Advertisement

Novel Alternative Scaffolds and Their Potential Use for Tumor Targeted Radionuclide Therapy

  • Fredrik Y. Frejd

Summary

The class of macromolecules referred to as “Alternative Scaffolds” is reviewed in this chapter. A general introduction to alternative scaffolds is presented, and groups of alternative scaffolds are described according to structural folds. The properties of these biomolecules as molecular recognition tools are presented, scaffolds of special interest for targeted radionuclide therapy are highlighted and tumor targeting data is discussed.

Keywords

Tumor Target Tumor Uptake Ankyrin Repeat Affibody Molecule Target Radionuclide Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Behr TM, Gotthardt M, Barth A, Behe M (2001) Imaging tumors with peptide-based radioligands. Q J Nucl Med 45:189-200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Britz-Cunningham SH, Adelstein SJ (2003) Molecular targeting with radionuclides: state of the science. J Nucl Med 44:1945-61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russeva MG, Adams GP (2004) Radioimmunotherapy with engineered antibodies Expert Opin Biol Ther 4:217-31Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batra SK, Jain M, Wittel UA (2002) Pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of genetically engineered antibodies. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:603-8. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heppeler A, Froidevaux S, Eberle AN, Maecke HR (2000) Receptor targeting for tumour localisation and therapy with radiopeptides. Curr Med Chem 7:971-94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tolmachev V, Orlova A, Pehrson R, et al. (2007) Radionuclide therapy of HER2-positive microxenografts using a 177Lu-labeled HER2-specific Affibody molecule. Cancer Res 67:2773-82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milenic DE, Brady ED, Brechbiel MW (2004) Antibody-targeted radiation cancer therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:488-99. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohler G, Milstein C (1975) Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature 256:495-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holliger P, Hudson PJ (2005) Engineered antibody fragments and the rise of single domains. Nat Biotechnol 9:1126-36. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robinson MK, Doss M, Shaller C (2005) Quantitative immuno-positron emission tomography imaging of HER2-positive tumor xenografts with an iodine-124 labeled anti-HER2 diabody. Cancer Res 65:1471-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adams GP, Tai MS, McCartney JE (2006) Avidity-mediated enhancement of in vivo tumor targeting by single-chain Fv dimers. Clin Cancer Res 12:1599-605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olafsen, T et al. (2004) Characterization of engineered anti-p185HER-2 (scFv-CH3)2 antibody fragments (minibodies) for tumor targeting. Protein Eng Des Sel 17:315-23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tijink BM, Neri D, Leemans CR, et al. (2006) Radioimmunotherapy of head and neck cancer xenografts using 131I-labeled antibody L19-SIP for selective targeting of tumor vasculature. J Nucl Med 47:1127-35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olafsen T, Kenanova VE, Wu AM (2006) Tunable pharmacokinetics: modifying the in vivo half-life of antibodies by directed mutagenesis of the Fc fragment. Nat Protoc 1:2048-60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Jong M, Valkema R, Jamar F (2002) Somatostatin receptor-targeted radionuclide therapy of tumors: preclinical and clinical findings. Semin Nucl Med Apr; 32(2):133-40. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reubi JC, Mäcke HR, Krenning EP (2005) Candidates for peptide receptor radiotherapy today and in the future. J Nucl Med 46 (Suppl 1):67-75. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharkey RM, Cardillo TM, Rossi EA, et al. (2005) Signal amplification in molecular imaging by pretargeting a multivalent, bispecific antibody. Nat Med 11:1250-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hey T, Fiedler E, Rudolph R, Fiedler M (2005) Artificial, non-antibody binding proteins for pharmaceutical and industrial applications. Trends Biotechnol 23:514-22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hosse RJ, Rothe A, Power BE (2006) A new generation of protein display scaffolds for molecular recognition. Protein Sci 15:14-27. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Binz HK, Amstutz P, Pluckthun A (2005) Engineering novel binding proteins from nonimmunoglobulin domains. Nat Biotechnol 23:1257-68. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Binz HK, Pluckthun A (2005) Engineered proteins as specific binding reagents. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:459-69. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nygren PA, Skerra A (2004) Binding proteins from alternative scaffolds. J Immunol Methods 290:3-28. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nygren PA, Uhlen M (1997) Scaffolds for engineering novel binding sites in proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol7:463-9. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoogenboom HR (2005) Selecting and screening recombinant antibody libraries. Nat Biotechnol 23:1105-16. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoogenboom HR (2002) Overview of antibody phage-display technology and its applications. Methods Mol Biol 178:1-37. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lipovsek D, Plückthun A (2004) In-vitro protein evolution by ribosome display and mRNA display. J Immunol Methods 290:51-67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boder ET, Wittrup KD (1997) Yeast surface display for screening combinatorial polypeptide libraries. Nat Biotechnol 15:553-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Samuelson P, Gunneriusson E, Nygren PA, Stahl S (2002) Display of proteins on bacteria. J Biotechnol 96(2):129-54. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen G, Hayhurst A, Thomas JG (2001) Isolation of high-affinity ligand-binding proteins by periplasmic expression with cytometric screening (PECS). Nat Biotechnol 19:537-42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bertschinger J, Neri D (2004) Covalent DNA display as a novel tool for directed evolution of proteins in vitro. Protein Eng Des Sel 17:699-707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sepp A, Tawfik DS, Griffiths AD (2002) Microbead display by in vitro compartmentalisation: selection for binding using flow cytometry FEBS Lett 532:455-8Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hamers-Casterman C, Atarhouch T, Muyldermans S (1993) Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains. Nature 363:446-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greenberg AS, Avila D, Hughes M et al. (1995) A new antigen receptor gene family that undergoes rearrangement and extensive somatic diversification in sharks. Nature 374 (6518):168-73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nuttall SD, Krishnan UV, Hattarki M, De Gori R, Irving RA, Hudson PJ (2001) Isolation of the new antigen receptor from wobbegong sharks, and use as a scaffold for the display of protein loop libraries. Mol Immunol 38:313-26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coppieters K, Dreier T, Silence K, et al. (2006) Formatted anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha VHH proteins derived from camelids show superior potency and targeting to inflamed joints in a murine model of collagen-induced arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 54:1856-66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holt LJ, Herring C, Jespers LS, et al. (2003) Domain antibodies: proteins for therapy. Trends Biotechnol 11:484-90. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Revets H, De Baetselier P, Muyldermans S (2005) Nanobodies as novel agents for cancer therapy. Expert Opin Biol Ther 5:111-24. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cortez-Retamozo V, Backmann N, Senter PD, et al. (2004) Efficient cancer therapy with a nanobody-based conjugate. Cancer Res 64:2853-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cortez-Retamozo V, Lauwereys M, Hassanzadeh Gh G, et al. (2002) Efficient tumor targeting by single-domain antibody fragments of camels. Int J Cancer 98:456-62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang L, Gainkam LO, Caveliers V, et al. (2008) SPECT imaging with (99 m)Tc-labeled EGFR-specific nanobody for in vivo monitoring of EGFR expression. Mol Imaging Biol Feb 23; 1:31-41Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li R, Hoess RH, Bennett JS, DeGrado WF (2003) Use of phage display to probe the evolution of binding specificity and affinity in integrins. Protein Eng 16:65-72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xu L, Aha P, Gu K (2002) Directed evolution of high-affinity antibody mimics using mRNA display. Chem Biol 9:933-42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parker MH, Chen Y, Danehy F (2005) Antibody mimics based on human fibronectin type three domain engineered for thermostability and high-affinity binding to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor two. Protein Eng Des Sel 18:435-44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koide A, Koide S (2007) Monobodies: antibody mimics based on the scaffold of the fibronectin type III domain. Methods Mol Biol 352:95-109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Karatan E, Merguerian M, Han Z, et al. (2004) Molecular recognition properties of FN3 monobodies that bind the Src SH3 domain. Chem Biol June; 11:835-44Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hufton SE, van Neer N, van den Beuken T (2000) Development and application of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 as a protein scaffold for the generation of novel binding ligands. FEBS Lett 475:225-31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Li Y, Moysey R, Molloy PE (2005) Directed evolution of human T-cell receptors with picomolar affinities by phage display. Nat Biotechnol 23:349-54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heyd B, Pecorari F, Collinet B (2003) In vitro evolution of the binding specificity of neocarzinostatin, an enediyne-binding chromoprotein. Biochemistry 42:5674-83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lipovsek D, Lippow SM, Hackel BJ (2007) Evolution of an interloop disulfide bond in highaffinity antibody mimics based on fibronectin type III domain and selected by yeast surface display: molecular convergence with single-domain camelid and shark antibodies. J Mol Biol 368:1024-41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beste G, Schmidt FS, Stibora T, Skerra A (1999) Small antibody-like proteins with prescribed ligand specificities derived from the lipocalin fold. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:1898-903PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schlehuber S, Skerra A (2005a) Anticalins as an alternative to antibody technology. Expert Opin Biol Ther 5:1453-62. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schlehuber S, Skerra A (2005b) Lipocalins in drug discovery: from natural ligand-binding proteins to “anticalins”. Drug Discov Today 10:23-33. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Juraja SM, Mulhern TD, Hudson PJ, et al. (2006) Engineering of the Escherichia coli Im7 immunity protein as a loop display scaffold. Protein Eng Des Sel 19:231-44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bernath K, Magdassi S, Tawfik DS (2005) Directed evolution of protein inhibitors of DNAnucleases by in vitro compartmentalization (IVC) and nano-droplet delivery. J Mol Biol 345:1015-26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nilsson B, Moks T, Jansson B, et al. (1987) A synthetic IgG-binding domain based on staphylococcal protein A. Protein Eng 1(2):107-13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nord K, Gunneriusson E, Ringdahl J (1997) Binding proteins selected from combinatorial libraries of an alpha-helical bacterial receptor domain. Nat Biotechnol 15:772-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nilsson FY, Tolmachev V (2007) Affibody molecules: new protein domains for molecular imaging and targeted tumor therapy. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 10:167-75. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Orlova A, Magnusson M, Eriksson TL, et al. (2006) Tumor imaging using a picomolar affinity HER2 binding affibody molecule. Cancer Res 66:4339-48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tolmachev V, Orlova A, Nilsson FY, et al. (2007) Affibody molecules: potential for in vivo imaging of molecular targets for cancer therapy. Expert Opin Biol Ther 7:555-68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tolmachev V, Nilsson FY, Widstrom C, et al. (2006) 111In-benzyl-DTPA-ZHER2:342, an affibody-based conjugate for in vivo imaging of HER2 expression in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med May; 47(5):846-53Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Engfeldt T, Tran T, Orlova A, et al. (2007a) (99 m)Tc-chelator engineering to improve tumour targeting properties of a HER2-specific Affibody molecule. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1843-53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Engfeldt T, Orlova A, Tran T, et al. (2007b) Imaging of HER2-expressing tumours using a synthetic Affibody molecule containing the (99 m)Tc-chelating mercaptoacetyl-glycyl-glycylglycyl (MAG3) sequence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:722-33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Orlova A, Tolmachev V, Pehrson R, et al. (2007) Synthetic affibody molecules: a novel class of affinity ligands for molecular imaging of HER2-expressing malignant tumors. Cancer Res 67:2178-86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Feldwisch J, Orlova A, Tolmachev V, Baum RP (2006) Clinical and pre-clinical application of HER2-specific Affibody molecules for diagnosis of recurrent HER2 positive breast cancer by SPECT or PET/CT. Mol Imaging 5(ID045):215Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Makrides SC, Nygren PA, Andrews B, et al. (1996) Extended in vivo half-life of human soluble complement receptor type 1 fused to a serum albumin-binding receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 277:534-42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Silverman J, Liu Q, Bakker A (2005) Multivalent avimer proteins evolved by exon shuffling of a family of human receptor domains. Nat Biotechnol 23(12):1556-61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Forrer P, Stumpp MT, Binz HK, Pluckthun A (2003) A novel strategy to design binding molecules harnessing the modular nature of repeat proteins. FEBS Lett 539:2-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stumpp MT, Amstutz P (2007) DARPins: a true alternative to antibodies. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 10:153-9. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Binz HK, Amstutz P, Kohl A, et al. (2004) High-affinity binders selected from designed ankyrin repeat protein libraries. Nat Biotechnol 22:575-82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schweizer A, Roschitzki-Voser H, Amstutz P, et al. (2007) Inhibition of caspase-2 by a designed ankyrin repeat protein: specificity, structure, and inhibition mechanism. Structure 15:625-36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sennhauser G, Amstutz P, Briand C, et al. (2006) Drug export pathway of multidrug exporter AcrB revealed by DARPin inhibitors. PLoS Biol 5:106-13Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zahnd C, Wyler E, Schwenk JM (2007) A designed ankyrin repeat protein evolved to picomolar affinity to her2. J Mol Biol 369:1015-28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stumpp, MT (2006) Oral presentation at IBC’s 2nd Annual International conference on Protein Engineering, December 12-14Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Otlewski J, Krowarsch D (1996) Squash inhibitor family of serine proteinases. Acta Biochim Pol 43:431-44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gelly JC, Gracy J, Kaas Q, et al. (2004) The KNOTTIN website and database: a new information system dedicated to the knottin scaffold. Nucleic Acids Res 32:D156-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Baggio R, Burgstaller P, Hale SP, et al. (2002) Identification of epitope-like consensus motifs using mRNA display. J Mol Recognit 15(3):126-34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Souriau C, Chiche L, Irving R, Hudson P (2005) New binding specificities derived from Min-23, a small cystine-stabilized peptidic scaffold. Biochemistry 44:7143-55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Smith GP, Patel SU, Windass JD (1998) Small binding proteins selected from a combinatorial repertoire of knottins displayed on phage. J Mol Biol Mar 27; 277(2):317-32Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lehtiö J, Teeri TT, Nygren PA (2000) Alpha-amylase inhibitors selected from a combinatorial library of a cellulose binding domain scaffold. Proteins 41:316-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Li C, Dowd CS, Zhang W, Chaiken IM (2001) Phage randomization in a charybdotoxin scaffold leads to CD4-mimetic recognition motifs that bind HIV-1 envelope through non-aromatic sequences. J Pept Res 57:507-18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dennis MS, Lazarus RA (1994) Kunitz domain inhibitors of tissue factor-factor VIIa. I. Potent inhibitors selected from libraries by phage display. J Biol Chem 269:22129-36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rottgen P, Collins J (1995) A human pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor presenting a hypervariable highly constrained epitope via monovalent phagemid display. Gene 164:243-50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Williams A, Baird LG (2003) DX-88 and HAE: a developmental perspective. Transfus Apher Sci 29:255-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Legendre D, Vucic B, Hougardy V, et al. (2002) TEM-1 beta-lactamase as a scaffold for protein recognition and assay. Protein Sci 11:1506-18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Malabarba MG, Milia E, Faretta M (2001) A repertoire library that allows the selection of synthetic SH2s with altered binding specificities. Oncogene 20(37):5186-94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Panni S, Dente L, Cesareni G (2002) In vitro evolution of recognition specificity mediated by SH3 domains reveals target recognition rules. J Biol Chem 277:21666-74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hiipakka M, Saksela K (2007) Versatile retargeting of SH3 domain binding by modification of non-conserved loop residues. FEBS Lett 581:1735-41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Schneider S, Buchert M, Georgiev O, et al. (1999) Mutagenesis and selection of PDZ domains that bind new protein targets. Nat Biotechnol 17:170-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Grabulovski D, Kaspar M, Neri D (2007) A novel, non-immunogenic Fyn SH3-derived binding protein with tumor vascular targeting properties. J Biol Chem 282:3196-204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Castellani P, Viale G, Dorcaratto A, et al. (1994) The fibronectin isoform containing the ED-B oncofetal domain: a marker of angiogenesis. Int J Cancer 59:612-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bertschinger J, Grabulovski D, Neri D (2007) Selection of single domain binding proteins by covalent DNA display. Protein Eng Des Sel 20:57-68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Brody EN, Gold L (2000) Aptamers as therapeutic and diagnostic agents. Rev Mol Biotechnol 74:5-13. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hoppe-Seyler F, Crnkovic-Mertens I, Tomai E, Butz K (2004) Peptide aptamers: specific inhibitors of protein function. Curr Mol Med 4:529-38. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Ng EW, Shima DT, Calias P, et al. (2006) Pegaptanib, a targeted anti-VEGF aptamer for ocular vascular disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:123-32. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ireson CR, Kelland LR (2006) Discovery and development of anticancer aptamers. Mol Cancer Ther 5:2957-62. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pietras K, Rubin K, Sjöblom T (2002) Inhibition of PDGF receptor signaling in tumor stroma enhances antitumor effect of chemotherapy. Cancer Res 62:5476-84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Pestourie C, Tavitian B, Duconge F (2005) Aptamers against extracellular targets for in vivo applications. Biochimie 87:921-30. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Charlton J, Sennello J, Smith (1997) In vivo imaging of inflammation using an aptamer inhibitor of human neutrophil elastase D. Chem Biol 4:809-16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zhang YM, Liu N, Zhu ZH, Rusckowski M, Hnatowich DJ (2000) Influence of different chelators (HYNIC, MAG3 and DTPA) on tumor cell accumulation and mouse biodistribution of technetium-99 m labeled to antisense DNA. Eur J Nucl Med 27:1700-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Tavitian B, Terrazzino S, Kuhnast B, et al. (1998) In vivo imaging of oligonucleotides with positron emission tomography. Nat Med 4:467-71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hicke BJ, Marion C, Chang YF, et al. (2001) Tenascin-C aptamers are generated using tumor cells and purified protein. J Biol Chem 276:48644-54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Hicke BJ, Stephens AW, Gould T (2006) Tumor targeting by an aptamer. J Nucl Med 47:668-78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Matthews SJ, McCoy C (2004) Peginterferon alfa-2a: a review of approved and investigational uses. Clin Ther 26:991-1025. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Veronese FM, Pasut G (2005) PEGylation, successful approach to drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 10:1451-8. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nguyen A, Reyes AE 2nd, Zhang M (2006) The pharmacokinetics of an albumin-binding Fab (AB.Fab) can be modulated as a function of affinity for albumin. Protein Eng Des Sel 19:291-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dennis MS, Jin H, Dugger D, et al. (2007) Imaging tumors with an albumin-binding Fab, a novel tumor-targeting agent. Cancer Res 67:254-61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Nygren PA, Uhlén M, Flodby P, et al. (1991) In vivo stabilization of a human recombinant CD4 derivative by fusion to a serum-albumin-binding receptor. Vaccines 91:363-8Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Vogt M, Skerra A (2004) Construction of an artificial receptor protein (“anticalin”) based on the human apolipoprotein D. Chembiochem Feb 6; 5(2):191-9.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Nordberg E, Friedman M, Nilsson F, et al. (2006) Biological characterization in vitro and in vivo of a new EGFR binding Affibody molecule. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33 (Suppl 14):S284.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Friedman M, Orlova A, Johansson E, et al. (2008) Directed evolution to low nanomolar affinity of a tumor-targeting epidermal growth factor receptor-binding affibody molecule. J Mol Biol Mar 7; 376:1388-402Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Y. Frejd
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit of Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Rudbeck LaboratoryUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Affibody ABBrommaSweden

Personalised recommendations