Skip to main content
Materials Today Bio logoLink to Materials Today Bio
. 2026 Feb 12;37:102912. doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2026.102912

Click chemistry-based drug delivery systems for targeted cancer therapy

Yonghui Liu a,, Wei Zhang a, Yanan Wu a, Dong Wan b,⁎⁎, Jie Pan a,⁎⁎⁎
PMCID: PMC12936694  PMID: 41769383

Abstract

Drug delivery systems (DDSs) play a crucial role in improving the efficacy and reducing the side effects of cancer treatment. However, traditional DDSs face challenges such as poor targeting, tissue penetration, and uncontrolled drug release. Click chemistry offers a powerful tool for addressing these limitations by enabling precise modification and targeting of DDSs. This review explores the application of click chemistry in the construction of active targeted DDSs for cancer therapy, focusing on two key strategies: in vitro and in vivo. In vitro strategies involve direct coupling of targeting agents to carrier materials, while in vivo strategies utilize metabolic engineering and click chemistry for cell labeling and drug delivery. The review discusses the advantages and limitations of different click chemistry reactions, including copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC), strain-promoted azide-alkyne cycloaddition (SPAAC), inverse electron-demand Diels-Alder (IEDDA) reaction, thiol-ene reaction, sulfur (VI) fluoride exchange (SuFEx) reaction, and selenium-nitrogen exchange (SeNEx) reaction. It also highlights recent advancements in using click chemistry to construct multifunctional DDSs, such as tumor-targeted biomimetic systems and cell-based delivery systems. Finally, the review outlines the challenges and future directions of click chemistry in drug delivery, emphasizing the need for precise control, expanded toolkits, and integration with emerging technologies to create intelligent, multifunctional DDSs with enhanced therapeutic efficacy and reduced side effects.

Keywords: Click chemistry, Drug delivery systems, Actively targeted, Cancer treatment

Graphical abstract

Image 1

1. Introduction

Drug delivery systems (DDSs) are primarily aimed at precisely delivering therapeutic agents to diseased sites [1,2], thereby enhancing efficacy and reducing toxic side effects by improving target enrichment and minimizing off-target distribution [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. However, conventional delivery strategies have consistently been hindered by limitations such as insufficient targeting accuracy [7], poor tissue penetration, and uncontrolled drug release [8]. The fundamental process typically relies on carrier systems for drug loading and delivery [9]: synthetic organic carriers (e.g., liposomes [10], polymeric micelles [11,12]), inorganic carriers (e.g., metal-organic frameworks [13], mesoporous silica nanoparticles [14]), and bio-inspired carriers (e.g., cell-based [15], virus-based vectors [16]) are first loaded with therapeutic agents like small molecule chemotherapeutics, nucleic acids, and antibodies [17]. These carriers then reach target areas via passive or active targeting, ultimately releasing drugs in response to the microenvironment [[18], [19], [20]].

From a mechanistic perspective, passive targeting primarily relies on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect [21,22], where nanoscale carriers accumulate in pathological tissues such as tumors due to the high permeability of their vascular walls and impaired lymphatic drainage [23]. However, this approach has significant limitations. Carriers tend to aggregate in perivascular regions, struggling to penetrate dense tumor stroma or inflammatory tissue matrices, leading to insufficient drug concentration in deep lesions [24,25]. Active targeting, on the other hand, involves modifying the carrier surface with ligands such as folate [18], RGD peptides, or antibodies, enabling specific binding through receptors overexpressed on target cells [26,27]. Nevertheless, its efficacy is highly dependent on the homogeneity of receptor expression. Tumor heterogeneity often results in the absence of receptors in certain pathological areas [28], creating ‘targeting blind spots.’ For bio-inspired carriers, such as cell-based delivery systems like CAR-T cells [29,30], although they possess inherent inflammatory tropism or antigen recognition capabilities, they are hindered by immunosuppressive factors and physical barriers within the tumor microenvironment [31], making deep infiltration into solid tumors challenging [32]. In the drug release stage, traditional responsive carriers mostly trigger release by responding to microenvironmental signals such as pH changes or enzyme concentration differences [33,34]. However, the physicochemical differences between normal and pathological tissues are often subtle. For instance, the pH difference between tumor tissue (5.5-6.5) and blood (7.4) is limited [35], which can easily lead to premature carrier degradation and drug leakage during blood circulation, or insufficient response at the target site, resulting in incomplete drug release.

These limitations further give rise to a multitude of practical challenges. Firstly, the pharmacokinetic profile and biocompatibility of carriers are often imbalanced. Most nanocarriers are readily recognized and cleared by the reticuloendothelial system (RES) [36], necessitating PEGylation to prolong circulation time [37]. However, excessive PEGylation can also inhibit cellular uptake. While metal-based inorganic carriers (e.g., Fe3O4, AuNPs) exhibit high stability [38], they pose the risk of long-term accumulation in vivo, potentially leading to liver and kidney damage. Secondly, the synergistic effect of multi-drug co-delivery is often insufficient. Traditional carriers struggle to achieve precise proportional loading and synchronized release of drugs with different mechanisms of action, thus compromising the efficacy of combination therapy [[39], [40], [41]]. Thirdly, the technical limitations of functional modifications are significant. The conjugation efficiency between ligands and carriers is often less than 50% [42], and the conjugation process may compromise ligand activity or carrier structure [43]. For biomacromolecular drugs, such as nucleic acids and proteins, carrier modification must also consider drug stability and preservation of biological activity [44,45], posing significant technical challenges. Fourthly, there are scalability barriers in clinical translation. The carrier preparation process often generates isomers or byproducts, making batch-to-batch stability difficult to control [46]. Moreover, the large-scale synthesis of key materials like prodrugs and responsive linkers is expensive [47], further limiting the clinical adoption of the technology [48]. These issues collectively hinder the translation of conventional DDSs from laboratory research to clinical applications, necessitating breakthroughs through materials innovation and strategy optimization. Utilizing click chemistry reactions to address the aforementioned problems in drug delivery systems is highly effective. This review comprehensively discusses the applications of click chemistry reactions in the construction of active targeting drug delivery systems, with a primary focus on two strategies: the "In vitro Strategy: single click reaction for coupling targeting agents to carriers " and the "In vivo Strategy: in vivo dynamic targeting based on click chemistry," as shown in Scheme 1.

Scheme 1.

Scheme 1

Click chemistry in the construction of actively targeted DDSs. In vitro Strategy: single click reaction for coupling targeting agents to carriers. In vivo Strategy: in vivo dynamic targeting based on click chemistry.

2. Overview of click chemistry reactions

In 2001, K. Barry Sharpless's team proposed “click chemistry,” a revolutionary chemical paradigm centered on enabling the facile construction of targeting agents by non-specialist chemists through highly efficient and reliable molecular joining reactions [49]. Analogous to the “buckle” mechanism of luggage straps, this concept emphasizes chemical coupling reactions characterized by high selectivity, high yield, mild reaction conditions, and ease of product isolation [50]. A core advantage is its ability to proceed efficiently in aqueous solutions, buffers, and even physiological environments without interfering with the functional groups of natural biomolecules [51], thus often being classified as an important branch of bioorthogonal chemistry [52,53]. These reactions do not require toxic catalysts or extreme reaction conditions, and certain copper-free click reactions further enhance reactivity and biocompatibility through designs incorporating ring strain [52,54]. This enables broad application in the precise chemical modification of live cell surfaces, cytoplasm, and even within living organisms in vivo. To summarize, we have outlined commonly used click chemistry reactions, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Commonly applied click chemistry reactions [[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]].

Name Reaction K(M−1 s−1) Advantages Disadvantages Applications
CuAAC Image 1 10-100 Fast reaction rate
Suitable for unstable biomolecules
Cytotoxicity Biomolecule Labeling and Imaging; Drug Delivery and Target Localization; Biomolecule Detection and Analysis
SPAAC Image 2 0.01-1 Free of catalyst Reactivity with thiols Biomolecule Labeling and Imaging; Biomolecule Detection and Analysis; Material Surface Modification and Device Fabrication
IEDDA Image 3 1-106 Catalyst-free
Excellent biocompatibility
The sensitivity of TCO to acids and the sensitivity of TZ to bases Biomolecule Labeling and Imaging; Drug Delivery and Activation; Multicomponent Labeling and Dynamic Tracking
Thiol-ene Image 4 102-103 Strong functional group tolerance Radical type requires initiator Polymer Synthesis and Modification; Peptide and Biomolecule Modification; Surface and Materials Engineering
SuFEx Image 5 102-104 Modular Some reactions require base catalysis Drug design; Activity-based profiling; Protein targeting research; Assistance in bioorthogonal labeling
SeNEx Image 6 ≥14.43 Strong functional group compatibility Some reactions rely on metal catalysts Org-Se Compound Synthesis; Bioconjugation; High-Throughput Drug Discovery; Carrier Optimization

2.1. CuAAC

Copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC) is an improved form of the classic Huisgen cycloaddition reaction [65,66]. It can proceed under near-physiological conditions through the action of copper catalysts, primarily generating 1,4-regioselective triazole products [67,68]. It exhibits rapid reaction kinetics (second-order rate constants can reach 4.6 × 105 L/(mol·s)) [69,70], enabling conjugation within a short timeframe. This makes it particularly suitable for the modification of chemically or conformationally unstable biomolecules such as peptides [71], nucleic acids, proteins, and virus-like particles. In the field of drug delivery, it is widely employed for direct conjugation, antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) preparation, and gene drug carrier modification [72,73]. However, CuAAC has significant limitations. Copper catalysts exhibit considerable cytotoxicity [74], and even with ligand modulation, their interference with biological systems is difficult to completely eliminate [75,76]. This restricts its application in scenarios requiring extremely high biocompatibility, such as in vivo labeling of live cells and in vivo delivery [77]. Furthermore, CuAAC reaction shows high regioselectivity, predominantly producing the 1,4-triazole isomer with high product purity [78], which can reduce the purification cost and quality control difficulty in large-scale preparation [[79], [80], [81]].

Huang et al. [82] established a catalyst-free bioorthogonal addition reaction system between malononitrile and azodicarboxylate—the Malononitrile Azodicarboxylate Addition (MAAD) reaction. Utilizing malononitrile and azodicarboxylate as the reaction pair, this reaction proceeds rapidly and quantitatively in aqueous solution at room temperature and under physiological conditions without the need for external catalysts or additives, demonstrating excellent biocompatibility. Although this approach does not directly optimize CuAAC, it offers a highly effective alternative strategy for circumventing the issue of copper toxicity associated with that reaction.

2.2. SPAAC

Strain-promoted azide-alkyne cycloaddition (SPAAC) is one of the core reaction types within copper-free click chemistry [54]. By introducing ring strain into the alkyne structure, it can undergo efficient cycloaddition with azide groups under physiological conditions without the need for copper catalysts, generating stable triazole products [54,83]. Its reaction rate is moderate, demonstrating good aqueous compatibility and functional group tolerance [84,85]. This makes it suitable for various scenarios, including in vitro solution conjugation, live cell labeling [86], and in vivo drug delivery [87], while avoiding the copper toxicity issue associated with CuAAC. In drug delivery, SPAAC is widely used for carrier functionalization and targeted delivery. For instance, groups like dibenzocyclooctyne (DBCO) and BCN are modified onto the surface of nanocarriers such as liposomes, polymeric micelles [88], and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) [47]. These then react with azide-modified targeting ligands (e.g., RGD peptides, folic acid, aptamers) or azide groups metabolically labeled on the surface of tumor cells, achieving active targeting and accumulation of drugs. It is also employed for site-specific modification of ADCs [[89], [90], [91]]. By reacting with azide-modified antibodies or drugs, it can produce ADCs with higher homogeneity, and the conjugation process has minimal impact on antibody binding activity. However, SPAAC has inherent limitations. Some reaction reagents have insufficient stability; for example, azide groups are prone to reduction, and BCN is susceptible to degradation under acidic conditions [54,92]. Hydrophobic cyclic structures of cyclooctyne derivatives like DBCO can lead to non-specific binding with blood proteins and aggregation, affecting the carrier's pharmacokinetics [93,94].

Jeong et al. overcame the core limitations of the SPAAC reaction by combining Signal Amplification by Reversible Exchange (SABRE) technology with benchtop Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR): Addressing the challenge that SPAAC reactions in low-concentration systems are difficult to monitor in real time due to weak substrate signals and insufficient sensitivity of traditional NMR detection, they utilized SABRE technology to hyperpolarize azide or alkyne substrates in the reaction system. This significantly enhanced the NMR signal intensity of substrates at low concentrations, enabling real-time and precise tracking of the SPAAC reaction progress. Meanwhile, based on this real-time monitoring method, the reaction intermediates and byproduct formation trends can be dynamically captured, providing data support for optimizing reaction conditions (such as substrate ratio and reaction temperature) and effectively reducing the generation of byproducts. Ultimately, this improved the reaction controllability and efficiency of SPAAC in scenarios such as the synthesis of triazole-containing drugs [95].

2.3. IEDDA

The inverse electron-demand Diels-Alder (IEDDA) reaction, a hallmark of copper-free click chemistry [96], is characterized by its exceptionally fast reaction kinetics [92,97], primarily driven by the efficient coupling achieved through the pairing of tetrazines (Tz) with strained alkenes, such as trans-cyclooctene (TCO), or strained alkynes. This reaction exhibits second-order rate constants that can reach 103-106 L/(mol·s) [98], enabling efficient in situ reactions in vivo at low to mid-micromolar concentrations, without the need for catalysts, and demonstrating excellent biocompatibility [99,100]. Its versatility makes it highly applicable in drug delivery [51], with a diverse range of functionalities: It facilitates direct conjugation, such as active targeting achieved by reacting TCO- or tetrazine-modified carriers with targeting ligands [48,100]; its more critical role involves triggering drug release [101], where the tetrazine-TCO reaction, accompanied by chemical bond cleavage, allows for the release of chemotherapeutic drugs like doxorubicin (DOX) via mechanisms like allylic elimination or lactonization, or the release of carbonyl sulfide (COS) through the decomposition of thiocarbamates followed by conversion to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) signaling molecules [102]; and the construction of “click-release-fluorescence” systems for real-time drug release tracking [103].

Drawing on these advantageous properties, Y. Tian et al. [104]designed an active targeted drug delivery system based on the IEDDA click chemical reaction: the tetrazine-functionalized aggregation-induced emission photosensitizer TzPS5 was conjugated with cyclic Arg-Gly-Asp (cRGD) peptide to obtain TzPS5-cRGD, enabling it to actively target αᵥβ3 integrin highly expressed on the surface of tumor cells, and then combined with TCO-modified chemotherapeutic prodrug DOX-TCO. This system achieves in situ co-activation of the photosensitizer and prodrug via the IEDDA reaction, producing synergistic chemo-photodynamic therapeutic effects under light irradiation. It significantly inhibits the growth of primary and distant tumors, blocks pulmonary metastasis, reduces the toxic side effects of DOX used alone, and improves therapeutic safety.

Despite these advantages, IEDDA faces limitations: the reaction reagents lack sufficient stability, as tetrazines are prone to in vivo degradation by reducing agents, and TCO exhibits cis-trans isomerization issues [97]; some reaction systems rely on hydrophobic interactions for acceleration, leading to restricted controllability in complex biological environments [105].

2.4. Thiol-ene click reaction

The thiol-ene click reaction is a class of highly efficient click reactions employing thiol (-SH) and alkene (C=C) functional groups as reaction partners [106]. It proceeds primarily via a radical-mediated addition-chain transfer mechanism, though some variations can occur through nucleophilic addition pathways like thiol-Michael addition [107,108]. Its core characteristics include high yields, mild reaction conditions, insensitivity to oxygen and water, and excellent functional group tolerance [109]. The radical mechanism is often initiated by UV light or thermal initiators, where thiyl radicals undergo specific reactions with alkenes to form stable C-S-C bonds; electron-rich alkenes and strained alkenes exhibit significantly higher reactivity than electron-deficient alkenes [107]. Thiol-Michael addition, conversely, targets electron-deficient alkenes and proceeds rapidly under the catalysis of amine or phosphine bases. Recently, Chen et al. [110] employed a solvent-free, high-viscosity environmental control strategy to conduct a photoinitiated thiol-ene click reaction between a linear acrylate polymer bearing thiol side chains and a small-molecule diene containing a thioester group. This approach leveraged the restriction of segmental chain motion to suppress radical termination reactions between the polymer radicals, thereby extending their lifespan. In the fields of nanomedicine and materials science [111], this reaction finds extensive applications: it can be used for the preparation and crosslinking of polymeric carriers [112], such as constructing hydrogels and core-crosslinked nanomicelles through polymerization of thiols with vinyl monomers, or for surface functionalization of materials like poly(divinylbenzene) microspheres and cellulose nanocrystals to introduce targeting ligands, drugs, or imaging molecules. It also enables the conjugation of carriers with biomolecules [108], for instance, by linking thiol-modified proteins or peptides to alkene-functionalized nanocarriers, with minimal impact on the bioactivity of the biomolecules during the conjugation process.

Civril et al. [113] efficiently coupled the thiol-containing cyclic peptide ligand cRGDfC with a maleimide-terminated PEG-PLA block copolymer (Mal-PEG-PLA) via a thiol-maleimide click reaction. This successfully yielded polymeric micellar carriers targeting integrin receptors. This reaction, requiring no metal catalysts, proceeds under mild conditions with high specificity, enabling the precise linkage of the targeting ligand to the carrier in organic media. Following modification, the resulting carriers retained robust self-assembly capability and structural stability. The formed targeted carriers significantly enhanced cellular uptake efficiency in SKOV-3 ovarian cancer cells, which highly overexpress integrin receptors. Consequently, this improved uptake synergistically enhanced the antitumor activity of loaded agents, such as docetaxel and combretastatin A4, while maintaining high drug loading efficiency.

2.5. SuFEx

Sulfur(VI) Fluoride Exchange (SuFEx) is a new generation click chemistry reaction proposed by the Sharpless group in 2014 [114]. Utilizing sulfur(VI) fluorides as the core reactive unit, it achieves efficient molecular coupling through the selective exchange of sulfur-fluorine (S-F) bonds [115]. Key features include modularity, mild reaction conditions, high yields, and broad functional group tolerance [116]. Notably, it requires no metal catalysts and exhibits excellent biocompatibility [117]. The reaction mechanism relies on the activation and departure of fluoride ions under specific conditions, often catalyzed by bases such as triethylamine, DBU, or difluorides [118]. Molecular linkages are formed through stable covalent bonds, including sulfur-oxygen (S-O) and sulfur-nitrogen (S-N) bonds. Some reactions can achieve high-level second-order rate constants. Within the SuFEx reaction system, a diverse array of “molecular plug-ins” is available, including sulfonyl fluorides (R-SO2F), sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2), thionyl tetrafluoride (SOF4), vinyl sulfonyl fluoride (ESF), and 1-bromoethyl sulfonyl fluoride (BESF) [119,120]. Among these, SOF4 can construct three-dimensional products, overcoming the limitations of traditional planar linkages, while ESF combines SuFEx reactivity with Michael addition activity, enabling multiple functionalizations [121]. In the biomedical field (Bio-SuFEx), sulfonyl fluoride probes are employed for protein labeling and activity analysis [122]. Fluorosulfate derivatives can enhance drug activity, and precise modification of ADCs is achievable [123].

Beyond its application in constructing precisely modifiable drug delivery systems—where Hoveyda et al. [124] developed a click chemistry strategy based on bisphosphine-copper-catalyzed phenoxydiazaborinine formation (CuPDF) and copper-palladium-catalyzed quinoline formation (Cu/PdQNF), and synergistically combined it with the SuFEx reaction to construct an active targeted drug delivery system. In this system, CuPDF enables the ligation and in situ modification of cyano-containing substrates with drugs and targeting moieties, generating tunable fluorescent linkers; Cu/PdQNF accomplishes modification in aqueous media, and both are orthogonal to CuAAC and SuFEx. The system can synthesize single-drug and dual-drug conjugates targeting cyclic peptides (such as cilengitide analogs). The fluorescent linkers allow tracking of the delivery pathway, and chemoselective modification capabilities enable precise drug conjugation and release, enhancing the targeting and therapeutic precision of the delivery system.

2.6. SeNEx

The Selenium-Nitrogen Exchange (SeNEx) reaction is a novel click chemistry modality inspired by the biochemical reaction between Ebselen and cysteine residues [55]. This reaction centers on an electrophilic Selenium(II) species as the core reaction unit, facilitating flexible and efficient molecular conjugation through the selective exchange of the Se–N bond, resulting in the formation of a stable Se–C bond. Key characteristics of SeNEx include modularity, predictability, rapid kinetics (second-order rate constants, k2 ≥ 14.43 M−1 s−1),mild reaction conditions, and excellent functional group tolerance. While catalysts such as Silver(I) or Copper(I) can be employed, metal-free catalytic variants with good biocompatibility have also been developed [56]. The SeNEx reaction system accommodates various “molecular plugs,” including selenium sources such as benzoselenazolone (BSEA) and benzothiaselenazol-1-oxide (BTSA), which react with different nucleophiles to form C (sp2)-Se or C (sp)-Se bonds. In the biomedical field, SeNEx enables the nanomolar-scale parallel synthesis of selenium-containing natural product libraries and DNA-encoded libraries (SeDELs). It is widely utilized in the late-stage modification and ligation of peptides, multifunctionalization of proteins, and the synthesis of seleno-macrocycles, thereby providing a powerful tool for drug discovery and chemical biology research [57].

3. Click chemistry in the construction of actively targeted drug delivery systems

Click chemistry is utilized for the construction of active targeting DDSs through in vitro and in vivo strategies. The in vitro strategy utilizes organic, inorganic, and bio-based carrier materials as platforms. Click reaction groups such as azides (N3) are modified onto their surfaces, while complementary click groups like DBCO and TCO are conjugated to targeting agents, including targeting ligands and drug precursors. Click chemistry is then employed for the efficient coupling of the carrier with these targeting agents. The in vivo strategy relies on the synergistic action of metabolic engineering and click chemistry. First, bioorthogonal click group precursors, such as N3, are introduced into the body via local injection or systemic delivery mediated by nanocarriers. These precursors are integrated into cell membrane structures of target cells (e.g., cancer cells, bacteria) through their inherent metabolic pathways, enabling specific display of bioorthogonal groups on the target cell surface. Subsequently, drug-loaded nanocarrier systems modified with complementary click groups are administered intravenously. Through copper-free click reactions (e.g., SPAAC, IEDDA), covalent bonds are formed between the nanocarrier system and the bioorthogonal groups on the target cell surface, achieving drug enrichment and retention at the target site. This effectively addresses issues in traditional delivery systems, such as poor tumor penetration and off-target distribution.

3.1. In vitro strategy: click reaction for coupling targeting agents to carriers

Utilizing diverse carrier materials as platforms, click-reactive groups such as N3 are modified onto their surfaces. Simultaneously, complementary click groups (e.g., DBCO, TCO, TZ) are conjugated to targeting agents, including targeting ligands and drug precursors. Click chemistry is then employed to achieve efficient coupling between the carrier material and the targeting agents. The selection of targeting agents is dictated by the intended application; for instance, targeting agents can impart tumor or specific organ targeting capabilities to carriers, while drug precursors enable in situ assembly of active drugs at the disease site. Commonly used targeting agents encompass diverse types, including natural polysaccharides, vitamin derivatives, bioactive polypeptides, and specific antibodies. Among these, hyaluronic acid (HA), folic acid (FA), polypeptides (e.g., RGD peptide, cell-penetrating peptides CPPs), and antibodies (e.g., anti-HER2 antibody, anti-EGFR antibody) have emerged as key targeting agents with significant clinical translation potential due to their high specificity, good biocompatibility, and well-defined targeting mechanisms. Optimization of the click group ratio and reaction conditions is crucial to balance coupling efficiency, carrier stability, and targeting agent activity. Ultimately, this approach yields DDSs that possess targeting ability, stability, and biocompatibility, laying the foundation for applications such as precision drug delivery or protein degradation.

3.1.1. Organic material carrier

DDSs based on organic materials have significantly improved drug targeting efficiency and clinical applicability through the innovative design of biocompatible and biodegradable materials [125,126]. These systems are primarily based on core materials such as liposomes, nanomicelles, and nanogels. Through material functionalization and structural optimization, these systems have addressed limitations associated with traditional drug delivery, such as poor permeability, short half-lives, and systemic toxicity, and have been widely applied in areas including cancer chemotherapy, gene therapy, and diagnostic imaging, with ongoing efforts to advance towards intelligent and multifunctional designs [[127], [128], [129], [130], [131]]. When employing click chemistry with organic carriers such as liposomes or nanomicelles, critical considerations include the aggregation of carriers and non-specific binding to blood proteins resulting from the hydrophobicity of the click reagents [132], as well as the compatibility between or enzyme-responsive linkers and the click reaction itself [133], which must be managed to prevent compromising drug encapsulation efficiency and in vivo circulation stability [134]. In general, this review synthesizes the content of constructing active targeting DDSs by conjugating targeting agents to organic carrier via click chemistry reactions, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of click chemistry in Organic Carrier.

Type of DDSs Click reaction Deliver the load Targeted area Purpose Ref
Liposome CuAAC siRNA
HA
Subcutaneous tumor Covalent attachment of HA to the surface of cationic liposomes 146
SPAAC Glycophorin A(GPA)antibody
PECAM antibody
ICAM-1 antibody
Endothelial cells
RBCs
The two antibodies are covalently attached to the liposome 147
IEDDA
Thiol-maleimide
ALK ligand precursor (W4)
CRBN ligand precursor (Z2)
Targeting peptide cRGD
Subcutaneous tumor Realization of in vivo in situ assembly of PROTACs 148
Nanomicelle Thiol-maleimide Cisplatin
Thiolated Collagenase
Subcutaneous tumor Attachment of thiolated collagenase to maleimide moieties on the surface of nanocarriers 154
CuAAC IR780 iodide Subcutaneous tumor Building molecular brushes with precise structures 155
Thiol-ene DOX Subcutaneous tumor Introduction of functional groups into the main chain of PJL polymers 156
Amine-epoxy PTX
Ce6
Subcutaneous tumor Construction of the main chain structure of the polymer HBPMT 157
Nanogel Thiol-ene Michael Addition FITC - Dextran Construction of photoresponsive hydrogel networks 163
Thiol-ene CIP
NB
Wound area Building hydrogel networks 164
CuAAC DOX cRGD peptide Glioblastoma Formation of nanogels from functionalized PVA through chemical bonding 166
SPAAC DOX Subcutaneous tumor Constructing crosslinked networks for nanogels 167
Thiol-ene MET
DOX
Colorectal cancer tumor tissue Cross-linking of HA-SH, SA-SH and PEG-acr 168
3.1.1.1. Liposome

Liposomes are spherical, artificial vesicles composed of a lipid bilayer, capable of encapsulating both hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances [135]. Their basic structure comprises an aqueous core for drug encapsulation and a lipid bilayer composed of phospholipid molecules, with the hydrophobic tails oriented inward and the hydrophilic heads oriented outward, forming a stable vesicular structure [136,137]. Liposome-based drug delivery systems effectively protect drugs from the influence of the in vivo environment, enhancing drug stability and bioavailability [10,138]. They achieve passive targeting through enhanced permeability and retention effect in tumor vasculature, or active targeting by conjugating targeting molecules such as antibodies or folic acid to facilitate receptor-mediated recognition on tumor cell surfaces, enabling targeted drug delivery, reducing drug distribution in non-target tissues, and lowering toxicity [[139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]]. Click chemistry can be employed for the surface modification and targeting ligand conjugation of lipid nanoparticles through various highly efficient and specific reactions. Furthermore, it can be synergistically combined with combinatorial chemistry and barcoding techniques to optimize formulations and enhance the efficacy of RNA delivery [145].

Mo et al. [146] employed the CuAAC reaction as the core strategy. They used azide-modified cholesterol (Chol-N3) and alkyne-modified hyaluronic acid (alk-HA) as click modules. Initially, cationic liposomes and siRNA were physically assembled through electrostatic interactions to form RSC complexes. Subsequently, the alk-HA was chemically conjugated to the surface of the RSC complexes via click reaction to yield RSC-HA nanocarriers. HA serves as an active targeting ligand, specifically binding to the overexpressed CD44 receptors on the surface of tumor cells, thereby enabling targeted delivery to tumors. Concurrently, the chemically conjugated HA effectively shields the positive charge of the nanocarrier, enhancing blood circulation stability. Moreover, it can be synergistically degraded by tumor cell-associated hyaluronidase (HAase) and glutathione (GSH), triggering siRNA release to amplify gene silencing efficacy. This approach effectively addresses the trade-offs between cationic carrier toxicity, siRNA binding efficiency, and stability.

Ferguson et al. [147] developed the DART (Dual-Affinity Red blood cell and Target cell) active targeting drug delivery system. Its construction relies on SPAAC click reaction: azide-functionalized PEGylated liposomes were coupled with DBCO-modified monoclonal antibodies (targeting red blood cell GPA and lung endothelial cells PECAM/ICAM, respectively) to produce dual-targeted liposomes (DTs) (Fig. 1B and C). Following intravenous administration via red blood cell hitchhiking (RH) in mice, the anti-RBC antibody initially binds to erythrocytes. Upon reaching the pulmonary capillary bed, the endothelial-targeting antibody binds to target cell epitopes, facilitating liposome transfer (Fig. 1A). This system achieved 65% injected dose accumulation in the lungs within 30 min in mice, which is 650-fold higher than free drugs and over 2-fold higher than the ET-RH system (Fig. 1D). Furthermore, its targeting selectivity to endothelial cells was 6-fold greater than that of localized leukocytes. Efficient targeting was also observed in an ex vivo human lung perfusion model, with no significant complement activation and no apparent abnormalities in cardiopulmonary function or tissue structure, indicating good safety.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

DART more than doubles the efficiency of organ-targeting compared to targeting via affinity-ligands-only and RBC hitchhiking. (A) Goal mechanism of DART. (B) DART liposome components. (C) Nomenclature for DART, predicate technologies, and controls. (D) The percentage of injected dose (% ID) of different types of liposomes. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [147]. Copyright 2022 American Chemical Society.

Xie et al. [148] developed the Nano-CLIPTACs active targeting drug delivery system, which integrates click chemistry and targeted delivery technologies. First, traditional PROTACs were disassembled into a TCO-containing ALK ligand precursor (W4) and a TZ-modified CRBN ligand precursor (Z2). These precursors were then assembled in situ via an IEDDA click reaction (Fig. 2A). Subsequently, both precursors were individually encapsulated within cRGD-modified liposomes (Fig. 2B). Active targeting was achieved through the specific binding of cRGD to the highly expressed integrin αvβ3 on tumor cell surfaces (Fig. 2C). In H3122 cells, this system efficiently assembled into functional PROTACs (WZ42), achieving an ALK degradation DC50 of 175.37 ± 53.24 nM without exhibiting a ‘hook effect.’ In animal models, the concentration of WZ42 at tumor sites was 30-fold higher compared to the non-encapsulated group, resulting in a tumor growth inhibition rate of 77.4%. Furthermore, the system demonstrated low toxicity to normal organs, indicating good safety.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Schematic illustration of the Nano-CLIPTACs strategy for tumor specific protein degradation. (A) Bioorthogonal reaction-enabled self-assembly. (B) Preparation scheme of POI-TCO@cRGD-LPs and POM-TZ@cRGD-LPs. (C) Proposed degradation pathway of POI from Nano-CLIPTACs therapy in vivo.Reprinted with permission from Ref. [148]. Copyright 2024 Wiley.

3.1.1.2. Nanomicelle

Nanomicelles are core-shell structured nanoparticles formed by the self-assembly of amphiphilic block copolymers [149]. Their hydrophobic core can efficiently encapsulate poorly water-soluble drugs, such as paclitaxel and docetaxel, while the hydrophilic shell extends blood circulation time and prevents immune clearance through steric hindrance [[150], [151], [152]]. Click reactions enable the efficient conjugation of a wide variety of targeting ligands at distinct sites on the micelle surface (e.g., chain ends, side chains, or post-micelle self-assembly) [153]. This process simultaneously preserves both the biological activity of the conjugated ligands and the structural integrity of the micelles. Xu et al. [154] developed a size-tunable collagenase-modified nano-scavenger (CS/Col-TCPPB NPs) for active targeting drug delivery. Its construction utilizes ‘click’ chemistry: first, TCPPB micelles with maleimide end-groups were formed via self-assembly. Subsequently, a ‘click’ reaction between thiol-modified collagenase and the maleimide groups on the micelle surface was employed for conjugation, followed by encapsulation with chondroitin sulfate to obtain the system (Fig. 3A). This system protects collagenase activity via chondroitin sulfate (Fig. 3B). In the acidic tumor microenvironment, some collagenase-containing components dissolve and degrade collagen fibers to enhance penetration. The remaining components cause the nanoparticles to swell to approximately 250 nm, thereby increasing retention. Concurrently, it utilizes TPP for targeted mitochondrial release of cisplatin. In a 4T1 tumor model, platinum (Pt) accumulation at the tumor site reached 15.03 ± 0.83 % ID/g, which is 20.2-fold higher than free cisplatin, resulting in a tumor growth inhibition rate of 94.6%. Furthermore, no significant hepatorenal toxicity was observed, indicating good safety.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The size-changeable collagenase-modified nanoscavenger prompting penetration and retention of nanomedicine in deep tumor tissue. (A) Fabrication of CS/Col-TCPPB NPs, as well as the size of the NPs increased and the collagenase containing components was dissolved out in response to the acidic pH. (B) Schematic illustration of the accumulation of NPs in tumor. In deep tumor tissues, under the combined action of collagenase digestion of collagen fibers and particle size increasing, the penetration and retention of nanomedicines are increased significantly; in tumor cells, the NPs can specifically target mitochondria and release the cisplatin drugs into mitochondria, causing a destruction of mitochondrial DNA. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [154]. Copyright 2020 Wiley.

Li et al. [155] constructed a morphology-tunable molecular brush (MBB) active targeting drug delivery system using CuAAC click chemistry. The system features a poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA) backbone containing alkyne groups. Through a click reaction, azide-modified PEG-b-PtBA (poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(tert-butyl acrylate)) side chains were coupled to the backbone. Subsequent hydrolysis yielded core-shell unimolecular micelles with spherical, rod-like, or worm-like morphologies, used for loading the photothermal agent IR780. Among these, the rod-like MBB (B122-IR780) demonstrated optimal performance, achieving an IR780 loading capacity of approximately 25% and maintaining an unimolecular state without aggregation in media containing serum. It exhibited superior cellular uptake efficiency by MCF-7 cells and enhanced penetration into 3D spheroids in vitro. In vivo, tumor accumulation of the rod-like MBB was significantly higher than that of the spherical and worm-like MBBs and free IR780. Upon irradiation with an 808 nm laser, the tumor temperature reached 55.6 °C, effectively inhibiting tumor growth. Furthermore, no significant toxicity to major organs was observed.

Bansal et al. [156] constructed a stimulus-responsive drug delivery system based on renewable jasminellalide using UV-mediated thiol-ene click chemistry. First, a thiol-ene responsive amphiphilic block copolymer, mPEG-b-PJL (poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(jasminellalide)), was synthesized via ring-opening polymerization, yielding a polymer with olefinic functionalities. Subsequently, thiol-containing compounds were modified onto the copolymer backbone through a click reaction, producing derivatives with functional groups such as hydroxyl and carboxyl groups. The hydroxyl-modified product, mPEG-b-PJL-OH, was then coupled with DOX via a redox-responsive disulfide bond to obtain PJL-DOX, which self-assembled into micelles approximately 150 nm in size (Fig. 4A). This system triggered DOX release in tumor cells (MDA-MB-231) in the presence of 10 mM GSH. After 24 h of incubation, fluorescence intensity significantly increased, and cytotoxicity was markedly enhanced (Fig. 4B). The carrier itself exhibited good biocompatibility, providing an effective platform for precise tumor therapy.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

(A) Schematic diagram of the preparation and overall evaluation of stimuli-responsive DDS. (B) Functional verification experiments of micelles. (a) Reduction-responsive drug release curve. (b) Cell proliferation inhibition experiment. (c) Cytotoxicity (MF value) detection. (d) Cell Uptake and Drug Distribution Imaging. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [156]. Copyright 2021 Wiley.

Wang et al. [157] utilized amine-epoxy click chemistry to synthesize a sulfur-containing amphiphilic hyperbranched polymer (HBPMT) from monomers MTPA and TMPTGE. This polymer self-assembled into stable micelles for co-loading of PTX (paclitaxel) and Ce6 (chlorin e6) (Fig. 5). This constructed a ROS-responsive DDSs. Under 660 nm laser irradiation, Ce6 generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that oxidize the thioether linkages, triggering micelle disassembly. After 24 h, PTX release reached 74.8%, exhibiting significant inhibition of MCF-7 cell proliferation. This achieved synergistic chemotherapy-photodynamic therapy, and the carrier demonstrated good biocompatibility.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Synthetic route of amphiphilic hyperbranched polymer HBPMT and schematic illustration for preparation of (photosensitizer and drug)‐loaded micelles (Ce6&PTX@HBPMT) and light‐triggered drug release. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [157]. Copyright 2022 Wiley.

3.1.1.3. Nanogel

Nanogels are cross-linked hydrogel particles with nanoscale dimensions (typically 20-250 nm), characterized by high water content, tunable size, large surface area, and abundant space for accommodating bioactive molecules [158]. Their small size, good biocompatibility, and tunable release properties make nanogels ideal carriers for drug delivery [[159], [160], [161], [162]].

Pelloth et al. [163] constructed a wavelength-selective responsive hydrogel drug delivery system using Michael thiol-ene click chemistry. An 8-arm PEG-thiol served as the matrix. Three photo-sensitive chromophores with acrylate groups, each absorbing at specific wavelengths (320 nm for DMAB, 365 nm for o-NB, and 420 nm for benzil), were used as crosslinkers. These were crosslinked via click reaction to form a hydrogel network. This system can sequentially degrade crosslinking bonds upon irradiation with specific wavelengths of light, enabling stepwise softening of the hydrogel and mesh size control (increasing from approximately 5 nm to 8 nm) (Fig. 6). Furthermore, mechanical properties can be precisely tuned based on the chromophore ratio. The material and its photodegradation process exhibited extremely low cytotoxicity to pre-osteoblast cells (viability >90%). It can also modulate cell spreading behavior through softening, providing an efficient platform for precise drug release and biomaterial engineering.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Schematic of wavelength-selective hydrogel softening: 8-arm PEG-thiol as matrix, three chromophores (aminobenzene, o-NB, bimane; 320/365/420 nm-responsive) as acrylate linkers, gelled via Michael addition and stepwise degraded by specific wavelengths. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [163]. Copyright 2021 American Chemical Society.

Fan et al. [164] constructed a dendrimeric hybrid hydrogel drug delivery system for antibiotic co-delivery using thiol-ene click chemistry. First, allyl-functionalized hyperbranched dendrimer-linear-dendrimer copolymers (HBDLDs) were crosslinked with a thiol crosslinker via a click reaction to prepare dendritic nanogels (DNGs) loaded with the hydrophobic antibiotic ciprofloxacin (CIP) (Fig. 7A). Subsequently, these DNGs-CIP were combined with HBDLDs and thiol-terminated PEG, followed by UV-curing via click reaction to form a hybrid hydrogel (Fig. 7B). Finally, hydrophilic antibiotic neomycin sodium salt (NB) was loaded by diffusion (Fig. 7C). The system's elasticity is tunable (2-14.7 kPa, matching human skin). It achieved rapid release of NB (over 87% released within 4 h) and sustained release of CIP (reaching maximum release at 48 h). In an in vitro infection model, bacterial reduction in HaCaT and human dermal fibroblast cells reached 99% and 97%, respectively. The resulting antibacterial wound dressing exhibited superior antibacterial activity compared to commercial products, promoted skin cell proliferation, and degraded into non-toxic components, demonstrating excellent biocompatibility. Shen et al. [165] similarly utilized reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization technology to prepare functional polymers, subsequently constructing biocompatible composite nanosystems through the interaction between the polymers and nanomaterials.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Schematic of synthesis: (A) Allyl-terminated HBDLDs; (B) Post-functionalized dendritic nanogels (DNGs) with CIP loaded in hydrophobic cores; (C) Hybrid hydrogels containing hydrophobic/hydrophilic antibiotics. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [164]. Copyright 2020 Wiley.

Wei Chen et al. [166] constructed a cyclic RGD-modified, reduction-responsive, active targeting drug delivery system utilizing CuAAC-like click chemistry. Starting with carboxyl/alkyne-functionalized and azide-functionalized PVA (poly(vinyl alcohol)), they prepared disulfide-containing nanogels (SS-NGs) via an inverse suspension precipitation method in acetone using propargyl alcohol as a terminator and click reaction. Subsequently, cyclic RGD peptides were coupled to obtain cRGD-SS-NGs. This system can target U87-MG cells overexpressing αᵥβ3 integrins and rapidly release drugs under intracellular stimuli. In vivo, tumor uptake reached 5.54% ID/g (8-fold higher than free DOX), effectively inhibiting tumor growth with lower side effects.

Gregor Nagel et al. [167] constructed a matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-sensitive, multi-stage nanogel active targeting drug delivery system using SPAAC click chemistry. A polyglycerol dendrimer with bicyclononyne (BCN) groups (dPG-BCN) served as the backbone. This was crosslinked with an MMP-sensitive fluorescent peptide crosslinker bearing azide groups at both ends via a SPAAC reaction, followed by inverse suspension precipitation to prepare peptide crosslinked nanogels (pNGs). Subsequently, DOX was coupled via a pH-sensitive linker to obtain pNG-DOX. This system, upon degradation by MMPs in the tumor microenvironment, reduced in size from over 200 nm to below 50 nm. Its penetration depth in agarose gels reached 8.9 mm (compared to only 2.5 mm for the non-degraded group), demonstrating significantly superior penetration in multicellular tumor spheroids compared to the non-degraded control.

group. It efficiently delivered DOX to deep tissue, reducing tumor spheroid ATP content to 22% of the control group, thereby achieving precise and efficient tumor drug delivery.

Shuang Xie et al. [168] constructed a size-tunable, active targeting drug delivery system using thiol-ene click chemistry (Fig. 8). Using thiol-modified hyaluronic acid (HA-SH) and thiol-modified sodium alginate (SA-SH) along with 4-arm polyethylene glycol acrylate (PEG-Acr) as raw materials, these were crosslinked via the click reaction in an inverse miniemulsion. This resulted in nanogels (HA@Met-f-ZIFa) loaded with DOX-carrying folate-modified zinc imidazole framework (f-ZIFa) and metronidazole (MET). In the tumor microenvironment, the system expands in size from 200 nm to 1500 nm upon degradation by hyaluronidase, prolonging retention. The gradually released f-ZIFa mediates tumor cell targeting via folate, and drugs are released under acidic conditions. The system extends the half-lives of MET and DOX by approximately 20-fold. DOX content in tumors was 6-fold higher than that of free drug, effectively clearing Fusobacterium nucleatum and inhibiting tumor growth. Mouse survival was significantly prolonged, with no apparent hepatorenal toxicity.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Illustration of the preparation process and antibacterial/anticancer mechanism of HA@Met-f-ZIFD NGs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [168]. Copyright 2023 Elsevier.

3.1.2. Inorganic carrier

DDSs based on inorganic materials utilize inorganic nanomaterials, such as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles (MSNs), as drug carriers due to their excellent physicochemical properties and biocompatibility. These nanocarriers enable effective drug delivery through various mechanisms, including passive and active targeting [169]. The high surface area and tunable pore structure of inorganic nanomaterials allow for efficient drug loading and controlled release [170,171]. Furthermore, these systems exhibit good stability and resistance to degradation, enabling them to maintain drug activity in vivo for extended periods, and are widely used in fields such as cancer therapy, gene therapy, and vaccine delivery [172]. Inorganic carriers, such as MOFs and MSNs, require attention to the influence of click reactions on their porous structure and surface active sites [173]. By optimizing the design of inorganic materials, researchers can improve drug bioavailability and targeting, thereby enhancing therapeutic efficacy and reducing side effects. In general, this review synthesizes the content of constructing active targeting drug delivery systems by conjugating targeting agents to inorganic carrier via click chemistry reactions, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of click chemistry in Inorganic Material Carrier.

Type of DDSs Click reaction Deliver the load Targeted area Purpose Ref
MOFs CuAAC DCA
Calcein
Subcutaneous tumor Covalent attachment of PEG chains to the surface of UiO-66 nanoparticles 179
CuAAC Resveratrol (Rsv) analogs Mitochondria in tumor cells In situ drug synthesis in mitochondria within tumor cells 180
CuAAC DOX Subcutaneous tumor Synthesis of DEX-ALN-PEG copolymers 181
CuAAC Photosensitizer (PS) precursor Mitochondria in tumor cells In situ synthesis of cancer cell-specific PS 182
MSNs Thiol-maleimide DOX Subcutaneous tumor Attachment of thiolated collagenase to maleimide moieties on the surface of nanocarriers 186
Thiol-ene Curcumin Subcutaneous tumor Construction of polymer-drug couplings with pH sensitivity 187
IEDDA Anti-CD11b antibody CD11b+ cells Achieve efficient binding of nanoparticles to immune cells 188
Thiol-ene DOX
Antimicrobial peptide
HHC36
Lung tumor cells Fix the AMP on the surface of the MSNs 189
3.1.2.1. MOF

MOFs are porous crystalline frameworks characterized by precisely controlled structures, immense diversity, and high porosity [174]. Owing to their well-defined crystalline structures and inherent porosity [175], MOFs are considered excellent templates for creating novel MOF-based composite materials. Likewise, their unique physicochemical properties make them particularly suitable for drug delivery applications, especially in targeted delivery and controlled release [[176], [177], [178]].

Forgan et al. [179] constructed a pH-responsive, active targeting drug delivery system using CuAAC click chemistry. Using UiO-66 nanoparticles functionalized with an azide-containing modulator (L1) as the carrier, alkyne-modified polyethylene glycol (PEG) was covalently grafted onto their surface via CuAAC reaction, yielding PEGylated UiO-66 nanocarriers (Fig. 9). This system exhibited enhanced stability under pH 7.4 conditions, with less than 30% drug release within 5 days, thus avoiding a ‘burst release effect.’ In the acidic tumor microenvironment (pH 5.5), nearly all the drug was released within 2 days. Furthermore, carriers modified with PEG2000 were internalized into HeLa cells via clathrin-mediated endocytosis, reducing lysosomal degradation. After loading dichloroacetic acid (DCA), the system demonstrated significant cytotoxicity at a concentration of 0.75 mg/mL, substantially enhancing therapeutic efficacy.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Click Modulation of UiO-66 MOFs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [179]. Copyright 2017 Elsevier.

Qu et al. [180] constructed a mitochondria-targeting, in situ drug synthesis delivery system using CuAAC click chemistry. A Zr-based MOF was loaded with ultrafine copper nanoparticles to produce MOF-Cu, which was then modified with the mitochondrial targeting group triphenylphosphine (TPP) to yield the MOF-Cu-TPP catalyst (Fig. 10A). This system can target and accumulate in the mitochondria of MCF-7 cells, catalyzing the in situ synthesis of an active resveratrol derivative drug (6) from inert azide/alkyne precursors (4 and 5). It can induce mitochondrial damage and oxidative stress, significantly increasing the apoptosis rate. The precursors themselves are non-cytotoxic. The system exhibited good biocompatibility in Caenorhabditis elegans and mouse models (Fig. 10B). The in situ synthesized drug showed superior antitumor efficacy compared to direct drug administration, maximizing therapeutic effect while minimizing toxic side effects.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

(A) Schematic diagrams of catalytic mechanisms and in-situ synthesis. (B) Bioactivity Validation of MOF-Cu-TPP (a) Cell-level experimental analysis. (b) Verification at the model organism level. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [180]. Copyright 2019 Wiley.

Giovanna Cutrone et al. [181] constructed a drug delivery system with an ‘invisible’ effect using CuAAC click chemistry. A dextran (DEX) backbone modified with propargyl carbamates (DEX-PC) was used. Through CuAAC reaction, azide-modified alendronate (ALN) and PEG were sequentially grafted, synthesizing a DEX-ALN-PEG comb-like copolymer. This copolymer was then non-covalently coated onto the surface of MIL-100 (Fe) nano MOFs via coordination between ALN and iron. This system could load DOX without affecting drug encapsulation and exhibited good stability in water and cell culture medium. It reduced human serum albumin (HSA) adsorption (to below 20 μg/mg) and significantly decreased macrophage uptake (only 24%-39% uptake within 4 h compared to the uncoated group), laying the foundation for enhanced drug delivery efficiency.

Wang et al. [182] constructed a cancer-cell-activated active targeted drug delivery system via CuAAC click reaction: Using Cu(II)-based MOF-199 as the carrier and Cu(I) catalyst precursor, they loaded two inert precursors (alkyne-modified TPA-alkyne-2+ and azide-modified MePy-N3), and prepared PMOF NPs by F-127 coating. Triggered by high concentrations of glutathione (GSH) in tumor cells, MOF-199 degrades to release the precursors, while Cu(II) is reduced to Cu(I) to catalyze the click reaction for synthesizing the mitochondria-targeting AIE photosensitizer TPATrzPy-3+. The synthesis yield of TPATrzPy-3+ reaches 70.5% in HeLa cells, which can efficiently generate ROS. Under light irradiation, it significantly increases the apoptosis rate of tumor cells. In the zebrafish tumor model, it achieves tumor-specific ablation with reduced phototoxicity, and the LC50 is 4 mM (much higher than 1 mM of direct administration).

3.1.2.2. MSN

MSNs are characterized by ordered mesopores (pore size 2–10 nm), high chemical stability, and readily modifiable surface silanol groups, enabling the simultaneous encapsulation of hydrophobic drugs (e.g., paclitaxel) and hydrophilic nucleic acids [[183], [184], [185]].

Cui et al. [186] constructed a pH-responsive active targeted drug delivery system via thiol-maleimide click reaction: Using thiolated poly(methacrylic acid) (PMAsh) as the carrier, they conjugated it with maleimide-modified doxorubicin (MAL-Dox) containing a pH-sensitive hydrazone bond through the click reaction to form PMAsh-Dox conjugates. The conjugates were infiltrated into mesoporous silica templates, followed by cross-linking of polymer chains and template removal to obtain drug-loaded particles (Fig. 11). The system is stable at physiological pH 7.2, with 80% drug release within 24 h at acidic pH 5.5. It has an IC50 of 28.5 nM against LIM1899 colorectal cancer cells (lower than 62.1 nM of free doxorubicin), can efficiently deliver drugs to cell nuclei and induce apoptosis, while the carrier itself shows no obvious cytotoxicity.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Schematic illustration of the modular assembly of drug-loaded polymer particles and pH-dependent drug release after endocytosis in a cancer cell. The structure of the polymer-drug conjugate is also shown. The labile hydrazone bond, which facilitates drug release, is shaded. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [186]. Copyright 2012 Wiley.

Xu et al. [187] constructed a self-fluorescent and stimuli-responsive drug delivery system via thiol-ene click reaction: Using large-pore mesoporous silica nanoparticles (LP) as the carrier, they anchored bis-acrylated curcumin as a "dual-function gating molecule" through the click reaction. After loading curcumin, the system was coated with F127 via self-assembly to obtain LPCC-C-F127. The system showed drug leakage below 20% at physiological pH 7.4 without GSH, and realized rapid drug release via β-thioester hydrolysis under tumor intracellular conditions (pH 5.5 and GSH). Curcumin served both as gating agent and fluorescent label; F127 coating enhanced the fluorescence intensity by 4.2 times and improved dispersibility. It reduced the viability of A549 cells to 48.8% at 200 μg/mL, achieving integration of imaging and therapy.

Lee et al. [188] constructed an immune cell-mediated active targeted drug delivery system via IEDDA click reaction: TCO-modified anti-CD11b antibodies and tetrazine (Tz)-functionalized doxorubicin (DOX)-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs-Tz) were intravenously injected sequentially, and MSNs-Tz were targeted to bind to the surface of CD11b+ myeloid cells through the click reaction (Fig. 12). The system delivers drugs to the avascular regions of tumors by virtue of the tumor-homing ability of CD11b+ cells, with its accumulation in avascular regions being 2-fold that of EPR effect-mediated delivery. In the 4T1 breast tumor model, it reduced tumor burden by approximately 50% without obvious hepatorenal function damage, showing significantly better therapeutic efficacy than free DOX and simple drug-loaded nanoparticles.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

A schematic representation of CRAIT strategy used to enhance tumor penetration of drug-loaded NPs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [188]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.

Ma et al. [189] constructed a GSH-responsive inhalable active targeted drug delivery system via thiol-ene click reaction (Fig. 13A): Using yolk-shell structured MSNs as the carrier (Fig. 13B), DOX was loaded by physical adsorption (Fig. 13C), and then thiol-modified antimicrobial peptide HHC36 was immobilized via thiol-ene click reaction to obtain MSN@DOX-AMP. After nebulized inhalation, the system can efficiently accumulate in the lungs, and rapidly release drugs under the action of high-concentration GSH in the tumor microenvironment. It achieves a 99.9% killing rate against intracellular and extracellular bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, and the inhibition rate against H1299 lung cancer cells is 13% higher than that of free DOX, while reversing the drug resistance of MCF-7/ADR cells. In the lung cancer-bacteria commensal mouse model, nebulized administration reduces the tumor volume by 95.4%, restores the alveolar area to 91.1% of the normal level, with no obvious hepatorenal toxicity.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13

Preparation of the dual-drug-delivery mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs). (A) Schematic illustration of the dual-drug-delivery MSNs. DOX was loaded by physical adsorption, and AMP was immobilized by thiol−ene click chemistry. (B) TEM images and EDS elemental mapping of the indicated drug delivery nanoparticles. The scale bar represents 100 nm. (C) Encapsulation ratios of DOX and AMP in the indicated nanoparticles. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [189]. Copyright 2023 American Chemical Society.

3.1.3. Bio-inspired carrier

Bioinspired nanodrug delivery systems, which mimic the structures, functions, or response mechanisms of biological entities, have significantly enhanced the precision and efficiency of drug delivery [190]. For example, biomimetic cell membrane-coated nanoparticles, by encapsulating natural cell membranes (e.g., erythrocyte membranes, tumor cell membranes, or bacterial membranes), provide carriers with immune evasion capabilities, prolonging their circulation time in vivo; and virus-like vectors, by mimicking the efficient invasion characteristics of viruses, are designed with nanostructures modified with targeting ligands, enhancing their recognition and internalization by specific cells. The application of click chemistry to Bio-inspired Carriers, such as exosomes or cell membrane-coated nanoparticles, necessitates ensuring biocompatibility [191]; for instance, when introducing azide groups via metabolic glycan engineering, the concentration of the precursor must be controlled to prevent cytotoxicity [192], and the click reaction must be designed to avoid disrupting the activity of membrane proteins or the immune evasion function of the carrier. In general, this review synthesizes the content of constructing active targeting drug delivery systems by conjugating targeting agents to bio-inspired carrier via click chemistry reactions, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of click chemistry in Bio-inspired Carrier.

Type of DDSs Click reaction Deliver the load Targeted area Purpose Ref
Viral-based SPAAC CpG adjuvant antigen peptideOVA257-280 Lung tumors OVA257–280 is covalently bound to influenza Virus 196
SPAAC IRT colorectal cancer The covalent coupling of A-phage and D-IDNPs was realized 197
Cell-based SPAAC CAR T cells Subcutaneous tumor Conjugation of CAR T cells with immunomagnetic beads 199
SPAAC c(RGPBNPsDyK) peptide
Curcumin
Ischemic brain injury area Covalent attachment of c(RGDyK) to the exosome surface 200
SPAAC SILY peptides Collagen area at the injury site SILY peptide is covalently bound to the surface of stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) 201
SPAAC Vascular-targeting peptide (DA7R) stem cell recruitment factor (SDF-1) Areas of ischemic brain damage Efficient attachment of DA7R peptide and SDF-1 factor to the surface of extracellular vesicles 202
Biomimetic SPAAC siRNA Subcutaneous tumor Attachment of RGD peptides to macrophage membranes 205
SPAAC BaTiO3 nanocubes colorectal cancer Modification of SAM@BTO nanoparticles onto the surface of VA cells 206
Thiol-ene Chondroitinase ABC
Insulin-like Growth Factor 1
Damaged brain tissue Fast and efficient construction of hydrogel networks 207
3.1.3.1. Viral-based carrier

Virus-based nanodrug delivery systems achieve efficient and controllable delivery functions by engineering the natural infection mechanisms of viral capsids, coupled with click chemistry-mediated targeting modifications and precise drug loading strategies [193].After modification with acid-sensitive peptides or enzyme-responsive linkers, viral capsids can trigger drug release in the tumor microenvironment. Through genetic engineering, researchers can construct replication-defective attenuated viral vectors, such as by introducing premature termination codons (PTCs), and utilize click chemistry to precisely modify the viral surface with bioactive molecules such as antigen peptides and adjuvants, thereby achieving efficient antigen delivery, immune response activation, and modulation of immunosuppressive microenvironments [194,195].

Ji et al. [196] constructed a lung-targeted cancer vaccine delivery system via SPAAC click reaction: Using an attenuated influenza virus (PTC virus) containing azide-bearing unnatural amino acid (NAEK) as the carrier, they covalently conjugated dibenzocyclooctyne (DBCO)-modified tumor antigen peptides (e.g., OVA257-280) to the virus surface through the click reaction, and then combined with cholesterol-modified CpG to obtain PAPV (Fig. 14A). After intranasal administration, the system accumulates in the lungs, with the antigen peptide uptake 200-fold higher than that of free peptides, the antigen presentation level of dendritic cells increased by 30-fold, and the number of antigen-specific CD8+T cells induced 30-fold that of the free peptide group. Compared with the wild-type influenza virus (WSN) group, the chimeric antigenic peptide influenza virus (PAPV) group showed no significant body weight loss in mice, with lung weight close to that of the control group (PBS) and no lung swelling (Fig. 14B). In the B16-F10 lung cancer metastasis model, it significantly reduces lung tumor foci; after combining with anti-PD-L1 nanobody, 10 out of 12 mice survive for more than 60 days without obvious lung toxicity (Fig. 14C).

Fig. 14.

Fig. 14

Generation and characterization of live but non-productive IAVs with chimeric antigenic peptides. (A) The construction principle of PAPV. (B) The left plot shows mouse body weight changes, the right plot detects cytokine levels in lung tissues. (C) Displays the number of lung tumor foci in the B16-F10 metastasis model across groups. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [196]. Copyright 2023 Springer Nature.

Zheng et al. [197] constructed an intestinal microbiota-regulating active targeted drug delivery system via SPAAC click reaction: Using azide-modified Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum)-specific phages (A-phages) as the targeting carrier, they covalently conjugated with DBCO-modified irinotecan (IRT)-loaded dextran nanoparticles (D-IDNPs) through the click reaction to form A-phage-D-IDNP complexes. After oral or intravenous administration, the system can target and bind to F. nucleatum in tumors for enrichment, with the intratumoral nanoparticle accumulation 3-fold higher than that of the non-targeted group. It can eliminate F. nucleatum (reducing the intratumoral colonization rate by 62.5%) and promote the proliferation of butyrate-producing bacteria (butyrate levels significantly increased). In the CT26 orthotopic colorectal cancer model, it achieves a tumor inhibition rate of 62%, extends the median survival of mice from 20 days to 42 days, and shows no obvious impact on the liver and kidney functions of piglets.

3.1.3.2. Cell-based carrier

Cell-based nanodrug delivery systems construct biomimetic delivery vehicles by leveraging the biocompatibility and targeting functions of naturally occurring cellular vesicles, such as exosomes or cell membrane-derived vesicles [198]. The native membrane proteins of cellular vesicles (e.g., CD47) confer a “self-marker” ability that enables them to evade immune recognition, while the endogenous membrane structure can efficiently penetrate the vascular barrier and tumor matrix. Furthermore, the vesicle's microenvironment-responsive lipid layer can controllably release drugs at the tumor site via pH- or enzyme-triggered mechanisms, and the intercellular communication properties can be utilized to deliver therapeutic components to deep tumor cells or metastatic lesions. These systems integrate the low toxicity, high penetration, and intelligent drug release properties of cellular vesicles, providing a biomimetic solution for precise co-delivery in complex pathological environments.

Tang et al. [199] constructed a magneto-acoustic sequentially actuated CAR-T cell microrobot-based active targeted drug delivery system via SPAAC click reaction: CAR-T cells were metabolically labeled with azide groups (N3-CAR T), then covalently conjugated with DBCO-modified anti-CD3/CD28 immunomagnetic beads through click reaction to obtain M-CAR Ts (Fig. 15). After being targeted to the peritumoral region by magnetic guidance, the system was driven by acoustic tweezers to penetrate deep into tumors, resulting in a 6.6-fold increase in accumulated exogenous CD8+ CAR-T cells compared with the non-actuated group. The immunomagnetic beads could in situ activate CAR-T cell proliferation and cytokine secretion. In the CD19-SPCA1 subcutaneous tumor model, it reduced tumor volume by 80%, achieved 100% survival rate of mice at 32 days, and showed no obvious hepatorenal toxicity.

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15

Schematic illustration of magnetic–acoustic sequentially actuated M-CAR Ts for programmable solid tumor targeting and enhanced immunotherapy. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [199]. Copyright 2023 Wiley.

Tian et al. [200] constructed a targeted drug delivery system for cerebral ischemia via SPAAC click reaction: Using mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes as the carrier, DBCO groups were conjugated to the exosome surface via DBCO-sulfo-NHS, and then combined with azide-modified c(RGDyK) peptide through click reaction to obtain cRGD-Exo. After loading curcumin (cRGD-Exo-cur), the system was intravenously administered, which could target integrin αᵥβ3 in the ischemic brain region, with the ipsilateral/contralateral fluorescence intensity ratio reaching 19, nearly 2-fold higher than that of unmodified exosomes. It significantly inhibited the expression of pro-inflammatory factors such as TNF-α and IL-1β, reduced the fluorescence intensity of activated microglia, decreased cell apoptosis, and showed no obvious hepatotoxicity.

Hao et al. [201] constructed a collagen-targeted extracellular vesicle (EV)-based active targeted drug delivery system via SPAAC click reaction: Using mesenchymal stem cell-derived EVs as the carrier, DBCO groups were conjugated to.

the EV surface via DBCO-sulfo-NHS, and then linked to azide-modified collagen-binding peptide SILY through click reaction to obtain SILY-Evs (Fig. 16A and B). After intramuscular injection, the system could target and bind to collagen in ischemic tissues (Fig. 16C). In the mouse hind limb ischemia model, its retention time was significantly prolonged (fluorescence signal still visible on day 7, while almost no signal in the unmodified EV group). It could promote M2 macrophage polarization, inhibit the expression of pro-inflammatory factors such as IFN-γ, increase the blood perfusion of ischemic sites by 40% and vascular volume by 35% compared with the unmodified EV group, accelerate muscle regeneration, and showed no obvious toxicity.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16

Preparation and characterization of SILY-EVs. (A) Schematic diagram of the study design. (B) Characterization of Physicochemical and Molecular Properties of EVs and SILY-EVs. (C) Verification of SILY-EVs Conjugation Effect. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [201]. Copyright 2022 Ivyspring.

Ruan et al. [202] constructed a targeted drug delivery system for central nervous system injuries via SPAAC click reaction: Using extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from M2 microglia as the carrier, DBCO groups were conjugated to the EVs surface via DBCO-PEG4-NHS, and then combined with azide-modified injured vascular targeting peptide DA7R and neural stem cell (NSCs)-recruiting factor SDF-1 through click reaction to obtain Dual-EV. After intravenous administration, the system could target vascular endothelial cells in the ischemic brain region, with the ipsilateral/contralateral fluorescence signal ratio significantly higher than that of unmodified EVs. It could recruit NSCs migration (migration rate 3.4-fold that of the control group) and induce their differentiation into neurons via miR-30b-3p et al. (Tuj1+ cells accounting for 9.4%). In the mouse ischemic stroke model, it reduced the cerebral infarct volume by approximately 79%, significantly decreased the neurological function score, and showed no obvious toxicity.

3.1.3.3. Biomimetic carrier

Bioinspired nanodrug delivery systems represent an emerging biomedical technology that designs and constructs biocompatible, targeted, and functionalized nanocarriers by mimicking natural nanostructures or biological processes within living organisms, such as intercellular communication and immune evasion mechanisms [203,204]. These systems utilize biomaterials or biomolecules as building blocks to precisely deliver drugs to diseased sites while evading immune system recognition and clearance, thereby enhancing drug therapeutic efficacy and safety.

Zhang et al. [205] constructed a tumor-targeted biomimetic magnetosome drug delivery system via SPAAC click reaction: Using superparamagnetic Fe3O4 nanoclusters (MNCs) as the core to load siRNA, they coated azide-modified macrophage membranes via electrostatic interaction, and then conjugated DBCO-modified RGD peptides to the membrane surface through click reaction to obtain R-M-MNCs (Fig. 17A). After intravenous administration, the system could target tumor cell integrin αᵥβ3 with magnetic field assistance, showing significantly higher accumulation in tumors than unmodified carriers (Fig. 17B). It could efficiently silence the hTERT gene (mRNA expression inhibited to below 15%), greatly reduce tumor volume in MCF-7 tumor-bearing mouse models, significantly improve mouse survival rate, and cause no obvious hepatorenal function damage (Fig. 17C).

Fig. 17.

Fig. 17

Characterization and performance of biomimetic magnetosome for siRNA delivery. (A) Schematic diagram of the construction principle and programmed delivery mechanism of MNC. (B) Characterization of MNC synthesis intermediates and verification of their effects at the cellular level. (C-) Verification of in vivo distribution and imaging application of MNC. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [205]. Copyright 2017 Wiley.

Fan et al. [206] constructed a targeted drug delivery system for colorectal cancer via SPAAC click reaction: Using Veillonella atypica (VA) as the carrier, after modification with azide-PEG4-NHS, it was conjugated with DBCO-modified Staphylococcus aureus membrane-coated barium titanate nanocubes (SAM@BTO) through click reaction to obtain VA-SAM@BTO. After oral administration, the system achieved dual targeting of colorectal cancer relying on the inflammatory targeting of SAM and hypoxic targeting of VA, with the fluorescence intensity at the tumor site 2.87-fold higher than that of the SAM@BTO group. Under ultrasonic stimulation, BTO catalyzed multiple reactions to generate ROS and CO, which synergized with VA to metabolize lactic acid, achieving a tumor inhibition rate of 90.36%. The proportion of M1-type macrophages increased from 11.4% to 28.5%, the proportion of CD8+ T cells significantly increased, and there was no obvious hepatorenal toxicity.

Xu et al. [207] constructed a targeted drug delivery system for intracerebral hemorrhage via thiol-ene click reaction (Fig. 18): Using thiolated gelatin (G-SH) and thiolated hyaluronan (HA-SH) as raw materials, they cross-linked with polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) through the click reaction to form a biomimetic hydrogel (GEL), which was loaded with chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). After injection, the system could target intracerebral hemorrhage lesions, efficiently scavenge reactive oxygen species via thiol groups (ROS scavenging rate over 97%), and regulate macrophage M2 polarization through the JAK2/STAT3 pathway. It could reduce glial scar formation (GFAP-positive area decreased by about 44% compared with the control group), promote the proliferation and migration of endogenous neural stem cells. In the mouse intracerebral hemorrhage model, it significantly improved the repair efficiency of neurons and myelin, enhanced cognitive and motor functions, and showed no obvious blood toxicity.

Fig. 18.

Fig. 18

Outline a combined strategy of brain neuroprotection and endogenous neuroregeneration for enhanced intracerebral hemorrhage treatment. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [207]. Copyright 2024 Elsevier.

3.2. In vivo strategy: in vivo dynamic targeting based on click chemistry

The in vivo strategy relies on the synergistic action of metabolic engineering and click chemistry to construct an in vivo dynamic active targeting drug delivery system, primarily focusing on the precise sequential achievement of ‘target labeling’ and ‘drug anchoring.’ In specific applications, this strategy is implemented in two sequential steps. The first step is the metabolic labeling phase: inert bioorthogonal click chemistry groups (e.g., azide N3) are introduced into the body through local injection or systemic delivery mediated by nanocarriers. These precursors are then taken up by target cells (such as cancer cells, bacteria, or immune cells) and integrated into their cell membrane structures, including glycoproteins, phospholipids, or glycans, via inherent cellular metabolic pathways, such as the sialic acid biosynthesis pathway or phospholipid synthesis pathway. Unnatural sugars bind to cell surface glycans through the glucose metabolic pathway. Lipid precursors are embedded in cell membranes through phospholipid synthesis pathways or lipid insertion. Functionalized amino acids bind to membrane proteins through protein synthesis pathways. This results in target cell surfaces efficiently and specifically displaying bioorthogonal groups without interfering with normal physiological functions. The second step is the click conjugation phase: after metabolic labeling is complete, drug-loaded nanocarrier systems modified with complementary inert click chemistry groups (e.g., dibenzocyclooctyne DBCO, trans-cyclooctene TCO, tetrazine Tz) are administered intravenously. Through copper-free click reactions (e.g., SPAAC, iEDDA), the drug-loaded systems form efficient and specific covalent bonds with the bioorthogonal groups on the target cell surfaces, achieving drug enrichment and retention at the target siteas, shown in Scheme 2. This strategy can enhance labeling selectivity by optimizing the delivery method of metabolic precursors and improve drug targeting efficiency by leveraging the high reaction rate of click chemistry [208,209]. It effectively addresses issues in traditional delivery systems, such as poor tumor penetration and off-target distribution, providing core technological support for precision cancer therapy, bacterial infection intervention, and immune modulation. In general, this review synthesizes the in vivo dynamic targeting DDSs based on click chemistry, as shown in Table 5.

Scheme 2.

Scheme 2

Illustration of the in vivo dynamic targeting based on click chemistry. First, metabolic precursors are internalized by cells. Second, the precursors participate in cellular metabolic processes. Third, bioorthogonal groups are displayed on the cell surface. Finally, cargo molecules are conjugated to cells via click reactions.

Table 5.

Summary of click chemistry-targeted DDSs.

Metabolic Precursor Group Click reaction Deliver the load Targeted area Purpose Ref
DSPE-PEG-N3 N3 SPAAC OVA257-264 peptide poly(I:C) adjuvant Lymph node microenvironment Achieving active lymph node targeting 187
AC3ManNAz N3 SPAAC Ferroptosis inducer RSL3
DHA
Subcutaneous tumor Toward specific labeling of tumor cells 188
Ac4ManNTz Tz IEDDA Dox
PROTACs(ARV771)
Subcutaneous tumor Achieve the specific "click-release" of TCO-modified prodrugs on the surface of tumor cells to activate drug activity 189
Ac3ManNAz-BO N3 SPAAC Necroptosis activator C6
NO
The surface of TCSCs Enable the specific coupling of DLip@NO/C6 with the artificial azide receptors introduced by glycoengineering on the surface of TCSCs 190
Ac4ManNAz N3 SPAAC Antimicrobial peptide LL37 Inflammatory sites caused by systemic infection Enable precise coupling of DBCO-LL37 with M24N3 cells at the inflammatory site 191

Qin et al. [210] developed an active targeting drug delivery system based on a two-step strategy via SPAAC reaction: First, DSPE–PEG–N3 was injected subcutaneously, which migrated to lymph nodes via the albumin RH mechanism and displayed azide groups on the surface of lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs); 24 h later, liposomes modified with DBCO and loaded with OVA257-264 peptide and poly(I:C) were injected, and the liposomes bound to the azide groups on LECs via SPAAC reaction to achieve lymph node accumulation (Fig. 19). This system enhanced the uptake rate of the vaccine by antigen-presenting cells, induced a stronger CD8+ T cell response, completely inhibited lung metastasis in a melanoma model, and increased the 60-day survival rate of mice by 100% compared with the group without azide targeting.

Fig. 19.

Fig. 19

Schematic illustration of the active lymph-node accumulation cancer vaccine system based on click chemistry. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [210]. Copyright 2021 Wiley.

Li et al. [211] developed an active targeting drug delivery system based on the SPAAC reaction: First, 8ArmPEG-SS-AC3ManNAz nanoassemblies were intravenously injected, which released AC3ManNAz under the action of high-concentration GSH in tumor cells, enabling tumor cells to express azide groups on their surface via metabolic glycoengineering; subsequently, DBCO-8ArmPEG-SS-DHA@RSL3 nanoassemblies loaded with ferroptosis inducer RSL3 and ferritinophagy initiator DHA were injected, and targeted delivery was achieved by binding to azide groups on the tumor cell surface via the SPAAC reaction (Fig. 20). In the 4T1 tumor model, this system reduced the final tumor volume to only about 140 mm3, prolonged the median survival of mice by 15 days compared with the PBS group, and showed no obvious systemic toxicity.

Fig. 20.

Fig. 20

Schematic illustration for the molecular structures of 8ArmPEG-SS-AC3ManNAz and DBCO-8ArmPEG-SS-DHA@RSL3 nanoassemblies and therapeutic mechanisms. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [211]. Copyright 2022 American Chemical Society.

Chen et al. [212] developed an active targeting drug delivery system based on the iEDDA reaction: First, tetraacetylated tetrazine mannosamine (Ac4ManNTz) was efficiently modified onto the surface of cancer cells via metabolic glycoengineering to construct tetrazine (Tz)-functionalized artificial receptors; subsequently, Tz-labeled cancer cells specifically bound to TCO-caged prodrugs (e.g., DOX, ARV771) through the iEDDA reaction, enabling local activation of prodrugs and release of active drugs. This system enhanced the selectivity of TCO-doxorubicin by 10-fold compared to unlabeled cells, and could degrade approximately 80% of BRD4 protein at a TCO-ARV771 concentration of 100 nmol/L, significantly improving the precision and safety of tumor-targeted therapy.

Li et al. [213] developed an active targeting drug delivery system based on the strain-promoted SPAAC reaction: First, triacetylated N-azidoacetyl-D-mannosamine with ROS-responsive boronic ester group (Ac3ManNAz-BO) was loaded into PEGylated liposomes (PLip@Ac3M), and azide artificial receptors were expressed on the surface of triple-negative breast cancer stem cells (TCSCs) via metabolic glycoengineering; subsequently, liposomes modified with DBCOand loaded with necroptosis activator C6 and NO prodrug (DLip@NO/C6) were injected, which targeted and bound to TCSCs via the SPAAC reaction (Fig. 21A). This system reduced the final tumor volume to only about 22.9 mm3 (Fig. 21B), increased the tumor infiltration rate of CD8+ T cells by 16.88% (Fig. 21C), effectively inhibited tumor metastasis and prolonged the survival time of mice.

Fig. 21.

Fig. 21

(A) Schematic diagram of the mechanism of action and nanoplatform design. (B) Tumor Growth and Survival Curves. (C) Statistical chart of T cell infiltration ratio. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [213]. Copyright 2024 Wiley.

4. Summary and outlook

Click chemistry demonstrates multidimensional application value in the construction of active targeting drug delivery systems, primarily achieving precise targeting and efficient delivery through diverse reaction types and strategies. Commonly used reactions include CuAAC, SPAAC, and IEDDA. Among these, CuAAC achieves efficient conjugation of biomolecules with rapid kinetics, SPAAC avoids copper toxicity and is suitable for in vivo applications, and IEDDA, due to its ultra-fast reaction rate, serves as a core for dynamic in vivo targeting. At the strategic level, the in vitro strategy involves modifying the surface of carriers with groups such as N3 and efficiently coupling them with complementary groups (DBCO, TCO, etc.) conjugated to targeting ligands or drug precursors. The in vivo strategy combines metabolic engineering with copper-free click reactions, wherein bioorthogonal group precursors are first labeled onto the target cell surface via metabolic precursors, followed by the enrichment of drug-loaded systems at the target site through SPAAC or IEDDA reactions.

The most fundamental challenge for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approving click chemistry-based therapeutics lies in the stringent validation required for the in vivo specificity of the click reaction, the metabolic safety of any byproducts, and the spatio-temporal coordination of dual-component drug systems. This rigorous validation is necessary to ensure highly efficient drug activation specifically within the tumor microenvironment while simultaneously precluding potential toxicities induced by non-specific reactions in normal tissues. Currently, click chemistry applications in FDA clinical trials have progressed from the “proof-of-concept” phase to the “efficacy validation” stage. SQ 3370 represents the first click chemistry anticancer drug to enter human clinical trials [214]. Designed based on IEDDA reaction, it comprises a tumor-site-injected Tz biopolymer and a systemically administered TCO doxorubicin prodrug. The active drug is released at the tumor site via the click reaction. Phase I/IIa studies have demonstrated that SQ 3370 is safe up to 12 times the conventional dose of doxorubicin. TGW101 is the first FDA-IND approved click-release ADC [215], developed using bioorthogonal click chemistry to target the non-internalizing antigen TAG-72. This system releases the cytotoxic payload MMAE via a click reaction between the ADC and a small-molecule trigger. Phase I trials are currently recruiting patients with advanced solid tumors to evaluate safety and maximum tolerated dose, successfully overcoming the limitations associated with the target internalization dependence of traditional ADCs.

Click chemistry, while demonstrating advantages such as high specificity and low toxicity in constructing actively targeted cancer therapies, still faces limitations. Firstly, the expression density and stability of chemical receptors introduced via metabolic glycan engineering within tumors are constrained by the in vivo metabolic rate of the precursor drug and fluctuations in enzyme activity, leading to unpredictable target abundance [216]. Secondly, off-target reactions of click ligands in circulation and non-specific adsorption driven by hydrophobicity result in elevated background signals in normal tissues, and there is currently no mechanism to instantaneously “switch off” the reaction in vivo [217]. Finally, the temporal and spatial matching between click reaction kinetics and drug release dynamics is inadequate, causing significant fluctuations in the intratumoral activation half-life, which hinders reproducible dosing [218].

Of particular note are next-generation click chemistry technologies. SeNEx, utilizing selenium (Se) as a linkage center, achieves highly efficient C-Se bond construction via a selenium-nitrogen exchange reaction, offering advantages such as modularity, mild reaction conditions, excellent functional group compatibility, and suitability for nanomolar-scale synthesis and bioconjugation. SuFEx, on the other hand, benefits from metal-free participation, the coexistence of high stability and reactivity in the S-F bond, and the ability to react directly with naturally occurring functional groups in biomolecules. Both platforms are applicable in scenarios such as the modification of tumor-targeting nanomaterials and prodrug activation, holding the potential to overcome limitations of existing click chemistries, such as immunogenicity and biological instability. Future advancements could involve developing tumor microenvironment-responsive smart metabolic precursors to enhance labeling specificity, designing novel click chemistry pairs with tunable reaction rates to match in vivo drug delivery kinetics, and combining these with the precise delivery capabilities of nanocarriers to achieve spatio-temporal control over click reactions. Furthermore, the convergence of click chemistry and artificial intelligence holds significant promise, as machine learning algorithms can predict optimal reaction conditions and ligand configurations, potentially accelerating the development of nanocarriers.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yonghui Liu: Conceptualization, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Wei Zhang: Visualization. Yanan Wu: Software. Dong Wan: Writing – review & editing. Jie Pan: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Jie Pan reports was provided by Tiangong University. Jie Pan reports a relationship with Tiangong University that includes:. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 22178270, 22078246, 82103984).

Contributor Information

Yonghui Liu, Email: liuyonghui@tiangong.edu.cn.

Dong Wan, Email: wandong_tjpu@126.com.

Jie Pan, Email: panjie@tiangong.edu.cn.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

  • 1.Zhao Z., Ukidve A., Kim J., Mitragotri S. Targeting strategies for tissue-specific drug delivery. Cell. 2020;181(1):151–167. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Li C., Wang J.C., Wang Y.G., Gao H.L., Wei G., Huang Y.Z., Yu H.J., Gan Y., Wang Y.J., Mei L., Chen H.B., Hu H.Y., Zhang Z.P., Jin Y.G. Recent progress in drug delivery. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2019;9(6):1145–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.08.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Park H., Otte A., Park K. Evolution of drug delivery systems: from 1950 to 2020 and beyond. J. Control. Release. 2022;342:53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.12.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beach M.A., Nayanathara U., Gao Y., Zhang C., Xiong Y., Wang Y., Such G.K. Polymeric nanoparticles for drug delivery. Chem. Rev. 2024;124(9):5505–5616. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu J., Cabral H., Mi P. Nanocarriers address intracellular barriers for efficient drug delivery, overcoming drug resistance, subcellular targeting and controlled release. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2024;207 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2024.115239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu Y., Wu Y., Li Z., Wan D., Pan J. Targeted drug delivery strategies for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Molecules. 2024;29(18):6561–6586. doi: 10.3390/molecules29184405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lammers T., Kiessling F., Hennink W.E., Storm G. Drug targeting to tumors: principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress. J. Control. Release. 2012;161(2):175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.09.063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.He Y., Cong C., Li L., Luo L., He Y., Hao Z., Gao D. Sequential intra-intercellular delivery of nanomedicine for deep drug-resistant solid tumor penetration. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2020;12(8):8978–8988. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b20062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Etter E.L., Mei K.-C., Nguyen J. Delivering more for less: nanosized, minimal-carrier and pharmacoactive drug delivery systems. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021;179 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2021.113994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Large D.E., Abdelmessih R.G., Fink E.A., Auguste D.T. Liposome composition in drug delivery design, synthesis, characterization, and clinical application. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021;176 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2021.113851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hwang D., Ramsey J.D., Kabanov A.V. Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: from nanoformulation to clinical approval. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020;156:80–118. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.09.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Liu Y., Ren Z., Zhang X., Zhao Z., Ma G., Pei Y., Zhao W., Wan D., Pan J. Dual-triggered peptide-based polymeric micelles enhance doxorubicin delivery for targeted cancer therapy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2024;7(12):14380–14391. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ding M., Liu W., Gref R. Nanoscale MOFs: from synthesis to drug delivery and theranostics applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2022;190 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lerida-Viso A., Estepa-Fernandez A., Garcia-Fernandez A., Marti-Centelles V., Martinez-Manez R. Biosafety of mesoporous silica nanoparticles; towards clinical translation. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2023;201 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2023.115049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yang L., Yang Y., Chen Y., Xu Y., Peng J. Cell-based drug delivery systems and their in vivo fate. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2022;187 doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wen A.M., Steinmetz N.F. Design of virus-based nanomaterials for medicine, biotechnology, and energy. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2016;45(15):4074–4126. doi: 10.1039/c5cs00287g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yang Y.R., Li P.C., Feng H.B., Zeng R., Li S.S., Zhang Q.X. Macrocycle-Based supramolecular drug delivery systems: a concise review. Molecules. 2024;29(16):3828–3842. doi: 10.3390/molecules29163828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tian H.L., Zhang T.T., Qin S.Y., Huang Z., Zhou L., Shi J.Y., Nice E.C., Xie N., Huang C.H., Shen Z.S. Enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of nanoparticles for cancer treatment using versatile targeted strategies. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2022;15(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01320-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dilliard S.A., Siegwart D.J. Passive, active and endogenous organ-targeted lipid and polymer nanoparticles for delivery of genetic drugs. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2023;8(4):282–300. doi: 10.1038/s41578-022-00529-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Danhier F., Feron O., Préat V. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: passive and active tumor targeting of nanocarriers for anti-cancer drug delivery. J. Control. Release. 2010;148(2):135–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Matsumura Y., Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 1986;46(12 Pt 1):6387–6392. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Iyer A.K., Khaled G., Fang J., Maeda H. Exploiting the enhanced permeability and retention effect for tumor targeting. Drug Discov. Today. 2006;11(17-18):812–818. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cabral H., Kataoka K. Progress of drug-loaded polymeric micelles into clinical studies. J. Control. Release. 2014;190:465–476. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.06.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hughes P.M., Olejnik O., Chang-Lin J.E., Wilson C.G. Topical and systemic drug delivery to the posterior segments. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2005;57(14):2010–2032. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2005.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Choi V., Rohn J.L., Stoodley P., Carugo D., Stride E. Drug delivery strategies for antibiofilm therapy. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023;21(9):555–572. doi: 10.1038/s41579-023-00905-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fu C., Yu L.F., Miao Y.X., Liu X.L., Yu Z.J., Wei M.J. Peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs): a novel trend of research and development on targeted therapy, hype or hope. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2023;13(2):498–516. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.07.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vargason A.M., Anselmo A.C., Mitragotri S. The evolution of commercial drug delivery technologies. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2021;5(9):951–967. doi: 10.1038/s41551-021-00698-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maeda H. Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015;91:3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yi Y.F., Yu M., Li W., Zhu D.W., Mei L., Ou M.T. Vaccine-like nanomedicine for cancer immunotherapy. J. Control. Release. 2023;355:760–778. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang X., Meng F., Yen Y.-T., Li R., Liu B. Nanotechnology-based CAR-T strategies for improving efficacy and safety of tumor immunotherapy. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021;31(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lin H., Liu C.X., Hu A.K., Zhang D.W., Yang H., Mao Y. Understanding the immunosuppressive microenvironment of glioma: mechanistic insights and clinical perspectives. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2024;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13045-024-01544-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ding M., Zhang Y., Li J., Pu K. Bioenzyme-based nanomedicines for enhanced cancer therapy. Nano Converg. 2022;9(1):7–26. doi: 10.1186/s40580-022-00297-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kanamala M., Wilson W.R., Yang M., Palmer B.D., Wu Z. Mechanisms and biomaterials in pH-responsive tumour targeted drug delivery: a review. Biomater. 2016;85:152–167. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rooseboom M., Commandeur J.N.M., Vermeulen N.P.E. Enzyme-catalyzed activation of anticancer prodrugs. Pharmacol. Rev. 2004;56(1):53–102. doi: 10.1124/pr.56.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aghda N.H., Dabbaghianamiri M., Tunnell J.W., Betancourt T. Design of smart nanomedicines for effective cancer treatment. Int. J. Pharm. 2022;621 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zelepukin I.V., Shevchenko K.G., Deyev S.M. Rediscovery of mononuclear phagocyte system blockade for nanoparticle drug delivery. Nat. Commun. 2024;15(1):1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48838-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mishra P., Nayak B., Dey R.K. PEGylation in anti-cancer therapy: an overview. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2016;11(3):337–348. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bhattacharya R., Mukherjee P. Biological properties of "naked" metal nanoparticles. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2008;60(11):1289–1306. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2008.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Xu X., Ho W., Zhang X., Bertrand N., Farokhzad O. Cancer nanomedicine: from targeted delivery to combination therapy. Trends Mol. Med. 2015;21(4):223–232. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zhang R.X., Wong H.L., Xue H.Y., Eoh J.Y., Wu X.Y. Nanomedicine of synergistic drug combinations for cancer therapy - strategies and perspectives. J. Control. Release. 2016;240:489–503. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang L., Yang C.W., Song Y.X., Sheng T., Li J.Y., Yu J.C., Wu X.H., Ye X. Advances of nanoparticles in transmucosal drug delivery. Nano Res. 2023 [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shi M., Lu J., Shoichet M.S. Organic nanoscale drug carriers coupled with ligands for targeted drug delivery in cancer. J. Mater. Chem. 2009;19(31):5485–5498. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Maddahfar M., Wen S., Mashkani S.M.H., Zhang L., Shimoni O., Stenzel M., Zhou J., Groth B.F.d.S., Jin D. Stable and highly efficient antibody-nanoparticles conjugation. Bioconjug. Chem. 2021;32(6):1146–1155. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.1c00192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Alsaiari S.K., Patil S., Alyami M., Alamoudi K.O., Aleisa F.A., Merzaban J.S., Li M., Khashab N.M. Endosomal escape and delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing machinery enabled by nanoscale zeolitic imidazolate framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140(1):143–146. doi: 10.1021/jacs.7b11754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lang K., Chin J.W. Bioorthogonal reactions for labeling proteins. ACS Chem. Biol. 2014;9(1):16–20. doi: 10.1021/cb4009292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wang H., Bo Y., Liu Y., Xu M., Cai K., Wang R., Cheng J. In vivo cancer targeting via glycopolyester nanoparticle mediated metabolic cell labeling followed by click reaction. Biomater. 2019;218 doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.VanBrunt M.P., Shanebeck K., Caldwell Z., Johnson J., Thompson P., Martin T., Dong H., Li G., Xu H., D'Hooge F., Masterson L., Bariola P., Tiberghien A., Ezeadi E., Williams D.G., Hartley J.A., Howard P.W., Grabstein K.H., Bowen M.K., Marelli M. Genetically encoded azide containing amino acid in Mammalian cells enables site-specific antibody-drug conjugates using click cycloaddition chemistry. Bioconjug. Chem. 2015;26(11):2249–2260. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wu K., Yee N.A., Srinivasan S., Mahmoodi A., Zakharian M., Mejia Oneto J.M., Royzen M. Click activated protodrugs against cancer increase the therapeutic potential of chemotherapy through local capture and activation. Chem. Sci. 2021;12(4):1259–1271. doi: 10.1039/d0sc06099b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kolb H.C., Finn M.G., Sharpless K.B. Click chemistry: diverse chemical function from a few good reactions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2001;40(11):2004–2021. doi: 10.1002/1521-3773(20010601)40:11<2004::AID-ANIE2004>3.0.CO;2-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Devaraj N.K., Finn M.G. Introduction: click chemistry. Chem Rev. 2021;121(12):6697–6698. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kim E., Koo H. Biomedical applications of copper-free click chemistry: in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo. Chem. Sci. 2019;10(34):7835–7851. doi: 10.1039/c9sc03368h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Chen Z., Wang Z., Gu Z. Bioinspired and biomimetic nanomedicines. Acc. Chem. Res. 2019;52(5):1255–1264. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dommerholt J., van Rooijen O., Borrmann A., Guerra C.F., Bickelhaupt F.M., van Delft F.L. Highly accelerated inverse electron-demand cycloaddition of electron-deficient azides with aliphatic cyclooctynes. Nat. Commun. 2014;5 doi: 10.1038/ncomms6378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Agard N.J., Prescher J.A., Bertozzi C.R. A strain-promoted 3+2 azide-alkyne cycloaddition for covalent modification of blomolecules in living systems. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004;126(46):15046–15047. doi: 10.1021/ja044996f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hou W., Dong H., Yao Y., Pan K., Yang G., Ma P., Xu H. Clickable selenylation - a paradigm for seleno-medicinal chemistry. ChemMedChem. 2022;17(17) doi: 10.1002/cmdc.202200324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hou W., Zhang Y., Huang F., Chen W., Gu Y., Wang Y., Pang J., Dong H., Pan K., Zhang S., Ma P., Xu H. Bioinspired selenium-nitrogen exchange (SeNEx) click chemistry suitable for nanomole-scale medicinal chemistry and bioconjugation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2024;63(15) doi: 10.1002/anie.202318534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hou W., Hou S., Gu Y., Zhang S., Ma P., Hu H.Y., Xu H. Selenium(II)-Nitrogen exchange (SeNEx) chemistry: a good chemistry suitable for nanomole-scale parallel synthesis, DNA-encoded library synthesis and bioconjugation. Chembiochem. 2024;25(24) doi: 10.1002/cbic.202400641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tiwari V.K., Mishra B.B., Mishra K.B., Mishra N., Singh A.S., Chen X. Cu-Catalyzed click reaction in carbohydrate chemistry. Chem. Rev. 2016;116(5):3086–3240. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jiang X., Hao X., Jing L., Wu G., Kang D., Liu X., Zhan P. Recent applications of click chemistry in drug discovery. Expet Opin. Drug Discov. 2019;14(8):779–789. doi: 10.1080/17460441.2019.1614910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Agrahari A.K., Bose P., Jaiswal M.K., Rajkhowa S., Singh A.S., Hotha S., Mishra N., Tiwari V.K. Cu(I)-Catalyzed click chemistry in glycoscience and their diverse applications. Chem. Rev. 2021;121(13):7638–7955. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Fantoni N.Z., El-Sagheer A.H., Brown T. A hitchhiker's guide to click-chemistry with nucleic acids. Chem. Rev. 2021;121(12):7122–7154. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kaur J., Saxena M., Rishi N. An overview of recent advances in biomedical applications of click chemistry. Bioconjug. Chem. 2021;32(8):1455–1471. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.1c00247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Taiariol L., Chaix C., Farre C., Moreau E. Click and bioorthogonal chemistry: the future of active targeting of nanoparticles for nanomedicines. Chem. Rev. 2022;122(1):340–384. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wu D., Yang K., Zhang Z., Feng Y., Rao L., Chen X., Yu G. Metal-free bioorthogonal click chemistry in cancer theranostics. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022;51(4):1336–1376. doi: 10.1039/d1cs00451d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hein J.E., Fokin V.V. Copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC) and beyond: new reactivity of copper(I) acetylides. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010;39(4):1302–1315. doi: 10.1039/b904091a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Huisgen R. 1,3-Dipolar cycloadditions. Past and future. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1963;2(10):565–598. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Liang L., Astruc D. The copper(I)-catalyzed alkyne-azide cycloaddition (CuAAC) "click" reaction and its applications. An overview. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2011;255(23-24):2933–2945. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Haldon E., Carmen Nicasio M., Perez P.J. Copper-catalysed azide-alkyne cycloadditions (CuAAC): an update. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2015;13(37):9528–9550. doi: 10.1039/c5ob01457c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Patterson D.M., Nazarova L.A., Prescher J.A. Finding the right (bioorthogonal) chemistry. ACS Chem. Biol. 2014;9(3):592–605. doi: 10.1021/cb400828a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Fawcett C., Watson J., Richards S., Doherty A.E., Seki H., Love E.A., Coles C.H., Coe D.M., Jamieson C. Comparative study of click handle stability in common ligation conditions. Bioconjug. Chem. 2025;36(5):1054–1065. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5c00095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Meldal M., Diness F. Recent fascinating aspects of the CuAAC click reaction. Trends Chem. 2020;2(6):569–584. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Stephanopoulos N., Francis M.B. Choosing an effective protein bioconjugation strategy. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011;7(12):876–884. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Perez H.L., Cardarelli P.M., Deshpande S., Gangwar S., Schroeder G.M., Vite G.D., Borzilleri R.M. Antibody-drug conjugates: current status and future directions. Drug Discov. Today. 2014;19(7):869–881. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Meldal M., Tornøe C.W. Cu-Catalyzed Azide−Alkyne cycloaddition. Chem. Rev. 2008;108(8):2952–3015. doi: 10.1021/cr0783479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Li S., Cai H., He J., Chen H., Lam S., Cai T., Zhu Z., Bark S.J., Cai C. Extent of the oxidative side reactions to peptides and proteins during the CuAAC reaction. Bioconjug. Chem. 2016;27(10):2315–2322. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Saraiva N.M., Alves A., Costa P.C., Correia-da-Silva M. Click chemistry in polymersome technology. Pharmaceuticals. 2024;17(6):1–28. doi: 10.3390/ph17060747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wolbers F., ter Braak P., Le Gac S., Luttge R., Andersson H., Vermes I., van den Berg A. Viability study of HL60 cells in contact with commonly used microchip materials. Electrophoresis. 2006;27(24):5073–5080. doi: 10.1002/elps.200600203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tornoe C.W., Christensen C., Meldal M. Peptidotriazoles on solid phase: 1,2,3 -triazoles by regiospecific copper(I)-catalyzed 1,3-dipolar cycloadditions of terminal alkynes to azides. J. Org. Chem. 2002;67(9):3057–3064. doi: 10.1021/jo011148j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Declerck V., Toupet L., Martinez J., Lamaty F. Selective [3 + 2] huisgen cycloaddition. Synthesis of trans-disubstituted triazolodiazepines from Aza-Baylis−Hillman adducts. J. Org. Chem. 2009;74(5):2004–2007. doi: 10.1021/jo802533d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ben El Ayouchia H., Lahoucine B., Anane H., Rios-Gutierrez M., Domingo L.R., Stiriba S.-E. Experimental and theoretical MEDT study of the thermal 3+2 cycloaddition reactions of Aryl Azides with alkyne derivatives. ChemistrySelect. 2018;3(4):1215–1223. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Ackermann L., Potukuchi H.K. Regioselective syntheses of fully-substituted 1,2,3-triazoles: the CuAAC/C-H bond functionalization nexus. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2010;8(20):4503–4513. doi: 10.1039/c0ob00212g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Huang H., Liu X., Qi Q., Chen H., Zhang H., Zhang K., Xu X., Zhao Y., Zhou X., Liu W., Tian T. A catalyst-free bioorthogonal reaction for malononitrile addition to azodicarboxylates. Nat. Commun. 2025;16(1):9771. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-64727-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Dommerholt J., Rutjes F.P.J.T., van Delft F.L. Strain-promoted 1,3-Dipolar cycloaddition of cycloalkynes and organic azides. Top. Curr. Chem. 2016;374(2):16–36. doi: 10.1007/s41061-016-0016-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Baskin J.M., Prescher J.A., Laughlin S.T., Agard N.J., Chang P.V., Miller I.A., Lo A., Codelli J.A., Bertozzi C.R. Copper-free click chemistry for dynamic in vivo imaging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104(43):16793–16797. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707090104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Koo H., Lee S., Na J.H., Kim S.H., Hahn S.K., Choi K., Kwon I.C., Jeong S.Y., Kim K. Bioorthogonal copper-free click chemistry in vivo for tumor-targeted delivery of nanoparticles. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012;51(47):11836–11840. doi: 10.1002/anie.201206703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Robinson P.V., de Almeida-Escobedo G., de Groot A.E., McKechnie J.L., Bertozzi C.R. Live-cell labeling of specific protein glycoforms by proximity-enhanced bioorthogonal ligation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015;137(33):10452–10455. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b04279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Sun C., Yu W., Lv B., Zhang Y., Du S., Zhang H., Du J., Jin H., Sun Y., Huang Y. Role of hydrogen sulfide in sulfur dioxide production and vascular regulation. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):983–994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Liu J., Hu F., Wu M., Tian L., Gong F., Zhong X., Chen M., Liu Z., Liu B. Bioorthogonal coordination polymer nanoparticles with aggregation-induced emission for deep tumor-penetrating Radio- and radiodynamic therapy. Adv. Mater. 2021;33(9):1–9. doi: 10.1002/adma.202007888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Moody C.T., Palvai S., Brudno Y. Click cross-linking improves retention and targeting of refillable alginate depots. Acta Biomater. 2020;112:112–121. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.05.033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Liu J., Wen Q., Zhou B., Yuan C., Du S., Li L., Jiang L., Yao S.Q., Ge J. "clickable" ZIF-8 for cell-type-specific delivery of functional proteins. ACS Chem. Biol. 2022;17(1):32–38. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.1c00872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Komatsu T., Kyo E., Ishii H., Tsuchikama K., Yamaguchi A., Ueno T., Hanaoka K., Urano Y. Antibody clicking as a strategy to modify antibody functionalities on the surface of targeted cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020;142(37):15644–15648. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c05331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Chen W., Wang D., Dai C., Hamelberg D., Wang B. Clicking 1,2,4,5-tetrazine and cyclooctynes with tunable reaction rates. Chem. Commun. 2012;48(12):1736–1738. doi: 10.1039/c2cc16716f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Li S., Yu B., Wang J., Zheng Y., Zhang H., Walker M.J., Yuan Z., Zhu H., Zhang J., Wang P.G., Wang B. Biomarker-based metabolic labeling for redirected and enhanced immune response. ACS Chem. Biol. 2018;13(6):1686–1694. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.8b00350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Debets M.F., Prins J.S., Merkx D., van Berkel S.S., van Delft F.L., van Hest J.C.M., Rutjes F.P.J.T. Synthesis of DIBAC analogues with excellent SPAAC rate constants. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2014;12(27):5031–5037. doi: 10.1039/c4ob00694a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Jeong H.J., Min S., Baek J., Kim J., Chung J., Jeong K. Real-time reaction monitoring of azide-alkyne cycloadditions using benchtop NMR-based signal amplification by reversible exchange (SABRE) ACS Meas Sci Au. 2023;3(2):134–142. doi: 10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.2c00065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Knall A.-C., Slugovc C. Inverse electron demand diels-alder (iEDDA)-initiated conjugation: a (high) potential click chemistry scheme. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013;42(12):5131–5142. doi: 10.1039/c3cs60049a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Wang D., Chen W., Zheng Y., Dai C., Wang K., Ke B., Wang B. 3,6-Substituted-1,2,4,5-tetrazines: tuning reaction rates for staged labeling applications. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2014;12(23):3950–3955. doi: 10.1039/c4ob00280f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Blackman M.L., Royzen M., Fox J.M. Tetrazine ligation: fast bioconjugation based on inverse-electron-demand diels-alder reactivity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130(41):13518–13519. doi: 10.1021/ja8053805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Handula M., Chen K.-T., Seimbille Y. IEDDA: an attractive bioorthogonal reaction for biomedical applications. Molecules. 2021;26(15):1–19. doi: 10.3390/molecules26154640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Oliveira B.L., Guo Z., Bernardes G.J.L. Inverse electron demand diels-alder reactions in chemical biology. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017;46(16):4895–4950. doi: 10.1039/c7cs00184c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Versteegen R.M., Rossin R., ten Hoeve W., Janssen H.M., Robillard M.S. Click to release: instantaneous doxorubicin elimination upon tetrazine ligation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013;52(52):14112–14116. doi: 10.1002/anie.201305969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Steiger A.K., Yang Y., Royzen M., Pluth M.D. Bio-orthogonal "click-and-release" donation of caged carbonyl sulfide (COS) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) Chem. Commun. 2017;53(8):1378–1380. doi: 10.1039/c6cc09547j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.de la Cruz L.K., Ji X., Yang X., Wang B. Click, release, and fluoresce: in-Vivo generation of CO with concomitant synthesis of a fluorescent reporter. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2021;44 doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2021.116297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Teng Y., Wang D., Yang Z., Wang R., Ning S., Zhang R., Yang H., Feng X., Liu J., Yang L., Tian Y. Bioorthogonal strategy-triggered in situ co-activation of aggregation-induced emission photosensitizers and chemotherapeutic prodrugs for boosting synergistic chemo-photodynamic-immunotherapy. Biomater. 2025;317 doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Ji X., Wang B. Strategies toward organic carbon monoxide prodrugs. Acc. Chem. Res. 2018;51(6):1377–1385. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Hoyle C.E., Bowman C.N. Thiol-ene click chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010;49(9):1540–1573. doi: 10.1002/anie.200903924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Lallana E., Fernandez-Trillo F., Sousa-Herves A., Riguera R., Fernandez-Megia E. Click chemistry with polymers, dendrimers, and hydrogels for drug delivery. Pharm. Res. 2012;29(4):902–921. doi: 10.1007/s11095-012-0683-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Deng Y., Shavandi A., Okoro O.V., Nie L. Alginate modification via click chemistry for biomedical applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021;270 doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Killops K.L., Campos L.M., Hawker C.J. Robust, efficient, and orthogonal synthesis of dendrimers via thiol-ene "click" chemistry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008;130(15):5062–5064. doi: 10.1021/ja8006325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Chen C., Xu Y.J., Chen Y.Y., Evans C.M., Braun P.V. Viscosity-controlled thiol-ene reaction and its impact on mechanical response of dynamic networks. ACS Macro Lett. 2025;14(5):687–694. doi: 10.1021/acsmacrolett.5c00097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Huynh V.T., Chen G., de Souza P., Stenzel M.H. Thiol-yne and thiol-ene "click" chemistry as a tool for a variety of platinum drug delivery carriers, from statistical copolymers to crosslinked micelles. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12(5):1738–1751. doi: 10.1021/bm200135e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Li P., Liu Q., Xiang Z.N., Wang J., Wu W.X., Yi W.J. ROS-responsive core crosslinked micelles by combination of enzymatic polymerization and thiol-ene click chemistry for anticancer drug delivery. Eur. Polym. J. 2023;199 [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Civril E., Sanyal A., Sanyal R. PEG-PLA micelles for targeted codelivery of chemotherapy agents for ovarian cancer. J. Macromol. Sci. 2025;62(12):1154–1166. [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Dong J., Krasnova L., Finn M.G., Sharpless K.B. Sulfur(VI) fluoride exchange (SuFEx): another good reaction for click chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014;53(36):9430–9448. doi: 10.1002/anie.201309399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Barrow A.S., Smedley C.J., Zheng Q., Li S., Dong J., Moses J.E. The growing applications of SuFEx click chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019;48(17):4731–4758. doi: 10.1039/c8cs00960k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Liu Z., Li J., Li S., Li G., Sharpless K.B., Wu P. SuFEx click chemistry enabled late-stage drug functionalization. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140(8):2919–2925. doi: 10.1021/jacs.7b12788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Wang N., Yang B., Fu C., Zhu H., Zheng F., Kobayashi T., Liu J., Li S., Ma C., Wang P.G., Wang Q., Wang L. Genetically encoding Fluorosulfate-L-tyrosine to react with lysine, histidine, and tyrosine via SuFEx in proteins in vivo. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140(15):4995–4999. doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b01087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Jones L.H., Kelly J.W. Structure-based design and analysis of SuFEx chemical probes. RSC Med. Chem. 2020;11(1):10–17. doi: 10.1039/c9md00542k. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Brighty G.J., Botham R.C., Li S., Nelson L., Mortenson D.E., Li G., Morisseau C., Wang H., Hammock B.D., Sharpless K.B., Kelly J.W. Using sulfuramidimidoyl fluorides that undergo sulfur(vi) fluoride exchange for inverse drug discovery. Nat. Chem. 2020;12(10):906–913. doi: 10.1038/s41557-020-0530-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Zhou H., Mukherjee P., Liu R., Evrard E., Wang D., Humphrey J.M., Butler T.W., Hoth L.R., Sperry J.B., Sakata S.K., Helal C.J., Ende C.W.A. Introduction of a crystalline, shelf-stable reagent for the synthesis of Sulfur(VI) fluorides. Org. Lett. 2018;20(3):812–815. doi: 10.1021/acs.orglett.7b03950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Cruite J.T., Dann G.P., Che J., Donovan K.A., Ferrao S., Ficarro S.B., Fischer E.S., Gray N.S., Huerta F., Kong N.R., Liu H., Marto J.A., Metivier R.J., Zerfas B.L., Jones L.H. Cereblon covalent modulation through structure-based design of histidine targeting chemical probes. RSC Chem. Biol. 2022;3(9):1105–1110. doi: 10.1039/d2cb00078d. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Teng M., Ficarro S.B., Yoon H., Che J., Zhou J., Fischer E.S., Marto J.A., Zhang T., Gray N.S. Rationally designed covalent BCL6 inhibitor that targets a tyrosine residue in the homodimer interface. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2020;11(6):1269–1273. doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.0c00111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Fadeyi O.O., Hoth L.R., Choi C., Feng X., Gopalsamy A., Hett E.C., Kyne R.E., Jr., Robinson R.P., Jones L.H. Covalent enzyme inhibition through fluorosulfate modification of a noncatalytic serine residue. ACS Chem. Biol. 2017;12(8):2015–2020. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.7b00403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Paioti P.H.S., Lounsbury K.E., Romiti F., Formica M., Bauer V., Zandonella C., Hackey M.E., del Pozo J., Hoveyda A.H. Click processes orthogonal to CuAAC and SuFEx forge selectively modifiable fluorescent linkers. Nat. Chem. 2024;16(3):426–436. doi: 10.1038/s41557-023-01386-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Meng Y.A., Niu X., Li G.L. Liposome nanoparticles as a novel drug delivery system for therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2023;20(1):41–56. doi: 10.2174/1567201819666220324093821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Zhang Y.X., Xu D.R., Hou X.M., Wang X.H., Zhao S.Y., Jin X.H. Perspectives on materials: reality and potential of epigenetic drug nano-delivery. Chem. Eng. J. 2024;502 [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Wang W.C., Liu X.F., Zheng X.J., Jin H.J., Li X.M. Biomineralization: an opportunity and challenge of nanoparticle drug delivery systems for cancer therapy. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2020;9(22) doi: 10.1002/adhm.202001117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Yadav S., Sharma A.K., Kumar P. Nanoscale self-assembly for therapeutic delivery. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020;8:127. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Bu Q.P., Li P., Xia Y.F., Hu D., Li W.J., Shi D.F., Song K. Design, synthesis, and biomedical application of multifunctional fluorescent polymer nanomaterials. Molecules. 2023;28(9):3819. doi: 10.3390/molecules28093819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Xing P.Y., Zhao Y.L. Multifunctional nanoparticles self-assembled from small organic building blocks for biomedicine. Adv. Mater. 2016;28(34):7304–7339. doi: 10.1002/adma.201600906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Kalayil N., Budar A.A., Dave R.K. Nanofibers for drug delivery: design and fabrication strategies. BIOI. 2024;5(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Jameson L.P., Smith N.W., Annunziata O., Dzyuba S.V. Interaction of BODIPY dyes with bovine serum albumin: a case study on the aggregation of a click-BODIPY dye. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016;18(21):14182–14185. doi: 10.1039/c6cp00420b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Yang Y., Liu X., Wu X., Liang G. Enzyme-instructed CBT-Cys-like click cyclization reactions for bioimaging. CBMI. 2024;2(2):98–116. doi: 10.1021/cbmi.3c00117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Zheng Y.X., Xie L., Tie X.R., Cao L., Li Q.Y., Quan Y., Tang L.F., Li Y. Remote drug loading into liposomes via click reaction. Mater. Horiz. 2022;9(7):1969–1977. doi: 10.1039/d2mh00380e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Peer D., Karp J.M., Hong S., FaroKhzad O.C., Margalit R., Langer R. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2007;2(12):751–760. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Nsairat H., Khater D., Sayed U., Odeh F., Al Bawab A., Alshaer W. Liposomes: structure, composition, types, and clinical applications. Heliyon. 2022;8(5) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Alavi M., Karimi N., Safaei M. Application of various types of liposomes in drug delivery systems. Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2017;7(1):3–9. doi: 10.15171/apb.2017.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Agarwal K. Liposome assisted drug delivery: an updated review. Indian J. Pharmaceut. Sci. 2022;84(4):797–811. [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Wang S., Chen Y., Guo J., Huang Q. Liposomes for tumor targeted therapy: a review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24(3):2643. doi: 10.3390/ijms24032643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Sercombe L., Veerati T., Moheimani F., Wu S.Y., Sood A.K., Hua S. Advances and challenges of liposome assisted drug delivery. Front. Pharmacol. 2015;6:286. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2015.00286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Tenchov R., Bird R., Curtze A.E., Zhou Q.Q. Lipid nanoparticles-from liposomes to mRNA vaccine delivery, a landscape of research diversity and advancement. ACS Nano. 2021;15(11):16982–17015. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.1c04996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Shah S., Dhawan V., Holm R., Nagarsenker M.S., Perrie Y. Liposomes: advancements and innovation in the manufacturing process. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020;154:102–122. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Wang H.L., Wang Z.G., Liu S.L. Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Molecules. 2022;27(17):5607. doi: 10.3390/molecules27175607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Chauhan A.S., Chand P., Parashar T. Lipid-based nanoparticles: strategy for targeted cancer therapy. BIOI. 2025;6(1):1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Ma P., Ma H., Li J., Bi W., Zhang S., Hou W., Xu H. Combinatorial chemistry and click chemistry for the optimization of lipid nanoparticles to enhance RNA delivery. Drug Discov. Today. 2025;30(12) doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2025.104532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Sun Q., Kang Z., Xue L., Shang Y., Su Z., Sun H., Ping Q., Mo R., Zhang C. A collaborative assembly strategy for tumor-targeted siRNA delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015;137(18):6000–6010. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b01435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Ferguson L.T., Hood E.D., Shuvaeva T., Shuvaev V.V., Basil M.C., Wang Z., Nong J., Ma X., Wu J., Myerson J.W., Marcos-Contreras O.A., Katzen J., Carl J.M., Morrisey E.E., Cantu E., Villa C.H., Mitragotri S., Muzykantov V.R., Brenner J.S. Dual affinity to RBCs and target cells (DART) enhances both Organ- and cell type-targeting of intravascular nanocarriers. ACS Nano. 2022;16(3):4666–4683. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.1c11374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Xie S., Zhu J., Peng Y., Zhan F., Zhan F., He C., Feng D., Xie J., Liu J., Zhu H., Yao H., Xu J., Su Z., Xu S. In vivo self-assembly of PROTACs by bioorthogonal chemistry for precision cancer therapy. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2025;64(11) doi: 10.1002/anie.202421713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Jones M.C., Leroux J.C. Polymeric micelles - a new generation of colloidal drug carriers. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1999;48(2):101–111. doi: 10.1016/s0939-6411(99)00039-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Mitchell M.J., Billingsley M.M., Haley R.M., Wechsler M.E., Peppas N.A., Langer R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021;20(2):101–124. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Vaishya R.D., Khurana V., Patel S., Mitra A.K. Controlled ocular drug delivery with nanomicelles. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2014;6(5):422–437. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Dange Y.D., Salunkhe V.R., Honmane S.M., Marale P.S. Anticancer efficacy of 5-Fluorouracil-Loaded chitin nanohydrogel in enhanced skin cancer therapy. BIOI. 2025;6(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Civril E., Sanyal R., Sanyal A. Engineering polymeric micelles for targeted drug delivery: "click" chemistry enabled bioconjugation strategies and emerging applications. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2026;14(1):12–44. doi: 10.1039/d5tb02193f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Xu F., Huang X., Wang Y., Zhou S. A size-changeable collagenase-modified nanoscavenger for increasing penetration and retention of nanomedicine in deep tumor tissue. Adv. Mater. 2020;32(16) doi: 10.1002/adma.201906745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Li H., Liu H., Nie T., Chen Y., Wang Z., Huang H., Liu L., Chen Y. Molecular bottlebrush as a unimolecular vehicle with tunable shape for photothermal cancer therapy. Biomater. 2018;178:620–629. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.03.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Bansal K.K., Ozliseli E., Rosling A., Rosenholm J.M. Synthesis and evaluation of novel functional polymers derived from renewable jasmine lactone for stimuli-responsive drug delivery. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021;31(33) [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Wang G., Huang P., Wang L., Chen X., Zhou Y., Huang W., Yan D. ROS-responsive thioether-containing hyperbranched polymer micelles for light-triggered drug release. Smartmat. 2022;3(3):522–531. [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Liang Y., Kiick K.L. Heparin-functionalized polymeric biomaterials in tissue engineering and drug delivery applications. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(4):1588–1600. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.07.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Jiang Y., Chen J., Deng C., Suuronen E.J., Zhong Z. Click hydrogels, microgels and nanogels: emerging platforms for drug delivery and tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2014;35(18):4969–4985. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Oh J.K., Drumright R., Siegwart D.J., Matyjaszewski K. The development of microgels/nanogels for drug delivery applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008;33(4):448–477. [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Merino S., Martín C., Kostarelos K., Prato M., Vázquez E. Nanocomposite hydrogels: 3D polymer-nanoparticle synergies for On-Demand drug delivery. ACS Nano. 2015;9(5):4686–4697. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b01433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Chacko R.T., Ventura J., Zhuang J.M., Thayumanavan S. Polymer nanogels: a versatile nanoscopic drug delivery platform. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012;64(9):836–851. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Pelloth J.L., Tran P.A., Walther A., Goldmann A.S., Frisch H., Truong V.X., Barner-Kowollik C. Wavelength-selective softening of hydrogel networks. Adv. Mater. 2021;33(39) doi: 10.1002/adma.202102184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Fan Y., Luchow M., Zhang Y., Lin J., Fortuin L., Mohanty S., Brauner A., Malkoch M. Nanogel encapsulated hydrogels as advanced wound dressings for the controlled delivery of antibiotics. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021;31(7) [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Shen F.-W., Zhou K.-C., Cai H., Zhang Y.-N., Zheng Y.-L., Quan J. One-pot synthesis of thermosensitive glycopolymers grafted gold nanoparticles and their lectin recognition. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2019;173:504–511. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.10.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Chen W., Zou Y., Zhong Z., Haag R. Cyclo(RGD)-Decorated reduction-responsive nanogels mediate targeted chemotherapy of integrin overexpressing human glioblastoma in vivo. Small. 2017;13(6) doi: 10.1002/smll.201601997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Nagel G., Sousa-Herves A., Wedepohl S., Calderon M. Matrix metalloproteinase-sensitive multistage nanogels promote drug transport in 3D tumor model. Theranostics. 2020;10(1):91–108. doi: 10.7150/thno.34851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Xie S., Wei L., Liu Y., Meng J., Cao W., Qiu B., Li X. Size-tunable nanogels for cascaded release of metronidazole and chemotherapeutic agents to combat Fusobacterium nucleatum-infected colorectal cancer. J. Control. Release. 2024;365:16–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Cui Y.J., Zhang J., He H.J., Qian G.D. Photonic functional metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018;47(15):5740–5785. doi: 10.1039/c7cs00879a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Cui Y.J., Li B., He H.J., Zhou W., Chen B.L., Qian G.D. Metal-organic frameworks as platforms for functional materials. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016;49(3):483–493. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Wu D., Chen Q., Chen X.J., Han F., Chen Z., Wang Y. The blood-brain barrier: structure, regulation, and drug delivery. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 2023;8(1):217. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01481-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Mir S.H., Nagahara L.A., Thundat T., Mokarian-Tabari P., Furukawa H., Khosla A. Review-organic-inorganic hybrid functional materials: an integrated platform for applied technologies. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018;165(8):B3137–B3156. [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Jedrzejowski D., Ryndak M., Jajko-Liberka G., Kozyra P., Piskorz W., Bon V., Kaskel S., Matoga D. Pore size engineering of MOFs by pore edge reaction: Tetrazine click and hydrogen adsorption in theory and experiment. Chem. Mater. 2025;37(14):5206–5216. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5c00914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Furukawa H., Cordova K.E., O'Keeffe M., Yaghi O.M. The chemistry and applications of metal-organic frameworks. Science. 2013;341(6149):974–986. doi: 10.1126/science.1230444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Wang Y., Yan J.H., Wen N.C., Xiong H.J., Cai S.D., He Q.Y., Hu Y.Q., Peng D.M., Liu Z.B., Liu Y.F. Metal-organic frameworks for stimuli-responsive drug delivery. Biomater. 2020;230 doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Wu M.-X., Yang Y.-W. Metal-organic framework (MOF)-based drug/cargo delivery and cancer therapy. Adv. Mater. 2017;29(23) doi: 10.1002/adma.201606134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Mallakpour S., Nikkhoo E., Hussain C.M. Application of MOF materials as drug delivery systems for cancer therapy and dermal treatment. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2022;451:1–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Velásquez-Hernández M.D., Linares-Moreau M., Astria E., Carraro F., Alyami M.Z., Khashab N.M., Sumby C.J., Doonan C.J., Falcaro P. Towards applications of bioentities@MOFs in biomedicine. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2021;429 [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Lazaro I.A., Haddad S., Sacca S., Orellana-Tavra C., Fairen-Jimenez D., Forgan R.S. Selective surface PEGylation of UiO-66 nanoparticles for enhanced stability, cell uptake, and pH-Responsive drug delivery. Chem. 2017;2(4):561–578. doi: 10.1016/j.chempr.2017.02.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Wang F., Zhang Y., Liu Z., Du Z., Zhang L., Ren J., Qu X. A biocompatible heterogeneous MOF-Cu catalyst for in vivo drug synthesis in targeted subcellular organelles. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019;58(21):6987–6992. doi: 10.1002/anie.201901760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Cutrone G., Qiu J., Menendez-Miranda M., Casas-Solvas J.M., Aykac A., Li X., Foulkes D., Moreira-Alvarez B., Encinar J.R., Ladaviere C., Desmaele D., Vargas-Berenguel A., Gref R. Comb-like dextran copolymers: a versatile strategy to coat highly porous MOF nanoparticles with a PEG shell. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019;223 doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Wang Y., Xu S., Shi L., Teh C., Qi G., Liu B. Cancer-cell-activated in situ synthesis of mitochondria-targeting AIE photosensitizer for precise photodynamic therapy. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021;60(27):14945–14953. doi: 10.1002/anie.202017350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Hoffmann F., Cornelius M., Morell J., Froeba M. Silica-based mesoporous organic-inorganic hybrid materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006;45(20):3216–3251. doi: 10.1002/anie.200503075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Tang F., Li L., Chen D. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles: synthesis, biocompatibility and drug delivery. Adv. Mater. 2012;24(12):1504–1534. doi: 10.1002/adma.201104763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Croissant J.G., Fatieiev Y., Almalik A., Khashab N.M. Mesoporous silica and organosilica nanoparticles: physical chemistry, biosafety, delivery strategies, and biomedical applications. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2018;7(4) doi: 10.1002/adhm.201700831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Cui J., Yan Y., Wang Y., Caruso F. Templated assembly of pH-Labile polymer-drug particles for intracellular drug delivery. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012;22(22):4718–4723. [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Xu X., Lu S., Gao C., Feng C., Wu C., Bai X., Gao N., Wang Z., Liu M. Self-fluorescent and stimuli-responsive mesoporous silica nanoparticles using a double-role curcumin gatekeeper for drug delivery. Chem. Eng. J. 2016;300:185–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Lee S.H., Park O.K., Kim J., Shin K., Pack C.G., Kim K., Ko G., Lee N., Kwon S.-H., Hyeon T. Deep tumor penetration of drug-loaded nanoparticles by click reaction-assisted immune cell targeting strategy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019;141(35):13829–13840. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b04621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Ma Z., Wang H., Shi Z., Yan F., Li Q., Chen J., Cui Z.-K., Zhang Y., Jin X., Jia Y.-G., Wang L. Inhalable GSH-triggered nanoparticles to treat commensal bacterial infection in in situ lung tumors. ACS Nano. 2023;17(6):5740–5756. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c12165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Yoo J.-W., Irvine D.J., Discher D.E., Mitragotri S. Bio-inspired, bioengineered and biomimetic drug delivery carriers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery. 2011;10(7):521–535. doi: 10.1038/nrd3499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Chang P.V., Prescher J.A., Sletten E.M., Baskin J.M., Miller I.A., Agard N.J., Lo A., Bertozzi C.R. Copper-free click chemistry in living animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107(5):1821–1826. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911116107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Song S., Shim M.K., Lim S., Moon Y., Yang S., Kim J., Hong Y., Yoon H.Y., Kim I.S., Hwang K.Y., Kim K. In situ one-step fluorescence labeling strategy of exosomes via bioorthogonal click chemistry for real-time exosome tracking in vitro and in vivo. Bioconjug. Chem. 2020;31(5):1562–1574. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.0c00216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Liao Z., Tu L., Li X., Liang X.-J., Huo S. Virus-inspired nanosystems for drug delivery. Nanoscale. 2021;13(45):18912–18924. doi: 10.1039/d1nr05872j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Zhang Q.Y., Wu W., Zhang J.Q., Xia X.F. Merits of the 'good' viruses: the potential of virus-based therapeutics. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2021;21(6):731–740. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2021.1865304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.van Rijn P., Schirhagl R. Viruses, artificial viruses and virus-based structures for biomedical applications. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2016;5(12):1386–1400. doi: 10.1002/adhm.201501000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Ji D., Zhang Y., Sun J., Zhang B., Ma W., Cheng B., Wang X., Li Y., Mu Y., Xu H., Wang Q., Zhang C., Xiao S., Zhang L., Zhou D. An engineered influenza virus to deliver antigens for lung cancer vaccination. Nat. Biotechnol. 2024;42(3):864–874. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01796-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Zheng D.-W., Dong X., Pan P., Chen K.-W., Fan J.-X., Cheng S.-X., Zhang X.-Z. Phage-guided modulation of the gut microbiota of mouse models of colorectal cancer augments their responses to chemotherapy. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2019;3(9):717–728. doi: 10.1038/s41551-019-0423-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Ansari M.A., Thiruvengadam M., Venkidasamy B., Alomary M.N., Salawi A., Chung I.-M., Shariati M.A., Rebezov M. Exosome-based nanomedicine for cancer treatment by targeting inflammatory pathways: current status and future perspectives. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2022;86:678–696. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Tang X., Yang Y., Zheng M., Yin T., Huang G., Lai Z., Zhang B., Chen Z., Xu T., Ma T., Pan H., Cai L. Magnetic-acoustic sequentially actuated CAR T cell microrobots for precision navigation and in situ antitumor immunoactivation. Adv. Mater. 2023;35(18) doi: 10.1002/adma.202211509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Tian T., Zhang H.-X., He C.-P., Fan S., Zhu Y.-L., Qi C., Huang N.-P., Xiao Z.-D., Lu Z.-H., Tannous B.A., Gao J. Surface functionalized exosomes as targeted drug delivery vehicles for cerebral ischemia therapy. Biomater. 2018;150:137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Hao D., Lu L., Song H., Duan Y., Chen J., Carney R., Li J.J., Zhou P., Nolta J., Lam K.S., Leach J.K., Farmer D.L., Panitch A., Wang A. Engineered extracellular vesicles with high collagen-binding affinity present superior in situ retention and therapeutic efficacy in tissue repair. Theranostics. 2022;12(13):6021–6037. doi: 10.7150/thno.70448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Ruan H., Li Y., Wang C., Jiang Y., Han Y., Li Y., Zheng D., Ye J., Chen G., Yang G.-y., Deng L., Guo M., Zhang X., Tang Y., Cui W. Click chemistry extracellular vesicle/peptide/chemokine nanocarriers for treating central nervous system injuries. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2023;13(5):2202–2218. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.06.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Varanko A., Saha S., Chilkoti A. Recent trends in protein and peptide-based biomaterials for advanced drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020;156:133–187. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Parodi A., Molinaro R., Sushnitha M., Evangelopoulos M., Martinez J.O., Arrighetti N., Corbo C., Tasciotti E. Bio-inspired engineering of cell- and virus-like nanoparticles for drug delivery. Biomaterials. 2017;147:155–168. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Zhang F., Zhao L., Wang S., Yang J., Lu G., Luo N., Gao X., Ma G., Xie H.-Y., Wei W. Construction of a biomimetic magnetosome and its application as a SiRNA carrier for high-performance anticancer therapy. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018;28(1):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 206.Fan Y., Ye J., Kang Y., Niu G., Shi J., Yuan X., Li R., Han J., Ji X. Biomimetic piezoelectric nanomaterial-modified oral microrobots for targeted catalytic and immunotherapy of colorectal cancer. Sci. Adv. 2024;10(19) doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adm9561. eadm9561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 207.Xu J., Wan L., Wang X., Wei Y., He Y., You S., Zhong R., Wang C., Li H., You C., Tian M. A combined strategy of brain neuroprotection and endogenous neuroregeneration for enhanced intracerebral hemorrhage treatment via an injectable biomimetic hydrogel with efficient ROS scavenging and therapeutics delivery. Chem. Eng. J. 2025;503 [Google Scholar]
  • 208.Xu Y., Zeng Y., Xiao X., Liu H., Zhou B., Luo B., Saw P.E., Jiang Q. Targeted imaging of tumor associated macrophages in breast cancer. BIOI. 2023;4(3):114–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 209.Yang G., Xie Y.L., Wang Y.R., Tang Y., Chng L.L., Jiang F.Y., Du F.L., Zhou X.F., Ying J.Y., Yuan X. Water-soluble Cu30 nanoclusters as a click chemistry catalyst for living cell labeling via azide-alkyne cycloaddition. Nano Res. 2023;16(1):1748–1754. [Google Scholar]
  • 210.Qin H., Zhao R., Qin Y., Zhu J., Chen L., Di C., Han X., Cheng K., Zhang Y., Zhao Y., Shi J., Anderson G.J., Zhao Y., Nie G. Development of a cancer vaccine using in vivo click-chemistry-mediated active lymph node accumulation for improved immunotherapy. Adv. Mater. 2021;33(20) doi: 10.1002/adma.202006007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.Li Y., Li M., Liu L., Xue C., Fei Y., Wang X., Zhang Y., Cai K., Zhao Y., Luo Z. Cell-specific metabolic reprogramming of tumors for bioactivatable ferroptosis therapy. ACS Nano. 2022;16(3):3965–3984. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.1c09480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 212.Chen J., Ji P., Gnawali G., Chang M., Gao F., Xu H., Wang W. Building bioorthogonal click-release capable artificial receptors on cancer cell surface for imaging, drug targeting and delivery. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2023;13(6):2736–2746. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.12.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Zhao Y., Li Y., He J., Li M., Yao X., Yang H., Luo Z., Luo P., Su M. Nanointegrative glycoengineering-activated necroptosis of triple negative breast cancer stem cells enables self-amplifiable immunotherapy for systemic tumor rejection. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2024;13(9) doi: 10.1002/adhm.202303337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06959706 accessed:August 2023)
  • 215.Wang H., Mooney D.J. Metabolic glycan labelling for cancer-targeted therapy. Nat. Chem. 2020;12(12):1102–1114. doi: 10.1038/s41557-020-00587-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Wang C., Yang J., Lu Y. Click chemistry as a connection tool: grand opportunities and challenges. Chin. J. Catal. 2023;49:8–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Luu T., Gristwood K., Knight J.C., Jörg M. Click chemistry: reaction rates and their suitability for biomedical applications. Bioconjug. Chem. 2024;35(6):715–731. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.4c00084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.Peng W., Fu Y., Du Y., Pan J., Li B., Gu Y., Bai Y., Zheng B., Wang T. Engineered bioorthogonal cell delivery system for in situ antimicrobial peptide recruitment during systemic bacterial infection. Acta Biomater. 2025;198:115–130. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2025.04.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Further reading

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.


Articles from Materials Today Bio are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES