Experimental analysis reveals differing binding affinities of Sotorasib and Adagrasib to human serum albumin, highlighting potential drug delivery implications.
This study systematically explored the interaction mechanisms between two KRAS G12C inhibitors (Sotorasib and Adagrasib) and human serum albumin (HSA) via UV-vis spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, three-dimensional fluorescence spectroscopy, and molecular docking methods. The experimental findings demonstrated that both drugs caused static quenching of HSA fluorescence, with binding constants of 13.64 × 103 M−1 (Sotorasib) and 63.67 × 103 M−1 (Adagrasib), demonstrating significant selectivity differences in their binding affinities. UV spectral analysis demonstrated distinct microenvironmental perturbations: Sotorasib and Adagrasib induced a shift (∆λ = 7 nm and ∆λ = 8 nm, respectively) at 211 nm, consistent with altered polarity in HSA’s binding pockets. Fluorescence spectroscopy confirmed a 1:1 binding stoichiometry, with Stern-Volmer analysis validating static quenching as the dominant mechanism. Three-dimensional fluorescence spectra further highlighted Adagrasib’s stronger conformational impact, reducing tyrosine and tryptophan residue fluorescence intensities by 16% (Peak 1) and 10% (Peak 2), respectively, compared to Sotorasib. Molecular docking revealed divergent binding modes: Sotorasib occupied Sudlow Site I via three hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions (∆G = −24.60 kJ·mol−1), whereas Adagrasib bound through one hydrogen bond and hydrophobic forces (∆G = −30.92 kJ·mol−1), with stability differences attributed to structural characteristics. This study uses multispectral technology and molecular docking to reveal the binding mechanism of Sotorasib and Adagrasib with HSA, providing a theoretical basis for designing highly targeted albumin nanocarriers. The strong binding properties of Adagrasib and HSA may reduce the toxicity of free drugs, providing direction for the development of long-acting formulations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: