1986
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.83.8.2632
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Site-specific covalent modification of monoclonal antibodies: in vitro and in vivo evaluations.

Abstract: drugs (9, 26-28) in attempts to target these agents to tumors. These latter modifications all involve covalent attachment to tyrosines, e-amino side chains of lysines, carboxyl side chains of aspartic and glutamic acids, or sulfhydryl groups generated by reduction of cystines. Although each of these applications has shown promise, none, as yet, has reached the point of proven clinical utility. Since so many of the diagnostic and therapeutic applications envisioned for monoclonal antibodies require coupling o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
101
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 210 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
101
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Sakahara et al (13), assessing the in vitro affinity of two MAb undergoing identical labeling procedures and of the same MAb radiolabeled with two different isotopes, found that the data did not reflect the in vivo behavior of these conjugates. Rodwell et al (9) compared the in vivo behavior of R9.75 MAb iodinated by either conventional tyrosine-directed electrophilic labeling or an iodinated tyrosine-containing peptide site-specifically attached to the oxidized oligosaccharides present on the F c region of the antibody. In these studies, the site-specifically radiolabeled antibody localized in tumors with an 18-fold greater efficiency than the corresponding conjugate modified nonselectively on its tyrosines, despite the fact that in vitro both radioimmunoconjugates had comparable binding properties with the antigen.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Sakahara et al (13), assessing the in vitro affinity of two MAb undergoing identical labeling procedures and of the same MAb radiolabeled with two different isotopes, found that the data did not reflect the in vivo behavior of these conjugates. Rodwell et al (9) compared the in vivo behavior of R9.75 MAb iodinated by either conventional tyrosine-directed electrophilic labeling or an iodinated tyrosine-containing peptide site-specifically attached to the oxidized oligosaccharides present on the F c region of the antibody. In these studies, the site-specifically radiolabeled antibody localized in tumors with an 18-fold greater efficiency than the corresponding conjugate modified nonselectively on its tyrosines, despite the fact that in vitro both radioimmunoconjugates had comparable binding properties with the antigen.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, using direct attachment of radionuclide chelators to the carbohydrate of mAbs, Rodwell et al (16) reported chelator:mAb ratios of 5. To increase the ratio of active agent covalently coupled to mAb, polymeric carriers have been used as bridges between the active agent and the mAb (14,34,35 (Fig. 3) showed a sublethal damage region below 10 J/cm2 followed by logarithmic cell killing to nearly complete cell death at higher light doses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most direct coupling procedures have modified amino acid side chains (13,15) and produced structurally heterogenous populations of immunoconjugates with a range of binding properties (16). Efforts to direct the PS to a particular site on the mAb (e.g., carbohydrate) have produced more homogenous conjugates but appear limited in the number of PSs that can be coupled to a single mAb.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The association of IgGs to liposomes is usually realized by chemical conjugation via hetero-bifunctional crosslinkers on the polar head of lipid molecules modified with a PEGylated reactive group [13]. This strategy of covalent coupling presents however several drawbacks, principally the lack of control of the site of protein modification which involves commonly their most accessible and/or most reactive protein amino groups, so that their molecular recognition properties may be altered due to chemical modification and/or non-optimal orientation [14]. The only method which ensures a favorable IgG orientation and preserves their binding domains involves IgG anchoring via carbohydrate residues located in their Fc domain to lipid molecules exposing hydrazide groups; this strategy presents however a low efficiency [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%