4.8 Article

Targeted and modular architectural polymers employing bioorthogonal chemistry for quantitative therapeutic delivery

期刊

CHEMICAL SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 3268-3280

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0sc00078g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1099321, APP1148582, APP1054569]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP150100703]
  3. ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology [CE140100036]
  4. ARC Training Centre for Innovation in Biomedical Imaging Technologies [IC170100035]
  5. Australian Research Council [LP150100703] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There remain several key challenges to existing therapeutic systems for cancer therapy, such as quantitatively determining the true, tissue-specific drug release profile in vivo, as well as reducing side-effects for an increased standard of care. Hence, it is crucial to engineer new materials that allow for a better understanding of the in vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic behaviours of therapeutics. We have expanded on recent click-to-release bioorthogonal pro-drug activation of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) to develop a modular and controlled theranostic system for quantitatively assessing site-specific drug activation and deposition from a nanocarrier molecule, by employing defined chemistries. The exploitation of quantitative imaging using positron emission tomography (PET) together with pre-targeted bioorthogonal chemistries in our system provided an effective means to assess in real-time the exact amount of active drug administered at precise sites in the animal; our methodology introduces flexibility in both the targeting and therapeutic components that is specific to nanomedicines and offers unique advantages over other technologies. In this approach, the in vivo click reaction facilitates pro-drug activation as well as provides a quantitative means to investigate the dynamic behaviour of the therapeutic agent.

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