Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41627946›Full record

ReviewFunction (Oxford, England)2026

Tiny tools closing the gap: nanobodies in research and therapy.

Mustafa Abdellatif, Jyotirmoy Rajurkar, Heinrich Leonhardt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Function (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. EngineeredFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Mustafa AbdellatifFaculty of Biology, Human Biology and BioImaging, LMU Munich, Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4699-6945
Jyotirmoy RajurkarFaculty of Biology, Human Biology and BioImaging, LMU Munich, Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-7635-8255
Heinrich LeonhardtFaculty of Biology, Human Biology and BioImaging, LMU Munich, Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5086-6449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanobodies, also known as single-domain antibodies, have become powerful tools in research, diagnosis, and therapy. Sourced from the heavy chain of camelid heavy chain-only antibodies, this domain retains many important characteristics of full-length antibodies while being ∼10 times smaller in molecular weight. Nanobody discovery has seen expansive development over the recent past, through both conventional antigen-exposed and completely synthetic repertoires. Along these lines, binding properties of candidates can be evolved by subsequent mutation and selection cycles to adjust their specificity and avidity. Due to their small size and compact structure, nanobodies can reach cryptic sites not accessible to conventional antibodies and also show superior tissue penetration. This penetrance, alongside their ease of handling, has made nanobodies ideal candidates for a myriad of immunotherapeutic and drug delivery applications. Furthermore, their small size imparts minimal linkage errors when conjugated to a fluorophore, making nanobodies ideal tools for high-resolution imaging techniques. Most importantly, nanobodies can be stably expressed in living cells to bind, block, or modify intracellular targets, enabling study of proteins in a native context at unprecedented detail. In this review, we present the latest developments in nanobody technology and discuss applications in bioimaging, therapy, and intracellular protein study.

Indexed as

Single-Domain AntibodiesAnimalsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansImmunotherapySingle-Domain Antibodiesantibodiescell biologymicroscopynanobodiestargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID41627946
PMCPMC12934779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.