Cited by 128Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms

Increased Tumor Penetration of Single-Domain Antibody–Drug Conjugates Improves In Vivo Efficacy in Prostate Cancer Models

Open access
Nessler, Ian, Khera, Eshita, Vance, Steven, Kopp, Anna, Qiu, Qifeng, Keating, Thomas A., Abu-Yousif, Adnan O., Sandal, Thomas +4 more·2020·Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Targeted delivery of chemotherapeutics aims to increase efficacy and lower toxicity by concentrating drugs at the site-of-action, a method embodied by the seven current FDA-approved antibody–drug conjugates (ADC). However, a variety of pharmacokinetic challenges result in relatively narrow therapeutic windows for these agents, hampering the development of new drugs. Here, we use a series of prostate-specific membrane antigen–binding single-domain (Humabody) ADC constructs to demonstrate that tissue penetration of protein–drug conjugates plays a major role in therapeutic efficacy. Counterintuitively, a construct with lower in vitro potency resulted in higher in vivo efficacy than other protein–drug conjugates. Biodistribution data, tumor histology images, spheroid experiments, in vivo single-cell measurements, and computational results demonstrate that a smaller size and slower internalization rate enabled higher tissue penetration and more cell killing. The results also illustrate the benefits of linking an albumin-binding domain to the single-domain ADCs. A construct lacking an albumin-binding domain was rapidly cleared, leading to lower tumor uptake (%ID/g) and decreased in vivo efficacy. In conclusion, these results provide evidence that reaching the maximum number of cells with a lethal payload dose correlates more strongly with in vivo efficacy than total tumor uptake or in vitro potency alone for these protein–drug conjugates. Computational modeling and protein engineering can be used to custom design an optimal framework for controlling internalization, clearance, and tissue penetration to maximize cell killing. Significance: A mechanistic study of protein–drug conjugates demonstrates that a lower potency compound is more effective in vivo than other agents with equal tumor uptake due to improved tissue penetration and cellular distribution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-2295

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The histological architecture of mCRPC-characterized by dense stroma, low vascularity, and high between-tumor heterogeneity-has limited ADC penetration and distribution within tumor tissue.

    “In particular, the histological architecture of mCRPC—characterized by dense stroma, low vascularity, and high between-tumor heterogeneity—has limited ADC penetration and distribution within tumor tissue219–222.”

    From The evolving landscape of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for treatment of prostate cancer (2025) · cites this paper as [222]

    The Introduction says ADCs can penetrate only a few cell layers beyond blood vessels, and the Results report limited, perivascular distribution of some constructs in prostate-cancer xenografts. But the paper does not establish that dense stroma, low vascularity, or between-tumor heterogeneity characterize mCRPC or cause the penetration limitation; its experiments use spheroids and mouse xenografts. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 128

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Dennis MS Imaging tumors with an albumin-binding Fab, a novel tumor-targeting agent. 67, 254– 261 (2007). 17210705

Authors
Nessler, I., Khera, E., Vance, S., Kopp, A., Qiu, Q., Keating, T. A., Abu-Yousif, A. O., Sandal, T., Legg, J., Thompson, L., Goodwin, N., & Thurber, G. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Crescendo Biologics Ltd. (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • ImmunoGen (United States) (US)
  • 4Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Corresponding author
Thurber, Greg M.
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2020-03-13
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
1268-1278
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W3000093261
Cited by
128
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 8
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Takeda Pharmaceutics NSF
  • NIH (R35 GM128819)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Keywords
antibody-drug conjugates, nanobodies, prostate-specific membrane antigen, prostate cancer, tumor penetration, albumin-binding domain, pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution, tumor uptake, targeted drug delivery, in vivo efficacy, spheroid model, single-cell imaging, computational modeling
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Prostatic Neoplasms, Structure-Activity Relationship, Tissue Distribution, Microscopy, Confocal, Immunoconjugates, Spheroids, Cellular, Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating, Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice, Single-Domain Antibodies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review