4.8 Review

Molecularly Imprinted Synthetic Antibodies: From Chemical Design to Biomedical Applications

期刊

SMALL
卷 16, 期 27, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/smll.201906644

关键词

antibody mimicking; biosensors; cancer therapy; medical diagnosis; molecularly imprinted polymers; synthetic antibodies

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFA0112000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21875092, 21574091]
  3. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program of Jiangsu Province
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20160056]
  5. International Research Project METISLAB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Billions of dollars are invested into the monoclonal antibody market every year to meet the increasing demand in clinical diagnosis and therapy. However, natural antibodies still suffer from poor stability and high cost, as well as ethical issues in animal experiments. Thus, developing antibody substitutes or mimics is a long-term goal for scientists. The molecular imprinting technique presents one of the most promising strategies for antibody mimicking. The molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) are also called molecularly imprinted synthetic antibodies (MISAs). The breakthroughs of key technologies and innovations in chemistry and material science in the last decades have led to the rapid development of MISAs, and their molecular affinity has become comparable to that of natural antibodies. Currently, MISAs are undergoing a revolutionary transformation of their applications, from initial adsorption and separation to the rising fields of biomedicine. Herein, the fundamental chemical design of MISAs is examined, and then current progress in biomedical applications is the focus. Meanwhile, the potential of MISAs as qualified substitutes or even to transcend the performance of natural antibodies is discussed from the perspective of frontier needs in biomedicines, to facilitate the rapid development of synthetic artificial antibodies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据