ADC Series (IV): ADC Target Selection - Which Antigens Truly Suit Antibody–Drug Conjugates?
- Jason Lu
- Feb 14
- 5 min read
Introduction
This is the fourth article in the ADC series.
If previous articles discussed:
The integrated system of antibody–drug conjugates (Series I)
The evolution of ADC generations (Series II)
Linker and conjugation as the engineering core (Series III)
This article moves upstream to a more fundamental question:
ADC target selection — which antigens are biologically suitable for ADC development?
This article is written for readers without prior ADC experience who want to understand how antigen biology determines the upper limit of therapeutic success.
Executive Summary | Key Takeaways
ADC target selection is the earliest and most difficult-to-correct decision in development.
High antigen expression alone does not guarantee suitability — efficient internalization is essential.
Antigen density, tumor heterogeneity, and normal tissue expression directly shape efficacy and safety.
Antigen shedding can create a pharmacokinetic “drug sink” that reduces tumor exposure.
Multispecific ADC strategies offer new design logic, but increase biological and engineering complexity.
1. ADC Target Selection Is Not Simply About High Expression
A common assumption in oncology is:
If a protein is highly expressed on cancer cells, it must be a good ADC target.
However, antibody–drug conjugates are not simply “antibodies plus toxins.”
They rely on a coordinated biological process.
An ADC must complete the following sequence:
Antibody binds to antigen
Receptor-mediated internalization
Trafficking to lysosomes
Linker cleavage or antibody degradation
Payload release inside the cell
If the target biology does not support this cascade, engineering optimization alone cannot compensate.
2. Internalization: The Critical Biological Gate
2.1 What Is Internalization?
After antibody binding, some cell surface receptors trigger endocytosis, internalizing the antibody–antigen complex into the cell.
For most ADCs, intracellular payload delivery depends on this process.
Without sufficient internalization, ADCs remain bound to the cell surface and fail to deliver cytotoxic payload effectively.
2.2 Internalization Rate Matters More Than Expression
Consider two targets:
Target A: 100,000 molecules per cell, but slow internalization
Target B: 20,000 molecules per cell, but rapid internalization
Target B may ultimately deliver more payload intracellularly.
Therefore, internalization kinetics are often more predictive of ADC success than surface expression alone.
2.3 Post-Endocytic Trafficking
Internalization does not guarantee lysosomal delivery.
Receptors may:
Recycle back to the cell surface
Stall in early endosomes
Follow alternative trafficking routes
Since many ADC linkers are designed for lysosomal cleavage,
understanding trafficking behavior is essential for ADC target selection.
3. Antigen Density and Quantitative Payload Delivery
ADC efficacy is partially a quantitative problem:
How many antigens per cell?
How many ADC molecules bind and internalize?
What is the payload potency?
Low antigen density may require extremely potent payloads,
but increasing potency can also narrow the therapeutic window.
Thus, target density and payload strength must be evaluated together.
4. Tumor Heterogeneity: The Hidden Constraint
Tumors are rarely uniform.
Within the same tumor, some cells may express:
High antigen levels
Moderate levels
Minimal or no expression
If antigen expression is heterogeneous,
ADC therapy may eliminate only a subset of cells, leaving resistant clones behind.
Strategies to address heterogeneity include:
Payloads capable of bystander effect
Multispecific ADC formats
However, these strategies introduce additional design trade-offs.
5. On-Target Off-Tumor Toxicity
ADC target selection demands stricter specificity than naked antibodies.
Even low-level antigen expression in normal tissues may be acceptable for signaling-blocking antibodies.
But in ADC therapy:
If the target internalizes in normal tissue
The cytotoxic payload can be released intracellularly
This can amplify toxicity.
Thus, acceptable normal tissue expression thresholds are lower for ADCs than for conventional antibodies.
6. Antigen Shedding and Soluble Antigen
Some antigens are shed from the cell surface into circulation.
This can result in:
Antibody sequestration in plasma
Altered pharmacokinetics
Reduced tumor exposure
In ADCs, soluble antigen can function as a “drug sink,”
binding and neutralizing the antibody–drug conjugate before it reaches the tumor.
Therefore, shedding behavior must be assessed during ADC target selection.
7. Multispecific ADC: Expanding Target Logic
Advances in protein engineering have enabled:
Bispecific antibodies
Dual-target ADCs
Multispecific formats
These approaches aim to:
Improve selectivity via AND logic
Enhance internalization through receptor crosslinking
Address tumor heterogeneity
However, multispecific ADCs increase molecular complexity and manufacturing challenges.
More importantly:
If one target is biologically unsuitable, adding a second does not eliminate fundamental constraints.
Multispecific design raises the bar for biological validation.
8. The Future of Multispecific ADC Design
Emerging directions include:
Conditional activation in tumor microenvironments
AND/OR logical binding architectures
Dual-payload strategies
These approaches transform ADC development from simple targeting to system-level design.
As a result, ADC target selection evolves from choosing a protein to architecting a biological system.
9. From Target to Platform
The most valuable ADC targets often demonstrate:
Reproducible internalization behavior
Manageable normal tissue expression
Cross-indication applicability
Compatibility with multiple payload classes
Such targets support scalable therapeutic platforms rather than single assets.
Integrating Biology and Strategy | LuTra Studio Consulting
ADC target selection is the earliest structural decision in development.
Engineering refinements can improve performance,
but fundamental biological constraints are difficult to reverse later.
At LuTra Studio, we help teams integrate:
Antigen biology
Internalization behavior
Payload compatibility
Platform scalability
The goal is not simply to identify a target that “looks promising,”
but one that is systemically coherent and strategically extensible.
Closing Thought
Antibody–drug conjugates succeed not because any single component is exceptional,
but because biological assumptions and engineering execution are aligned.
And that alignment begins with ADC target selection.
References
Beck, A., Goetsch, L., Dumontet, C., & Corvaïa, N.
Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody–drug conjugates.
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2017.
Drago, J. Z., Modi, S., & Chandarlapaty, S.
Unlocking the potential of antibody–drug conjugates for cancer therapy.
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 2021.
Casi, G., & Neri, D.
Antibody–drug conjugates: Basic concepts, examples and future perspectives.
Journal of Controlled Release, 2012.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000314
Shen, B. Q., et al.
Conjugation site modulates the in vivo stability and therapeutic activity of antibody–drug conjugates.
Nature Biotechnology, 2012.
Hamblett, K. J., et al.
Effects of Drug Loading on the Antitumor Activity of a Monoclonal Antibody–Drug Conjugate.
Clinical Cancer Research, 2004.
Polson, A. G., et al.
Antibody-drug conjugates for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: target and linker-drug selection.
Cancer Research, 2009.
Pak, Y.
Antibody–Drug Conjugates: Design, Formulation and Physicochemical Stability.
Pharmaceutical Research, 2015.
Spiess, C., Zhai, Q., & Carter, P. J.
Alternative molecular formats and therapeutic applications for bispecific antibodies.
Molecular Immunology, 2015.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016158901500005X
Feldmann, A., Arndt, C., Bergmann, R., & Bachmann, M.
Bispecific Antibodies and Antibody–Drug Conjugates for Cancer Therapy.
Biomolecules, 2020.
Ummarino, D., et al.
Antibody–Drug Conjugates (ADCs): current and future biopharmaceuticals.
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, 2025.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13045-025-01704-3
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Antibody-Drug Conjugates (Final Guidance for Industry).
2024 (Final Guidance; FDA).
Comments