Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517285›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of pharmaceutics: X2019

A head-to-head comparison of conjugation methods for VHHs: Random maleimide-thiol coupling versus controlled click chemistry.

Marc V A van Moorsel, Rolf T Urbanus, S Verhoef, C A Koekman, Maurice Vink, T Vermonden, Coen Maas, Gerard Pasterkamp, Raymond M Schiffelers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of pharmaceutics: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marc V A van MoorselDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rolf T UrbanusDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S VerhoefDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C A KoekmanDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maurice VinkDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T VermondenDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Coen MaasDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gerard PasterkampDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Raymond M SchiffelersDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Targeted delivery of therapeutics is an attractive strategy for vascular diseases. Recently, variable domains of heavy-chain-only antibodies (VHHs) have gained momentum as targeting ligands to achieve this. Targeting ligands need adequate conjugation to the preferred delivery platform. When choosing a conjugation method, two features are critical: a fixed and specified stoichiometry and an orientation of the conjugated targeting ligand that preserves its functional binding capacity. We here describe a comparison of popular maleimide-thiol conjugation with state-of-the-art "click chemistry" for conjugating VHHs. First, we demonstrate the modification of VHHs with azide via Sortase A mediated transpeptidation. Subsequently, optimal clicking conditions were found at a temperature of 50 °C, using a 3:1 M ratio of DBCO-PEG:VHH-azide and an incubation time of 18 h. Second, we show that stoichiometry was controllable with click chemistry and produced defined conjugates, whereas maleimide-thiol conjugation resulted in diverse reaction products. In addition, we show that all VHHs - independent of the conjugation method or conjugated residue - still specifically bind their cognate antigen. Yet, VHH's functional binding capacities after click chemistry were at least equal or better than maleimide thiol conjugates. Together these data underline that click chemistry is superior to maleimide-thiol conjugation for conjugating targeting ligands.

Indexed as

Click chemistryCopper free strain-promoted azide alkyne cycloaddition (SPAAC)Maleimide-thiol conjugationSite specific conjugationTargeted deliveryVariable domains of heavy chain only antibodies (VHHs)

Identifiers

PMID31517285
PMCPMC6733300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.