Skip to main content
. 2025 Aug 6;15:28715. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-13810-w

Table 1.

Properties of the cytotoxic payloads studied.

Payload Potential H-bond donorsa Averaged H-bondsb ΔG flip-flopc (kJ mol−1) ΔG desorptiond (kJ mol−1) Bystander effect AlogPe Rgf (nm)
DXd1 3 1.3 20 ± 5 40 ± 5 Yes − 0.25 0.47 ± 0.02
DXd2 5 2.3 80 ± 5 40 ± 5 No − 0.15 0.49 ± 0.02
MMAE 4 0.7 15 ± 5 50 ± 5 Yes 3.10 0.55 ± 0.02
MMAF 3 0.6 75 ± 5 50 ± 5 No 2.70 0.56 ± 0.02
DM1 2 1.3 20 ± 5 55 ± 5 Yes 3.00 0.47 ± 0.02
Lys-SMCC-DM1 6 2.3 65 ± 5 75 ± 5 No 4.00 0.62 ± 0.02
DXd1-Linker 7 2.3 20 ± 5 80 ± 5 No 1.05 0.75 ± 0.02
SMCC-DM1 3 1.1 25 ± 5 75 ± 5 No 7.10 0.70 ± 0.02

aNumber of potential hydrogen bond donors in each payload (based on the functional groups able to donate H-bonds). bAverage number of hydrogen bonds formed between the payload and lipids during the last 1 µs of the MD simulation (distance < 0.35 nm and angle < 30°). cFree energy barrier (in kJ mol⁻1) for the payload to traverse the hydrophobic interior of the lipid bilayer (flip-flop). dFree energy barrier (in kJ mol⁻1) for the payload to desorb from the lipid–water interface into the aqueous phase. eAlogP: Partition coefficient calculated via the ALogP model, indicating relative hydrophobicity. fRadius of gyration (in nm), reflecting the average molecular size of the payload over the MD trajectory.