Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5443_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
In molecular simulations, ethical considerations include upholding open research
norms, encouraging transparency and reproducibility, and guaranteeing the correct-
ness and dependability of results [152]. The legitimacy and reliability of research in
the field depend on upholding ethical standards as breakthroughs, particularly in AI-
driven simulations, continue.
17.23 Advances in ADC technology
Research on anticancer therapy has expanded since the ground-breaking discovery of
the first ADC to receive FDA approval, Mylotrag
®
, leading to the creat ion of other
new, safer ADCs. The development of ADCs toward targeted anticancer medication de-
livery is described here.
17.23.1 First-generation ADCs
In order to minimize side effects, first-generation ADCs were designed with rapid
body clearance as their main priority. ADCs were created with murine-derived Ab
backbones in order to do this; nevertheless, in humans, they led to the production of
immunogenic human antimouse Abs, which hastened the immune system’s removal
of ADCs [153]. First-generation ADCs had negative consequences because the antigen
used was not selective to tumor cells. The hazardous payload employed was less po-
tent (micromolar IC50 range) and the ADC linkers were not stable enough in the circu-
lation. For instance, phase II clinical trials for BR96-Dox, an anti-Lewis Y-targeting
BR96-mAb coupled with doxorubicin, against Lewis Y-expressing epithelial cancers
were discontinued. In a similar vein, Mylotrag
®
, an FDA-approved CD33-targeting
medication, was also taken off the market. Due to nonspecific antigen production in
healthy cells and acid-labile weak hydrazone linkers, both ADCs caused immediate
deleterious effects and morbidity in patients [154].
17.23.2 Second-generation ADCs
Second-generation ADCs were designed to overcome the shortcomings and constraints of
their predecessors. In second-generation FDA-approved ADCs, the unreliability of the hy-
drazone linker in Mylotrag
®
has prevented the premature release of medicines. Other
linkers, such as the noncleavable thioester linker in Kadcyla
®
and the cathepsin cleavable
valine-citrulline linker in Adcetris
®
, have been substituted. ADCs of the second generation
have more potent cytotoxic payloads than those of the first generation [155]. In contrast
to doxorubicin that intercalates DNA in BR96-Dox, tubulin-targeting compounds like
17 Molecular simulation-based technology for antibody–drug conjugates 423
https://t.me/med1917
MMAE employed in Adcetris
®
are roughly 100–1,000 times more potent. In several
human cancer cell lines, the half-life of MMAE is roughly 1 nM, while that of doxoru-
bicin ranges from 1 to 6 μM. Stochastic coupling techniques between the Ab and
drug cause second-generation ADCs to have substantial limits in terms of their het-
erogeneous DAR, even with improvements in cytotoxic payloads and the inclusion of sta-
ble linkers [156]. Usually, the lysine or cysteine residue of the mAb mediates the chemical
conjugation between the drug and Ab, producing DAR (range 0–8) with an average value
of 3–5.Asaresult,heterogeneousADCsmaycomprise a combination of partially conju-
gated, overconjugated, and unconjugated Abs [157]. As a result, unconjugated Abs and
drug-conjugated species will compete with one another for antigen binding, which may
reduce the ADC’s efficacy. On the other hand, excessive drug–Ab conjugation can lead to
Ab aggregation, a drop in stability, stepwise increases in nonspecific toxicity, and a
shorter half-life of ADCs in circulation. In general, the restricted therapeutic index and
tumor penetration abilities of heterogeneous ADCs are linked to the development of drug
resistance within the tumor microenvironment [158].
17.23.3 Third-generation ADCs
Third-generation ADCs alleviate the previously described issues with the heterogeneous
DARs of second-generation ADCs. To create homogenous ADCs with well-characterized
DARs and desired cytotoxicities, site-specific conjugation has been introduced. The
drug–Ab site-specific conjugation results in a single-isomer ADC with a consistent DAR
value [159]. Bioengineered Abs containing site-specific amino acids, including cysteine,
glycan, or peptide tags, can be used to create such ADCs. For instance, the creation of
THIOMAB, a specifically designed antibody, involved substituting cysteine for the
amino acid Ala114 in the CH1 domain of the human IgG antibody to achieve accurate
site-specific conjugation of MMAE to human IgG. Drug and THIOMAB conjugates (TDCs)
with homogenous DARs, reduced hydrophobicity, and improved patient safety result
from site-specific coupling of the drug with THIOMAB. Alternative strategies for site-
specific drug conjugation consist of the following: (i) a thio-bridge strategy that attaches
medicines to the four interchain disulfide bonds per mAb [160]. (ii) employing an en-
coded gene of the amber stop codon (TAG) and related orthogonal tRNA/aminoacyl-
tRNA synthetase to introduce noncanonical amino acids, like phenylselenocysteine, or
unnatural amino acids, like p-acetylphenylalanine. Recently, site-selective alteration of
Abs that produced consistent DAR in ADCs was accomplished using a unique chemoen-
zymatic method called SMARTagTM. In this procedure, molecular biology techniques
were used to introduce the formylglycine-generating enzyme (FGE) recognition se-
quence at a precise place in the Ab backbone [161]. An endogenous eukaryotic cell en-
zyme catalyzes the transformation of the cystine into a formylglycine residue (fGly) in
eukaryotic cell FGE. Auristatin, duo carmycin, and PBDs are among the medications
whose site-specific reactivity is mediated by the aldehyde group of fGly [162]. Preclinical
424 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
research on SMARTagTM-based ADCs, such CD22–4AP, a Catalent pharma solution pat-
ented technology, indicated that the medicine has a promising therapeutic index, few
side effects, and prevents the emergence of drug resistance. Similar to this, additional
enzymatic techniques for site-specific ADC preparation have been developed, including
TG-ADCTM and SMAC-TAGTM. In order to accomplish the intended therapeutic impact
and eradicate drug-resistant tumor cells, efforts are still being made to design more ef-
fective cytotoxic payloads in third-generation ADCs [163]. Compared to alternative DNA-
alkylating agents, interest has been piqued in the development of PBDs, which are de-
rivatives of tricyclic antibiotics. PBDs are strong drugs that do not exhibit cross-
resistance to other chemotherapeutics like cisplatin and some of which have subpico-
molar IC50. There are currently four PBD-containing ADCs undergoing clinical studies:
ADCT-301 is doing phase I trials for CD25 lymphoma, SC16LD6.5 is undergoing phase II
trials for small cell lung carcinoma, SGN-CD33A is undergoing phase II trials for AML,
and SGN-CD70A is undergoing phase II trials for CD70-positive cancer patients [164].
17.24 Clinical trials of ADCs
The FDA’s decision to withdraw mylotarg
®
10 years after it was first approved served
as a lesson for reworking the components of ADCs. More successful therapeutic out-
comes for ADCs have been attained as a consequence of research advances in conju-
gation technology, Ab bioengineering, linker chemistry, and the identification of
powerful medicines (Table 17.1) [165]. Pharma Source’s trend reports on ADCs (www.
pharmsource.com/trend/adc-market-opportunity-for-cmos) indicate that in 2015, over
15 clinical studies were undertaken; in 2016, six to eight trials were completed; and in
2017, this trend is expected to persist. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (CMC 544), a promising
ADC, was recently taken off the market for treating NHL relapses. Nonetheless, CMC-
544 was designated as an orphan medication by the FDA and is currently undergoing
phase III trials for ALL. Drugs belonging to the auristatin or maytansinoid family of
compounds have shown some promise in treating different types of cancer in some
phase I trials [166]. Additionally, IgG1 is the most often utilized antibody, however
IgG2 and IgG4 are also undergoing testing. The expense of developing an ADC is still a
significant barrier, notwithstanding the promising clinical outcome. For instance, the
annual cost of treatment with the mAb trastuzumab is roughly US $50,000, but the
cost of the trastuzumab-DM1 combination Kadcyla
®
nearly doubles. The current focus
of ADC development is on lowering production costs through the repurposing of exist-
ing medications and the use of less expensive nonanimal recombinant mAb methods.
Thus, it is clear from the success rate of these clinical studies that there is a lot of
room for additional research on ADCs [167].
17 Molecular simulation-based technology for antibody–drug conjugates 425
https://t.me/med1917
17.25 Conclusion
The use of molecular simulations in the creation of ADCs is a novel strategy with sig-
nificant ramifications for cancer treatment. The process of this investigation has re-
vealed the subtleties of ADCs, highlighting their importance in transforming the
treatment of cancer. The difficulties that come with developing an ADC, ranging from
structural complexity to the nuances of payload-release dynamics, have been made
clear. Molecular simulations, on the other hand, have become vital tools that offer a
precise virtual platform to solve these difficulties.
The commercial success of certified ADCsservesasevidenceoftheprogress
made in this area when we consider the current status of ADC development. Even if
clinical outcomes are noteworthy, they also highlight limitations, which emphasizes
the need for ongoing innovation. The case studies that are provided demonstrate the
critical role that molecular simulations play in directing ADC design and boosting sta-
bility and efficacy. These triumphs serve as prime examples of how simulations can
significantly alter the way obstacles in ADC development are addressed.
Future directions for ADC technology are determined by developments in molecu-
lar simulations. AI combined with advances in high-performance computing creates
new possibilities for more accurate and efficient simulations. This, together with the
chances for interdisciplinary cooperation, produces a setting in which it is possible to
navigate the uncharted territory of ADC development and construct creative solutions.
Remaining at the forefront, ethical issues guarantee the precision, dependability,
and transparency of simulations. Personalized medication is envisioned as a reality
for ADCs in the future, in addition to overcoming obstacles. ADCs customized to each
patient’s unique profile will be developed with the help of molecular simulations, ush-
ering in a new era in which cancer treatments are precisely calibrated for maximum
effectiveness and least amount of side effects.
Upon analyzing the difficulties, achievements, and potential outcomes, it is evi-
dent that molecular simulations are driving a revolutionary advancement in ADC
technology. As we set out on this journey, the combined efforts of researchers, guided
by ethical considerations, offer hope for the development of ADCs into beacon-like im-
provements in the field of cancer therapies and precision medicine in the future.
References
[1] Bozorgpour, R., Sheybanikashani, S., & Mohebi, M. Exploring the role of molecular dynamics
simulations in most recent cancer research: Insights into treatment strategies. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2310.19950. 2023 Oct 30.
[2] Kashyap, D., Koirala, S., Roy, R., Saini, V., Varshney, N., Bagde, P. H., Samanta, S., Kar, P., & Jha,
H. C. Computational insights into VacA toxin inhibition: Harnessing FDA-approved antibiotics
426 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
against Helicobacter pylori. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 2023 Oct 31, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2023.2278080
[3] Fotie J, Matherne CM, Mather JB, Wroblewski JE, Johnson K, Boudreaux LG, Perez AA. The
fundamental role of oxime and oxime ether moieties in improving the physicochemical and
anticancer properties of structurally diverse scaffolds. International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
2023 Nov 28;24(23):16854.
[4] Pallares, R. M., & Abergel, R. J. Development of radiopharmaceuticals for targeted alpha therapy:
Where do we stand?. Frontiers in Medicine, 2022 Dec 22, 9, 1020188.
[5] Surendran, A., Jenner, A. L., Karimi, E., Fiset, B., Quail, D. F., Walsh, L. A., & Craig, M. Agent-based
modelling reveals the role of the tumor microenvironment on the short-term success of
combination temozolomide/Immune checkpoint blockade to treat glioblastoma. Journal of
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 2023 Oct 1, 387(1), 66–77.
[6] Yan, X., Yue, T., Winkler, D. A., Yin, Y., Zhu, H., Jiang, G., & Yan, B. Converting nanotoxicity data to
information using artificial intelligence and simulation. Chemical Reviews, 2023 Jun 1;123
(13):8575–637.
[7] Perez, S., & Makshakova, O. Multifaceted computational modeling in glycoscience. Chemical
Reviews, 2022 Jul 5, 122(20), 15914–15970.
[8] Saleh, D. Digitalization of industrial downstream processing: Mechanistic and structure-based
modeling (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation, Karlsruhe, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
(KIT), 2022.
[9] Kciuk, M., Alam, M., Ali, N., Rashid, S., Głowacka, P., Sundaraj, R., Celik, I., Yahya, E. B., Dubey, A.,
Zerroug, E., & Kontek, R. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate therapeutic potential in cancer: Mechanism of
action and clinical implications. Molecules, 2023 Jul 6, 28(13), 5246.
[10] Bhaskar, S. Biosensing technologies: A focus review on recent advancements in surface plasmon
coupled emission. Micromachines, 2023 Feb 28, 14(3), 574.
[11] Temperini, M. E., Di Giacinto, F., Romanò, S., Di Santo, R., Augello, A., Polito, R., Baldassarre, L.,
Giliberti, V., Papi, M., Basile, U., & Niccolini, B. Antenna-enhanced mid-infrared detection of
extracellular vesicles derived from human cancer cell cultures. Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2022
Dec, 20(1), 1–20.
[12] Loyez, M., Adolphson, M., Liao, J., & Yang, L. From whispering gallery mode resonators to
biochemical sensors. ACS Sensors, 2023 Jun 30, 8(7), 2440–2470.
[13] Park, R. Design and Application of Substrate Recruitment Domains in Enzymes (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
[14] Haller, V. Suberone-based type I½ p38α MAPK-inhibitors with improved properties to treat
colorectal cancer (Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen).
[15] Levitt, M. Detailed molecular model for transfer ribonucleic acid. Nature, 1969 Nov 22, 224(5221),
759–763.
[16] Friedman, R., Pellarin, R., & Caflisch, A. Amyloid aggregation on lipid bilayers and its impact on
membrane permeability. Journal of Molecular Biology, 2009 Mar 27, 387(2), 407–415.
[17] Glielmo, A., Husic, B. E., Rodriguez, A., Clementi, C., Noé, F., & Laio, A. Unsupervised learning
methods for molecular simulation data. Chemical Reviews, 2021 May 4, 121(16), 9722–9758.
[18] Kumbhar, B. V., Bhandare, V. V., Panda, D., & Kunwar, A. Delineating the interaction of
combretastatin A-4 with αβ tubulin isotypes present in drug resistant human lung carcinoma using
a molecular modeling approach. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 2019 Mar 4, 38,
2020, 2, 426–438.
[19] El-Naggar, A. M., Eissa, I. H., Belal, A., & El-Sayed, A. A. Design, eco-friendly synthesis, molecular
modeling and anticancer evaluation of thiazol-5 (4 H)-ones as potential tubulin polymerization
inhibitors targeting the colchicine binding site. RSC Advances, 2020, 10(5), 2791–2811.
17 Molecular simulation-based technology for antibody–drug conjugates 427
https://t.me/med1917
[20] Zhao, J., Huang, L., Sun, C., Zhao, D., & Tang, H. Studies on the structure-activity relationship and
interaction mechanism of flavonoids and xanthine oxidase through enzyme kinetics, spectroscopy
methods and molecular simulations. Food Chemistry, 2020 Sep 1, 323, 126807.
[21] Opo, F. A., Rahman, M. M., Ahammad, F., Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan, M. A., & Asiri, A. M. Structure based
pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening, molecular docking and ADMET approaches for
identification of natural anti-cancer agents targeting XIAP protein. Scientific Reports, 2021 Feb 18,
11(1), 4049.
[22] Bonomi, M., Bussi, G., Camilloni, C., Tribello, G. A., Banáš, P., Barducci, A., Bernetti, M., Bolhuis,
P. G., Bottaro, S., Branduardi, D., & Capelli, R. Promoting transparency and reproducibility in
enhanced molecular simulations. Nature Methods, 2019 Jul 30, 16(8), 670–673.
[23] Stillman, N. R., Kovacevic, M., Balaz, I., & Hauert, S. In silico modelling of cancer nanomedicine,
across scales and transport barriers. NPJ Computational Materials, 2020 Jul 8, 6(1), 92.
[24] Maleki, R., Khoshoei, A., Ghasemy, E., & Rashidi, A. Molecular insight into the smart functionalized
TMC-Fullerene nanocarrier in the pH-responsive adsorption and release of anti-cancer drugs.
Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, 2020 Nov 1, 100, 107660.
[25] Marei, H. E., Cenciarelli, C., & Hasan, A. Potential of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) for cancer
therapy. Cancer Cell International, 2022 Dec, 22(1), 1–2.
[26] Yaghoubi, S., Karimi, M. H., Lotfinia, M., Gharibi, T., Mahi‐Birjand, M., Kavi, E., Hosseini, F., Sineh
Sepehr, K., Khatami, M., Bagheri, N., & Abdollahpour‐Alitappeh, M. Potential drugs used in the
antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) architecture for cancer therapy. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 2020
Jan, 235(1), 31–64.
[27] Hottat, N. A., Badr, D. A., Lecomte, S., Besse-Hammer, T., Jani, J. C., & Cannie, M. M. Value of
diffusion-weighted MRI in predicting early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast
cancer: Comparison between ROI-ADC and whole-lesion-ADC measurements. European Radiology,
2022 Jun, 32(6), 4067–4078.
[28] Ferraro, E., Drago, J. Z., & Modi, S. Implementing antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in HER2-positive
breast cancer: State of the art and future directions. Breast Cancer Research, 2021 Dec, 23(1), 1–1.
[29] Weng, W., Meng, T., Zhao, Q., Shen, Y., Fu, G., Shi, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, M., Pan, R., & Ma,
L. Antibody–exatecan conjugates with a novel self-immolative moiety overcome resistance in colon
and lung cancer. Cancer Discovery, 2023 Apr 3, 13(4), 950–973.
[30] Fadda, E., & Woods, R. J. Molecular simulations of carbohydrates and protein–carbohydrate
interactions: Motivation, issues and prospects. Drug Discovery Today, 2010 Aug 1, 15(15–16),
596–609.
[31] Frenkel, D., & Smit, B. Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications. 2023
Jul 13, Elsevier.
[32] Pronk, S., Páll, S., Schulz, R., Larsson, P., Bjelkmar, P., Apostolov, R., Shirts, M. R., Smith, J. C., Kasson,
P. M., Van Der Spoel, D., & Hess, B. GROMACS 4.5: A high-throughput and highly parallel open
source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics, 2013 Apr 1, 29(7), 845–854.
[33] English, N. J., & Waldron, C. J. Perspectives on external electric fields in molecular simulation:
Progress, prospects and challenges. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2015, 17(19), 12407–12440.
[34] Auerbach, D. J., Paul, W., Bakker, A. F., Lutz, C., Rudge, W. E., & Abraham, F. F. A special purpose
parallel computer for molecular dynamics: Motivation, design, implementation, and application.
Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1987 Sep 10, 91(19), 4881–4890.
[35] Pettinato, M. C. Introduction to antibody-drug conjugates. Antibodies, 2021 Oct 27, 10(4), 42.
[36] Chau, C. H., Steeg, P. S., & Figg, W. D. Antibody–drug conjugates for cancer. The Lancet, 2019
Aug 31, 394(10200), 793–804.
[37] Theocharopoulos, C., Lialios, P. P., Gogas, H., & Ziogas, D. C. An overview of antibody–drug
conjugates in oncological practice. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, 2020 Oct, 12,
1758835920962997.
428 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[38] Koster, K. L., Huober, J., & Joerger, M. New antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in breast cancer – An
overview of ADCs recently approved and in later stages of development. Exploration of Targeted
Anti-tumor Therapy, 2022, 3(1), 27.
[39] Bordeaux, J., Welsh, A. W., Agarwal, S., Killiam, E., Baquero, M. T., Hanna, J. A., Anagnostou, V. K., &
Rimm, D. L. Antibody validation. Biotechniques, 2010 Mar, 48(3), 197–209.
[40] Imai, K., & Takaoka, A. Comparing antibody and small-molecule therapies for cancer. Nature
Reviews Cancer, 2006 Sep 1, 6(9), 714–727.
[41] Carter, P. J., & Senter, P. D. Antibody-drug conjugates for cancer therapy. The Cancer Journal,
2008 May 1, 14(3), 154–169.
[42] De Goeij Be,, Vink, T., Ten Napel, H., Breij, E. C., Satijn, D., Wubbolts, R., Miao, D., & Parren,
P. W. Efficient payload delivery by a bispecific antibody–drug conjugate targeting HER2 and CD63.
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 2016 Nov 1, 15(11), 2688–2697.
[43] Hughes, B. Antibody-drug conjugates for cancer: Poised to deliver? Highlighted by Genentech’s
recent US regulatory submission for trastuzumab-DM1, antibody-drug conjugation technology
could be heading for the mainstream in anticancer drug development. Nature Reviews Drug
Discovery, 2010 Sep 1, 9(9), 665–668.
[44] 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 Discovery Today, 2014
Jul 1, 19(7), 869–881.
[45] Jefferis, R. Isotype and glycoform selection for antibody therapeutics. Archives of Biochemistry and
Biophysics, 2012 Oct 15, 526(2), 159–166.
[46] Ministro, J., Manuel, A. M., & Goncalves, J. Therapeutic antibody engineering and selection
strategies. Current Applications of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, 2020, 171, 55–86.
[47] Jain, N., Smith, S. W., Ghone, S., & Tomczuk, B. Current ADC linker chemistry. Pharmaceutical
Research, 2015 Nov, 32(11), 3526–3540.
[48] Huang, Z., Wang, D., Long, C. Y., Li, S. H., Wang, X. Q., & Tan, W. Regulating the anticancer efficacy
of Sgc8–Combretastatin A4 conjugates: A case of recognizing the significance of linker chemistry
for the design of aptamer-based targeted drug delivery strategies. Journal of the American
Chemical Society, 2021 Jun 7, 143(23), 8559–8564.
[49] Teicher, B. A., & Chari, R. V. Antibody conjugate therapeutics: Challenges and potential. Clinical
Cancer Research, 2011 Oct 15, 17(20), 6389–6397.
[50] Kj, H. Effects of drug loading on the antitumor activity of a monoclonal antibody drug conjugate.
Clinical Cancer Research, 2004, 10, 7063–7070.
[51] McCombs, J. R., & Owen, S. C. Antibody drug conjugates: Design and selection of linker, payload
and conjugation chemistry. The AAPS Journal, 2015 Mar, 17, 339–351.
[52] Bargh, J. D., Isidro-Llobet, A., Parker, J. S., & Spring, D. R. Cleavable linkers in antibody–drug
conjugates. Chemical Society Reviews, 2019, 48(16), 4361–4374.
[53] Alas, M., Saghaeidehkordi, A., & Kaur, K. Peptide–drug conjugates with different linkers for cancer
therapy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2020 Dec 31, 64(1), 216–232.
[54] Bargh, J. D., Isidro-Llobet, A., Parker, J. S., & Spring, D. R. Cleavable linkers in antibody–drug
conjugates. Chemical Society Reviews, 2019, 48(16), 4361–4374.
[55] Ha, S. Y., Anami, Y., Yamazaki, C. M., Xiong, W., Haase, C. M., Olson, S. D., Lee, J., Ueno, N. T., Zhang,
N., An, Z., & Tsuchikama, K. An enzymatically cleavable tripeptide linker for maximizing the
therapeutic index of antibody–drug conjugates. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 2022 Sep 6, 21(9),
1449–1461.
[56] Alas, M., Saghaeidehkordi, A., & Kaur, K. Peptide–drug conjugates with different linkers for cancer
therapy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2020 Dec 31, 64(1), 216–232.
17 Molecular simulation-based technology for antibody–drug conjugates 429
https://t.me/med1917
[57] Dal Corso, A., Cazzamalli, S., Gébleux, R., Mattarella, M., & Neri, D. Protease-cleavable linkers
modulate the anticancer activity of noninternalizing antibody–drug conjugates. Bioconjugate
Chemistry, 2017 Jul 19, 28(7), 1826–1833.
[58] Shefet-Carasso, L., & Benhar, I. Antibody-targeted drugs and drug resistance – Challenges and
solutions. Drug Resistance Updates, 2015 Jan 1, 18, 36–46.
[59] Bouchard, H., Viskov, C., & Garcia-Echeverria, C. Antibody–drug conjugates – A new wave of cancer
drugs. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2014 Dec 1, 24(23), 5357–5363.
[60] Akkapeddi, P., Azizi, S. A., Freedy, A. M., Cal, P. M., Gois, P. M., & Bernardes, G. J. Construction of
homogeneous antibody–drug conjugates using site-selective protein chemistry. Chemical Science,
2016, 7(5), 2954–2963.
[61] Hallen, H. E., Luo, H., Scott-Craig, J. S., & Walton, J. D. Gene family encoding the major toxins of
lethal Amanita mushrooms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007 Nov 27;104
(48):19097–19101.
[62] Kim, E. G., & Kim, K. M. Strategies and advancement in antibody-drug conjugate optimization for
targeted cancer therapeutics. Biomolecules & Therapeutics, 2015 Nov, 23(6), 493.
[63] Doronina, S. O., Toki, B. E., Torgov, M. Y., Mendelsohn, B. A., Cerveny, C. G., Chace, D. F., DeBlanc,
R. L., Gearing, R. P., Bovee, T. D., Siegall, C. B., & Francisco, J. A. Development of potent monoclonal
antibody auristatin conjugates for cancer therapy. Nature Biotechnology, 2003 Jul 1, 21(7), 778–784.
[64] Lassman, A., Pugh, S., Wang, T., Aldape, K., Gan, H., Preusser, M., Vogelbaum, M., Sulman, E., Won,
M., Zhang, P., & Moazami, G. ACTR-21. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
of depatuxizumab mafodotin (ABT-414) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplified (AMP)
newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM). Neuro-Oncology, 2019 Nov 11, 21(Supplement_6), vi17.
[65] Deeks, E. D. Polatuzumab vedotin: First global approval. In: Drugs. 2019 Sep, (Vol. 79, No. 13,
pp. 1467–1475)
[66] Kollmannsberger, C., Choueiri, T. K., Heng, D. Y., George, S., Jie, F., Croitoru, R., Poondru, S., &
Thompson, J. A. A randomized phase II study of AGS‐16C3F versus axitinib in previously treated
patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Oncologist, 2021 Mar 1, 26(3), 182–e361.
[67] Rottey, S., Clarke, J., Aung, K., Machiels, J. P., Markman, B., Heinhuis, K. M., Millward, M., Lolkema,
M., Patel, S. P., De Souza, P., & Duca, M. Phase I/IIa trial of BMS-986148, an anti-mesothelin
antibody–drug conjugate, alone or in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid
tumors. Clinical Cancer Research, 2022 Jan 1, 28(1), 95–105.
[68] Petrylak, D. P., Perez, R. P., Zhang, J., Smith, D. C., Ruether, J. D., Sridhar, S. S., Sangha, R. S., Lang,
J. M., Heath, E. I., Merchan, J. R., & Gartner, E. M. A phase I study of enfortumab vedotin (ASG-22CE;
ASG-22ME): Updated analysis of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.
[69] Herrera, A. F., & Molina, A. Investigational antibody–drug conjugates for treatment of B-lineage
malignancies. Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, 2018 Jul 1, 18(7), 452–468.
[70] Birrer, M. J., Moore, K. N., Betella, I., & Bates, R. C. Antibody-drug conjugate-based therapeutics:
State of the science. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019 Jun 1, 111(6), 538–549.
[71] Singh, R., & Erickson, H. K. Antibody–cytotoxic agent conjugates: Preparation and characterization.
Therapeutic Antibodies: Methods and Protocols, 2009, 525, 445–467.
[72] Zein, N., Sinha, A. M., McGahren, W. J., & Ellestad, G. A. Calicheamicin γ1I: An antitumor antibiotic
that cleaves double-stranded DNA site specifically. Science, 1988 May 27, 240(4856), 1198–1201.
[73] Yao, H. P., Zhao, H., Hudson, R., Tong, X. M., & Wang, M. H. Duocarmycin-based antibody–drug
conjugates as an emerging biotherapeutic entity for targeted cancer therapy: Pharmaceutical
strategy and clinical progress. Drug Discovery Today, 2021 Aug 1, 26(8), 1857–1874.
[74] Kung Sutherland, M. S., Walter, R. B., Jeffrey, S. C., Burke, P. J., Yu, C., Kostner, H., Stone, I., Ryan,
M. C., Sussman, D., Lyon, R. P., & Zeng, W. SGN-CD33A: A novel CD33-targeting antibody–drug
conjugate using a pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer is active in models of drug-resistant AML. Blood.
The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 2013 Aug 22, 122(8), 1455–1463.
430 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[75] Hartley, J. A. The development of pyrrolobenzodiazepines as antitumour agents. Expert Opinion on
Investigational Drugs, 2011 Jun 1, 20(6), 733–744.
[76] Díaz-Rodríguez, E., Gandullo-Sánchez, L., Ocaña, A., & Pandiella, A. Novel ADCs and strategies to
overcome resistance to anti-HER2 ADCs. Cancers, 2021 Dec 29, 14(1), 154.
[77] Muldoon, M. T., Holtzapple, C. K., Deshpande, S. S., Beier, R. C., & Stanker, L. H. Development of a
monoclonal antibody-based cELISA for the analysis of sulfadimethoxine. 1. Development and
characterization of monoclonal antibodies and molecular modeling studies of antibody recognition.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2000 Feb 21, 48(2), 537–544.
[78] Sutton, L. A., Agathangelidis, A., Belessi, C., Darzentas, N., Davi, F., Ghia, P., Rosenquist, R., &
Stamatopoulos, K. Antigen selection in B-cell lymphomas – Tracing the evidence. In: Seminars in
Cancer Biology. 2013 Dec 1, (Vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 399–409). Academic Press.
[79] Scarpa, E., Bailey, J. L., Janeczek, A. A., Stumpf, P. S., Johnston, A. H., Oreffo, R. O., Woo, Y. L.,
Cheong, Y. C., Evans, N. D., & Newman, T. A. Quantification of intracellular payload release from
polymersome nanoparticles. Scientific Reports, 2016 Jul 11, 6(1), 29460.
[80] Endo, Y., Takeda, K., Mohan, N., Shen, Y., Jiang, J., Rotstein, D., & Wu, W. J. Payload of T-DM1 binds to
cell surface cytoskeleton-associated protein 5 to mediate cytotoxicity of hepatocytes. Oncotarget,
2018 Dec 12, 9(98), 37200.
[81] Simon, H. U., Haj-Yehia, A., & Levi-Schaffer, F. Role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in apoptosis
induction. Apoptosis, 2000 Nov, 5, 415–418.
[82] Wang, S., & El-Deiry, W. S. TRAIL and apoptosis induction by TNF-family death receptors. Oncogene,
2003 Nov, 22(53), 8628–8633.
[83] Yang, X., Pan, Z., Choudhury, M. R., Yuan, Z., Anifowose, A., Yu, B., Wang, W., & Wang, B. Making
smart drugs smarter: The importance of linker chemistry in targeted drug delivery. Medicinal
Research Reviews, 2020 Nov, 40(6), 2682–2713.
[84] Hatakeyama, H., Akita, H., Kogure, K., Oishi, M., Nagasaki, Y., Kihira, Y., Ueno, M., Kobayashi, H.,
Kikuchi, H., & Harashima, H. Development of a novel systemic gene delivery system for cancer
therapy with a tumor-specific cleavable PEG-lipid. Gene Therapy, 2007 Jan, 14(1), 68–77.
[85] Hayes, D. F. HER2 and breast cancer – A phenomenal success story. New England Journal of
Medicine, 2019 Sep 26, 381(13), 1284–1286.
[86] Li, B. L., & Wan, X. P. Prognostic significance of immune landscape in tumour microenvironment of
endometrial cancer. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 2020 Jul, 24(14), 7767–7777.
[87] Tumey, L. N. An overview of the current ADC discovery landscape. Antibody-Drug Conjugates:
Methods and Protocols, 2020, 2078, 1–22.
[88] Gauzy-Lazo, L., Sassoon, I., & Brun, M. P. Advances in antibody–drug conjugate design: Current
clinical landscape and future innovations. SLAS DISCOVERY: Advancing the Science of Drug
Discovery, 2020 Sep, 25(8), 843–868.
[89] Jeevanandam, J., Tan, K. X., Danquah, M. K., Guo, H., & Turgeson, A. Advancing aptamers as
molecular probes for cancer theranostic applications – The role of molecular dynamics simulation.
Biotechnology Journal, 2020 Mar, 15(3), 1900368.
[90] Jelenfi, D. P., Tajti, A., & Szalay, P. G. First-principles interpretation of electron transport through
single-molecule junctions using molecular dynamics of electron attached states. Molecular Physics,
2021 Nov 17, 119(21–22), e1999518.
[91] Hénin, J., Lelièvre, T., Shirts, M. R., Valsson, O., & Delemotte, L. Enhanced sampling methods for
molecular dynamics simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04164. 2022 Feb 8.
[92] Ditler, E., & Luber, S. Vibrational spectroscopy by means of first‐principles molecular dynamics
simulations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 2022 Sep, 12(5),
e1605.
[93] Li, C., Hu, Y., Zhang, F., Geng, Y., & Meng, B. Molecular dynamics simulation of laser assisted
grinding of GaN crystals. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2023 Feb 1, 239, 107856.
17 Molecular simulation-based technology for antibody–drug conjugates 431
https://t.me/med1917
[94] Guo, Z., Lu, D., Yan, Y., Hu, S., Liu, R., Tan, G., Sun, N., Jiang, W., Liu, L., Chen, Y., & Zhang,
L. Extending the limit of molecular dynamics with ab initio accuracy to 10 billion atoms. In
Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel
Programming. 2022 Apr 2 (pp. 205–218).
[95] Talapatra, A., & Datta, D. A review of the mechanical, thermal and tribological properties of
graphene reinforced polymer nanocomposites: A molecular dynamics simulations methods.
Polymer Bulletin, 2023 Mar, 80(3), 2299–2328.
[96] Ricci, E., Giannakopoulos, G., Karkaletsis, V., Theodorou, D. N., & Vergadou, N. Developing Machine-
Learned Potentials for Coarse-Grained Molecular Simulations: Challenges and Pitfalls. In
Proceedings of the 12th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2022 Sep 7 (pp. 1–6).
[97] Zimmerman, M. I., Porter, J. R., Sun, X., Silva, R. R., & Bowman, G. R. Choice of adaptive sampling
strategy impacts state discovery, transition probabilities, and the apparent mechanism of
conformational changes. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2018 Sep 21, 14(11),
5459–5475.
[98] Volpi, R., Stafström, S., & Linares, M. Transition fields in organic materials: From percolation to
inverted Marcus regime. A consistent Monte Carlo simulation in disordered PPV. The Journal of
Chemical Physics, 2015 Mar 7, 142(9), 09450301–09450311.
[99] Nguyen, P. H., & Derreumaux, P. Multistep molecular mechanisms of Aβ16–22 fibril formation
revealed by lattice Monte Carlo simulations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2023 Jun 21, 158(23),
235101.
[100] Scott, S. L., Blocker, A. W., Bonassi, F. V., Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., & McCulloch, R. E. Bayes and
big data: The consensus Monte Carlo algorithm. In: Big Data and Information Theory. 2022 Jun 1,
(pp. 8–18). Routledge.
[101] Chan, W. K., (ed). Theory and applications of Monte Carlo simulations. BoD–Books on Demand;
2013 Mar 6.
[102] Suhobokov, A. Application of Monte Carlo simulation methods in risk management. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 2007 Jan 1, 8(3), 165–168.
[103] Rinaldi, E., Han, X., Hassan, M., Feng, Y., Nori, F., McGuigan, M., & Hanada, M. Matrix-model
simulations using quantum computing, deep learning, and lattice monte carlo. PRX Quantum, 2022
Feb 10, 3(1), 010324.
[104] Bredthauer, C., Fischer, A., Ahari, A. J., Cao, X., Weber, J., Rad, L., Rad, R., Wachutka, L., & Gagneur,
J. Transmicron: Accurate prediction of insertion probabilities improves detection of cancer driver
genes from transposon mutagenesis screens. Nucleic Acids Research, 2023 Feb 28, 51(4), e21.
[105] Cordier, B. A., Sawaya, N. P., Guerreschi, G. G., & McWeeney, S. K. Biology and medicine in the
landscape of quantum advantages. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2022 Nov 30, 19(196),
20220541.
[106] Palacio-Rodriguez, K., Vroylandt, H., Stelzl, L. S., Pietrucci, F., Hummer, G., & Cossio, P. Transition
rates, survival probabilities, and quality of bias from time-dependent biased simulations. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2109.11360. 2021 Sep 23.
[107] Butt, R. N., Amina, B., Sultan, M. U., Tanveer, Z. B., Hussain, R., Akbar, R., Khan, S., Gondal, M. N.,
Khalid, M. F., Faisal, A., & Shoaib, M. CanSeer: A Method for Development and Clinical Translation of
Personalized Cancer Therapeutics. bioRxiv. 2022 Jul 2:2022–2026.
[108] Ghosh, S. Computational Immunology: Applications. 2020 Jan 31, CRC Press.
[109] Whitaker, B. J. (ed) Imaging in Molecular Dynamics: Technology and Applications. 2003 Jun 5,
Cambridge university press.
[110] Yamashita, T. Toward rational antibody design: Recent advancements in molecular dynamics
simulations. International Immunology, 2018 Apr, 30(4), 133–140.
432 Abhishek Singh et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана