4.6 Review

Structure Based Antibody-Like Peptidomimetics

期刊

PHARMACEUTICALS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 209-235

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph5020209

关键词

antibody; CDR; peptidomimetics; Her2; Herceptin; drug-delivery; therapeutics; tumor imaging; AHNP; AERP

资金

  1. Society for Nuclear Medicine
  2. NIH [5P01 CA089480]
  3. Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation [IMG0201367]
  4. NIH/NCI [1R01-CA149425-01A1, 2R01-CA089481-09A2]
  5. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biologics such as monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and soluble receptors represent new classes of therapeutic agents for treatment of several diseases. High affinity and high specificity biologics can be utilized for variety of clinical purposes. Monoclonal antibodies have been used as diagnostic agents when coupled with radionuclide, immune modulatory agents or in the treatment of cancers. Among other limitations of using large molecules for therapy the actual cost of biologics has become an issue. There is an effort among chemists and biologists to reduce the size of biologics which includes monoclonal antibodies and receptors without a reduction of biological efficacy. Single chain antibody, camel antibodies, Fv fragments are examples of this type of deconstructive process. Small high-affinity peptides have been identified using phage screening. Our laboratory used a structure-based approach to develop small-size peptidomimetics from the three-dimensional structure of proteins with immunoglobulin folds as exemplified by CD4 and antibodies. Peptides derived either from the receptor or their cognate ligand mimics the functions of the parental macromolecule. These constrained peptides not only provide a platform for developing small molecule drugs, but also provide insight into the atomic features of protein-protein interactions. A general overview of the reduction of monoclonal antibodies to small exocyclic peptide and its prospects as a useful diagnostic and as a drug in the treatment of cancer are discussed.

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

4.6
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