrin-mediated endocytosis emerges as the predominant route for ADC internalization. In the context of BsADCs, they are directed to the sorting endosome and the endocytic recycling compartment during clathrin-mediated endocytosis, a process regulated by small GTP-binding proteins of the RAB and ARF (ADP-ribosylation factor) families. This intricate interplay of internalization mechanisms underscores the importance of understanding and optimizing the endocytic journey of BsADCs for effective drug delivery and to mitigate the risk of resistance (Fig. 2A)37,38. Commencing from the early endosome (pH = 6.0–6.5), rapidly recycling receptors (e.g., EGFR39,40 and TGF-βR41) typically undergo recycling to the cell membrane through RAB4-dependent fast recycling and RAB8 and RAB11-dependent slow recycling38,42. Conversely, fast-turnover receptors such as PRLR24 are transported through a RAB7-dependent degradative route into late endosomes (pH = 5.0–6.0), followed by lysosomes (pH < 5)38,42. The fate of the internalized complex—whether it is recycled or directed to lysosomes for degradation—hinges on the interaction of specific sequences (motifs) in the cytoplasmic domains of proteins with elements of the coated pits42. Membrane receptors containing ubiquitination signaling and YXXØ consensus motifs can recruit clathrin and the clathrin adaptor protein 2 (AP2) to the plasma membrane, with AP2 discerning and facilitating transportation to lysosomes.
Figure 2.
(A) BsADCs possess a distinctive advantage in promoting internalization and lysosomal degradation, a process involving both clathrin-mediated endocytosis and non-clathrin-mediated endocytosis. (1) ADCs targeting fast-turnover receptors (light green receptor in Fig. 2A) with signaling motifs (e.g., YXXØ) can undergo internalization through clathrin-mediated endocytosis (black arrow). The endocytosed antigen–antibody complex, guided by RAB5, enters the sorting endosome (also known as the early endosome, pH = 6.0–6.5). Subsequently, it may enter the recycling process through RAB4 and RAB11-mediated recycling, or opt for the RAB4 and RAB35-mediated rapid recycling process to the cell membrane surface (pH = 7.4). (2) Alternatively, ADCs can also be internalized through non-clathrin-mediated endocytosis (green arrow). (3) In sorting endosomes, antigen‒antibody complexes are sorted into late endosomes via ESCRT mediation. The complex then proceeds to the lysosome (pH < 5) guided by RAB7, where the ADC undergoes degradation, releasing the payload. It's important to note that the pH values and RAB associations provided are general, and actual values may vary based on cell types; (B) The Fc binding to FcRn is crucial for the blood stability of ADCs. When the ADC is taken up by vascular endothelial cells or monocytes, the Fc segment within the ADC engages with FcRn, leading to its recycling back into the extracellular space. This recycling process helps prevent early degradation, contributing to the blood stability of ADCs.
To address the decline in efficacy and drug resistance arising from the redirection of the internalization pathway, one strategy involves designing BsADCs that degrade in weakly acidic environments (sorting endosome, the endocytic recycling compartment, and late endosome) before reaching lysosomes to release the payload28,43. Another approach is to select membrane receptors containing the YXXØ motif (e.g., CD6344 and APLP245), ubiquitination signaling (e.g., PRLR46), or other lysosomal sorting signals as one of the targets. Early endosomal processing and lysosomal hijacking render receptors with recycling potential or poor internalization as viable targets for BsADCs, significantly expanding the range of options for ADC targets. The complete internalization transportation process of ADCs, particularly in non-clathrin-mediated endocytosis, remains inadequately understood, highlighting the need for further in-depth research.
The properties of the antibody and the antibody‒antigen binding interaction demand meticulous consideration26. In comparison to conventional ADCs, BsADCs, with their bispecific binding properties, introduce obligate mechanisms (Fig. 3C). This confers a decisive advantage by simultaneously blocking two (or more) targets, surpassing the capabilities of conventional ADCs and expanding the therapeutic landscape from traditional chemotherapy to blended therapy47. Additionally, bispecific targeting facilitates passage through biological barriers. For instance, targeting transferrin receptor48 and Ephrin A2 (EphA2)49 can mediate effective transcytosis, presenting a promising avenue for constructing BsADCs targeting brain tumors through the blood‒brain barrier50,51.
Figure 3.
Design considerations on types of BsAb in BsADCs. (A) Dual-epitope and dual-target binding model of BsADCs; (B) Types of BsAb formats for possible BsADC design; (C) The dual-targeting mechanism of BsAbs provides BsADCs with obligate mechanisms.
Bispecific targeting properties play a pivotal role in overcoming multi-mechanism drug resistance arising from poor internalization, down-regulation, binding site mutation, and the activation of bypass pathways52,53. To promote antigen aggregation on the cell surface, structural analysis is imperative. The distance between two binding sites and epitopes should be carefully considered to prevent binding on the same antigen. T-cell redirecting BsAbs have the potential to redirect T-cells to the tumor microenvironment (TME), opening avenues for designing T-cell redirecting BsADCs54. This has the potential to significantly broaden immunotherapy options, particularly in the treatment of hematological tumors55,56. The heterogeneity of solid tumors poses challenges in accurately targeting both T cells and tumors for both arms. Moreover, BsADCs targeting non-internalizing targets (e.g., TME and immune cells) warrant attention with regards to drug release. The design of non-internalizing BsADCs utilizing cleavable linkers and permeable payloads emerges as a promising strategy.
2.2. Design considerations on formats of BsAbs
Antibodies consist of two heavy chains and light chains, encompassing the Fc region and Fab region. When constructing ADCs, the fundamental requirements for the antibody skeleton include a suitable circulating half-life and low immunogenicity57. One of the primary classification criteria for BsADCs is whether they contain the Fc region14,58. Absence of the Fc region results in antibodies either comprising the variable VH and VL domains of two antibodies or being based on Fab fragments59,60. The construction is more convenient due to the absence of the Fc region, and the smaller molecular weight enhances penetration61. Meanwhile, the loss of binding ability to FcγR reduces Fc-mediated nonspecific drug uptake62,63. Conversely, the loss of binding to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) leads to a relatively short half-life in plasma64 (Fig. 2B). The design of Fc non-containing BsADCs faces challenges such as low stability, aggregation issues, and lack of coupling sites. On the other hand, Fc-containing BsADCs bring additional advantages such as antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC), complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), immune phagocytosis, and cytokine release, which collectively contribute to tumor killing65. However, the binding to FcγR during endocytosis may lead to the internalization of BsADCs in normal tissues, resulting in off-target toxicity62,63. In summary, strategies for Fc region construction include: (1) Fc engineering: This involves modifications such as amino acid modification in Fc region66, mutation introducing67,68, and glycosylation modifications69. These approaches can help mitigate off-target toxicity caused by binding to FcγR; (2) Retain the ADCC and CDC: The dual-target binding mode is conducive to hexamer formation and can enhance the CDC effect. And ADCC could improve the tumor killing effect; (3) Retaining FcRn binding or applying antibody engineering helps improve half-life and safety70.
Additionally, the generation of BsAbs for BsADC design is also crucial. This aims to avoid chain-association issues71, simplify the production process, reduce development costs, and improve product stability. Further evaluation and exploration in this aspect are warranted, and recent reviews provide detailed insights into this area, which we will explore in the perspective section14,64,72.
BsADCs can be classified based on their binding patterns, involving either simultaneous binding to two different antigens (dual-antigen binding mode) or binding to two different epitopes on the same antigen (dual-epitope binding mode) (Fig. 3A). These two binding modes profoundly impact the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of BsADCs73. The dual-antigen binding mode not only enhances selectivity but also has the potential to block signaling pathways, overcome drug resistance, and provide a synergistic killing effect74. Specific target selection in this mode can improve internalization, drug effects, and reduce drug resistance. Targeting fast turnover receptors, such as PRLR, may enhance internalization and hijack lysosomal transportation. Constructing BsADCs targeting c-MET and EGFR, for instance, can effectively overcome drug resistance associated with EGFR monotherapy74, 75, 76, 77, 78. To develop promising dual-target BsADCs, careful regulation of the affinity ratio for the two targets is essential, ensuring simultaneous binding without triggering target activation79. Further analysis is required to determine the expression thresholds of targets to ensure effective tumor killing. It is therefore necessary to characterize positive antigens on cancer cells more precisely to inform future clinical applications.
2.3. Design considerations on linker‒payload complex
The linker in BsADCs serves as the crucial connection between the antibody and the cytotoxic payload, playing a vital role in payload release and drug stability80. An ideal linker should exhibit stability in the plasma while facilitating effective release in the tumor. Presently, linkers in ADCs can be categorized into cleavable and non-cleavable linkers.
Non-cleavable linkers, characterized by high stability in plasma, can only undergo degradation in the lysosome to release the payload. This type of linker leads to lower off-target toxicity, increased plasma half-life, and enhanced safety. However, potential drug resistance may arise from impediments to internalization and lysosomal transport81,82. BsADCs based on non-cleavable linkers should focus on further optimizing internalization, as well as subsequent endosomal transport and lysosomal degradation83,84.
Compared to non-cleavable linkers, ADCs based on cleavable linkers find wider applications. Cleavable linkers control payload release primarily by leveraging microenvironmental differences between body circulation and tumors80. The major challenge for cleavable linkers lies in off-target toxicity resulting from non-specific release. Cleavable linkers can be categorized as chemical cleavable linkers (e.g., acid85 and GSH-cleavable linkers86,87), enzyme cleavable linkers (e.g., cathepsin cleavable linkers88,89), and others (e.g., photo-responsive90,91 and bioorthogonal cleavable linkers92,93). To design lysosome-independent BsADCs, certain cleavable linkers (e.g., Val-Cit, VC linker) can facilitate payload release effectively in early and late endosomes30. There is evidence indicating the existence of chemical or enzymatic cleavage triggers extracellularly, leading to the proposition of non-internalizing ADCs in recent years. Non-internalizing ADCs can target antigens in TME and vascular system, activating a bystander killing effect94,95. By utilizing cleavable linkers and bystander payloads, there is potential for designing non-internalizing BsADCs96.
Emerging strategies in linker and conjugation methods shape the design of antibody‒drug conjugates. The Val-Cit-p-aminobenzyl carbamate linker, widely used in BsADC design, demonstrates acceptable stability but is associated with dose-limiting adverse effects hindering clinical application97. Addressing this, the introduction of polar residue substitutions and mimetic peptides in the VC linker enhances plasma stability and lysosomal cleavage ability98,99. Ongoing efforts focus on exploring novel linkers, such as legumain-sensitive100 and tandem cleavable linkers101, to achieve sufficient drug release in targeted cells and improved aqueous solubility. Promisingly, the identification of novel enzyme candidates like α-l-iduronidase, with overexpression in specific tumor types and high cleavage efficiency, is underway102,103. Beyond linker innovation, comprehensive discussions on the chemical and structural dynamics of conjugation sites play a vital role in shaping the properties of ADCs104.
Cytotoxic payloads, integral to BsADCs, play a crucial role in determining the overall antitumor effect and potential adverse reactions on a significant scale. Ideal payloads for ADCs need to exhibit high drug effects at nanomolar to picomolar levels, considering the low permeability of ADCs105,106. Additionally, these payloads should possess sufficient plasma stability, low immunogenicity, and appropriate water solubility107. Finally, the payload should feature an available group for coupling to the antibody. ADC payloads encompass tubulin inhibitors, DNA/RNA damaging agents, immune-targeting agents, and novel payloads. Advances in ADC payloads have been summarized in our recent review. Further considerations in constructing the linker‒payload complex are essential for designing ideal BsADCs:
The primary consideration involves choosing the appropriate conjugation method and drug antibody ratio (DAR), representing the number of linker‒drugs attached to a given antibody. There are substantial differences in the in vivo pharmacokinetics of various drug-carrying forms of ADCs (DAR = 0–8). For BsADCs, the DAR typically ranges between 2 and 4, striking an optimal balance between kidney clearance and potency16. In cases where drugs with lower toxicity, such as using PROTACs108 and topoisomerase inhibitors109,110, higher DAR values may be necessary to achieve sufficient cell-killing effects. However, a simple increase in payload conjugation at high DAR can lead to conjugate hydrophobicity, resulting in aggregation, fast clearance, and poor efficacy111. Additionally, incomplete coupling of the payload with antibody residues, especially at high DAR, can contribute to conjugation heterogeneity, complicating characterization and posing potential toxicity issues112,113. Traditional non-specific derivatization of BsAbs surface lysine residues not only induces conjugation heterogeneity but also has the potential to influence dual-target binding effects. Homogeneous conjugation strategies, such as site-specific conjugation technologies114 and enzyme-based conjugation methods115, can be applied to produce uniform and purifiable BsADCs. These methods minimize the potential impact of drug coupling on dual-target binding116.
The bystander killing effect of payloads in BsADCs is a crucial aspect deserving further discussion. Bystander killing effect refers to the ability of payloads to kill adjacent untargeted cells after release. It is a double-edged sword for the PK/PD properties of ADCs117, 118, 119. While the bystander killing effect can enhance the overall efficacy of ADCs in the heterogeneous tumor environment, it also poses a risk of off-target killing in normal tissues around the tumor118. This effect relies on cleavable linkers and hydrophobic payloads119. If one of the target antigens has a certain level of expression in normal tissues, such as c-Met, BsADCs should avoid applying payloads with bystander effects120. As mentioned earlier, the bystander killing effect of payloads enables the construction of non-internalizing BsADCs95,121. In summary, the bystander killing effect holds promise for BsADCs in overcoming tumor heterogeneity, the tumor barrier, and poor internalization. However, potential safety issues associated with off-target effects need to be carefully addressed.
ADCs face challenges related to dose-limiting toxicities, highlighting the need for innovative payloads. Novel drug payloads are crucial for BsADC development. By linking POI and E3 ligase, PROTAC induces ubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation of POI, enabling effective target protein degradation at lower doses—making PROTACs ideal payloads for BsADCs122. Antibody‒PROTAC conjugates, or DACs, show promise in enhancing PROTAC delivery efficiency in vivo. Bispecific DACs hold potential for diverse applications in targeted protein degradation. Besides, immune-stimulating payloads for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, such as Toll-like receptor agonists123, STING agonists124, and glucocorticoid receptor modulators125, are also promising126. Additionally, emerging payloads like ferroptosis inducers87, oligonucleotides127, and DNA frameworks128 contribute to the expansion of drug options in the BsADC field. The development of novel drugs can significantly enrich the types of optional drugs in the field of BsADCs.
3. Current advances and issues on BsADCs
3.1. BsADCs on HER2
HER2 overexpression is observed in approximately 20%‒25% of breast cancer patients through techniques like Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization, classifying them as HER2-positive. Clinically approved HER2-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and ADCs, such as T-DM1 and DS-8201, are designed to hinder invasive tumor growth129, 130, 131. HER2-targeted therapy has significantly transformed treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer, yielding clinical benefits. However, certain clinical challenges persist6. The expression heterogeneity of HER2 poses a limitation to the efficacy of current anti-HER2 therapies in cases of relatively low HER2 levels. This not only narrows the range of indications for HER2 therapy but also fosters drug resistance under therapeutic pressure81. Additionally, the potential resistance of HER2 to internalization diminishes drug efficacy. In summary, pharmacokinetic limitations, intratumoral heterogeneity, and the absence of bystander effects impede the advanced clinical application of HER2-targeted drugs132.
In addition to breast cancer, HER2 overexpression can occur in other solid tumor subtypes, such as gastric cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and colon cancer. However, clinical trials have shown that HER2-targeted drugs do not significantly improve the prognosis of HER2-positive patients with these cancers133,134. For instance, a phase III trial revealed that pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy for HER2-positive metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer did not lead to a significant improvement in survival and clinical benefits135. This lack of improvement may be attributed to the relatively low HER2 expression in other solid tumor subpopulations compared to HER2-positive breast cancer. Consequently, poor internalization and differentiation mechanisms may contribute to insufficient clinical benefits. Fortunately, the dual binding model of BsADCs offers a promising solution to the current challenges of poor internalization and drug resistance in HER2-targeting for breast cancer. BsADCs have the potential to enhance anti-tumor activity in other tumor subtypes by improving internalization effects and exhibiting favorable PK/PD characteristics (Fig. 4).
Figure 4.
Structure of ZW49 and MEDI4276; 39S and trastuzumab epitopes are located at opposite ends of HER2 molecule (more than 90 Å). The linker employed in MEDI4276 can hardly cover the distance of 60 Å, which prevents binding simultaneously to the same antigen molecule (PBD id: 3BE1).
3.1.1. Dual-epitope BsADC targeting HER2
ZW49. To address potential issues of poor efficacy and clinical drug resistance in HER2-targeted therapy, the biparatopic HER2 antibody Zanidatamab has been characterized136. Zanidatamab enhances the anti-tumor effect through various mechanisms, including target antigen neutralization, activation of cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and CDC. By introducing mutations into the Fab segment of the extracellular domains 2 (ECD2) binding domain, its unique dual epitope binding mode can effectively induce target antigen crosslinking, resulting in receptor-driven internalization and increased receptor downregulation. By using the IgG1-like heterodimeric Azymetric™ Fc platform, an anti-HER2-ECD4 single-chain variable fragment (scFv) was linked to heavy chain 1, and an anti-HER2-ECD2 Fab domain was linked to heavy chain 2136,137. The scFv and Fab arms of the original precursor biparatopic molecule bound to HER2 ECD with a KD of 1 and 15 nmol/L, respectively136. Mechanism analysis reveals that Zanidatamab can bind two HER2 via a trans receptor binding model, inducing the formation of large, polarized aggregate clusters. This not only improves the internalization effect but also promotes antibody hexamerization, achieving enhanced CDC effects136. Zanidatamab has progressed through phase I and phase IIb trials, demonstrating favorable clinical benefits138,139. Its characteristics as an excellent internalized antibody with a potent tumor-killing effect make it conducive to further design as the antibody component of BsADCs. An anti-HER2 biparatopic ADC, ZW49, has been designed based on Zanidatamab, utilizing inter-chain disulfide bond cysteines and a protease-cleavable linker140. ZW49 incorporates a novel payload, N-acyl sulfonamide auristatin, making it well-tolerated. The bispecific antibody nature of ZW49 contributes to superior internalization compared to trastuzumab. Its Fc region imparts ADCC, ADCP, and CDC effects, while the hexamer mode of HER2 enhances CDC and internalization140. This design addresses several unmet clinical needs for patients expressing HER2. Preclinical data indicates that ZW49 exhibits a potent tumor-killing effect and good tolerance without compromising HER2 affinity (highest non-severely toxic dose = 18 mg/kg). Currently, ZW49 is undergoing a phase I clinical trial. As of September 2022, ZW49, the first BsADC to disclose clinical trial data, has demonstrated superior internalization effects. The objective response rate (ORR) in patients with advanced HER2-expressing solid tumors is 31%, although its ocular toxicity characteristics (keratitis in 42%) cannot be ignored141.
MEDI4276. T-DM1 and DS-8201 face efficacy challenges in cases of low HER2 expression due to resistance to internalization. The bispecific binding mode of BsADCs holds promise for enhancing intracellular drug delivery, overcoming resistance, and broadening applicability across a wider range of cancer cell populations52. The antibody 39S, derived through hybridoma technology, targets a distinct epitope on HER2 compared to trastuzumab. By utilizing the variable domain sequences of 39S and trastuzumab, a biparatopic antibody was constructed, incorporating the scFv of trastuzumab at the N terminus of the heavy chain of 39S IgG1. This BsAb retains HER2 binding specificity and benefits from the synergistic effect of both arms, effectively blocking HER2 homo- or heterodimerization142. Structural analysis indicates a binding mode that facilitates large HER2 cross-linking on the cell surface, significantly enhancing internalization and subsequent lysosomal localization142. This significantly promotes the internalization as well as subsequent lysosomal localization143,144. These findings underscore the suitability of bispecific antibodies for BsADC design. Subsequently, three mutations—L234F, S239C, and S442C—were introduced to the Fc region. Two engineered cysteine residues per heavy chain (S239C and S442C) enabled site-specific conjugation of the tubulysin warhead, a microtubule polymerization inhibitor, to the antibody via a maleimidocaproyl linker. This site-specific conjugation strategy ensures the formation of homogeneous BsADCs (DAR = 4). The introduction of the L234F mutation effectively decreases FcγR binding, leading to reduced non-specific uptake and off-target toxicity. Preclinical data on MEDI4276 demonstrates its effectiveness in inducing cell death in cell lines resistant to T-DM1, highlighting a bystander killing effect. Additionally, MEDI4276 holds potential for use in patient groups that do not meet the conditions for current HER2-targeted therapy, offering a promising avenue with acceptable safety. However, the phase I data indicates that MEDI4276 has relatively serious side effects and poor PK properties145. In comparison to the safety profile of ZW49, the lower maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MEDI4276 could be influenced by its valence, payload, and antibody configuration, signaling the need for further optimizations. While improvements in internalization show promise at the experimental level, the translation of theoretical drug design strategies into clinical benefits warrants further research. In summary, the unique advantages of biparatopic HER2-targeting BsADCs, with their ability to complementarily target different epitopes of HER2, induce antibody‒receptor clustering on the cell surface. This increased internalization can effectively degrade and downregulate the receptor, contributing to safety and efficacy while overcoming potential drug resistance. Further exploration of the clinical benefits holds promise.
3.1.2. Dual-antigen BsADC targeting HER2
Except for the resistance of internalization, internalized HER2‒ADC complex could be recycled to plasma membrane while escaping lysosome degradation. Optimizing the internalization and lysosomal transport of HER2-targeting ADCs holds the potential to enhance cytotoxicity and reduce the HER2 threshold for clinical application. Approved HER2 ADC T-DM1 benefits approximately half of HER2-positive patients (HER2 overexpression defined as IHC3+ or FISH amplification ratio ≥2)146. Even in cases of high HER2 expression (>106), only a small portion undergoes internalization and degradation for payload release. The optimization of internalization and lysosomal transport could improve the therapeutic efficacy of HER2-targeting ADCs. In this context, dual-target BsADCs, which simultaneously target HER2 and fast-turnover receptors (such as CD63 and PRLR), offer a promising strategy to significantly improve intracellular drug delivery. This approach could potentially broaden the clinical applicability of HER2-targeting therapies and increase their effectiveness across a wider range of patients with varying HER2 expression levels.
BsADC on HER2×CD63. CD63, a member of the tetraspanin superfamily, exhibits widespread but not ubiquitous expression. It is primarily localized on the cell surface, late endosomes, and lysosomes147. The cytoplasmic domain of CD63 contains a YXXØ consensus motif, enabling its interaction with Aps and the recruitment of a clathrin coat44,148,149. This interaction with AP2/AP3 and clathrin positions CD63 as an adaptor protein, facilitating the extended trafficking of associated proteins from the cell surface to the late endosome–lysosomal compartment44,45. The presence of CD63 in these cellular compartments makes it a potential target for BsADCs aiming to enhance internalization and lysosomal transport, ultimately improving drug delivery and therapeutic efficacy.
The approach of introducing histidine substitutions in the variable heavy and light chain domains of the CD63-specific monoclonal antibody 2192 is a strategic move to modulate the affinity to CD63, thus ensuring tumor specificity150. By combining this low-affinity mutant arm with another Fab arm from the HER2 antibody 153, a BsAb targeting HER2 × CD63 is created. This design leverages antibody-dependent receptor crosslinking to enhance the effective internalization of HER2 and promote lysosomal co-localization151. Subsequently, BsHer2 × CD63 was conjugated to anti-mitotic agent duostatin-3 via the VC linker25,150. However, the observed lack of efficacy in low-HER2 tumors indicates the necessity for further optimization, including potential enhancements in DAR and addressing tumor heterogeneity.
BsADC on HER2×PRLR. Prolactin receptor (PRLR), as an overexpressing target in malignant breast epithelium, could effectively mediate clathrin-dependent initial internalization and lysosome transportation through auto-ubiquitination and stimulating the recruitment of the AP2 complex. Low PRLR expression level (104‒2 × 104) is enough to effectively internalize the PRLR-targeted ADC152. To solve the unmet clinical needs of patients with low/medium HER2expression, BsADCs on PRLR could non-covalently cross-link HER2 and PRLR on the plasma membrane and trigger HER2 degradation in lysosomes.
By using the “knobs-into-holes” approach, the BsAb with HER2 arm and PRLR arm was designed153. The BsADC was conjugated to DM1 (a maytansine derivative payload) via surface lysine conjugation and non-cleavable linker (succinimidyl trans-4-[maleimidylmethyl] cyclohexane-1-carboxylate, SMCC), with the average DAR of 3.324. Compared with the highly expressed HER2 (∼106), the lower expression (∼104) PRLR on the cell surface is sufficient to lead the constitutive internalization and subsequent lysosomal degradation. This indicates that high turnover surface targets could mediate good internalization and lysosomal degradation to improve the efficacy of BsADCs, even with low expression.
BsADC on HER2×APLP2. The tyrosine contained in the cytoplasmic tail of APLP2 contains overlapping tyrosine-based NPXY and YXXØ motifs. Similarly, APLP2 could bind to AP-2, mediate effective internalization and direct to lysosomal degradation after clathrin-mediated endocytosis154. APLP2 could deliver MHCI complexes and antigen‒antibody complexes into the lysosomal degradation pathway154,155 via full-length bispecific antibody technology156, the BsAb with one αHER2 (Herceptin) arm and one arm of a αAPLP2 antibody was designed, which can bound to recombinant ECD of both APLP2 and HER2 simultaneously157. Through the site-specific coupling strategy of glutamine transaminase to ensure stability, AmPEG6-MMAD was conjugated on the BsAb with DAR = 2 or 4157. APLP2 targeting could effectively redirect recycled targets to lysosome to release payloads.
A recent abstract in AACR also reported that BsADC targeting HER2 × TROP2 shows higher internalization and drug effects in tumor cells co-expressing HER2/TROP2158. These BsADCs have proven that targeting rapid constitutive turnover targets could quickly accumulate and release payloads in lysosome, relying on the co-expression. The dual-target binding strategy also allows other poorly internalized targets to design future BsADCs, broadening the possible target selection.
HER2-targeting ADCs have revolutionized the chemotherapy strategies of breast cancer, especially T-DM1 and DS-8201159. Current HER-2 targeting ADCs still face unsolved challenges: (1) The demand for high expression levels of HER2 hinders further widespread application160; (2) It is necessary to further elaborate and address the toxicity status, response and drug resistance161; (3) Instead of single targeting, broadening the pipeline beyond HER2 is promising. Effectively internalized BsADCs are effective in cancer with low expression of HER2 or ERBB2 mutations beyond traditional HER2-positive breast cancer153. Besides, unique bispecific targeting could broaden the range of optional targets (e.g., Trop-2158,162) for ADC design (Fig. 5).
Figure 5.
The design of dual-antigen BsADC on HER2.
3.2. BsADCs on EGFR and MET
EGFR, a member of the ERBB receptor tyrosine kinase family, plays a pivotal role in regulating essential functions within epithelial malignancies, thereby inducing disturbances in homeostasis163. In clinical applications, TKIs and mAbs are commonly employed to impede EGFR activity. Notably, anti-EGFR mAbs such as cetuximab and panitumumab have undergone clinical evaluations across various EGFR-amplified cancers. However, the emergence of clinical drug resistance has resulted in a median non-progressive survival period of less than 12 months164. The primary contributors to resistance during anti-EGFR antibody treatment are acquired genomic alterations (Acq-Gas) induced by treatment pressure. Specifically, mutations in RAS, BRAF, or the EGFR-ectodomain, as well as amplifications of ERBB2 (HER2) or MET, have become predominant factors164,165. Depatuxizumab mafodotin, an ADC targeting EGFR, was developed for the treatment of glioblastoma. However, clinical data failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in overall survival166. Clinical trials have explored the potential of combined MET inhibitors in patients with EGFR mutations and MET disorders as a strategy to overcome drug resistance167, 168, 169. BsADCs show promise in addressing anti-EGFR resistance mechanisms, including sensitizing mutations and the activation of bypass pathways170,171.
3.2.1. Dual-epitope BsADC on EGFR
Patients undergoing clinical administration of Cetuximab or Panizumab frequently manifest Acq-Gas, such as S492R, G465R, G465E, and I491M, resulting in the abrogation of interaction and consequent resistance to ADCs targeting EGFR164. To mitigate the emergence of drug resistance, a biparatopic antibody was developed, targeting two distinct epitopes. This biparatopic antibody was engineered by fusing nanoantibodies specific to non-overlapping epitopes (9G8 and 7D12) on EGFR172. MMAE was conjugated on the BsAb by engineered surface cysteine S7C on 7D12 part of 97m conjugate, and the tetravalent biparatopic ADC was demonstrated with homogeneous DAR = 1.8353. Subsequently, an E430G mutation was introduced into the Fc region to enhance complement-mediated immune responses. Functioning as a tetravalent biparatopic BsADC, 7D12 disrupted the EGFR signal cascade, while 9G8 stabilized the tethered conformation of EGFR ECD, sterically preventing dimerization. Additionally, 7D12 and 9G8 exhibited efficacy against different EGFR mutant cell lines, inducing a more potent CDC effect on NIH-3T3 cells expressing wild-type EGFR or exhibiting cetuximab resistance mutations. The tetravalent biparatopic BsADC demonstrated its ability to overcome the limited combination interface associated with cetuximab resistance mutations, exhibiting enhanced internalization, conjugation efficiency, and therapeutic efficacy. The utilization of a dual epitope binding mode in BsAbs for designing multivalent ADCs presents a promising strategy to circumvent clinical drug-resistant mutations.
3.2.2. Dual-antigen BsADCs on EGFR
BsADC on EGFR×HER3. Resistance to EGFR-targeted therapy may also occur through compensatory signaling via the ERBB receptor, involving receptors such as HER2 and HER3, suggesting the potential for combination therapy173,174. Nevertheless, clinical data indicates that the combination of patuizumab and cetuximab results in overlapping toxicity, rendering the combination intolerable. HER3 is notably overexpressed in EGFR-resistant cancer cell lines, contributing to both internal and external resistance to EGFR while activating PI3K175,176. Recognizing HER3 as a novel target to overcome EGFR resistance, therapeutic combinations targeting both EGFR and HER3 are under evaluation, including BsADCs177,178. A BsAb named SI-B001, targeting both EGFR and HER3, was constructed by utilizing the anti-EGFR Fab and anti-HER3 scFv179. The Topoisomerase I inhibitor (TOPIi) ED04 was conjugated to cysteine sites on SI-B001 via a novel cleavable AC linker, resulting in the design of a novel BsADC named BL-B01D1 with a DAR of approximately 8180.
SI-B001 exhibits specificity in targeting both EGFR and HER3, enhancing safety. BL-B01D1, in turn, facilitates synergistic internalization through the crosslinking of its dual targets179. By combining SI-B001 with small molecule toxins, BL-B01D1 achieves targeted killing of EGFR-dependent tumors, mitigating drug resistance arising from HER3. In a recent conference, the Phase I trial in patients with solid tumors (NCT05194982) revealed promising efficacy and a favorable safety profile181. Particularly in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the ORR reached 63.2%, demonstrating therapeutic efficacy against various drug-resistant mutations. Additionally, the ORR in EGFR-wild NSCLC reached 44.9%. The most common TRAEs (>10%, all grade/≥ G3) were leukopenia (60%/30%), neutropenia (51%/34%), anemia (45%/15%), thrombocytopenia (44%/19%), alopecia (30%/0%), nausea (29%/<1%), vomiting (28%/0%), asthenia (21%/<1%), decreased appetite (22%/<1%), asthenia (21%/<1%), hypophagia (16%/0%), diarrhoea (15%/2%), mouth ulceration (15%/<1%), and rash (13%/0%), with no reported cases of interstitial lung disease181. In November 2023, BL-B01D1 has become the first BsADC entering phase III trial (NCT06118333). Despite these encouraging results, further safety evaluation and optimization based on early data remain imperative.
BsADC on EGFR×c-MET. Several BsAbs targeting both c-MET and EGFR have been reported, demonstrating a synergistic effect in inhibiting tumor proliferation and metastasis182, 183, 184. In the design of BsADCs, careful selection of appropriate epitope combinations is crucial to avoid complete or partial agitation of c-MET185. Given the widespread expression of targets throughout the body, it becomes imperative to target tumor-specific epitopes and optimize dual-arm affinity to enhance tumor selectivity186.
Through the screening of EGFR and c-MET antibodies with varying affinities and epitopes, it has been observed that lower affinity in the EGFR arm correlates with higher tumor selectivity and improved internalization effects74. The specific mechanism underlying enhanced internalization remains unclear but may be associated with the cross-linking of c-MET and EGFR, along with the co-internalization effect of the dual-target binding mode. Antibodies occupying overlapping epitopes with B10 and B10v5 on c-MET may also contribute to promoting internalization. Utilizing the strand exchange engineered domain (SEED) technology187,188, a c-MET × EGFR BsAb was constructed by incorporating anti-c-MET Fab and anti-EGFR scFv, while avoiding light chain mispairing74. Given the favorable tumor selectivity and appropriate internalization effects exhibited by the generated BsAb, MMAE was employed for C-terminal sortase-mediated conjugation on both heavy chains via a protease-cleavable VC linker, resulting in the DAR of 274. The abstract of AZD9592, a BsADC targeting c-MET × EGFR, has recently been reported189. The BsAb was generated on the DuetMab platform, which was redesigned by introducing a Fab disulfide bond to prevent light chain mispairing. Adjusting the affinity relationship between c-MET and EGFR (c-MET: EGFR = 15) has been shown to reduce the side effects associated with EGFR targeting. The TopIi AZ14170132 was conjugated via a cleavable linker to design the BsADC, exhibiting good selectivity, efficacy, and safety in vitro studies. Currently, AZD9592 is undergoing evaluation in a phase I clinical trial. For BsADCs targeting EGFR × c-MET, a critical consideration is how in vitro selectivity can be translated into in vivo safety. This transformation necessitates the utilization of a suitable model for further stability and pharmacokinetic research, addressing the important question of ensuring efficacy and safety in a real-life, physiological context.
3.2.3. Dual-epitope BsADCs on MET
The Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)-Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition Factor (MET) pathway plays a significant role in cancer development across various tumor types and stages, from initiation to metastasis190. The up-regulation and amplification of MET are considered major escape routes during anti-EGFR therapy76,191, 192, 193. C-MET can cross-react with EGFR, conferring resistance to EGFR-targeted therapy, making inhibition of c-MET a viable strategy to overcome EGFR resistance190. The recent success of MET-directed TKIs in treating NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations has elevated MET as an attractive therapeutic target194. MET-targeting therapy, especially selective MET TKI194 and ADCs195, is progressing.
Despite progress, clinical results of MET inhibitors face challenges196. Recent Phase II clinical data of the anti-c-MET ADC Teliso-V showed limited activity in patients with EGFR mutations overexpressing MET197,198. Current clinical dilemmas of MET-targeted ADCs include: (1) Lack of consensus on the optimal diagnostic cut-off point for MET copy number199; (2) Secondary mutations in the MET kinase domain or alterations in bypass signals promoting resistance200; (3) The need for further optimizations in internalization, transportation, and degradation efficiency201. These challenges highlight the complexity in developing effective MET-targeted therapies and the importance of addressing various factors to enhance their clinical utility.
In contrast to conventional MET-targeting ADCs, the design of a biparatopic MET × MET BsADC offers innovative solutions to overcome existing challenges. The MET biparatopic antibody has the capability to form a 2:2 antigen‒antibody complex, facilitating effective MET internalization and lysosomal transport, rendering it an ideal candidate for ADC design201,202. By conjugating the Maytansinoid payload M114 via a protease-cleavable linker to the surface lysine of the MET BsAb, REGN5093-M114 was characterized with the average DAR of 3.1202. The cleavable VC linker is advantageous for releasing payloads in the late and recycling endosomes with a weakly acidic environment43.
Considering the expression of MET in normal tissues, payloads lacking bystander killing may exhibit lower side effects. Preclinical data indicates that REGN5093-M114 significantly inhibits the proliferation of MET-overexpressed NSCLC cells198. It holds promise for evaluating the surface expression levels of MET as a criterion for accepting MET-targeting therapy. A phase I, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study has been initiated to evaluate REGN5093-M114 in adult patients with MET-overexpressing advanced cancer (NCT04982224)203. REGN5093-M114 is anticipated to exert therapeutic effects in MET amplification and EGFR-resistant patients, although the tolerance of combined application with EGFR-targeted drugs requires further evaluation168.
In addressing challenges beyond Acq-Gas, antibody-targeted therapies for EGFR and MET must contend with additional complexities. Given the ubiquitous expression of EGFR, it becomes imperative to design EGFR antibodies with varying affinities to mitigate systemic toxic side effects204. In cases where the oncogenic stimulus arises downstream, particularly in tumors with KRAS mutations, agents blocking EGFR prove ineffective205. A current strategy involves enhancing the function of the Fc region of EGFR antibodies, with a specific focus on ADCC206,207. Furthermore, clinically observed mutations in EGFR, such as exon 20 insertions, present novel challenges. Identifying and developing novel therapies targeting these rare driver mutations holds clinical significance208.
The distinctive SEMA domain of MET facilitates easier dimerization than EGFR upon activation by HGF209. Subsequently, the activated MET dimer undergoes autophosphorylation at tyrosine residues in the intracellular kinase domain and the substrate docking site210,211. The potential promotion of dimerization by the divalent structure of MET antibodies may contribute to a suboptimal therapeutic effect. In the future design of biparatopic MET × MET BsADCs, careful consideration of appropriate epitope selection and antibody construction strategies is essential to avoid undesired dimerization and autophosphorylation212. When designing BsADCs targeting MET × EGFR, it is crucial to prevent the phosphorylation of both EGFR and MET. This involves adjusting the affinity ratio of both arms while ensuring optimal binding efficacy. Additionally, determining the clinically applicable population for BsADCs requires detailed discussions on the expression levels of MET and EGFR in clinical tumors. This consideration is essential for optimizing the therapeutic potential of these innovative therapeutic modalities (Fig. 6).
Figure 6.
BsADC on EGFR and MET; Interactions of 7D12 (blue PBD id:4KRL), 9G8 (brown PBD id: 4KRP) and Cetuximab (yellow PBD id: 1YY9) with EGFR ectodomain.
3.3. Novel BsADCs beyond traditional paradigm
BsADCs have remarkably expanded the scope of potential targets and scaffolds beyond the conventional paradigm. While most ADCs currently target tumor surface antigens, their expression in normal tissues can lead to off-target toxicity. Antibodies targeting major histocompatibility complex proteins (pMHC), known as TCR-mimic (TCRm) antibodies, offer a promising solution. TCRm antibodies can identify tumor antigens expressed at low levels on tumor cells while being absent in normal tissues213,214. Several reported TCRm BsAbs exhibit anti-tumor potential with significantly reduced off-target toxicity215,216. However, the low epitope density of pMHC (tens to thousands) results in suboptimal effectiveness for TCRm antibodies and ADCs.
To enhance the efficacy of TCRm-ADC, bispecific antibody strategies are employed. WT1 and ny-eso-1 antigens, overexpressed in solid tumors with overlapping expression profiles and strong immunogenicity, were targeted with TCRm antibodies. Using “knobs-into-holes” technology, two Fab arms of TCRm antibodies were combined. Subsequently, Bi-TCRm-ADC was designed through sortase A-generated site-specific conjugation to MMAE. Bi-TCRm-ADC demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness compared to TCRm-ADC (IC50 = 50 nmol/L, DAR = 1.2)217. TCRm is not targeted to normal tissues, leading to a substantial reduction in off-target toxicity. Compared with TCRm-ADC, Bi-TCRm-ADC is expected to address the low drug effects caused by the generally low expression of pMHC. However, the challenge of identifying two simultaneous high-expression pMHCs on tumors remains a key consideration for future development.
Indeed, BsADCs offer an effective means to facilitate the conversion of non-internalized antigens into internalized antigens. For example, EphA2, characterized by rapid internalization, and activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule (ALCAM), a non- or slowly internalizing antigen, were utilized to generate a BsAb218. Intriguingly, when the ratio of EphA2 to ALCAM on the cell surface surpassed the threshold of 0.2, bispecific antibodies demonstrated efficient internalization. Conversely, when the ratio fell below this threshold, internalization was impeded. The MC-VC-pab-MMAF payload complex was site-specifically conjugated via cysteine residues. In the context of bispecific binding by BsADCs, the internalization effect can be significantly influenced by simultaneously targeting neighboring antigens, contingent upon their expression ratio. This capability broadens the spectrum of antigen selection to include poorly internalized types for the purpose of designing BsADCs. This innovative approach provides a nuanced strategy for enhancing the internalization potential of certain antigens, contributing to the versatility and efficacy of BsADCs in targeting a wider range of tumor antigens.
In 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to the novel ADC IMGN853 (ImmunoGen™), targeting folate receptor alpha (FRα)219. To enhance the therapeutic efficacy in patients with medium/low FRα levels, a biparatopic ADC, IMGN151, was designed220,221. IMGN151 retained the Fab of IMGN853, and a scFv based on the VL-Linker-VH-Fc format was employed to construct the BsAb. To prevent aggregate formation of scFv, molecular optimizations, including VH44-VL100 cysteine mutation, were implemented. Additionally, modification of C220S in Fc aimed to reduce free Cys. The Maytansinoid derivative DM21 was linked to the BsAb via a stable cleavable peptide linker. The DM21-L-G linker‒payload complex contributed to its membrane penetration and pharmacokinetic characteristics. IMGN151 exhibited up to 200 times greater activity against four FRα-medium cell lines. Moreover, IMGN151 induced complete tumor regressions across high/medium/low FRα expression levels with good toleration, and it is currently undergoing a phase I trial. Beyond ADCs, bispecific ligand drug conjugates targeting FRα also show promise, with CBP-1018 and CBP-1008 being pioneers in clinical trials222, 223, 224. These advancements represent significant strides in the development of targeted therapies, offering new avenues for treating cancer with diverse FRα expression profiles (Fig. 7B).
Figure 7.
Novel BsADCs beyond traditional paradigm. (A) BsADCs beyond traditional target paradigm, targeting EphA2 and pMHC; (B) Novel FRα targeting BsADC, IMGN151, and schematic diagram of bispecific ligand drug conjugates; (C) Novel BsADCs beyond traditional antibody paradigm, including PEG-conjugated BsADC and LITE platform.
The introduction of various new technologies has revolutionized the generation of BsADCs, transcending the traditional ADC paradigm and presenting distinct advantages. One notable advancement is the PEG-conjugated-BsADC (P-BsADC), which not only ensures uniform coupling production but, due to its small molecular weight and absence of Fc fragments, exhibits high endocytosis efficiency, tissue penetration, and reduced toxicity. Another noteworthy approach involves the use of a bispecific peptide-polymer created by 8-arm PEG, simultaneously conjugating PD1-binding and PDL1-binding peptides225. Furthermore, the ligand-induced transient engagement (LITE) of multiple antibody domains is a cutting-edge technique that combines the prolonged half-life advantages of biologic drugs with the precise temporal control of activity associated with small molecules226. These innovative strategies hold great promise in achieving therapeutic efficacy while minimizing off-target effects, representing a significant step forward in the evolution of BsADC technologies.
4. Conclusions and perspectives
BsADCs, embodying a “1 + 1” model, represent a novel therapeutic class that amalgamates the strengths of ADCs and BsAbs. This fusion leverages the anti-tumor mechanisms of ADCs, while addressing clinical challenges traditionally associated with ADCs through the versatility of BsAbs. BsADCs present a promising avenue for significantly enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of traditional ADCs, transcending conventional target and scaffold paradigms. Recent advancements have propelled BsADCs into phase I/II clinical trials, marking substantial progress in their development. Nevertheless, challenges persist, primarily attributed to the complexity of solid tumors, encompassing factors, compartmental heterogeneity, histological disorder, and poor penetration. It is imperative to refine the design strategy of BsADCs to overcome these challenges. In this review, we encapsulate the latest design considerations and advances in BsADCs, with the goal of charting a course for future drug design. While existing progress is noteworthy, the continued development and application of BsADCs face unique challenges in the following aspects.
4.1. Broadening the antibody skeleton
The current target selection for BsADCs remains somewhat limited, primarily focusing on HER2, c-MET, and EGFR. However, bispecific strategies have the potential to broaden the range of targets to include those with poor internalization or low expression. Considering the diverse types of BsAbs, further enriching the antigen selection for BsADCs could diversify the anti-tumor mechanisms. Promising avenues include immune-modulating BsADCs based on T-cell engaging or PD-L1 targeting BsAbs. The reason of limited antibody skeleton might be the difficulty of finding suitable co-expressed antigen combinations. The limited antibody skeleton options may stem from the challenge of finding suitable co-expressed antigen combinations. Targeting specifically expressed or highly internalized antigens with one arm of BsAbs can enhance the overall drug effect218. The design of non-internalized BsADCs, utilizing moderately stable cleavable linkers and bystander-effect payloads, holds promise by expanding optional targets to the extracellular compartment95. Beyond IgG-like BsAbs, non-IgG-like BsAbs (lacking an Fc region) offer advantages such as a simple structure, good permeability, and low immunogenicity. Addressing their half-life challenges through long-term platform technologies like polyethylene glycol modification and Fc fragment fusion is a worthwhile avenue for further exploration. As a specificity beyond BsADCs, multispecific antibodies, especially trispecific227 and four-in-one228,229 antibodies, represent a new opportunity. These are expected to address challenges such as receptor redundancy, off-target toxicity, and the heterogeneity of solid tumors. This approach also has the potential to cater to more personalized and precise treatment needs in the future.
4.2. Clearing the heterogeneous coupling orientations
Constructing BsADCs through random chemical coupling of payloads based on functional groups carries the risk of heterogenic coupling orientations230. This heterogeneity could compromise the bispecific binding mode and alter the physical and PK properties of BsADCs231. Site-specific conjugation strategies could generate BsADCs with homogeneous DAR. In the context of random coupling, evaluating the potential impact of conjugation strategies on antibody binding patterns is crucial230. This meticulous assessment is expected to contribute to the improvement of side effects and poor drug effects caused by uneven DAR in BsADCs constructed through random coupling. Homogeneous DAR not only enhances the precision of drug delivery but also ensures the consistency of the therapeutic response, making it a critical consideration in the design and development of BsADCs. It's crucial to highlight that the foundation of site-specific conjugation lies in the careful selection of the conjugation sites, a pivotal factor influencing the drug efficacy of ADCs.
4.3. Uniforming bispecific antibody generation
The structural incongruity between heavy and light chains presents challenges in chain association during the construction of BsAbs using hybridoma technology, resulting in compromised yield and purification efficiency71. The advent of modern genetic engineering technologies, particularly the “knobs-into-holes” strategy, has yielded significant breakthroughs in overcoming this challenge. Subsequently, protein engineering has emerged as a comprehensive approach for BsAb generation, albeit with inherent complexity and elevated costs. The intricate production process has, in turn, led to extensive screening characterized by low yield, variable quality, and non-negligible impurities. In contrast to protein engineering, chemical modification of antibodies has evolved as a novel, modular, and reproducible production strategy. This chemical strategy demonstrates favorable yield, enabling the rapid generation of stable, homogeneous, and precisely defined BsAbs. Furthermore, the exploration of innovative BsAb generation platforms holds promising prospects232.
4.4. Clarifying the parameters between two targets
The multivalent binding mode and parameters of BsADCs impose mutual restrictions and dependencies. Design considerations between two targets warrant meticulous examination, particularly with respect to variations in affinity magnitudes, expressions, and valence. The bispecific binding mode not only influences one another via valence but also impacts overall internalization through cross-arm binding233. The antibody structure and the molecular distance between binding epitopes further contribute to binding dynamics, influencing the characteristics of the antigen‒antibody complex and subsequent therapeutic activity142. Beyond affinity, the expression threshold of surface antigens on cancer cell lines plays a pivotal role in determining overall drug effects218. Addressing these critical points necessitates comprehensive screening of combinations of binding arms with varying affinities to achieve optimal biological activity. Despite the substantial workload, the integration of AI and machine learning technologies, such as the RF diffusion model, is anticipated to confer a newfound advantage in both generating and evaluating BsAbs based on diverse binding arms234.
4.5. Piggybacking and hijacking the transportation
BsAbs can navigate through approaches that leverage the initial specificity of a BsAb solely as a transport modality for the second specificity, a phenomenon inherently obligate and reliant on sequential binding, referred to as “piggyback” or “hijacking”64. An illustrative example is the BsAb platform utilizing low-affinity transferrin receptors to piggyback a β-secretase antibody, facilitating effective passage through the blood‒brain barrier48,235,236. We have reported that BsADCs targeting CD63, PRLR, and APLP2 demonstrated the ability to hijack lysosomal trafficking. Furthermore, the targeting of EphA2 not only facilitates BsADC passage through the blood‒brain barrier but also enhances drug internalization, underscoring its efficacy as a preferred target for BsADCs. Building upon these strategies, there is promise in designing BsADCs that adeptly traverse biological barriers and evade lysosomal degradation.
4.6. Addressing potential safety issues
While BsADCs are dedicated to enhancing specificity and thereby mitigating off-target toxicity and side effects, early clinical data, exemplified by ZW49, MEDI4276, and BL-B01D1, indicates a less promising clinical safety profile than anticipated. Off-target toxicity emerges as a predominant characteristic in ADC-related toxicity. However, relying solely on BsAbs may not sufficiently address the imperative to reduce off-target toxicity. In addition to antibody innovation, crucial discussions surrounding the linker‒payload complex are indispensable, encompassing considerations of linker stability, a homogeneous conjugation strategy, DAR, and bystander killing effect. Given the multifaceted reasons for potential toxicity associated with BsADCs, it becomes imperative to optimize the antibody, linker, and payload components synergistically8. Beyond the payload‒linker complex, strategies for dose optimization and dosing methods, such as subcutaneous administration237, hold promise in addressing the dose-dependent toxicity of BsADCs and improving the therapeutic index238. The incorporation of pharmacogenomics analysis in early clinical trials is a promising avenue to discern the characteristics of patient populations at a higher risk of adverse events following BsADC treatment239.
In summary, the advent of unique bispecific targeting modes has infused fresh innovation into the field of ADCs, marking a new generation of ADCs. Despite being in the early stages of development, BsADC presents a novel approach with considerable potential. However, early clinical trials encounter substantial challenges. Anticipations are high that the implementation of the aforementioned strategies will lead to the successful design of innovative BsADCs. This achievement would hold significant importance in surmounting the existing clinical challenges faced by traditional ADCs and in the creation of more precisely targeted drugs. Beyond BsADCs, a series of next-generation strategies promises epoch-making contributions to novel ADC design. These include ADCs featuring dual payloads240, immune-modulating ADCs86, radionuclide drug conjugates241, masked ADCs242, ADC combination therapy243, and peptide‒drug conjugates244. The future entails evaluating the application of these strategies, either individually or in combination, for the design of novel ADCs, presenting significant prospects for advancing the field.
Author contributions
Yuxi Wang contributed to the idea and gave valuable suggestions; Yilin Gu drafted the manuscript and painted the figures; Zhijia Wang revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final review and the submission.
Conflicts of interest
The author declare that no conflicts of any interests exist.
Acknowledgments
This review was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82073318), Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2019YFS0003, China) and the Support Program of Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Provincial (2023YFSY0046 and 2022NSFSC1365, China).
Footnotes
Peer review under the responsibility of Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.
References
- 1.Chau C.H., Steeg P.S., Figg W.D. Antibody–drug conjugates for cancer. Lancet. 2019;394:793–804. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31774-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Colombo R., Rich J.R. The therapeutic window of antibody drug conjugates: a dogma in need of revision. Cancer Cell. 2022;40:1255–1263. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wang Z., Li H., Gou L., Li W., Wang Y. Antibody‒drug conjugates: recent advances in payloads. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2023;13:4025–4059. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2023.06.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mina R., Gay F. Antibody‒drug conjugates: when chemotherapy meets immuno-oncology. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8:e778–e779. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(21)00236-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Tarantino P., Carmagnani Pestana R., Corti C., Modi S., Bardia A., Tolaney S.M., et al. Antibody–drug conjugates: smart chemotherapy delivery across tumor histologies. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:165–182. doi: 10.3322/caac.21705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cortés J., Kim S.B., Chung W.P., Im S.A., Park Y.H., Hegg R., et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1143–1154. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Drago J.Z., Modi S., Chandarlapaty S. Unlocking the potential of antibody‒drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18:327–344. doi: 10.1038/s41571-021-00470-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tarantino P., Ricciuti B., Pradhan S.M., Tolaney S.M. Optimizing the safety of antibody–drug conjugates for patients with solid tumours. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20:558–576. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00783-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.O'Leary K. Bispecifics target cancers' most wanted. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021;21:279. doi: 10.1038/s41568-021-00354-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Brinkmann U., Kontermann R.E. Bispecific antibodies. Science. 2021;372:916–917. doi: 10.1126/science.abg1209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ayyar B.V., Arora S., O'Kennedy R. Coming-of-age of antibodies in cancer therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2016;37:1009–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2016.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Dumontet C., Reichert J.M., Senter P.D., Lambert J.M., Beck A. Antibody‒drug conjugates come of age in oncology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22:641–661. doi: 10.1038/s41573-023-00709-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ward R.A., Fawell S., Floc’h N., Flemington V., McKerrecher D., Smith P.D. Challenges and opportunities in cancer drug resistance. Chem Rev. 2021;121:3297–3351. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Brinkmann U., Kontermann R.E. The making of bispecific antibodies. MAbs. 2017;9:182–212. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2016.1268307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sun X., Ponte J.F., Yoder N.C., Laleau R., Coccia J., Lanieri L., et al. Effects of drug–antibody ratio on pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, efficacy, and tolerability of antibody–maytansinoid conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2017;28:1371–1381. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hamblett K.J., Senter P.D., Chace D.F., Sun M.M., Lenox J., Cerveny C.G., et al. Effects of drug loading on the antitumor activity of a monoclonal antibody drug conjugate. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:7063–7070. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Alley S.C., Okeley N.M., Senter P.D. Antibody‒drug conjugates: targeted drug delivery for cancer. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2010;14:529–537. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.06.170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tarantino P., Tolaney S.M. The dawn of the antibody‒drug conjugates era: how T-DM1 reinvented the future of chemotherapy for solid tumors. Cancer Res. 2022;82:3659–3661. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-2324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Adam P.J., Terrett J.A., Steers G., Stockwin L., Loader J.A., Fletcher G.C., et al. CD70 (TNFSF7) is expressed at high prevalence in renal cell carcinomas and is rapidly internalised on antibody binding. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:298–306. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Boswell C.A., Tesar D.B., Mukhyala K., Theil F.P., Fielder P.J., Khawli L.A. Effects of charge on antibody tissue distribution and pharmacokinetics. Bioconjug Chem. 2010;21:2153–2163. doi: 10.1021/bc100261d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mahalingaiah P.K., Ciurlionis R., Durbin K.R., Yeager R.L., Philip B.K., Bawa B., et al. Potential mechanisms of target-independent uptake and toxicity of antibody‒drug conjugates. Pharmacol Ther. 2019;200:110–125. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Li C.W., Lim S.O., Chung E.M., Kim Y.S., Park A.H., Yao J., et al. Eradication of triple-negative breast cancer cells by targeting glycosylated PD-L1. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:187–201.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.01.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Komatsu N., Sato S., Muramatsu S., Nakamura R., Koyama K. Abstract 3996: the impact of HER3 dynamics on the efficacy of HER3-DXd, a novel HER3 directed antibody‒drug conjugate. Cancer Res. 2023;83:3996. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Andreev J., Thambi N., Perez Bay A.E., Delfino F., Martin J., Kelly M.P., et al. Bispecific antibodies and antibody‒drug conjugates (ADCs) bridging HER2 and prolactin receptor improve efficacy of HER2 ADCs. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:681–693. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.de Goeij B.E., Satijn D., Freitag C.M., Wubbolts R., Bleeker W.K., Khasanov A., et al. High turnover of tissue factor enables efficient intracellular delivery of antibody‒drug conjugates. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14:1130–1140. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Anitei M., Hoflack B. Bridging membrane and cytoskeleton dynamics in the secretory and endocytic pathways. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;14:11–19. doi: 10.1038/ncb2409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.St Pierre C.A., Leonard D., Corvera S., Kurt-Jones E.A., Finberg R.W. Antibodies to cell surface proteins redirect intracellular trafficking pathways. Exp Mol Pathol. 2011;91:723–732. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2011.05.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lee B.C., Chalouni C., Doll S., Nalle S.C., Darwish M., Tsai S.P., et al. FRET reagent reveals the intracellular processing of peptide-linked antibody‒drug conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2018;29:2468–2477. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Doherty G.J., McMahon H.T. Mechanisms of endocytosis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:857–902. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.78.081307.110540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tsui C.K., Barfield R.M., Fischer C.R., Morgens D.W., Li A., Smith B.A.H., et al. CRISPR-Cas9 screens identify regulators of antibody‒drug conjugate toxicity. Nat Chem Biol. 2019;15:949–958. doi: 10.1038/s41589-019-0342-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ritchie M., Tchistiakova L., Scott N. Implications of receptor-mediated endocytosis and intracellular trafficking dynamics in the development of antibody drug conjugates. MAbs. 2013;5:13–21. doi: 10.4161/mabs.22854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Porebska N., Pozniak M., Krzyscik M.A., Knapik A., Czyrek A., Kucinska M., et al. Dissecting biological activities of fibroblast growth factor receptors by the coiled-coil-mediated oligomerization of FGF1. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;180:470–483. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.03.094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Li L., Xu M.Z., Wang L., Jiang J., Dong L.H., Chen F., et al. Conjugating MMAE to a novel anti-HER2 antibody for selective targeted delivery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24:12929–12937. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202012_24196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chen Y., Liu G., Guo L., Wang H., Fu Y., Luo Y. Enhancement of tumor uptake and therapeutic efficacy of EGFR-targeted antibody cetuximab and antibody‒drug conjugates by cholesterol sequestration. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:182–194. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kalim M., Chen J., Wang S., Lin C., Ullah S., Liang K., et al. Intracellular trafficking of new anticancer therapeutics: antibody‒drug conjugates. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017;11:2265–2276. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S135571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Conner S.D., Schmid S.L. Regulated portals of entry into the cell. Nature. 2003;422:37–44. doi: 10.1038/nature01451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Scita G., Di Fiore P.P. The endocytic matrix. Nature. 2010;463:464–473. doi: 10.1038/nature08910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Stenmark H. Rab GTPases as coordinators of vesicle traffic. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10:513–525. doi: 10.1038/nrm2728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sorkin A., Goh L.K. Endocytosis and intracellular trafficking of ErbBs. Exp Cell Res. 2008;314:3093–3106. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.07.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Sigismund S., Argenzio E., Tosoni D., Cavallaro E., Polo S., Di Fiore P.P. Clathrin-mediated internalization is essential for sustained EGFR signaling but dispensable for degradation. Dev Cell. 2008;15:209–219. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Di Guglielmo G.M., Le Roy C., Goodfellow A.F., Wrana J.L. Distinct endocytic pathways regulate TGF-beta receptor signalling and turnover. Nat Cell Biol. 2003;5:410–421. doi: 10.1038/ncb975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Maxfield F.R., McGraw T.E. Endocytic recycling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2004;5:121–132. doi: 10.1038/nrm1315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Perez Bay A.E., Faulkner D., DaSilva J.O., Young T.M., Yang K., Giurleo J.T., et al. A bispecific METxMET antibody‒drug conjugate with cleavable linker is processed in recycling and late endosomes. Mol Cancer Ther. 2023;22:357–370. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-22-0414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Duffield A., Kamsteeg E.J., Brown A.N., Pagel P., Caplan M.J. The tetraspanin CD63 enhances the internalization of the H,K-ATPase beta-subunit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:15560–15565. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2536699100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Pols M.S., Klumperman J. Trafficking and function of the tetraspanin CD63. Exp Cell Res. 2009;315:1584–1592. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Varghese B., Barriere H., Carbone C.J., Banerjee A., Swaminathan G., Plotnikov A., et al. Polyubiquitination of prolactin receptor stimulates its internalization, postinternalization sorting, and degradation via the lysosomal pathway. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28:5275–5287. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00350-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lin W., Zhang Y., Yang Y., Lin B., Zhu M., Xu J., et al. Anti-PD-1/Her2 bispecific antibody IBI315 enhances the treatment effect of Her2-positive gastric cancer through gasdermin B-cleavage induced pyroptosis. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2023 doi: 10.1002/advs.202303908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Yu Y.J., Atwal J.K., Zhang Y., Tong R.K., Wildsmith K.R., Tan C., et al. Therapeutic bispecific antibodies cross the blood‒brain barrier in nonhuman primates. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:261ra154. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Howard C.B., Fletcher N., Houston Z.H., Fuchs A.V., Boase N.R., Simpson J.D., et al. Overcoming instability of antibody‒nanomaterial conjugates: next generation targeted nanomedicines using bispecific antibodies. Adv Healthc Mater. 2016;5:2055–2068. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201600263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Gustavsson T., Metzendorf N.G., Wik E., Roshanbin S., Julku U., Chourlia A., et al. Long-term effects of immunotherapy with a brain penetrating Aβ antibody in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Res Ther. 2023;15:90. doi: 10.1186/s13195-023-01236-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Zhao P., Anami Y., Gao P., Fan X., Li L., Tsuchikama K., et al. Enhanced anti-angiogenetic effect of transferrin receptor-mediated delivery of VEGF-trap in a glioblastoma mouse model. MAbs. 2022;14 doi: 10.1080/19420862.2022.2057269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Li J.Y., Perry S.R., Muniz-Medina V., Wang X., Wetzel L.K., Rebelatto M.C., et al. A biparatopic HER2-targeting antibody‒drug conjugate induces tumor regression in primary models refractory to or ineligible for HER2-targeted therapy. Cancer Cell. 2016;29:117–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Fan J., Zhuang X., Yang X., Xu Y., Zhou Z., Pan L., et al. A multivalent biparatopic EGFR-targeting nanobody drug conjugate displays potent anticancer activity in solid tumor models. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6:320. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00666-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Holstein S.A., Grant S.J., Wildes T.M. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell and bispecific antibody therapy in multiple myeloma: moving into the future. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:4416–4429. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hutchings M., Morschhauser F., Iacoboni G., Carlo-Stella C., Offner F.C., Sureda A., et al. Glofitamab, a novel, bivalent CD20-targeting T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody, induces durable complete remissions in relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma: a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1959–1970. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Budde L.E., Sehn L.H., Matasar M., Schuster S.J., Assouline S., Giri P., et al. Safety and efficacy of mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1055–1065. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00335-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Hoffmann R.M., Coumbe B.G.T., Josephs D.H., Mele S., Ilieva K.M., Cheung A., et al. Antibody structure and engineering considerations for the design and function of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) OncoImmunology. 2018;7 doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1395127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Li H., Er Saw P., Song E. Challenges and strategies for next-generation bispecific antibody-based antitumor therapeutics. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17:451–461. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0417-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Kontermann R.E., Brinkmann U. Bispecific antibodies. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20:838–847. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Chen W., Yuan Y., Jiang X. Antibody and antibody fragments for cancer immunotherapy. J Control Release. 2020;328:395–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Birch J.R., Racher A.J. Antibody production. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006;58:671–685. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2005.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Uppal H., Doudement E., Mahapatra K., Darbonne W.C., Bumbaca D., Shen B.Q., et al. Potential mechanisms for thrombocytopenia development with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:123–133. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Borlak J., Länger F., Spanel R., Schöndorfer G., Dittrich C. Immune-mediated liver injury of the cancer therapeutic antibody catumaxomab targeting EpCAM, CD3 and Fcγ receptors. Oncotarget. 2016;7:28059–28074. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Labrijn A.F., Janmaat M.L., Reichert J.M., Parren P.W.H.I. Bispecific antibodies: a mechanistic review of the pipeline. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019;18:585–608. doi: 10.1038/s41573-019-0028-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Chan K.R., Ong E.Z., Mok D.Z., Ooi E.E. Fc receptors and their influence on efficacy of therapeutic antibodies for treatment of viral diseases. Expert Rev Anti-infective Ther. 2015;13:1351–1360. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2015.1079127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Bahou C., Love E.A., Leonard S., Spears R.J., Maruani A., Armour K., et al. Disulfide modified IgG1: an investigation of biophysical profile and clinically relevant Fc interactions. Bioconjugate Chem. 2019;30:1048–1054. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b00174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Moore G.L., Chen H., Karki S., Lazar G.A. Engineered Fc variant antibodies with enhanced ability to recruit complement and mediate effector functions. MAbs. 2010;2:181–189. doi: 10.4161/mabs.2.2.11158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Diebolder C.A., Beurskens F.J., de Jong R.N., Koning R.I., Strumane K., Lindorfer M.A., et al. Complement is activated by IgG hexamers assembled at the cell surface. Science. 2014;343:1260–1263. doi: 10.1126/science.1248943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Mimura Y., Katoh T., Saldova R., O'Flaherty R., Izumi T., Mimura-Kimura Y., et al. Glycosylation engineering of therapeutic IgG antibodies: challenges for the safety, functionality and efficacy. Protein Cell. 2018;9:47–62. doi: 10.1007/s13238-017-0433-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Vafa O., Gilliland G.L., Brezski R.J., Strake B., Wilkinson T., Lacy E.R., et al. An engineered Fc variant of an IgG eliminates all immune effector functions via structural perturbations. Methods. 2014;65:114–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.06.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Milstein C., Cuello A.C. Hybrid hybridomas and their use in immunohistochemistry. Nature. 1983;305:537–540. doi: 10.1038/305537a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Szijj P., Chudasama V. The renaissance of chemically generated bispecific antibodies. Nat Rev Chem. 2021;5:78–92. doi: 10.1038/s41570-020-00241-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Suurs F.V., Lub-de Hooge M.N., de Vries E.G.E., de Groot D.J.A. A review of bispecific antibodies and antibody constructs in oncology and clinical challenges. Pharmacol Ther. 2019;201:103–119. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Sellmann C., Doerner A., Knuehl C., Rasche N., Sood V., Krah S., et al. Balancing selectivity and efficacy of bispecific epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) × c-MET antibodies and antibody‒drug conjugates. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:25106–25119. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.753491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Guo A., Villén J., Kornhauser J., Lee K.A., Stokes M.P., Rikova K., et al. Signaling networks assembled by oncogenic EGFR and c-Met. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:692–697. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707270105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Engelman J.A., Zejnullahu K., Mitsudomi T., Song Y., Hyland C., Park J.O., et al. MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling. Science. 2007;316:1039–1043. doi: 10.1126/science.1141478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Liska D., Chen C.T., Bachleitner-Hofmann T., Christensen J.G., Weiser M.R. HGF rescues colorectal cancer cells from EGFR inhibition via MET activation. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:472–482. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Bardelli A., Corso S., Bertotti A., Hobor S., Valtorta E., Siravegna G., et al. Amplification of the MET receptor drives resistance to anti-EGFR therapies in colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:658–673. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Lee B.S., Kim H.J., Hwang J.W., Cheong K.H., Kim K.A., Cha H.Y., et al. The dual inhibition of Met and EGFR by ME22S, a novel Met/EGFR bispecific monoclonal antibody, suppresses the proliferation and invasion of laryngeal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2046–2053. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-5084-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Su Z., Xiao D., Xie F., Liu L., Wang Y., Fan S., et al. Antibody–drug conjugates: recent advances in linker chemistry. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2021;11:3889–3907. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.03.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Barok M., Joensuu H., Isola J. Trastuzumab emtansine: mechanisms of action and drug resistance. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:209. doi: 10.1186/bcr3621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Emens L.A., Esteva F.J., Beresford M., Saura C., De Laurentiis M., Kim S.B., et al. Trastuzumab emtansine plus atezolizumab versus trastuzumab emtansine plus placebo in previously treated, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (KATE2): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1283–1295. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30465-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Dovgan I., Kolodych S., Koniev O., Wagner A. 2-(Maleimidomethyl)-1,3-dioxanes (MD): a serum-stable self-hydrolysable hydrophilic alternative to classical maleimide conjugation. Sci Rep. 2016;6 doi: 10.1038/srep30835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Girish S., Gupta M., Wang B., Lu D., Krop I.E., Vogel C.L., et al. Clinical pharmacology of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1): an antibody‒drug conjugate in development for the treatment of HER2-positive cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69:1229–1240. doi: 10.1007/s00280-011-1817-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Wang Y., Fan S., Xiao D., Xie F., Li W., Zhong W., et al. Novel silyl ether-based acid-cleavable antibody‒MMAE conjugates with appropriate stability and efficacy. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11:957. doi: 10.3390/cancers11070957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.He L., Wang L., Wang Z., Li T., Chen H., Zhang Y., et al. Immune modulating antibody‒drug conjugate (IM-ADC) for cancer immunotherapy. J Med Chem. 2021;64:15716–15726. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c00961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Gu Y., Li Y., Wang J., Zhang L., Zhang J., Wang Y. Targeting ferroptosis: paving new roads for drug design and discovery. Eur J Med Chem. 2023;247 doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2022.115015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Doronina S.O., Toki B.E., Torgov M.Y., Mendelsohn B.A., Cerveny C.G., Chace D.F., et al. Development of potent monoclonal antibody auristatin conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21:778–784. doi: 10.1038/nbt832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Nguyen K.A., Conilh L., Falson P., Dumontet C., Boumendjel A. The first ADC bearing the ferroptosis inducer RSL3 as a payload with conservation of the fragile electrophilic warhead. Eur J Med Chem. 2022;244 doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2022.114863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Bryden F., Maruani A., Rodrigues J.M.M., Cheng M.H.Y., Savoie H., Beeby A., et al. Assembly of high-potency photosensitizer–antibody conjugates through application of dendron multiplier technology. Bioconjugate Chem. 2018;29:176–181. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Ito K., Mitsunaga M., Nishimura T., Saruta M., Iwamoto T., Kobayashi H., et al. Near-infrared photochemoimmunotherapy by photoactivatable bifunctional antibody–drug conjugates targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive cancer. Bioconjugate Chem. 2017;28:1458–1469. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Pomplun S., Shugrue C.R., Schmitt A.M., Schissel C.K., Farquhar C.E., Pentelute B.L. Secondary amino alcohols: traceless cleavable linkers for use in affinity capture and release. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2020;59:11566–11572. doi: 10.1002/anie.202003478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Stenton B.J., Oliveira B.L., Matos M.J., Sinatra L., Bernardes G.J.L. A thioether-directed palladium-cleavable linker for targeted bioorthogonal drug decaging. Chem Sci. 2018;9:4185–4189. doi: 10.1039/c8sc00256h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Bernardes G.J., Casi G., Trüssel S., Hartmann I., Schwager K., Scheuermann J., et al. A traceless vascular-targeting antibody‒drug conjugate for cancer therapy. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2012;51:941–944. doi: 10.1002/anie.201106527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Ashman N., Bargh J.D., Spring D.R. Non-internalising antibody‒drug conjugates. Chem Soc Rev. 2022;51:9182–9202. doi: 10.1039/d2cs00446a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Joubert N., Denevault-Sabourin C., Bryden F., Viaud-Massuard M.C. Towards antibody‒drug conjugates and prodrug strategies with extracellular stimuli-responsive drug delivery in the tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy. Eur J Med Chem. 2017;142:393–415. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.08.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Zhao H., Gulesserian S., Malinao M.C., Ganesan S.K., Song J., Chang M.S., et al. A potential mechanism for ADC-induced neutropenia: role of neutrophils in their own demise. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:1866–1876. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Wei B., Gunzner-Toste J., Yao H., Wang T., Wang J., Xu Z., et al. Discovery of peptidomimetic antibody‒drug conjugate linkers with enhanced protease specificity. J Med Chem. 2018;61:989–1000. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Dorywalska M., Dushin R., Moine L., Farias S.E., Zhou D., Navaratnam T., et al. Molecular basis of Valine-Citrulline-PABC linker instability in site-specific ADCs and its mitigation by linker design. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:958–970. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Jäger S., Könning D., Rasche N., Hart F., Sensbach J., Krug C., et al. Generation and characterization of iduronidase-cleavable ADCs. Bioconjugate Chem. 2023;34:2221–2233. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.3c00363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Chuprakov S., Ogunkoya A.O., Barfield R.M., Bauzon M., Hickle C., Kim Y.C., et al. Tandem-cleavage linkers improve the in vivo stability and tolerability of antibody‒drug conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2021;32:746–754. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.1c00029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Miller J.T., Vitro C.N., Fang S., Benjamin S.R., Tumey L.N. Enzyme-agnostic lysosomal screen identifies new legumain-cleavable ADC linkers. Bioconjugate Chem. 2021;32:842–858. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.1c00124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Balamkundu S., Liu C.F. Lysosomal-cleavable peptide linkers in antibody‒drug conjugates. Biomedicines. 2023;11:3080. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11113080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Shen B.Q., Xu K., Liu L., Raab H., Bhakta S., Kenrick M., et al. Conjugation site modulates the in vivo stability and therapeutic activity of antibody‒drug conjugates. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:184–189. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Beck A., Goetsch L., Dumontet C., Corvaïa N. Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody‒drug conjugates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16:315–337. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Fu Z., Li S., Han S., Shi C., Zhang Y. Antibody drug conjugate: the "biological missile" for targeted cancer therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7:93. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-00947-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Birrer M.J., Moore K.N., Betella I., Bates R.C. Antibody‒drug conjugate-based therapeutics: state of the science. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:538–549. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Dragovich P.S. Degrader‒antibody conjugates. Chem Soc Rev. 2022;51:3886–3897. doi: 10.1039/d2cs00141a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Neumann C.S., Olivas K.C., Anderson M.E., Cochran J.H., Jin S., Li F., et al. Targeted delivery of cytotoxic NAMPT inhibitors using antibody‒drug conjugates. Mol Cancer Ther. 2018;17:2633–2642. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-0643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Doi T., Shitara K., Naito Y., Shimomura A., Fujiwara Y., Yonemori K., et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumour activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201), a HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate, in patients with advanced breast and gastric or gastro-oesophageal tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1512–1522. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30604-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Zacharias N., Podust V.N., Kajihara K.K., Leipold D., Del Rosario G., Thayer D., et al. A homogeneous high-DAR antibody‒drug conjugate platform combining THIOMAB antibodies and XTEN polypeptides. Chem Sci. 2022;13:3147–3160. doi: 10.1039/d1sc05243h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Junutula J.R., Raab H., Clark S., Bhakta S., Leipold D.D., Weir S., et al. Site-specific conjugation of a cytotoxic drug to an antibody improves the therapeutic index. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:925–932. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Debaene F., Boeuf A., Wagner-Rousset E., Colas O., Ayoub D., Corvaïa N., et al. Innovative native MS methodologies for antibody drug conjugate characterization: high resolution native MS and IM-MS for average DAR and DAR distribution assessment. Anal Chem. 2014;86:10674–10683. doi: 10.1021/ac502593n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Renault K., Fredy J.W., Renard P.Y., Sabot C. Covalent modification of biomolecules through maleimide-based labeling strategies. Bioconjug Chem. 2018;29:2497–2513. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Stefan N., Gébleux R., Waldmeier L., Hell T., Escher M., Wolter F.I., et al. Highly potent, anthracycline-based antibody‒drug conjugates generated by enzymatic, site-specific conjugation. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:879–892. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Agarwal P., Bertozzi C.R. Site-specific antibody‒drug conjugates: the nexus of bioorthogonal chemistry, protein engineering, and drug development. Bioconjug Chem. 2015;26:176–192. doi: 10.1021/bc5004982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Nicolaou K.C., Rigol S., Pitsinos E.N., Das D., Lu Y., Rout S., et al. Uncialamycin-based antibody‒drug conjugates: unique enediyne ADCs exhibiting bystander killing effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107042118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Takahashi K., Yasui H., Taki S., Shimizu M., Koike C., Taki K., et al. Near-infrared-induced drug release from antibody‒drug double conjugates exerts a cytotoxic photo-bystander effect. Bioeng Transl Med. 2022;7 doi: 10.1002/btm2.10388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Giugliano F., Corti C., Tarantino P., Michelini F., Curigliano G. Bystander effect of antibody‒drug conjugates: fact or fiction? Curr Oncol Rep. 2022;24:809–817. doi: 10.1007/s11912-022-01266-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Ríos-Luci C., García-Alonso S., Díaz-Rodríguez E., Nadal-Serrano M., Arribas J., Ocaña A., et al. Resistance to the antibody‒drug conjugate T-DM1 is based in a reduction in lysosomal proteolytic activity. Cancer Res. 2017;77:4639–4651. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-3127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Staudacher A.H., Brown M.P. Antibody drug conjugates and bystander killing: is antigen-dependent internalisation required?. Br J Cancer. 2017;117:1736–1742. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Tinworth C.P., Lithgow H., Churcher I. Small molecule-mediated protein knockdown as a new approach to drug discovery. Med Chem Commun. 2016;7:2206–2218. [Google Scholar]
- 123.Li B.T., Lee K.W., Pegram M., Sharma M.R., Lee J., Spira A.I., et al. 657MO Recommended phase II dose (RP2D) selection and pharmacodynamic (PD) data of the first-in-human immune-stimulating antibody conjugate (ISAC) BDC-1001 in patients (pts) with advanced HER2-expressing solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:S462–S463. [Google Scholar]
- 124.Wang Y., Luo J., Alu A., Han X., Wei Y., Wei X. cGAS-STING pathway in cancer biotherapy. Mol Cancer. 2020;19:136. doi: 10.1186/s12943-020-01247-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Meijer O.C., Koorneef L.L., Kroon J. Glucocorticoid receptor modulators. Ann Endocrinol. 2018;79:107–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ando.2018.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Ackerman S.E., Pearson C.I., Gregorio J.D., Gonzalez J.C., Kenkel J.A., Hartmann F.J., et al. Immune-stimulating antibody conjugates elicit robust myeloid activation and durable antitumor immunity. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:18–33. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00136-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Smith S.A., Selby L.I., Johnston A.P.R., Such G.K. The endosomal escape of nanoparticles: toward more efficient cellular delivery. Bioconjug Chem. 2019;30:263–272. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Zhou L., Yu B., Gao M., Chen R., Li Z., Gu Y., et al. DNA framework-engineered chimeras platform enables selectively targeted protein degradation. Nat Commun. 2023;14:4510. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40244-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Montemurro F., Delaloge S., Barrios C.H., Wuerstlein R., Anton A., Brain E., et al. Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases: exploratory final analysis of cohort 1 from KAMILLA, a single-arm phase IIIb clinical trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1350–1358. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Slamon D.J., Leyland-Jones B., Shak S., Fuchs H., Paton V., Bajamonde A., et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783–792. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103153441101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Baselga J., Cortés J., Kim S.B., Im S.A., Hegg R., Im Y.H., et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109–119. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Pegram M.D., Miles D., Tsui C.K., Zong Y. HER2-overexpressing/amplified breast cancer as a testing ground for antibody‒drug conjugate drug development in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:775–786. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Oh D.Y., Bang Y.J. HER2-targeted therapies―a role beyond breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17:33–48. doi: 10.1038/s41571-019-0268-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Meric-Bernstam F., Johnson A.M., Dumbrava E.E.I., Raghav K., Balaji K., Bhatt M., et al. Advances in HER2-targeted therapy: novel agents and opportunities beyond breast and gastric cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:2033–2041. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Tabernero J., Hoff P.M., Shen L., Ohtsu A., Shah M.A., Cheng K., et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy for HER2-positive metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (JACOB): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1372–1384. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30481-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Weisser N.E., Sanches M., Escobar-Cabrera E., O'Toole J., Whalen E., Chan P.W.Y., et al. An anti-HER2 biparatopic antibody that induces unique HER2 clustering and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. Nat Commun. 2023;14:1394. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37029-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Von Kreudenstein T.S., Escobar-Carbrera E., Lario P.I., D'Angelo I., Brault K., Kelly J., et al. Improving biophysical properties of a bispecific antibody scaffold to aid developability: quality by molecular design. MAbs. 2013;5:646–654. doi: 10.4161/mabs.25632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Harding J.J., Fan J., Oh D.Y., Choi H.J., Kim J.W., Chang H.M., et al. Zanidatamab for HER2-amplified, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (HERIZON-BTC-01): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2b study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:772–782. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00242-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Meric-Bernstam F., Beeram M., Hamilton E., Oh D.Y., Hanna D.L., Kang Y.K., et al. Zanidatamab, a novel bispecific antibody, for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic HER2-expressing or HER2-amplified cancers: a phase 1, dose-escalation and expansion study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1558–1570. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00621-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Hamblett K.J., Hammond P.W., Barnscher S.D., Fung V.K., Davies R.H., Wickman G.R., et al. Abstract 3914: ZW49, a HER2-targeted biparatopic antibody‒drug conjugate for the treatment of HER2-expressing cancers. Cancer Res. 2018;78:3914. [Google Scholar]
- 141.Jhaveri K., Han H., Dotan E., Oh D.Y., Ferrario C., Tolcher A.W., et al. 460MO Preliminary results from a phase I study using the bispecific, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-targeting antibody‒drug conjugate (ADC) zanidatamab zovodotin (ZW49) in solid cancers. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S749–S750. [Google Scholar]
- 142.Oganesyan V., Peng L., Bee J.S., Li J., Perry S.R., Comer F., et al. Structural insights into the mechanism of action of a biparatopic anti-HER2 antibody. J Biol Chem. 2018;293:8439–8448. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.818013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Spangler J.B., Manzari M.T., Rosalia E.K., Chen T.F., Wittrup K.D. Triepitopic antibody fusions inhibit cetuximab-resistant BRAF and KRAS mutant tumors via EGFR signal repression. J Mol Biol. 2012;422:532–544. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.06.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Spangler J.B., Neil J.R., Abramovitch S., Yarden Y., White F.M., Lauffenburger D.A., et al. Combination antibody treatment down-regulates epidermal growth factor receptor by inhibiting endosomal recycling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:13252–13257. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913476107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Pegram M.D., Hamilton E.P., Tan A.R., Storniolo A.M., Balic K., Rosenbaum A.I., et al. First-in-human, phase 1 dose-escalation study of biparatopic anti-HER2 antibody‒drug conjugate MEDI4276 in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast or gastric cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2021;20:1442–1453. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Wolff A.C., Hammond M.E., Hicks D.G., Dowsett M., McShane L.M., Allison K.H., et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Sincock P.M., Mayrhofer G., Ashman L.K. Localization of the transmembrane 4 superfamily (TM4SF) member PETA-3 (CD151) in normal human tissues: comparison with CD9, CD63, and alpha5beta1 integrin. J Histochem Cytochem. 1997;45:515–525. doi: 10.1177/002215549704500404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Bonifacino J.S., Traub L.M. Signals for sorting of transmembrane proteins to endosomes and lysosomes. Ann Rev Biochem. 2003;72:395–447. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Rous B.A., Reaves B.J., Ihrke G., Briggs J.A.G., Gray S.R., Stephens D.J., et al. Role of adaptor complex AP-3 in targeting wild-type and mutated CD63 to lysosomes. Mol Biol Cell. 2002;13:1071–1082. doi: 10.1091/mbc.01-08-0409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.de Goeij B.E.C.G., Vink T., ten Napel H., Breij E.C.W., Satijn D., Wubbolts R., et al. Efficient payload delivery by a bispecific antibody–drug conjugate targeting HER2 and CD63. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:2688–2697. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.de Goeij B.E., Peipp M., de Haij S., van den Brink E.N., Kellner C., Riedl T., et al. HER2 monoclonal antibodies that do not interfere with receptor heterodimerization-mediated signaling induce effective internalization and represent valuable components for rational antibody‒drug conjugate design. MAbs. 2014;6:392–402. doi: 10.4161/mabs.27705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Kelly M.P., Hickey C., Makonnen S., Coetzee S., Jalal S., Wang Y., et al. Preclinical activity of the novel anti-prolactin receptor (PRLR) antibody‒drug conjugate REGN2878-DM1 in PRLR-positive breast cancers. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:1299–1311. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Merchant A.M., Zhu Z., Yuan J.Q., Goddard A., Adams C.W., Presta L.G., et al. An efficient route to human bispecific IgG. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16:677–681. doi: 10.1038/nbt0798-677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Tuli A., Sharma M., Capek H.L., Naslavsky N., Caplan S., Solheim J.C. Mechanism for amyloid precursor-like protein 2 enhancement of major histocompatibility complex class I molecule degradation. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:34296–34307. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.039727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.DeVay R.M., Shelton D.L., Liang H. Characterization of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) trafficking reveals a novel lysosomal targeting mechanism via amyloid precursor-like protein 2 (APLP2) J Biol Chem. 2013;288:10805–10818. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.453373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Strop P., Ho W.H., Boustany L.M., Abdiche Y.N., Lindquist K.C., Farias S.E., et al. Generating bispecific human IgG1 and IgG2 antibodies from any antibody pair. J Mol Biol. 2012;420:204–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.DeVay R.M., Delaria K., Zhu G., Holz C., Foletti D., Sutton J., et al. Improved lysosomal trafficking can modulate the potency of antibody drug conjugates. Bioconjugate Chem. 2017;28:1102–1114. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Shang C., Yang L., Zhang J., Han Y., Li Z., Han Z., et al. Abstract 4256: YH012, a novel bispecific anti-HER2 and TROP2 antibody‒drug conjugate, exhibits potent antitumor efficacy. Cancer Res. 2022;82:4256. [Google Scholar]
- 159.Ferraro E., Drago J.Z., Modi S. Implementing antibody‒drug conjugates (ADCs) in HER2-positive breast cancer: state of the art and future directions. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23:84. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01459-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Atallah N.M., Toss M.S., Green A.R., Mongan N.P., Ball G., Rakha E.A. Refining the definition of HER2-low class in invasive breast cancer. Histopathol. 2022;81:770–785. doi: 10.1111/his.14780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Schlam I., Moges R., Morganti S., Tolaney S.M., Tarantino P. Next-generation antibody‒drug conjugates for breast cancer: moving beyond HER2 and TROP2. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2023;190 doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Rugo H.S., Bardia A., Marmé F., Cortés J., Schmid P., Loirat D., et al. Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023;402:1423–1433. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01245-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Karamouzis M.V., Grandis J.R., Argiris A. Therapies directed against epidermal growth factor receptor in aerodigestive carcinomas. JAMA. 2007;298:70–82. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.1.70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Chong C.R., Jänne P.A. The quest to overcome resistance to EGFR-targeted therapies in cancer. Nat Med. 2013;19:1389–1400. doi: 10.1038/nm.3388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Raghav K., Ou F.S., Venook A.P., Innocenti F., Sun R., Lenz H.J., et al. Acquired genomic alterations on first-line chemotherapy with Cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer: circulating tumor DNA analysis of the CALGB/SWOG-80405 trial (Alliance) J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:472–478. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Lassman A.B., Pugh S.L., Wang T.J.C., Aldape K., Gan H.K., Preusser M., et al. Depatuxizumab mafodotin in EGFR-amplified newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a phase III randomized clinical trial. Neuro Oncol. 2023;25:339–350. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noac173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Wu Y.L., Zhang L., Kim D.W., Liu X., Lee D.H., Yang J.C., et al. Phase Ib/II study of Capmatinib (INC280) plus Gefitinib after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor therapy in patients with EGFR-mutated, MET factor-dysregulated non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3101–3109. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.7326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Sequist L.V., Han J.Y., Ahn M.J., Cho B.C., Yu H., Kim S.W., et al. Osimertinib plus savolitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive, MET-amplified, non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: interim results from a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:373–386. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30785-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Wu Y.L., Cheng Y., Zhou J., Lu S., Zhang Y., Zhao J., et al. Tepotinib plus gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer with MET overexpression or MET amplification and acquired resistance to previous EGFR inhibitor (INSIGHT study): an open-label, phase 1b/2, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:1132–1143. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30154-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Roncato F., Rruga F., Porcù E., Casarin E., Ronca R., Maccarinelli F., et al. Improvement and extension of anti-EGFR targeting in breast cancer therapy by integration with the avidin-nucleic-acid-nano-assemblies. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4070. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06602-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Mair M.J., Bartsch R., Le Rhun E., Berghoff A.S., Brastianos P.K., Cortes J., et al. Understanding the activity of antibody–drug conjugates in primary and secondary brain tumours. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20:372–389. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00756-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Liu M., Li L., Jin D., Liu Y. Nanobody-A versatile tool for cancer diagnosis and therapeutics. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2021;13:e1697. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Temraz S., Mukherji D., Shamseddine A. Dual targeting of HER3 and EGFR in colorectal tumors might overcome anti-EGFR resistance. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2016;101:151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Drago J.Z., Ferraro E., Abuhadra N., Modi S. Beyond HER2: targeting the ErbB receptor family in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2022;109 doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Haikala H.M., Lopez T., Köhler J., Eser P.O., Xu M., Zeng Q., et al. EGFR inhibition enhances the cellular uptake and antitumor-activity of the HER3 antibody‒drug conjugate HER3-DXd. Cancer Res. 2022;82:130–141. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-2426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Tao J.J., Castel P., Radosevic-Robin N., Elkabets M., Auricchio N., Aceto N., et al. Antagonism of EGFR and HER3 enhances the response to inhibitors of the PI3K-Akt pathway in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Signal. 2014;7:ra29. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2005125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Yonesaka K., Tanizaki J., Maenishi O., Haratani K., Kawakami H., Tanaka K., et al. HER3 augmentation via blockade of EGFR/AKT signaling enhances anticancer activity of HER3-targeting patritumab deruxtecan in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28:390–403. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Bourillon L., Demontoy S., Lenglet A., Zampieri A., Fraisse J., Jarlier M., et al. Higher anti-tumor efficacy of the dual HER3-EGFR antibody MEHD7945a combined with ionizing irradiation in cervical cancer cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106:1039–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179.Xue J., Kong D., Yao Y., Yang L., Yao Q., Zhu Y., et al. Prediction of human pharmacokinetics and clinical effective dose of SI-B001, an EGFR/HER3 bi-specific monoclonal antibody. J Pharm Sci. 2020;109:3172–3180. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2020.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Wan W., Zhao S., Zhuo S., Zhang Y., Chen L., Li G., et al. Abstract 2642: BL-B01D1, a novel EGFR×HER3-targeting ADC, demonstrates robust anti-tumor efficacy in preclinical evaluation. Cancer Res. 2023;83:2642. [Google Scholar]
- 181.Zhang L., Ma Y., Zhao Y., Fang W., Zhao H., Huang Y., et al. BL-B01D1, a first-in-class EGFRxHER3 bispecific antibody‒drug conjugate (ADC), in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor: results from a first-in-human phase 1 study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:3001. [Google Scholar]
- 182.Castoldi R., Ecker V., Wiehle L., Majety M., Busl-Schuller R., Asmussen M., et al. A novel bispecific EGFR/Met antibody blocks tumor-promoting phenotypic effects induced by resistance to EGFR inhibition and has potent antitumor activity. Oncogene. 2013;32:5593–5601. doi: 10.1038/onc.2013.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183.Yun J., Lee S.H., Kim S.Y., Jeong S.Y., Kim J.H., Pyo K.H., et al. Antitumor activity of Amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody, in diverse models of EGFR exon 20 insertion-driven NSCLC. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:1194–1209. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184.Park K., Haura E.B., Leighl N.B., Mitchell P., Shu C.A., Girard N., et al. Amivantamab in EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on platinum chemotherapy: initial results from the CHRYSALIS phase I study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3391–3402. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.Liu L., Zeng W., Wortinger M.A., Yan S.B., Cornwell P., Peek V.L., et al. LY2875358, a neutralizing and internalizing anti-MET bivalent antibody, inhibits HGF-dependent and HGF-independent MET activation and tumor growth. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:6059–6070. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Phillips A.C., Boghaert E.R., Vaidya K.S., Mitten M.J., Norvell S., Falls H.D., et al. ABT-414, an antibody‒drug conjugate targeting a tumor-selective EGFR epitope. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:661–669. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187.Muda M., Gross A.W., Dawson J.P., He C., Kurosawa E., Schweickhardt R., et al. Therapeutic assessment of SEED: a new engineered antibody platform designed to generate mono- and bispecific antibodies. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2011;24:447–454. doi: 10.1093/protein/gzq123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188.Davis J.H., Aperlo C., Li Y., Kurosawa E., Lan Y., Lo K.M., et al. SEEDbodies: fusion proteins based on strand-exchange engineered domain (SEED) CH3 heterodimers in an Fc analogue platform for asymmetric binders or immunofusions and bispecific antibodies. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2010;23:195–202. doi: 10.1093/protein/gzp094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189.Comer F., Mazor Y., Hurt E., Yang C., Fleming R., Shandilya H., et al. Abstract 5736: AZD9592: an EGFR-cMET bispecific antibody‒drug conjugate (ADC) targeting key oncogenic drivers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and beyond. Cancer Res. 2023;83:5736. [Google Scholar]
- 190.Karamouzis M.V., Konstantinopoulos P.A., Papavassiliou A.G. Targeting MET as a strategy to overcome crosstalk-related resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:709–717. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70137-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191.Bean J., Brennan C., Shih J.Y., Riely G., Viale A., Wang L., et al. MET amplification occurs with or without T790M mutations in EGFR mutant lung tumors with acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:20932–20937. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710370104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Troiani T., Martinelli E., Napolitano S., Vitagliano D., Ciuffreda L.P., Costantino S., et al. Increased TGF-α as a mechanism of acquired resistance to the anti-EGFR inhibitor cetuximab through EGFR–MET interaction and activation of MET signaling in colon cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:6751–6765. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Westover D., Zugazagoitia J., Cho B.C., Lovly C.M., Paz-Ares L. Mechanisms of acquired resistance to first- and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:i10–i19. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Paik P.K., Felip E., Veillon R., Sakai H., Cortot A.B., Garassino M.C., et al. Tepotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer with MET Exon 14 skipping mutations. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:931–943. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195.Strickler J.H., Weekes C.D., Nemunaitis J., Ramanathan R.K., Heist R.S., Morgensztern D., et al. First-in-human phase I, dose-escalation and -expansion study of Telisotuzumab Vedotin, an antibody‒drug conjugate targeting c-Met, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3298–3306. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.7697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196.Kou J., Musich P.R., Staal B., Kang L., Qin Y., Yao Z.Q., et al. Differential responses of MET activations to MET kinase inhibitor and neutralizing antibody. J Transl Med. 2018;16:253. doi: 10.1186/s12967-018-1628-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197.Camidge D.R., Barlesi F., Goldman J.W., Morgensztern D., Heist R., Vokes E., et al. Phase Ib study of Telisotuzumab Vedotin in combination with Erlotinib in patients with c-Met protein-expressing non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:1105–1115. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198.Oh S.Y., Lee Y.W., Lee E.J., Kim J.H., Park Y., Heo S.G., et al. Preclinical study of a biparatopic METxMET antibody‒drug conjugate, REGN5093-M114, overcomes MET-driven acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29:221–232. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-2180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199.Guo R., Luo J., Chang J., Rekhtman N., Arcila M., Drilon A. MET-dependent solid tumours―molecular diagnosis and targeted therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17:569–587. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-0377-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200.Lim S.M., Yang S.D., Lim S., Heo S.G., Daniel S., Markovets A., et al. Molecular landscape of osimertinib resistance in patients and patient-derived preclinical models. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14 doi: 10.1177/17588359221079125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201.DaSilva J.O., Yang K., Perez Bay A.E., Andreev J., Ngoi P., Pyles E., et al. A biparatopic antibody that modulates MET trafficking exhibits enhanced efficacy compared with parental antibodies in MET-driven tumor models. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:1408–1419. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202.DaSilva J.O., Yang K., Surriga O., Nittoli T., Kunz A., Franklin M.C., et al. A biparatopic antibody‒drug conjugate to treat MET-expressing cancers, including those that are unresponsive to MET pathway blockade. Mol Cancer Ther. 2021;20:1966–1976. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-21-0009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203.Drilon A.E., Awad M.M., Gadgeel S.M., Villaruz L.C., Sabari J.K., Perez J., et al. A phase 1/2 study of REGN5093-M114, a METxMET antibody‒drug conjugate, in patients with mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET)-overexpressing NSCLC. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40 TPS8593-TPS. [Google Scholar]
- 204.Hu X.Y., Wang R., Jin J., Liu X.J., Cui A.L., Sun L.Q., et al. An EGFR-targeting antibody‒drug conjugate LR004-VC-MMAE: potential in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and other malignancies. Mol Oncol. 2019;13:246–263. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205.Woolston A., Barber L.J., Griffiths B., Pich O., Lopez-Bigas N., Matthews N., et al. Mutational signatures impact the evolution of anti-EGFR antibody resistance in colorectal cancer. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:1024–1032. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01470-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206.Gerdes C.A., Nicolini V.G., Herter S., van Puijenbroek E., Lang S., Roemmele M., et al. GA201 (RG7160): a novel, humanized, glycoengineered anti-EGFR antibody with enhanced ADCC and superior in vivo efficacy compared with cetuximab. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:1126–1138. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207.Kim D., Lee S., Na K. Immune stimulating antibody‒photosensitizer conjugates via Fc-mediated dendritic cell phagocytosis and phototriggered immunogenic cell death for KRAS-mutated pancreatic cancer treatment. Small. 2021;17 doi: 10.1002/smll.202006650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208.Zhao S., Zhuang W., Han B., Song Z., Guo W., Luo F., et al. Phase 1b trial of anti-EGFR antibody JMT101 and Osimertinib in EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat Commun. 2023;14:3468. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39139-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209.Uchikawa E., Chen Z., Xiao G.Y., Zhang X., Bai X.C. Structural basis of the activation of c-MET receptor. Nat Commun. 2021;12:4074. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24367-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210.Niemann H.H. Structural insights into Met receptor activation. Eur J Cell Biol. 2011;90:972–981. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2010.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211.Kawakami N., Sato H., Terasaka N., Matsumoto K., Suga H. MET-activating ubiquitin multimers. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2023 doi: 10.1002/anie.202307157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212.Gonzalez A., Broussas M., Beau-Larvor C., Haeuw J.F., Boute N., Robert A., et al. A novel antagonist anti-cMet antibody with antitumor activities targeting both ligand-dependent and ligand-independent c-Met receptors. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:1851–1863. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213.Jain R., Rawat A., Verma B., Markiewski M.M., Weidanz J.A. Antitumor activity of a monoclonal antibody targeting major histocompatibility complex class I-Her2 peptide complexes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:202–218. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214.Yang X., Nishimiya D., Löchte S., Jude K.M., Borowska M., Savvides C.S., et al. Facile repurposing of peptide-MHC-restricted antibodies for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2023;41:932–943. doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01567-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215.Lai J., Wang Y., Wu S.S., Ding D., Sun Z.Y., Zhang Y., et al. Elimination of melanoma by sortase A-generated TCR-like antibody‒drug conjugates (TL-ADCs) targeting intracellular melanoma antigen MART-1. Biomaterials. 2018;178:158–169. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216.Hattori T., Maso L., Araki K.Y., Koide A., Hayman J., Akkapeddi P., et al. Creating MHC-restricted neoantigens with covalent inhibitors that can be targeted by immune therapy. Cancer Discov. 2023;13:132–145. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-1074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217.Shen Y., Li Y.M., Zhou J.J., Zhou Z., Xu Y.C., Zhao W.B., et al. The antitumor activity of TCR-mimic antibody‒drug conjugates (TCRm-ADCs) targeting the intracellular wilms tumor 1 (WT1) oncoprotein. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:3912. doi: 10.3390/ijms20163912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218.Lee N.K., Su Y., Bidlingmaier S., Liu B. Manipulation of cell-type selective antibody internalization by a guide-effector bispecific design. Mol Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1092–1103. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219.Heo Y.A. Mirvetuximab Soravtansine: first approval. Drugs. 2023;83:265–273. doi: 10.1007/s40265-023-01834-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220.Matulonis U.A., Lorusso D., Oaknin A., Pignata S., Dean A., Denys H., et al. Efficacy and safety of Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate receptor Alpha expression: results from the SORAYA Study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2436–2445. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221.Ab O., Bartle L.M., Lanieri L., Ponte J.F., Qiu Q., Sikka S., et al. Abstract 2890: IMGN151―a next generation folate receptor alpha targeting antibody drug conjugate active against tumors with low, medium and high receptor expression. Cancer Res. 2020;80:2890. [Google Scholar]
- 222.Gong J., Hu X., Zhang J., Du Y., Huang R., Teng Y., et al. Phase Ia study of CBP-1008, a bi-specific ligand drug conjugate targeting FRα and TRPV6, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3077. [Google Scholar]
- 223.Fu C., Yu L., Miao Y., Liu X., Yu Z., Wei M. Peptide‒drug conjugates (PDCs): a novel trend of research and development on targeted therapy, hype or hope?. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2023;13:498–516. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.07.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224.Gong L., Zhao H., Liu Y., Wu H., Liu C., Chang S., et al. Research advances in peptide‒drug conjugates. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2023;13:3659–3677. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2023.02.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225.Zhang W., Li D., Xu X., Chen Y., Shi X., Pan Y., et al. A bispecific peptide‒polymer conjugate bridging target-effector cells to enhance immunotherapy. Adv Healthc Mater. 2023;12 doi: 10.1002/adhm.202202977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226.Martinko A.J., Simonds E.F., Prasad S., Ponce A., Bracken C.J., Wei J., et al. Switchable assembly and function of antibody complexes in vivo using a small molecule. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022:119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117402119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227.Dimasi N., Fleming R., Hay C., Woods R., Xu L., Wu H., et al. Development of a trispecific antibody designed to simultaneously and efficiently target three different antigens on tumor cells. Mol Pharm. 2015;12:3490–3501. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228.Hu S., Fu W., Xu W., Yang Y., Cruz M., Berezov S.D., et al. Four-in-one antibodies have superior cancer inhibitory activity against EGFR, HER2, HER3, and VEGF through disruption of HER/MET crosstalk. Cancer Res. 2015;75:159–170. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229.Castoldi R., Schanzer J., Panke C., Jucknischke U., Neubert N.J., Croasdale R., et al. TetraMabs: simultaneous targeting of four oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases for tumor growth inhibition in heterogeneous tumor cell populations. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2016;29:467–475. doi: 10.1093/protein/gzw037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230.Walsh S.J., Bargh J.D., Dannheim F.M., Hanby A.R., Seki H., Counsell A.J., et al. Site-selective modification strategies in antibody–drug conjugates. Chem Soc Rev. 2021;50:1305–1353. doi: 10.1039/d0cs00310g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231.Cheng Y.A., Chen I.J., Su Y.C., Cheng K.W., Lu Y.C., Lin W.W., et al. Enhanced drug internalization and therapeutic efficacy of PEGylated nanoparticles by one-step formulation with anti-mPEG bispecific antibody in intrinsic drug-resistant breast cancer. Biomater Sci. 2019;7:3404–3417. doi: 10.1039/c9bm00323a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 232.Xue F., Yao H., Cui L., Huang Y., Shao C., Shen N., et al. An Fc Binding peptide-based facile and versatile build platform for multispecific antibodies. Nano Lett. 2023;23:4191–4200. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233.Harms B.D., Kearns J.D., Iadevaia S., Lugovskoy A.A. Understanding the role of cross-arm binding efficiency in the activity of monoclonal and multispecific therapeutic antibodies. Methods. 2014;65:95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234.Watson J.L., Juergens D., Bennett N.R., Trippe B.L., Yim J., Eisenach H.E., et al. De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion. Nature. 2023;620:1089–1100. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06415-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235.Yu Y.J., Zhang Y., Kenrick M., Hoyte K., Luk W., Lu Y., et al. Boosting brain uptake of a therapeutic antibody by reducing its affinity for a transcytosis target. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:84ra44. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236.Niewoehner J., Bohrmann B., Collin L., Urich E., Sade H., Maier P., et al. Increased brain penetration and potency of a therapeutic antibody using a monovalent molecular shuttle. Neuron. 2014;81:49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237.Decker K., Vranic M., Schmitt M., Dranova I., Pálfi A., Hechler T., et al. Abstract 1523: subcutaneous dosing of amatoxin-based ADCs increases the therapeutic index. Cancer Res. 2023;83:1523. [Google Scholar]
- 238.Liao M.Z., Lu D., Kågedal M., Miles D., Samineni D., Liu S.N., et al. Model-informed therapeutic dose optimization strategies for antibody‒drug conjugates in oncology: what can we learn from US Food and Drug Administration-approved antibody‒drug conjugates? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110:1216–1230. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239.Rugo H.S., Tolaney S.M., Loirat D., Punie K., Bardia A., Hurvitz S.A., et al. Safety analyses from the phase 3 ASCENT trial of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:98. doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00467-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240.Yamazaki C.M., Yamaguchi A., Anami Y., Xiong W., Otani Y., Lee J., et al. Antibody‒drug conjugates with dual payloads for combating breast tumor heterogeneity and drug resistance. Nat Commun. 2021;12:3528. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23793-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241.Lim S.A., Zhou J., Martinko A.J., Wang Y.H., Filippova E.V., Steri V., et al. Targeting a proteolytic neoepitope on CUB domain containing protein 1 (CDCP1) for RAS-driven cancers. J Clin Invest. 2022:132. doi: 10.1172/JCI154604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242.Petersen M.E., Brant M.G., Lasalle M., Fung V.K.C., Rojas A.H., Wong J., et al. Structure–activity relationships of bis-intercalating peptides and their application as antibody‒drug conjugate payloads. J Med Chem. 2023;66:8288–8309. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243.Budde L.E., Olszewski A.J., Assouline S., Lossos I.S., Diefenbach C., Kamdar M., et al. Mosunetuzumab with polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed or refractory aggressive large B cell lymphoma: a phase 1b/2 trial. Nat Med. 2024;30:229–239. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02726-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244.Wang Y., Cheetham A.G., Angacian G., Su H., Xie L., Cui H. Peptide‒drug conjugates as effective prodrug strategies for targeted delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017;110-111:112–126. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]