, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 315–329 | Cite as

The Impact of PEGylation on Biological Therapies

  • Francesco M. Veronese
  • Anna Mero
Drug Development


The term PEGylation describes the modification of biological molecules by covalent conjugation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), a non-toxic, non-immunogenic polymer, and is used as a strategy to overcome disadvantages associated with some biopharmaceuticals. PEGylation changes the physical and chemical properties of the biomedical molecule, such as its conformation, electrostatic binding, and hydrophobicity, and results in an improvement in the pharmacokinetic behavior of the drug. In general, PEGylation improves drug solubility and decreases immunogenicity. PEGylation also increases drug stability and the retention time of the conjugates in blood, and reduces proteolysis and renal excretion, thereby allowing a reduced dosing frequency. In order to benefit from these favorable pharmacokinetic consequences, a variety of therapeutic proteins, peptides, and antibody fragments, as well as small molecule drugs, have been PEGylated.

This paper reviews the chemical procedures and the conditions that have been used thus far to achieve PEGylation of biomedical molecules. It also discusses the importance of structure and size of PEGs, as well as the behavior of linear and branched PEGs. A number of properties of the PEG polymer — e.g. mass, number of linking chains, the molecular site of PEG attachment — have been shown to affect the biological activity and bioavailability of the PEGylated product. Releasable PEGs have been designed to slowly release the native protein from the conjugates into the blood, aiming at avoiding any loss of efficacy that may occur with stable covalent PEGylation.

Since the first PEGylated drug was developed in the 1970s, PEGylation of therapeutic proteins has significantly improved the treatment of several chronic diseases, including hepatitis C, leukemia, severe combined immunodeficiency disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn disease. The most important PEGylated drugs, including pegademase bovine, pegaspargase, pegfilgrastim, interferons, pegvisomant, pegaptanib, certolizumab pegol, and some of the PEGylated products presently in an advanced stage of development, such as PEG-uricase and PEGylated hemoglobin, are reviewed. The adaptations and applications of PEGylation will undoubtedly prove useful for the treatment of many previously difficult-to-treat conditions.


Acromegaly Pegfilgrastim Pegvisomant Certolizumab Pegol Rasburicase 
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.



The authors thank UCB for providing editorial support for the preparation of this paper, and Dr G. Pasut for carefully reading the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Maeda H. SMANCS and polymer conjugated macromolecular drags: advances in cancer therapeutics. Adv Drag Del Rev 1991; 6: 181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torchilin VP. Immobilised enzymes as drugs. Adv Drag Del Rev 1987; 1: 41–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abuchowski A, Van E, Palczuk NC, et al. Alteration of immunological properties of bovine serum albumin by covalent attachment of polyethylene glycol. J Biol Chem 1977; 252: 3578–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Israelachvili J. The different faces of poly(ethylene glycol). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997; 94: 8378–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris JM, Chess RB. Effect of PEGylation on pharmaceuticals. Nat Rev Drag Discov 2003; 2: 214–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kinstler OB, Brems DN, Lauren SL, et al. Characterization and stability of N-terminally PEGylated rhG-CSF. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 996–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veronese FM, Saccà B, Polverino de Laureto P, et al. New PEGs for peptide and protein modification, suitable for identification of the PEGylation site. Bioconjug Chem 2001; 12: 62–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Veronese FM. Peptide and protein PEGylation: a review of problems and solutions. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 405–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sato H, Ikea M, Suzuki K, et al. Site-specific modification of interleukin-2 by the combined use of genetic engineering techniques and transglutaminase. Biochemistry 1996; 35: 13072–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balan S, Choi JW, Godwin A, et al. Site-specific PEGylation of protein disulfide bonds using a three-carbon bridge. Bioconjug Chem 2007; 18: 61–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao H, Yang K, Martinez A, et al. Linear and branched bicine linkers for releasable PEGylation of macromolecules: controlled release in vivo and in vitro from mono- and multi-PEGylated proteins. Bioconjug Chem 2006; 17: 341–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roberts MJ, Bentley MD, Harris JM. Chemistry for peptide and protein PEGylation. Adv Drag Del Rev 2002; 54: 459–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levy Y, Hershfield MS, Fernandez-Mejia C, et al. Adenosine deaminase deficiency with late onset or recurrent infections: response to treatment with poly(ethylene glycol) modified adenosine deaminase. J Pediatr 1988; 113: 312–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graham LM. Pegasparaginase: a review of clinical studies. Adv Drag Del Rev 2003; 10: 1293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hak LJ, Relling MV, Cheng C, et al. Asparaginase pharmacodynamics differ by formulation among children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 2004; 18: 1072–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang YS, Youngster S, Grace M, et al. Structural and biological characterization of pegylated recombinant interferon alpha-2b and its therapeutic implications. Adv Drag Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 547–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monkarsh SP, Ma Y, Aglione A, et al. Positional isomers of mono-pegylated interferon α-2a: isolation, characterization, and biological activity. Anal Biochem 1997; 247: 434–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roelfsema F, Biermasz NR, Pereira AM, et al. Nanomedicines in the treatment of acromegaly: focus on pegvisomant. Int J Nanomedicine 2006; 1: 385–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pasut G, Veronese FM. Polymer-drug conjugation, recent achievements and general strategies. Prog Polym Sci 2007; 32: 933–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blick S, Curran M. Certolizumab pegol. Biodrugs 2007; 21: 196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inada Y, Takahashi K, Yoshimoto T, et al. Application of PEG-enzyme and magnetite-PEG-enzyme conjugates for biotechnological processes. Trends Biotechnol 1988; 6: 131–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris JM. Polyethylene glycol chemistry, biochemical and biochemical applications. New York: Plenum Press, 1992Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harris JM, Zalipsky S, editors. Polyethylene glycol, chemistry and biological applications. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1997Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veronese FM, Harris JM. Peptide and protein PEGylation III: advances in chemistry and clinical applications. Adv Drag Deliv Rev 2008; 60(1): 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greenwald RB. PEG drags: an overview. J Control Release 2001; 74: 159–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pasut G, Guiotto A, Veronese FM. Protein, peptide and non-peptide drug PEGylation for therapeutic application. Exp Opin Ther Pat 2004; 14: 859–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banci L, Bertini I, Caliceti P, et al. Spectroscopic characterization of polyethylene glycol Superoxide dismutase: 1H-NMR studies on its Cu22CO2 derivative. J Inorg Biochem 1990; 39: 149–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greenwald RB, Choe YH, McGuire J, et al. Effective drag delivery by PEGylated drug conjugates. Adv Drag Deliv Rev 2003; 55: 217–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harris JM, Sedaghat-Herati MR. Preparation and use of polyethylene glycol propionaldehyde [US patent 5252714; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Aug 26]
  30. 30.
    Takakura Y, Fujita T, Hashida M, et al. Disposition of macromolecules in tumor bearing mice. Pharm Res 1990; 7: 339–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sartore L, Caliceti P, Schiavon O, et al. Accurate evaluation method of the polymer content in monomethoxy(polyethylene glycol) modified proteins based on amino acid analysis. Applied Biochem Biotechnol 1991; 31: 213–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miron T, Wilchek M. A simplified method for the preparation of succinimidyl carbonate polyethylene glycol for coupling to proteins. Bioconjug Chem 1993; 4: 568–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Veronese FM, Largajolli R, Boccu E, et al. Activation of monomethoxy(poly-ethylene glycol) by phenylchloroformiate and modification of ribonuclease and Superoxide dismutase. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1985; 11: 141–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee S, McNemar C. Substantially pure histidine-linked protein polymer conjugates [US patent 5985263; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Aug 26]
  35. 35.
    Morpurgo M, Veronese FM, Kachensky D, et al. Preparation and characterization of polyethylene glycol vinyl sulfone. Bioconjug Chem 1996; 7: 2417–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Woghiren C, Sharma B, Stein S. Protected thiol-polyethylene glycol: a new activated polymer for reversible protein modification. Bioconjug Chem 1993; 4: 314–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Veronese FM, Mero A, Caboi F, et al. Site-specific PEGylation of G-CSF by reversible denaturation. Bioconjug Chem 2007; 18: 1824–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kopchick JJ, Parkinson C, Stevens EC, et al. Growth hormone receptor antagonist: discovery, development, and use in patients with acromegaly. Endocr Rev 2002; 23: 623–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zalipsky S, Meno-Rudolph S. Hydrazide derivatives of polyethylene glycol and their bioconjugates, in polyethylene glycol chemistry and biological applications. In: Harris JM, Zalipsky S, editors. ACS Symposium Series 1997; 680: 318–41Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tayar E, Zhao X, Bentley MD. PEG-LHRH analog conjugates [world patent publication no. WO/1999/055376; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Aug 26]
  41. 41.
    Orsatti L, Veronese FM. An unusual coupling of poly(ethylene glycol) to tyrosine residues in epidermal growth factor. J Bioac Comp Polymer 1999; 14: 429–36Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    DeFrees S, Wang ZG, Xing R, et al. GlycoPEGylation of recombinant therapeutic proteins produced in Escherichia coll. Glycobiology 2006; 16: 833–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gaertner HF, Puigserver AJ. Increased activity and stability of poly(ethylene glycol)-modified trypsin. Enzyme Microb Technol 1992; 14: 150–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fontana A, Spolaore B, Mero A, et al. Site-specific modification and PEGylation of pharmaceutical proteins mediated by transglutaminase. Adv Drug Del Rev 2008; 60: 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Messersmith PB, Hu B-H, Ritter Jones M. Injectable and bioadhesive polymeric hydrogels as well as related methods of enzymatic preparation [US patent 7208171; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Aug 26]
  46. 46.
    Monfardini C, Schiavon O, Caliceti P, et al. A branched monomethoxypoly-(ethylene glycol) for protein modification. Bioconjug Chem 1995; 6: 62–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Veronese FM, Caliceti P, Schiavon O. Branched and linear poly(ethylene glycol): influence of the polymer structure on enzymological, pharmacokinetic, and immunological properties of protein conjugates. J Bioact Comp Polym 1997; 12: 196–207Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Srividhya M, Preethi S, Gnanamani A, et al. Sustained release of protein from polyethylene glycol incorporated amphiphilic comb like polymers. Int J Pharm 2006; 326: 119–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bailon P, Palleroni A, Schaffer CA, et al. Rational design of a potent, long-lasting form of interferon: a 40 kDa branched polyethylene glycol-conjugated interferon alpha-2a for the treatment of hepatitis C. Bioconjug Chem 2001; 12: 195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Delgado C, Francis GE, Fisher D. The uses and properties of PEG-linked proteins. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1992; 9: 249–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Caliceti P, Schiavon O, Veronese FM. Immunological properties of uricase conjugated to neutral soluble polymers. Bioconjug Chem 2001; 12: 515–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Morpurgo M, Veronese FM. Conjugates of peptides and proteins to polyethylene glycols. Methods Mol Biol 2004; 283: 45–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Federico R, Cona A, Caliceti P, et al. Histaminase PEGylation: preparation and characterization of a new bioconjugate for therapeutic application. J Control Release 2006; 115: 168–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Visentin R, Pasut G, Veronese FM, et al. Highly efficient technetium-99m labeling procedure based on the conjugation of N-[N-(3-diphenylphosphinopropionyl) glycil] cysteine ligand with poly(ethylene glycol). Bioconjug Chem 2004; 15: 1046–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pradhananga S, Wilkinson I, Ross RJ. Pegvisomant: structure and function. J Mol Endocrinol 2002; 29: 11–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bell EA, Wall GC. Pediatric constipation therapy using guidelines and polyethylene glycol 3350. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 686–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pashankar DS, Loening-Baucke V, Bishop WP. Polyethylene glycol 3350 without electrolytes: a new safe, effective, and palatable bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. J Pediatr 2004; 144: 358–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yamaoka T, Tabata Y, Ikada Y. Distribution and tissue uptake of polyethylene glycol with different molecular weights after intravenous administration to mice. J Pharm Sci 1994; 83: 601–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kawai F. Microbial degradations of polyethers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002; 58: 30–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Beranova M, Wasserbauer R, Vancurova D, et al. Effect of cytochrome P-450 inhibition and stimulation on intensity of polyethylene degradation in microsomal fraction of mouse and rat livers. Biomaterials 1990; 11: 521–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Working PK, Newman MS, Johnson J, et al. Safety of poly(ethylene glycol) and poly(ethylene glycol) derivatives. In: Harris JM, Zalipsky S, editors. Polyethylene glycol chemistry and biological applications. ACS Symposium Series 1997; 680: 45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Immordino ML, Dosio F, Cattel L. Stealth liposomes: review of the basic science, rationale, and clinical applications, existing and potential. Int J Nanomedicine 2006; 1: 297–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bendele A, Seely J, Richey C, et al. Short communication: renal tubular vacuolation in animals treated with poly(ethylene glycol)-conjugated proteins. Toxicol Sci 1999; 42: 152–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Webster R, Didier E, Harris P, et al. Pegylated proteins: evaluation of their safety in the absence of definitive metabolism studies. Drug Metabol Dis 2007; 35: 9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fibbe WE, Daha MR, Hiemstra PS, et al. Interleukin-1 and poly(rI)-poly(rC) induce production of granulocyte CSF, macrophage CSF and granulocyte-macrophage CSF by human endothelial cells. Exp Hematol 1989; 17: 229–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Weite K, Platzer E, Lu L, et al. Purification and biochemical characterization of human pluripotent hematopoietic colony-stimulating factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1985; 82: 1526–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lu HS, Clogston CL, Narhi LO, et al. Folding and oxidation of recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor produced in Escherichia coli: characterization of the disulfide-reduced intermediates and cysteine-serine analogs. J Biol Chem 1992; 267: 8770–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kinstler O, Molineaux G, Treuheit M, et al. Mono-N-terminal poly(ethylene glycol)-protein conjugates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 477–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Molineaux G. The design and development of pegfilgrastim (PEG-rmetHuG-CSF, Neulasta). Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10: 1235–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Piedmonte DM, Treuheit MJ. Formulation of Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim). Adv Drug Del Rev 2008; 60: 50–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Luxon BA, Grace M, Brassard D, et al. Pegylated interferons for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 1363–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Foster GR. Pegylated interferons: chemical and clinical differences. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 825–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hinds KD, Kim SW. Effect of PEG conjugation on insulin properties. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 505–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hershfield MS, Chaffee S, Koro-Johnson L, et al. Use of site-directed mutagenesis to enhance the epitope-shielding effect of covalent modification of proteins with polyethylene glycol. Pro Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991; 88: 7185–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fishburn CS. The pharmacology of PEGylation: balancing PD with PK to generate novel therapeutics. J Pharm Sci Epub 2008 Jan 15Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Parkinson C, Scarlett JA, Trainer PJ. Pegvisomant in the treatment of acromegaly. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2003; 55: 1303–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ng EWM, Shima DT, Calias P, et al. A targeted anti-VEGF aptamer for ocular vascular disease. Nat Rev Drug Dis 2006; 5: 123–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chapman AP. PEGylated antibodies and antibody fragments for improved therapy: a review. Adv Drug Del Rev 2002; 54: 531–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chapman AP, Antoniw P, Spitali M, et al. Therapeutic antibody fragments with prolonged in vivo half-lives. Nat Biotechnol 1999; 17: 780–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Melmed GY, Targan SR, Yasothan U, et al. Certolizumab pegol. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008; 7: 641–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. PRECISE 1 Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 228–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Schreiber S, Khaliq-Kareemi M, Lawrance IC, et al. Maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol for Crohn’s disease. PRECISE 2 Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 239–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Fleischmann R, Mason D, Cohen S. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing previous DMARD therapy [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66Suppl. II: 169Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Smolen J, Brzezicki J, Mason D, et al. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite MTX therapy: results from the RAPID 2 study [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66Suppl. II: 187Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Reich K, Tasset C, Ortonne J. Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis: preliminary results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66Suppl. II: 251Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Edwards C. PEGylated recombinant human soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor type I (r-Hu-sTNF-RI): novel high affinity TNF receptor designed for chronic inflammatory diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58: 173–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Paz K, Zhu Z. Development of angiogenesis inhibitors to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2: current status and future perspective. Front Biosci 2005; 10: 1415–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nishimura H, Ashihara Y, Matsushima A, et al. Modification of yeast uricase with poly(ethylene glycol): disappearance of binding ability towards anti-uricase serum. Enzyme 1979; 24: 261–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Abuchowski A, Karp D, Davis FF. Reduction of plasma urate levels in the cockerel with poly(ethylene glycol)-uricase. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1981; 219: 352–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Caliceti P, Morpurgo M, Schiavon O, et al. Preservation of thrombolytic activity of urokinase modified with monomethoxypoly(ethylene glycol). J Bioact Comp Polym 1999; 4: 252–66Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Chua CC, Greenberg ML, Viau AT, et al. Use of poly(ethylene glycol)-modified uricase (PEG-uricase) to treat hyperuricemia in a patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109: 114–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Coiffier B, Mounier N, Bologna S, et al. Efficacy and safety of rasburicase (recombinant urate oxidase) for the prevention and treatment of hyperuricemia during induction chemotherapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of the GRAAL1 (Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte Trial on Rasburicase Activity in Adult Lymphoma) study. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 4402–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sherman MR, Saifer MGP, Perez-Ruiz F. PEG-uricase in the management of treatment-resistant gout and hyperuricemia. Adv Drug Del Rev 2008; 60: 59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sundy JS, Ganson NJ, Kelly SJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous PEGylated recombinant mammalian urate oxidase in patients with refractory gout. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56: 1021–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ganson NJ, Kelly SJ, Scarlett E, et al. Control of hyperuricemia in subjects with refractory gout, and induction of antibody poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), in a phase I trial of subcutaneous PEGylated urate oxidase. Arthritis Res Ther 2006; 8(1): R12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Richter AW, Akerblom E. Antibodies against polyethylene glycol produced in animals by immunization with monomethoxy polyethylene glycol modified proteins. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1983; 74: 124–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Fisher TC, Armstrong JK, Wenby RW, et al. Isolation and identification of a human antibody to poly(ethylene glycol) [abstract]. Blood 2003; 102: 559Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hess JR, Macdonald VM, Brinkley WW. Systemic and pulmonary hypertension after resuscitation with cell free hemoglobin. J Appl Physiol 1993; 74: 1769–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Nho K, Zalipsky S, Davis F. Chemically modified hemoglobin as an effective, stable, non-immunogenic red blood cell substitute [US patent 5386014; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Aug 26]
  100. 100.
    Manjula BN, Tsai A, Upadhya R, et al. Site-specific PEGylation of hemoglobin at Cys-93β: correlation between the colligative properties of the PEGylated protein and the length of the conjugated PEG chain. Bioconjug Chem 2003; 14: 464–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hu T, Prabhakaran M, Acharya S, et al. Influence of the chemistry of conjugation of polyethylene glycol to Hb on the oxygen-binding and solution properties of the PEG-Hb conjugate. Biochem J 2005; 392: 555–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Duncan R. The dawning era of polymer therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2: 347–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zhao H, Rubio B, Sapra P, et al. Novel prodrugs of SN38 using multiarm poly(ethylene glycol) linkers. Bioconjug Chem 2008; 19: 849–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesPadua UniversityPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations