Targeted Protein Degradation in Cancer: PROTACs, New Targets, and Clinical Mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Despite recent breakthroughs in clinical practice, cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide [ 1 ]. Factors such as a poor lifestyle, demographic aging, and discrepancies in the healthcare system contribute to its growing burden, with ~20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million deaths reported globally in 2020, and an increase to 35 million new cases projected by 2050. The most common cancers, including breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, pose significant challenges in both developed and developing nations due to limitations in treatment access, diagnostic, and preventive strategies [ 2 ]. Beyond mortality, cancer imposes significant economic and social burdens, including lost productivity, high treatment costs, and reduced quality of life for long-term survivors [ 3 ]. Although targeted therapies and immunotherapies have improved outcomes for certain cancers, numerous malignancies remain refractory to treatments due to intrinsic and acquired drug resistance, tumor heterogeneity, and a limited range of druggable targets [ 4 ].

A principal limitation of conventional small molecule inhibitors is their reliance on occupancy-driven mechanisms, which require high systemic exposure and continued target binding, often leading to off-target toxicity and selective pressure that drives resistance [ 5 ]. Moreover, a vast portion of the proteome, including transcription factors, scaffold proteins, and non-catalytic effectors, has been considered undruggable due to the absence of deep enzymatic pockets or functional binding sites [ 6 ]. These unresolved challenges underscore the urgent need for innovative therapeutic modalities that can overcome the limitations of current anticancer treatments [ 7 ].

Proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) represent a revolutionary class of heterobifunctional molecules that exploit the cell’s natural ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) to achieve selective protein degradation. A typical PROTAC consists of two ligands: one that binds a protein of interest (POI), and another that recruits an E3 ubiquitin ligase, connected by a chemical linker. By facilitating proximity-induced ubiquitination, PROTACs catalyze the degradation of the target protein, offering several advantages over traditional inhibitors, including sub-stoichiometric activity, ability to target non-enzymatic proteins, and potential resilience against resistance mutations.

For example, PROTACs such as ARV-471 (targeting ER-alpha) and ARV-110 (targeting AR) have shown promising clinical activity in hormone-resistant breast cancer and prostate cancers, where standard therapies fail [ 8 ].

Recent advances have expanded the PROTAC toolbox to include conditional activation strategies, tumor-specific delivery systems, and novel E3 ligase recruits. However, challenges remain in optimizing pharmacokinetics, minimizing on-target off-tissue toxicity, and achieving tissue-selective degradation.

In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current landscape of PROTAC technology, focusing on its mechanistic basis, design innovations, and clinical progress. We further discuss persistent challenges in translation and highlight emerging solutions such as covalent PROTACs, dual targeting degraders, and integrative artificial intelligence approaches that promise to enhance the specificity, efficacy, and applicability of PROTACs. By synthesizing recent preclinical and clinical advances, this review offers a forward-looking perspective on the role of PROTACs in overcoming the limitations of conventional therapy and expanding the frontiers of precision oncology.

2. Overview of PROTAC Design

PROTACs consist of heterobifunctional molecules that contain three essential structural components: a ligand that binds to the POI, a ligand that attaches to an E3 ubiquitin ligase, and a chemical linker that connects these two parts, as shown in Figure 1 . Target ligands are often derived from binding fragments or traditional small-molecule inhibitors, and their primary function is to bind specifically to the POI with high affinity and selectivity [ 9 ].

E3 ligases are the enzymes that assist CRBN and VHL -based ligands in the ubiquitin process by tagging or recruiting target proteins for degradation by proteasomes [ 10 ]. Among the large number of E3 ligases, cereblon (CRBN) and von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)have emerged as the most used in PROTAC development due to the availability of well characterized small molecule binders and their consistent ability to induce efficient target degradation across diverse proteins.

Careful selection of the E3 ligase is crucial to the degradation mechanism because it impacts degradation efficiency, tissue distribution, and the potential for drug resistance. Additionally, the composition of linker molecules is a significant determinant of 3D protein structure and the structural plasticity required during the formation of the ternary complex involving all components, including POI, PROTAC, and E3 ligase. Any changes in linker properties, such as linker length, attachment chemistry, and rigidity, significantly affect PROTACs’ effectiveness, including degradation potency and pharmacokinetics [ 11 ]. Recent developments in PROTAC technology have led to the integration of a conditional active mechanism into linker design, providing greater control over selectivity and protein degradation Figure 2 . These modifications in linker design allow PROTACs to respond to or be activated by specific intracellular conditions like pH, redox status, and light. Optimizing PROTACs is challenging due to their modular design, which involves complex requirements for solubility, molecular size, and cellular permeability [ 12 ].

2.1. Mechanism of Action

PROTACs technology utilizes the cell’s UPS to specifically degrade targeted proteins within the cells, as shown in Figure 3 . They achieve this by binding the POI in closer proximity to an E3 ubiquitin ligase, forming an interim ternary complex [ 13 ]. Upon formation of the ternary complex, the E3 ligase promotes polyubiquitination of the target protein, thereby tagging it for subsequent degradation by the 26S proteosome [ 14 ]. After the ubiquitin-tagged target is degraded, the proteolysis chimera molecule is released with its catalytic activity intact and is now available to bind with another target and E3 ligase, continuing additional proteolytic cycles [ 15 ]. The main difference between PROTACs and traditional small inhibitors is that they do not constantly rely on the active site; instead, they employ an event-driven approach for targeted degradation. This mechanism enables PROTACs to reduce endogenous protein concentrations below stoichiometric amounts [ 16 ].

A detailed understanding of the PROTAC mechanism of action relies on a combination of complementary and Analytical approaches. Biophysical and structural techniques, including surface plasmon resonance, isothermal titration, calorimetry, and cryo-electron microscopy, are increasingly used to characterize ternary complex formation and stability. Cellular assays such as immunoblotting, reporter-based degradation assays, and live cell imaging enable quantitative assessment of target degradation kinetics and durability. In parallel, ubiquitination profiling and proteomics-based approaches provide insights into selectivity, off target effects and pathway level responses. Together, these methodologies are essential for linking greater design to biological outcome and for guiding rational optimization of PROTAC efficacy and safety.

2.2. Differences Between Small Traditional Inhibitors and PROTACs

PROTACs provide a powerful alternative to small-molecule inhibitors through an event-driven approach that results in the gradual and controlled breakdown of targeted proteins instead of merely blocking their activity temporarily [ 17 ]. Traditional inhibitors usually function by occupying the allosteric site (active site) of a protein, resulting in the blocking of its biological function, as shown in Figure 4 . This inhibition often depends on high-affinity, long-lasting interactions with the target to maintain effectiveness. Conventional small-molecule inhibitors are less effective against mutated proteins with inactive active sites and non-enzymatic roles [ 18 ]. In contrast, PROTACs can trigger the irreversible degradation of the protein of interest (POI) via the UPS within cells. Their catalytic nature enables PROTACs to produce therapeutic effects at levels below stoichiometric amounts, decreasing the need for continuous target engagement [ 19 ].

The advantage of PROTACs is their ability to target proteins lacking enzymatic activity, such as scaffolding proteins, transcription factors, and regulatory subunit targets that are typically considered “undruggable” with standard inhibition techniques. Furthermore, because PROTACs eliminate proteins rather than just inhibiting their function, they may evade resistance mechanisms associated with point mutations that diminish the binding affinity of inhibitors [ 14 ]. Nevertheless, challenges related to large molecular weight, less oral bioavailability, and limited cellular permeability still need to be addressed for effective clinical implementation [ 21 ]. However, PROTACs present a powerful and versatile approach to managing proteins therapeutically across a broad spectrum of disease targets, especially in the field of oncology ( Table 1 ).

2.3. Role of E3 Ligases in PROTAC Design

E3 ubiquitin ligases play a crucial role in designing PROTACs, as they facilitate the ubiquitination and gradual proteasomal degradation of target proteins. The effectiveness of PROTACs relies on the formation of a productive ternary complex that includes the target protein, the PROTAC compound, and the recruited E3 ligase. This process is influenced by the biochemical and cellular characteristics of the E3 ligase, such as its ligand-binding capacity, expression across various tissues, subcellular localization, and compatibility in protein–protein interactions (PPI) [ 29 ]. More than 600 E3 ligases are present in the human genome; however, only 2% are utilized in the development of PROTACs, including cereblon ( CRBN ), von Hippel-Lindau ( VHL ), MDM2 , and inhibitors of apoptosis, due to their known small-molecule ligands and advantageous structural properties. In Figure 5 , a timeline of successful E3 ligases for drug discovery and development is shown.

E3 ubiquitin ligases showed higher degradation efficiency, stable ternary complex formation, and applicability across a wide range of targeted classes of proteins. For instance, CRBN and VHL have been extensively utilized due to their potent ligands and comprehensive validation in preclinical studies [ 30 ]. The choice of E3 ligase depends on various aspects such as degradation efficiency, subcellular localization, and tissue specificity [ 31 ]. There are broad opportunities to explore new ligases, like FBXO7 , HUWE1 , and UHRF1 , because of their specific expression in tumors and their ability to target proteins that were previously considered “undruggable,” such as KRAS or RAC1 [ 32 ]. New datasets, like the E3 Atlas , combine multi-omics information, for instance, ligand ability, PPIs, structure, and expression, to identify ligases that can be prioritized for the next generation of PROTACs [ 33 ]. Furthermore, exploiting substrate-ligase interactions and known PPIs extends the part of the degradable proteome. For example, integrating ligases, such as ITCH , SKP2 , or SMURF2 , facilitates the degradation of cancer-related targets like NRAS and EGFR [ 34 ]. Simultaneously using an approach to design PROTAC with dual ligands that hold two ligases together, for example, CRBN and VHL , has demonstrated a tenfold increase in degradation efficiency and a hundredfold increase in cytotoxicity in vitro, proposing a method to overcome resistance or redundancy in ligase pathways [ 35 ]. In conclusion, the careful choice of E3 ligases is crucial for the efficacy, selectivity, and therapeutic promise of PROTACs [ 36 ]. Future advancements will rely on investigating less commonly used ligases, developing covalent ligase recruiters, and combining structural and expression information to design degraders with enhanced specificity and lesser off-target effects [ 37 ].

2.4. Recent Innovations in PROTAC Design

In recent years, the limitations of traditional PROTACs, such as suboptimal pharmacokinetics, off-target effects, and limited tissue selectivity, have encouraged the development of a diverse array of next-generation targeted protein degradation (TPD) strategies to enhance their clinical potential [ 38 ]. One of the main advancements is the development of reversible covalent PROTACs as a major innovation that combines the benefits of both reversible and irreversible binding, offering improved target occupancy time and catalytic efficiency while maintaining reversibility for enhanced safety [ 39 ]. Compared to covalent PROTACs, which irreversibly bind either the target protein or the E3 ligase, are showing promise for degrading traditionally “ undruggable ” targets, though their irreversible binding can limit catalytic turnover and pose challenges for clinical translation [ 40 ]. In comparison, Molecular glue degraders , are a unique approach represented by CC-885 ( CRBN binding molecules) and lenalidomide , have highlighted their relevance, particularly in hematologic malignancies, by stabilizing transient E3 ligase substrate interactions and a neo substrate using monovalent molecules, expanding the range of targetable proteins [ 41 ]. Trivalent PROTACs ( TriTACs ), which introduced a third binding domain to stabilize ternary complexes and enhance selectivity, degradation potency, especially for multiple functional domain proteins such as the BET family [ 42 ]. PHOTACs (photoactivable PROTACs) have been developed to achieve spatiotemporal control over degradation using a specific wavelength, using light-sensitive linkers to trigger protein degradation with precise spatial and temporal resolution, offering precision for treating localized or dynamically regulated diseases such as glioblastoma and melanoma [ 43 ]. Another innovation is the development of Conjugates of Antibody-PROTAC ( AbTACs ) linking monoclonal antibodies with PROTACs for receptor-mediated delivery to specific targeted cells, thereby reducing systemic toxicity with enhanced selectivity and expanding the therapeutic options [ 44 ].

In parallel, the field has also begun to target RNA with novel degraders such as RIBOTACs , which use RNase L to degrade specific RNA transcripts, thereby extending the degradation role beyond proteins. Additionally, in-cell click chemistry approaches now enable the intracellular assembly of PROTACs to enhance bioavailability and minimize off-target effects through localization. Their activity is directed at specific cellular compartments. Collectively, these innovations are driving a role shift in TPD as given in Figure 6 , opening new avenues for overcoming resistance, improving selectivity, and expanding the druggable proteome across a wide spectrum of diseases [ 45 ].

3. Clinical Landscape and Trials of PROTACs in Cancer

The rapid advancement of PROTAC technology has accelerated translational research, with multiple candidates initially validated in an academic setting now progressing toward the pharmaceutical development pipeline [ 47 ]. This marks a significant transition from theoretical innovation to practical application, particularly in oncology. As we look toward 2025, several PROTACs targeting well-defined oncogenic drivers, notably nuclear hormone receptors AR, ER , and anti-apoptotic BCL-xL , have entered Phase I and II clinical trials, led by companies like Arvinas, Dialectic Therapeutics, and Kymera Therapeutics [ 48 ]. Leading this clinical forefront are ARV-110 and ARV-471 , which target the androgen and estrogen receptors, respectively. Both have shown clinical promise, an acceptable safety profile, and initial effectiveness in phase II trials. Other compounds like DT2216 (targeting BCL-xL ) and NX-2127 (targeting BTK ) are broadening the therapeutic range of PROTACs to include hematologic cancers and solid tumors [ 49 ]. However, alongside these advancements, challenges such as pharmacokinetics, resistance mechanisms, and biomarker identification remain crucial factors for improving cancer treatment.

A careful analysis of these properties of these clinical and preclinical candidates provides valuable insights into their effectiveness in cancer therapy, as summarized in ( Table 2 and Table 3 ).

3.1. ARV-110: An Androgen Receptor (AR) Degrader for Prostate Cancer

Bavdeglutamide ( ARV-110 ) is an orally bioavailable PROTAC degrader designed to target the androgen receptor (AR) for the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate tumors ( mCRPC ). It consists of an AR-targeting ligand connected via a short, rigid linker to a ligand for the CRBN E3 ubiquitin ligase, facilitating the formation of a productive ternary complex that leads to AR ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation ( Figure 7 ) [ 62 ].

Clinical evaluation in the Phase I/II trial ( NCT03888612 ) has demonstrated its promising profile. In heavily pre-treated mCRPC patients, ARV-110 showed a favorable safety profile and dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, supporting a recommended dose of 420 mg administered once daily [ 62 ]. Its efficacy is particularly notable in patients with specific AR ligand-binding domain mutations. ARV-110 induced a PSA50 response (a ≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen) in 46% of patients bearing AR T878X/H875Y mutations, with tumor reduction observed in 6 out of 7 evaluable patients and two confirmed partial responses [ 63 ]. This underscores its potential to overcome resistance to standard antiandrogens by degrading clinically relevant AR mutants.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (42%), fatigue (27%), and decreased appetite (19%). The safety profile was deemed manageable, with no grade or higher toxicities reported at the recommended dose. Based on these encouraging phase I/II results, ARV-110 is being further evaluated in combination with standard therapies like abiraterone and enzalutamide [ 64 ].

3.2. ARV-471: An Estrogen Receptor Alpha (ERα) for Breast Cancer)

ARV-471 (Vepdegestrant) is an orally bioavailable PROTAC degrader specifically designed to target estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) for the treatment of ER+/HER− breast cancer. Developed in collaboration with Pfizer, it aims to overcome resistance to endocrine therapies. Its mechanism of action involves a ligand targeting ERα connected to a VHL E3 ligase recruiter, facilitating the formation of a stable ternary complex that leads to the proteasomal degradation of ERα ( Figure 7 ). ARV-471 has shown superior degradation efficiency and anti-proliferative activity compared to fulvestrant , the current selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) [ 65 ]. In initial clinical trials, it showed impressive selectivity, achieving over a 90% reduction in tumor ER levels, as measured by imaging and circulating biomarkers. Data from Phase I/II trials indicated a clinical benefit rate of approximately 40%, with observed partial responses in heavily pre-treated patients [ 52 ].

A key advantage of ARV-471 is its favorable safety profile, which reports minimal off-target toxicities, compared to existing SERDs like fulvestrant [ 66 ]. Its oral bioavailability and once-daily dosing regimen further underscore its promise as a next-generation endocrine therapy. Based on this strong monotherapy activity, ARV-471 is currently undergoing advanced phase II/III trials and is under investigation in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors [ 67 ].

3.3. DT2216: A BCL-xL Degrader for Hematologic and Solid Tumors

DT2216 is a PROTAC molecule engineered to target and degrade BCL-xL , a key anti-apoptotic protein overexpressed in various hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. It achieves this by utilizing the VHL E3 ligase ligand, a strategic choice that confers a critical therapeutic advantage. The primary challenge in targeting BCL-xL is on-target, off-tumor toxicity; inhibition causes dose-limited thrombocytopenia because platelets require BCL-xL for survival ( Figure 7 ).

DT2216 overcomes this major limitation of traditional inhibitors like navitoclax by exhibiting low endogenous expression of VHL in platelets. This creates a therapeutic window: DT2216 effectively degrades BCL-xL in tumor cells (which express VHL) while sparing platelets, thereby minimizing thrombocytopenic toxicity and achieving tumor-selective apoptosis.

This principle of tissue-restricted degradation has been validated in early clinical assessments. In phase I trials ( NCT04886622 ), DT2216 demonstrated indications of apoptosis induction in patients without causing significant platelet toxicity [ 68 ]. Initial clinical activity has been observed in T-cell lymphomas and myeloid leukemias. The ongoing trial continues to focus on dose optimization and identification of predictive biomarkers to guide future developments [ 69 ].

3.4. KT-474: An IRAK4 Degrader for Immuno-Inflammatory Cancers

KT474 is a PROTAC degrader that specifically targets interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK-4), a key node in innate immune and NF Kappa B signaling pathways [ 70 ]. Unlike other therapies, it functions through the recruitment of the CRBN E3 ligase. Although initially created for treating autoimmune inflammatory diseases (e.g., hydrocodone suppurativa, atopic dermatitis), its mechanism of action shows significant potential in cancers characterized by overactive NF-κB signaling. In preclinical studies, KT-474 has demonstrated the ability to selectively degrade IRAK4 and subsequently suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines, reinforcing the rationale for its further exploration in oncology and immunotherapy ( Figure 8 ) [ 71 ]. Its progression into clinical trials for inflammatory indications provides valuable safety and pharmacokinetic data that can inform its potential application in cancers.

3.5. NX-2127: A Dual BTK and IKZF1/3 Degrader for B-Cell Malignancies

NX-2127 is an oral, first-in-class, dual-function, small-molecule degrader that combines BTK degradation with the immunomodulatory activity of a degrader for the transcription factor Ikaros (IKZF1/3) ( Figure 9 ). An innovative class of dual degraders designed to target both Bruton’s tyrosine kinase BK and the transcription factors Ikaros (IKZF1) and Aiolos (IKZF3) through the recruitment of the CRBN E3 ligase. It is specifically designed for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other B-cell malignancies, particularly those resistant to both covalent and non-covalent BTK inhibitors.

In early-phase clinical trials, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations confirmed the persistent and simultaneous degradation of both BTK and IKZ F1/3 [ 73 ]. Clinical activity has been observed even in this treatment-resistant population, with outcomes including disease stabilization in lymph node size Figure 10 and Table 4 . The side effect profile has been manageable and in line with the known class of facts for CRBN-modulating agents, such as neutropenia and fatigue. Future research directions include investigating NX21207 in combination with BCL-2 inhibitors like Venetoclax [ 72 ].

4. Challenges and Limitations in Clinical Translation of PROTACs

Although PROTACs hold significant promise for TPD, various challenges confine their smooth transition into clinical use. These challenges include pharmacological, biochemical, and developmental areas, requiring a multidisciplinary approach to overcome them [ 80 ] as given in Figure 11 .

One well-recognized limitation of PROTAC-based strategies is the so-called hook effect, in which excessive PROTAC concentrations reduce degradation efficiency rather than increasing it. At high concentrations, PROTAC molecules preferentially form binary complexes with either the target protein or the E3 ligase, which competes with productive ternary complex formation required for ubiquitination [ 82 ]. As a result, optimal degradation is often observed within a narrow concentration window, highlighting the importance of careful dose optimization during PROTAC development.

4.1. Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability Restrictions

One of the most significant translation barriers is the suboptimal pharmacokinetic (PK) inherent to PROTAC molecules. Their high molecular weight (often greater than 900 Da), substantial polar surface area, and heterobifunctional design often lead to poor membrane permeability, limited oral bioavailability, and rapid systemic clearance [ 83 ]. As summarized in Table 5 , clinical-stage PROTACs such as ARV-110 (MW ~1000 Da, clogP ~6.59) and DT-2216 (MW ~1100 Da, clogP ~7.1) exemplify these challenges, possessing physicochemical properties that clearly violate Lipinski’s rule of five and complicate formulation. Clinical data reveal these properties directly impact PK; for example, an ARV-110 exhibits a short half-life (~3.6 h), necessitating high daily doses (420 milligrams QD) to maintain exposure, while other degraders show low oral absorption [ NCT03888612 ]. To address these limitations, strategies such as prodrug designs, nanoparticle-based delivery platforms, and alternative administration routes (e.g., subcutaneous, intratumoral injections) are under active investigation to improve bioavailability and therapeutic index [ 84 ].

4.2. E3 Ligase Availability and Expression in Specific Tissues

The effectiveness of PROTACs depends on the expression and activity of the recruited E3 ligase. Presently, the research area is focused on CRBN and VHL , both of which have limited expression patterns in various tissues. For example, the low levels of VHL in specific hematopoietic cells, such as platelets, may reduce efficacy or reduce toxicity, depending on the context. Furthermore, alterations or decreased expression of CRBN have been associated with acquired resistance, especially in patients with multiple myeloma who have been treated with CRBN -recruiting degraders.

4.3. Off-Target Effects and Proteome-Wide Degradation

PROTACs are designed for specific targets, but off-target effects can arise from non-specific interactions between E3 ligases and off-targeted proteins, potentially resulting in cytotoxic effects, changes in immune responses, or interference with off-targeted signaling pathways [ 49 ]. Since PROTACs promote protein degradation rather than merely inhibiting their function, the removal of multifunctional proteins can create complex and nonspecific cellular responses. The level of selectivity depends on the stability of the ternary complex and the interaction networks involving the recruited E3 ligase [ 85 ]. To enhance the safety and efficacy of PROTACs in clinical applications, it is crucial to increase the diversity of E3 ligases, optimize linker designs, and conduct comprehensive evaluations of off-target effects [ 51 ].

4.4. Emerging Resistance Mechanisms and Strategies to Overcome Them

Resistance to PROTAC therapies, akin to traditional targeted treatments, can arise through various mechanisms [ 86 ]. These include mutations in the target protein that sterically hinder PROTAC binding or ternary complex formation to downregulation or functional modifications of the recruited E3 ligase (e.g., altered CRBN functionality after prolonged CRBN-based PROTAC administration), impairment of the ubiquitin proteasome system components, and activation of compensatory adaptive cellular pathways [ 87 ]. Although PROTACs offer a significant advantage by degrading entire proteins, including mutant forms, resistance remains a critical translation challenge [ 19 ].

This is exemplified in well-established resistance pathways for targets like BTK and the androgen receptor (AR), where resistance often arises from point mutations, overexpression, and structural changes that diminish drug binding capacity. To address these barriers, innovative PROTAC-specific strategies are being developed, including [ 88 ]:

Dual targeting degraders: molecules designed to simultaneously engage multiple functional sites or critical nodes in a protein pathway to preempt escape mechanisms [ 89 ].

Allosteric targeting: the ability to bind to allosteric sites, enabling degradation even after mutations occur in the canonical binding pockets [ 46 ].

Rescue of weak binders: converting partial antagonists or weak binding molecules into potent degraders, resurrecting efficacy against resistant cancer cells.

The clinical potential of these strategies is beginning to be realized. For instance, the MDM2-based PROTAC KT-253 has demonstrated a significant increase in potency compared to traditional MDM2 inhibitors, achieving durable tumor regression in preclinical models [ 90 ]. Furthermore, the advancement of candidates like CC-94676 and ARV-471 into late-stage clinical trials provides robust validation for the ability of TPD to overcome resistance [ 91 ].

Beyond molecular design, next-generation delivery approaches are being explored to circumvent resistance. This includes the development of stimulus-responsive nano PROTACs activated by exogenous (e.g., light ultrasound) or endogenous (e.g., enzymes, pH) triggers to achieve spatiotemporal control over degradation, thereby minimizing off-target toxicity and potentially overcoming bioavailability-related resistance. The expansion of PROTAC modalities into non-oncological indications, such as viral infections, further highlights their versatile potential to overcome the limitations of conventional therapeutics [ 92 ].

4.5. Chemical and Manufacturing Complexity

The clinical translation of PROTAC has unequivocally established that their chemical synthesis and manufacturing represent a significant advancement in complexity over conventional small molecules, forming a major non-biological barrier to their commercial viability. This complexity, inherent to their heterobifunctional architecture, manifests across four critical domains that impact yield, stability, and scalability, from milligram to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) kilogram scale [ 93 ].

Linker instability and reliability: The linker is a critical vulnerability. Common spacers like PEG chains, alkyl esters, and carbonates are prone to degradation via hydrolysis, β-elimination, or oxidative scission, especially during late-stage coupling reactions under basic or acidic conditions [ 94 ]. This leads to batch instability out of out-of-specification failures, and short shelf lives. Recent data (2022 to 2024) show a strategic shift towards more robust amide/urea linkages and the implementation of rigorous stress testing protocols for linker fragments under process conditions. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of prodrug strategies (e.g., phosphate or peptide masking) serves a dual purpose, improving solubility and overcoming linker liability by design, with activation occurring only intracellularly [ 95 ].

Chirality, Isomerism, and Atropoisomeric: the convergence of multiple stereocenters from complex E3 and target ligands with new chiral centers introduced during linker attachment creates complex isomeric mixtures. Different diastereomers and atropisomers can exhibit orders of magnitude differences in degradation potency, pharmacokinetics, and toxicity [ 96 ]. This complicates purification and analytical release, necessitating resource-intensive chiral chromatography for separation. control strategies now emphasize chiral pool synthesis and asymmetric catalysis early in the route scouting phase to minimize this burden. Clinical stage examples have proven that failing to control chirality can lead to variable efficacy and is a major GMP challenge [ 97 ].

Low Yield Steps and Impurity Profiles: specific chemical transformations are consistent yield bottlenecks. amide couplings with sterically hindered linkers, click chemistry (CUAAC), and final deprotection steps often proceed in low yields, less than 30%, generating complex impurity profiles including over-acylated PEGs, oligomers, and ligand degradants [ 98 ]. Modern process chemistry addresses this through the design of experiments (DoE) to optimize coupling reagents and the adoption of continuous flow reactors. flow chemistry, particularly for exothermic or hazardous reactions like CuAAC, provides superior heat/mass transfer, reduces impurity formation, and enhances safety and reproducibility at scale [ 99 ].

Scale-Up and GMP Compliance Hurdles: the high molecular weight, amphiphilic nature, and structural flexibility of PROTAC cause severe scale-up issues; poor solubility in GMP-acceptable solvents (necessitating solvents swaps from DMF/DMAc), difficult filtration, and resistance to crystallization [ 100 ]. These often result in amorphous solids with batch-to-batch variability, campaign restarts, and clinical material shortages. Mitigation strategies include generating stable salt/cocrystal forms and employing spray-dried dispersions to ensure consistent bioavailability [ 101 ]. For GMP release, establishing robust orthogonal analytical methods (e.g., qNMR, LC-MS/MS, chiral HPLC) is essential to characterize complex impurities and ensure identity, purity, and stability [ 102 ].

While innovations in automated synthesis, flow chemistry, and biocatalysis are improving yields and control, the synthesis and manufacturing of PROTACs remain a leading cause of supply delays, attrition, and clinical programs. The field is increasingly adopting a “developability-first” mindset where synthetic tractability and scalability are prioritized alongside potency early in the discovery process [ 103 ]. Success relies on deep collaboration between medicinal and process chemists to design synthetically accessible motifs and on partnerships with specialized CDMOs to navigate the challenging route from discovery to have a consistent, stable, and scalable GMP drug product [ 104 ] Table 6 .

4.6. Immunogenicity and Systemic Effects of PROTACs

PROTACs experience difficulties related to immunogenicity and systemic effects because of their bifunctional structure and dependence on the UPS. The following is a summary of principal factors and potential risks derived from recent studies:

Immunogenicity Risks

Recognition of Foreign Molecules: The synthetic composition of PROTACs, which includes non-human E3 ligase ligands such as VHL or CRBN , may trigger immune responses, particularly in non-oncology contexts that require long-term dosing. While clinical data on immunogenicity is currently unavailable, recombinant antibody-based PROTACs ( AbTACs ), designed with humanized components, aim to reduce this risk [ 57 ].

Interference with E3 Ligase Substrates: CRBN -based PROTACs risk degrading native substrates, such as IKZF1/3 , which are essential for immune cell function. For instance, the neutropenia observed in CFT7455 trials may be related to the spontaneous degradation of these proteins [ 46 ].

Presentation of Neoantigens: The degradation induced by PROTACs can enhance the presentation of tumor neoantigens via MHC-I , potentially improving anti-tumor immune responses. Conversely, excessive exposure to antigens may lead to autoimmune-like reactions ( Table 7 ) [ 111 ].

5. Emerging Innovations in PROTAC Therapeutics

The development of PROTACs has moved from a theoretical idea to a clinically proven approach. With initial trials exhibiting target interaction and clinical effectiveness, the future aims to tackle existing challenges while broadening the scope of therapies [ 117 ]. Numerous innovations are transforming the forthcoming generation of degradation-based treatments as shown in Figure 12 .

5.1. Expanding the E3 Ligase Toolbox

The clinical efficacy of PROTAC is intrinsically linked to the recruited E3 ubiquitin ligase. However, the field remains heavily reliant on a narrow subset predominantly cereblon (CRBN) and von Hippel-Lindau (VHL), which together account for over 90% of reported degraders [ 119 ]. This dependence creates critical vulnerabilities: a limited number of degradable targets, potential for on-target off-tissue toxicity, and a single mechanistic route to resistance, such as CRBN downregulate or mutation in multiple myeloma [ 120 ]. The human genome encodes over 600 E3 ligases, yet fewer than 2% have been leveraged effectively in targeted protein degradation (TPD), representing a vast untapped resource for overcoming these limitations [ 33 ]. The expansion of this toolbox is now being driven by systematic chemoproteomic and computational strategies. Techniques like isotopic tandem orthogonal proteolysis activity-based protein profiling (isoTOP-ABPP) enable the screening of covalent fragment libraries against reactive cysteine residues, identifying lead compounds for ligases such as DCF 16 and RNF114 ( Figure 13 ) [ 107 , 113 ].

Concurrently, integrative computational platforms like the E3Atlas and the “PROTACtable genome” project are systematically prioritizing E3s based on multi-omics criteria: ligand ability, tissue-specific expression, essentiality, and protein–protein interaction networks ( Table 8 ) [ 111 , 112 ]. This data-driven approach has nominated over 70 high-confidence E3 ligases as viable candidates for degradation.

However, the path from ligand discovery to a functionalized, clinical-grade E3 recruiter is full of challenges. A primary bottleneck is the transition from a covalent fragment hit to a highly selective, potent, and drug-like ligand that does not impair the native activity of the E3 complex [ 125 ]. Furthermore, many novel ligases lack well-characterized tissue-specific expression or natural substrate profiles, making it difficult to predict on-target-off tissue toxicity [ 126 ]. For instance, while RNF114 overexpression in squamous cell carcinomas offers a theoretical therapeutic window, its role in immune regulation poses a potential risk for immune-related adverse events. Similarly, recruiting KEAP1 in lung cancer is mechanistically appealing, but requires exquisite ligand specificity to avoid unintended stabilization of its natural substrate, NRF2, and activation of antioxidant pathways [ 127 ].

Tissue specificity remains a critical design goal. Ligases like SKP2 (overexpressed in triple-negative breast cancer) and KHL20 (defined expression in solid tumors) offer opportunities for cancer-selective degradation. The concept of dual ligase PROTAC, which simultaneously engages 2 different E3s (e.g., CRBN and VHL), presents another innovative strategy to enhance degradation efficacy and overcome resistance by redundantly activating the ubiquitin proteasome system [ 128 ]. In summary, expanding the E3 ligase toolbox is not merely a chemical exercise but a strategic imperative for the next generation of TPD. Success will depend on leveraging chemoproteomics for ligand discovery, computational tools for intelligent E3 prioritization, and a clear-eyed understanding of the therapeutic index and translational challenges inherent to each new ligase recruiter pair [ 129 ].

5.2. Emerging Degrader Modalities (Beyond PROTACs)

While conventional bifunctional PROTACs dominate the TPD landscape, several innovative degrader modalities are emerging to overcome their limitations and expand the scope of targetable proteins. These include molecular glues, trivalent PROTACs, and systems hijacking lysosomal degradation pathways [ 130 ]. Each platform offers distinct advantages but also faces unique challenges, as summarized in Table 9 .

5.3. Lysosomal Targeting Chimeras (LYTACs)

Approximately 40% of the human proteome comprises extracellular proteins, including cytokines, growth factors, and proteins that play a crucial role in disease progression. Because the Ubiquitin proteosome system is present intracellular, for molecular glues and PROTACs, it is inaccessible to target proteins that are present in the extracellular environment. To target extracellular proteins, the Bertozzi lab developed Lysosomal-Targeting Chimeras (LYTACs) ( Figure 14 ).

The development of LYTACs has opened a new prospect for TPD, especially for membrane-associated proteins that were previously inaccessible to PROTACs. A concept-based study by the Bertozzi group has shown that cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor (CI-M6PR), a recycling receptor presents in the trans Golgi network, assimilate for endolytic delivery of extracellular proteins to the lysosome.CI-M6PR naturally interacts with ligands that carry a mannose-6-phosphate (M6P) tag and transports them to lysosomes, where the acidic environment promotes the release and breakdown of the cargo. By attaching synthetic mannose-6-phosphonate (M6Pn) groups to antibodies at serine or lysine sites, the researchers developed LYTACs that can trigger the lysosomal breakdown of target proteins after internalization via receptor-mediated endocytosis [ 135 ]. This was confirmed using biotinylated fluorescent streptavidin as a model substrate, and further mechanistic evidence was provided through a CRISPR screen, which pinpointed the exocyst complex and CI-M6PR as crucial elements [ 136 ]. Notably, the team applied this approach to disease-relevant targets, such as apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) linked to Alzheimer’s disease and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), achieving more than 70% degradation of EGFR within 24 h using cetuximab-M6Pn LYTACs. The degradation effect was maintained for at least 72 h, showcasing its long-lasting impact. Additionally, they achieved degradation of PD-L1 by up to 70% using antibody-directed LYTACs, indicating potential uses in immuno-oncology. Expanding on this concept, the Spiegel group developed Molecular Degraders of Extracellular Proteins through the Asialoglycoprotein Receptor (MoDE-As), which utilizes ASGPR, a receptor that is highly expressed in the liver and characterized by its rapid recycling properties and affinity for galactose and N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) [ 137 ]. Their small-molecule design is modular and includes a trivalent GalNAc ligand connected to dinitrophenol (DNP) through a PEG-based spacer, allowing for the creation of a ternary complex with DNP-specific antibodies. This complex is efficiently trafficked to lysosomes and undergoes degradation, as indicated by its co-localization with LAMP2-positive compartments. The effectiveness of the MoDE-A system was further validated by the in vivo degradation of the cytokine MIF, highlighting its therapeutic potential [ 138 ].

Follow-up research conducted by the Tang and Bertozzi teams broadened the strategies focused on ASGPR, demonstrating that GalNAc-conjugated LYTACs achieve more effective internalization and degradation compared to CI-M6PR-based methods, with notable reductions in surface EGFR levels at considerably lower concentrations. Both cetuximab-GalNAc and cetuximab-M6Pn LYTACs produced similar maximal degradation levels, underscoring the platform’s versatility. Additionally, incorporating integrin-binding peptides with tri-GalNAc ligands led to significant integrin depletion and inhibited cancer cell growth. Importantly, the attachment of tri-GalNAc to small molecules (such as biotin) or antibodies effectively initiated lysosomal degradation, with improved internalization efficiency noted for smaller protein substrates [ 139 ]. In summary, these investigations assert that LYTACs and similar ligand-based systems are valuable tools to broaden the degradable proteome beyond intracellular targets. Like the critical role played by E3 ligase ligands in PROTAC technology, the future development of LYTACs will hinge on identifying more recycling receptors and ligands with specific tissue expression, allowing for wider and more selective therapeutic uses [ 140 ].

However, the translational path for LYTACs is full of challenges. Antibody-based constructs pose a significant risk of immunogenicity, particularly with chronic dosing regimens required for cancer therapy. Their large size limits effective tissue penetration into solid tumors [ 141 ]. Furthermore, the dependence on specific recycling receptors restricts their application: the GalNAc-ASGPR system is primarily effective for liver-specific targeting, while CI-M6PR is ubiquitously expressed, raising concerns for on-target off-tissues toxicity. The synthetic complexity of producing homogeneous, well-characterized antibody-oligosaccharide conjugates at scale also presents a major manufacturing hurdle that must be overcome for clinical translation [ 142 ].

5.4. Macroautophagy Degradation Targeting Chimeras (MADTACS): AUTACs/ATTECs

While PROTACs and other platforms that depend on the UPS have transformed the field of intracellular protein degradation, their dependence on this system limits their use to soluble, cytosolic proteins [ 143 ]. On the other hand, autophagy [ 144 ], a degradation pathway mediated by lysosomes, provides an appealing and adaptable option capable of removing aggregated proteins, dysfunctional organelles, and even non-protein biomolecules [ 145 ]. In recent years, several innovative chimeras targeting autophagy have been developed, each utilizing various components of the autophagic machinery to broaden the range of proteins that can be degraded [ 146 ].

The initial strategy, known as Autophagy-Targeting Chimeras (AUTACs), utilizes a distinctive degradation tag that draws inspiration from S-guanylation, a posttranslational modification found during xenophagy to mark targets for targeted autophagic degradation [ 147 ]. Created by the Arimoto group, AUTACs feature this S-guanylation mimic (p-fluorobenzylguanine, FBnG) attached to ligands that specifically interact with the proteins of interest. This chimeric structure promotes the recruitment of ubiquitin and autophagy receptors, such as p62/SQSTM1, which facilitates the degradation in lysosomes. AUTACs have proven effective at degrading both soluble proteins like MetAP2 and FKBP12, as well as damaged mitochondria in conditions relevant to diseases, such as fibroblasts from individuals with Down syndrome [ 148 ]. Notably, tagging mediated by FBnG has also been observed to trigger mitophagy through the degradation of outer mitochondrial membrane proteins, including TSPO. Nevertheless, despite their versatility, AUTACs typically necessitate high micromolar concentrations to attain sufficient degradation, and the specific molecular mechanism behind FBnG-induced autophagy is still not completely understood [ 147 ].

In addition to AUTACs, Autophagy Tethering Compounds (ATTECs) employ a “molecular glue” strategy to link the protein or organelle of interest to LC3, a key element of autophagosome membranes. Unlike AUTACs, ATTECs do not rely on ubiquitination; instead, they directly attach to both LC3 and the target substrate. The Lu group’s research significantly uncovered small-molecule ATTECs that can selectively degrade mutant huntingtin (mHTT) while leaving wild-type HTT unharmed, by taking advantage of the polyglutamine-rich regions unique to mHTT. Compounds such as 10O5, AN1, and AN2 exhibited effective degradation in cellular and animal models of Huntington’s disease, without causing any noticeable toxicity [ 149 ]. Furthermore, ATTECs that target lipid droplets (LDs), organelles that store lipids and are associated with hepatic steatosis and metabolic disorders, have succeeded in nearly entirely clearing LDs in vitro and murine models, further confirming the versatility of the platform. Nonetheless, the development of ATTECs is currently constrained by the lack of appropriate LC3 and POI-binding components, necessitating further structural enhancements to broaden their target range [ 150 ].

A novel strategy has been developed utilizing AUTOTACs (Autophagy-Tethering Chimeras), which are bifunctional compounds that can simultaneously attach to the target protein and the ZZ domain of the autophagy receptor p62 . Once bound, p62 undergoes oligomerization, leading to the sequestration and transport of the target protein into the autolysosome for degradation [ 151 ]. AUTOTACs have demonstrated efficacy in the degradation of aggregation-prone proteins linked to neurodegenerative disorders and oncogenic drivers in cancer research models [ 152 ]. These compounds operate at nanomolar concentrations and are capable of degrading monomeric, oligomeric, and aggregated forms of proteins. However, there are still unresolved questions concerning their potential catalytic properties, lysosomal recycling mechanisms, and selectivity profiles, which are critical factors for future applications in translational research [ 153 ].

In addition to systems based on macroautophagy, Chaperone-Mediated Autophagy (CMA) has also been utilized for specific degradation. CMA-targeted chimeras comprise three functional components: a cell-penetrating peptide, a ligand that binds the POI, and a CMA-targeting motif such as the KFERQ sequence. These compounds have demonstrated efficacy in degrading cytosolic proteins within neuronal cells. Furthermore, a distinct motif derived from HIP1R has been demonstrated to stimulate the lysosomal degradation of PD-L1 in cancer cells, presenting a novel opportunity for immunotherapy [ 154 , 155 ]. Nonetheless, the clinical application of CMA-based degraders is challenged by issues related to poor intracellular stability and ineffective delivery. From a mechanistic perspective, macroautophagy initiates with the formation of a phagophore, which is regulated by signaling complexes including ULK1, Beclin1 , and PI3K . This is followed by the conjugation of LC3-I , resulting in the formation of LC3-II , a crucial step in the maturation of autophagosomes [ 156 ]. Ultimately, the fusion with lysosomes leads to the degradation of cargo within acidic compartments. This machinery is fundamental to all autophagy-targeting platforms, although each platform differs in its interaction with the autophagic system. Together, these innovative chemical biology tools represent a significant shift in targeted degradation, allowing induced proteostasis to extend beyond the limitations of the proteasome [ 157 ]. While every platform, AUTACs , ATTECs , AUTOTACs , and CMA -based chimeras, provides unique benefits, challenges concerning efficiency, selectivity, and mechanistic insights persist. Ongoing improvements in autophagy-inducing tags, receptor ligands, and linker chemistry, alongside advancements from structural biology and chemical proteomics, will be vital for progressing these approaches toward clinical use in cancer and other protein misfolding disorders Figure 15 [ 158 ].

Despite their conceptual promise, the autophagy-engaging platforms face substantial barriers to becoming drugs. AUTACs suffer from low potency, often requiring high micromolar concentrations that are difficult to achieve therapeutically without causing toxicity, and their mechanism remains unexplained [ 159 ]. ATTECs, while potent, are exceedingly difficult to discover due to the need to find small molecules that bind both LC3 and an unrelated target with high affinity. AUTOTAC’s reliance on P62 oligomerization risks disrupting a key node in cellular stress pathways, potentially leading to unpredictable side effects. Finally, all CMA-based strategies are currently hampered by the poor drug-like properties of peptides, including low metabolic stability and cell permeability, necessitating breakthrough advances and delivery technology [ 160 ].

6. Targeting the “Undruggable”: Structural Insights and Resistance Mechanisms

The transformative potential of PROTAC technology extends beyond improving existing drug targets; it offers a groundbreaking strategy to pursue proteins that are usually classified as “undruggable.” This category encompasses proteins that lack well-defined deep pockets or enzymatic activity crucial for high-affinity binding by traditional small-molecule inhibitors, including transcription factors, scaffold proteins, and GTPases. By functioning through an event-driven mechanism that requires only transient binding to induce degradation, PROTACs can effectively target these proteins based on surface epitope or protein–protein interactions, thereby vastly expanding the druggable proteome [ 6 ].

Key prospective target classes include oncogenic transcription factors such as STAT3 , c-Myc, and mutant p53 , which are pivotal drivers of tumorigenesis but also elude successful targeting due to their nuclear localization and largely flat interaction surfaces ( Table 10 ). Similarly, KRAS mutants, e.g., G12D, G12C, among the most common oncogenic drivers in cancers like pancreatic, colorectal, and non-small cell lung carcinoma, present a smooth surface with picomolar affinity for GTP, making competitive inhibition extraordinarily difficult [ 161 ]. While allele-specific inhibitors for KRAS12C represent a major advance, resistance often emerges. PROTACs targeting KRAS could potentially degrade the protein completely, overcoming such resistance mechanisms. Furthermore, non-enzymatic scaffold proteins, which play a critical role in organizing signaling complexes, represent another compelling class of targets that are largely inaccessible to traditional occupancy-driven inhibitors [ 162 ].

Despite the promise, significant challenges remain. The primary barrier is the identification of a ligand, even a weak or non-functional one, that binds to a specific site on the target protein, which can then be incorporated into a PROTAC. For many undruggable targets, such ligands are still undiscovered [ 163 ]. Additionally, achieving sufficient degradation potency and selectively ensuring favorable pharmacokinetics for often complex molecules and avoiding on-target toxicities due to essential functions of some proteins in healthy tissues are critical barriers that must be overcome. Successfully degrading these intractable targets will require continued innovation in ligand discovery, linker optimization, and E3 ligase recruitment [ 164 ].

6.1. KRAS: From Inhibiting to Eliminating the Oncogene

The KRAS GTPase is mutated in approximately 25% of all cancers, with G12C, G12D, and G12V being the most common oncogenic drivers. Its smooth surface and picomolar affinity for GTP made it impervious to direct inhibition for decades. The breakthrough of allele-specific inhibitors (e.g., sotorasib for KRAS(G12C ) that bind a newly discovered switch-II pocket (S-IP) adjacent to the mutant cysteine was a milestone. However, resistance rapidly emerges via secondary mutations (e.g., Y96D, R68S, H95D/Q/R) that impair drug binding or favor the GTP active state [ 167 ].

PROTAC targeting KRAS offers a compelling strategy to overcome this resistance by degrading the entire protein, thus overcoming any resistance mechanism reliant on its continued presence. The design of KRAS PROTACs hinges on using these same allele-specific inhibitors as POI ligands. for example, LC-2 is a KRAS(G12C)-targeting PROTAC based on the MRTX849 (adagrasib) scaffold linked to a VHL ligand. Structural studies and molecular dynamics simulations show that LC-2 forms a productive ternary complex with KRAS(G12C) and VHL, positioning the lysine residues on KRAS (e.g., K104 , K117 ) within an optimal range for ubiquitination [ 168 ].

This degradation is effective even in cells with acquired resistance to MRTX849, as the mutations that prevent inhibitor binding do not necessarily prevent the initial transient engagement required for proteasome-induced ubiquitination. Recent efforts have also yielded PROTACs like HP5 based on a pan-KRAS inhibitor, showing efficacy against non-G12C mutants like G12D by degrading both wild-type and mutant KRAS , though with on-target toxicity challenges that necessitate refined targeting strategies [ 169 ].

6.2. Transcription Factors: c-Myc, STAT3, and Mutant p53

Transcription factors like c-Myc, STAT3, and Mutant p53 are master regulators of oncogenic programs but lack traditional enzymatic pockets for high-affinity inhibitor binding [ 170 ].

c-Myc functions by heterodimerizing with Max. PROTACs have been designed to disrupt this protein–protein interaction (PPI). For instance, a PROTAC utilizing a Myc-Max PPI inhibitor (e.g., 10074-G5) linked to a CRBN and ligand demonstrated successful degradation of c-Myc.SAR studies revealed that linker length and composition were critical for degradation efficiency, with rigid, medium-length linkers optimizing the ternary complex formation between c-Myc, the PROTAC, and CRBN. Computational docking models suggest the PROTAC binds at the Myc-Max interface, and degradation leads to potent anti-tumor effects in vitro and in vivo [ 171 ].

STAT3 is activated by dimerization via its Src homology 2 (SH2) domain, while small molecule SH2 domain binders often have low affinity, they can be effective as PROTAC warheads. PROTACs like SD-36 (CRBN-based) achieve nanomolar-level degradation of STAT3. Crystallographic data of STAT3 inhibitor complexes inform the rational design of these PROTACs, ensuring the linker attachment point does not sterically hinder E3 ligase recruitment. SD-36 has shown efficacy in STAT3-dependent hematologic and solid tumor models, overcoming limitations of mere SH2 domain occupancy [ 172 ].

Mutant p53 often loses its tumor suppressive function and acquires oncogenic gain-of-function (GOF)properties. Stabilizing the misfolded mutant protein with chaperones like HSP70 is a key challenge. PROTAC such as MC886 (CRBN-based) successfully degrades common p53 mutants (R175H, R273H). The SAR demonstrates that PROTAC’s efficacy is dependent on the specific p53 binding moiety, with certain scaffolds preferentially engaging and degrading mutant over wild-type p53. This degradation depletes the GOF oncoprotein and can resensitize tumors to chemotherapy [ 173 ].

6.3. Overcoming Resistance: The Degrader Advantage

A key advantage of PROTAC is its potential to overcome resistance to traditional therapies.

Target Overexpression/Mutation, as seen with KRAS, resistance to inhibitors often involves upregulation of the target protein or point mutations at the binding site. Since PROTACs catalytically destroy the target, they can mitigate the effects of overexpression. Furthermore, mutations that reduce binding affinity for an inhibitor may not abolish it entirely, allowing the sub-stoichiometric PROTAC to still recruit the protein for degradation [ 38 ].

Bypassing Allosteric Resistance, in kinases like BTK, the C481S mutation abolishes binding for covalent inhibitors. PROTAC-like NX2127 can bind to alternative, non-catalytic sites (allosteric pockets) on BTK to mediate its degradation, effectively overcoming C481S-mediated resistance [ 174 ].

Addressing Scaffold Functions for proteins like IRK4, whose scaffolding role in Maddosome formation is critical for signaling, inhibition of its kinase activity is insufficient. PROTAC (e.g., KT-474) degrades the entire protein, ablating both enzymatic and scaffolding functions, which is a more comprehensive therapeutic strategy.

6.4. Albumin-Based Delivery Strategies

Expanding the scope of targeted protein degradation beyond conventional PROTAC design has increasingly focused on delivery optimization and non-oncological applications. Albumin-based delivery strategies have emerged as a promising approach to address key pharmacokinetic limitations of degraders, leveraging albumin’s long circulation, half-life, and tumor accumulation via enhanced permeability and retention effect. Both covalent and non-covalent albumin binding moieties have been explored to improve systemic exposure, reduce renal clearance, and enable controlled tissue distribution up to greater molecules. In parallel, targeted protein degradation is beginning to be investigated in infectious diseases, including exploratory efforts to degrade viral proteases and other essential viral proteins. Although still at an early stage, these approaches highlight the conceptual versatility of event-driven pharmacology and suggest that degrader-based strategies may ultimately extend beyond oncology into broader therapeutic areas where traditional inhibition has proven insufficient Table 11 .

7. Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Omics in PROTAC Development

The fusion of computational and molecular biology techniques is accelerating PROTAC innovation and development. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) chemoinformatics and multi-omics is revolutionizing the field by optimizing degrader design, enabling site-specific target selection, improving patient classification, and ultimately advancing precision oncology [ 181 ].

7.1. Computational Design and Chemoinformatics

Researchers face significant challenges due to the structural complexity of PROTACS, which involves optimizing linker composition, cell permeability, and druglike properties. AI-powered chemoinformatic tools are increasingly deployed to solve these problems. These techniques aid in structure-activity relationship (SAR) modeling, molecular docking, and simulating ternary complex formation to inform the selection of target and E3 ligase ligands and linker design [ 182 ]. Machine learning models trained on large, curated datasets of PROTAC chemical structures and their associated degradation kinetics (DC 50 , Dmax9 can predict the degradation efficiency of novel compounds in silico, significantly accelerating the early-stage design cycle and synthesis process [ 183 ].

The emergence of specialized databases like PROTAC-DB has been instrumental in providing a foundational repository of experimentally validated degraders for model training. However, the predictive power of these models is constrained by the quality and volume of available data. Key pitfalls include overfitting to small or homogeneous datasets (e.g., models trained solely on CRBN-based degraders) and poor transferability to novel E3 ligase or target classes due to fundamentally different ternary complex dynamics. model validation against rigorous, standardized experimental assays is essential to benchmark accuracy and ensure generalizability [ 184 ].

7.2. Selection of Target and Ligase Using Omics Data

Mapping the “degradable proteome” relies heavily on multi-effect approaches, including proteomics, transcriptomics, and ubiquitinomics. Integrating gene and protein data from large patient cohorts (e.g., TGA) facilitates the identification of selective oncogenic dependencies that can be matched with available E3 ligases, enabling the design of tumor-selective PROTACs [ 185 ]. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics, such as activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) and thermal proteome profiling (TPP), enable proteome-wide monitoring of degrader selectivity and on and off-target effects [ 186 ].

Furthermore, spatial and single-cell transcriptomics reveal intratumoral heterogeneity in E3 ligase expression, guiding the design of PROTACs that are selectively active in specific cancer mutations and tumor microenvironments [ 187 , 188 ].

Computational platforms like E3Atlas systematically prioritize E3 ligases for drug discovery by aggregating multi-omics criteria, including tissue-specific expression, essentiality scores, protein–protein interaction networks, and predicted ligandability, thus providing a data-driven strategy to expand the limited E3 ligase toolbox, as shown in Figure 16 .

7.3. AI and Clinical Translation and Trial Design

AI is now transforming the clinical pathway of PROTAC technology. Resources like AlphaFold, PROTAC-DB, and E3-Atlas aid in the systematic, large-scale development of degraders by predicting ternary complex stability and prioritizing novel targets [ 11 ]. In clinical trials, AI-based tools are used to classify patients based on molecular profiles (e.g., high E3 ligase expression, low target redundancy), to estimate degradation efficiency, and correlate epigenetic/genetic alterations with treatment response. Furthermore, AI methods analyze complex data sets from single-cell RNA seq, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [ 189 ], and imaging biomarkers to provide real-time feedback on degrader efficacy and the emergence of drug resistance. This capability is crucial for designing adaptive clinical trials and paving the way for truly personalized degrader therapies [ 190 , 191 ].

Despite this promise, clinical implementation constraints remain significant. The “black box” nature of the complex AI models can hinder regulatory acceptance. Furthermore, the ultimate clinical success of PROTACs will still be governed by traditional pharmacological challenges such as achieving adequate oral bioavailability and managing on-target toxicities that exist beyond the current predictive capabilities of AI. Overcoming these hurdles will require close collaboration between computational and experimental scientists to generate robust standardized data sets for model training and to develop interpretable AI that can earn the trust of clinicians and regulators [ 192 ].

8. Future Directions and Conclusions

The clinical translation of PROTACs marks a significant transition in precision oncology, transforming targeted protein degradation from a largely conceptual strategy into a clinically validated therapeutic modality for treatment-resistant cancers. Early clinical candidates such as the androgen receptor degrader ARV-110, the estrogen receptor degrader ARV-471, the BCL-xL degrader DT2216, and the dual BTK/IKZF1/3 degrader NX-2127 have collectively provided important lessons that extend beyond proof-of-concept efficacy. These studies have demonstrated that sustained target suppression can be achieved through catalytic degradation in humans, that complete target elimination is not always required for clinical benefit, and that acceptable tolerability profiles are possible despite the large molecular size of degrader molecules. Together, these insights distinguish PROTACs fundamentally from occupancy-driven inhibitors and highlight their potential to address acquired resistance, limited safety margins, and undruggable targets. Despite this progress, the path to widespread clinical adoption remains challenging. The intrinsic physicochemical properties of PROTACs, including high molecular weight, conformational flexibility, and lipophilicity, continue to complicate synthesis, oral bioavailability, and tissue penetration. In parallel, emerging resistance mechanisms such as alterations in E3 ligase expression or target accessibility raise important questions about the long-term durability of degrader therapies. Among these challenges, the limited availability of tissue-selective E3 ligases remains a central bottleneck, as most clinically advanced PROTACs still rely on CRBN or VHL, increasing the risk of on-target but off-tissue toxicity. Future advances and targeted protein degradation will therefore depend on coordinated innovation across chemistry, biology, and clinical strategy. Next-generation degraders are being designed with improved drug-like properties, enhanced selectivity, and greater control over tissue specificity. Expanding the repertoire of ligands for previously unexplored E3 ligases, particularly those with restricted expression patterns, represents a critical opportunity to improve therapeutic precision and mitigate toxicity. In parallel, Chemo proteomics and AI-assisted molecular design are increasingly used to identify degrader-amenable targets, optimize ternary complex formation, and predict degradation efficiency in a context-dependent manner. At the clinical level, combination strategies are emerging as a rational approach to maximize the therapeutic impact of PROTACs. By integrating degraders with immune checkpoint inhibitors, kinase inhibitors, or DNA damage targeting agents, it may be possible to exploit network-level vulnerabilities, delay resistance, and reshape the tumor microenvironment. Equally important are advances in delivery technologies, including tumor-activated pro-drug strategies, PROTAC-antibody conjugates, and stimulus-responsive nano-PROTACs, which aim to enhance tissue selectivity while minimizing systemic exposure. Human development approaches incorporating biomarker-guided patient selection, multi-omics profiling, and predictive modeling are expected to play an increasingly central role in guiding clinical trial design and enabling personalized degrader therapies. In conclusion, PROTAC Technology has fundamentally expanded the druggable proteome by enabling the selective elimination of disease-causing proteins rather than their transient inhibition. While challenges related to chemistry, delivery, and selectivity remain, the rapid pace of innovation in ligand discovery, E3 ligase biology, and translational strategies suggest a realistic path forward. Continued progress will depend not only on technological refinement but also on a deeper understanding of degradation biology and human systems. If these challenges are met, targeted protein degradation is poised to deliver durable therapeutic solutions across oncology and potentially, immune and neurodegenerative diseases that have long resisted conventional pharmacological approaches.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Author Contributions

B.F.: conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing, visualization. Z.U.A.: conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing, visualization. M.I.: conceptualization, reviewing and editing. H.A.: conceptualization, reviewing and editing. F.J.: conceptualization, reviewing and editing. L.A.: conceptualization, reviewing and editing. G.A.A.: conceptualization, reviewing and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript does not report data generation or analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: PROTAC Proteolysis-Targeting Chimera UPS Ubiquitin–Proteasome System E3 E3 Ubiquitin Ligase CRBN Cereblon VHL Von Hippel–Lindau Protein MDM2 Mouse Double Minute 2 Homolog LYTAC Lysosome-Targeting Chimera RNA Ribonucleic Acid DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid TCGA The Cancer Genome Atlas PPIs Protein–Protein Interactions AI Artificial Intelligence PK/PD Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics CNS Central Nervous System TPD Targeted Protein Degradation FDA Food and Drug Administration IND Investigational New Drug SAR Structure–Activity Relationship SPR Surface Plasmon Resonance ADME Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion KEAP1 Kelch-like ECH-associated Protein 1 DCAF16 DDB1- and CUL4-Associated Factor 16 UHRF1 Ubiquitin-like with PHD and RING Finger Domains 1 SCF Skp1–Cullin–F-box Complex DUB Deubiquitinating Enzyme BRD4 Bromodomain-Containing Protein 4 BCL-xL B-Cell Lymphoma-Extra Large CDK Cyclin-Dependent Kinase KRAS Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene EGFR Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

References

1. Sung H. Ferlay J. Siegel R.L. Laversanne M. Soerjomataram I. Jemal A. Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021 71 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338

2. Francies F.Z. Hull R. Khanyile R. Dlamini Z. Breast Cancer in Low-Middle Income Countries: Abnormality in Splicing and Lack of Targeted Treatment Options Am. J. Cancer Res. 2020 10 1568 32509398 PMC7269781

3. Teli B.D. Behzadifar M. Beiranvand M. Rezapour A. Ehsanzadeh S.J. Azari S. Bakhtiari A. Haghighatfard P. Martini M. Saran M. The Economic Burden of Breast Cancer in Western Iran: A Cross-Sectional Cost-of-Illness Study J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2025 44 16 10.1186/s41043-025-00738-0 39844255 PMC11756070

4. Liu B. Zhou H. Tan L. Siu K.T.H. Guan X.Y. Exploring Treatment Options in Cancer: Tumor Treatment Strategies Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024 9 175 10.1038/s41392-024-01856-7 39013849 PMC11252281

5. Proteolysis Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs): An Innovative Strategy for Targeted Protein Degradation and Disease Treatment Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383939983_Proteolysis_Targeting_Chimeras_PROTACs_An_Innovative_Strategy_for_Targeted_Protein_Degradation_and_Disease_Treatment (accessed on 20 May 2025)

6. Békés M. Langley D.R. Crews C.M. PROTAC Targeted Protein Degraders: The Past Is Prologue Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2022 21 181 200 10.1038/s41573-021-00371-6 35042991 PMC8765495

7. PROTACs VS. Traditional Small Molecule Inhibitors|Biopharma PEG Available online: https://www.biochempeg.com/article/233.html (accessed on 20 May 2025)

8. Ibrahim S. Umer Khan M. Khurram I. Rehman R. Rauf A. Ahmad Z. Aljohani A.S.M. Al Abdulmonem W. Quradha M.M. Navigating PROTACs in Cancer Therapy: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Horizons Food Sci. Nutr. 2025 13 e70011 10.1002/fsn3.70011 39898116 PMC11786021

9. Zhang X. Song Z. Zhang X. Zou J. Yu G. Chen X. Wang S. Unconventional PROTACs for Targeted Protein Degradation in Cancer Therapy Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2025 64 e202507702 10.1002/anie.202507702 40492592

10. Xie H. Zhang C. Potential of the Nanoplatform and PROTAC Interface to Achieve Targeted Protein Degradation through the Ubiquitin–Proteasome System Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2024 267 116168 10.1016/j.ejmech.2024.116168 38310686

11. Wang C. Zhang Y. Chen W. Wu Y. Xing D. New-Generation Advanced PROTACs as Potential Therapeutic Agents in Cancer Therapy Mol. Cancer 2024 23 110 10.1186/s12943-024-02024-9 38773495 PMC11107062

12. Kubryń N. Fijałkowski Ł. Nowaczyk J. Jamil A. Nowaczyk A. PROTAC Technology as a New Tool for Modern Pharmacotherapy Molecules 2025 30 2123 10.3390/molecules30102123 40430296 PMC12114078

13. Nalawansha D.A. Crews C.M. PROTACs: An Emerging Therapeutic Modality in Precision Medicine Cell Chem. Biol. 2020 27 998 10.1016/j.chembiol.2020.07.020 32795419 PMC9424844

14. Li X. Pu W. Zheng Q. Ai M. Chen S. Peng Y. Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras (PROTACs) in Cancer Therapy Mol. Cancer 2022 21 99 10.1186/s12943-021-01434-3 35410300 PMC8996410

15. Bondeson D.P. Crews C.M. Targeted Protein Degradation by Small Molecules Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2017 57 107 123 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103507 27732798 PMC5586045

16. Nowak R.P. Deangelo S.L. Buckley D. He Z. Donovan K.A. An J. Safaee N. Jedrychowski M.P. Ponthier C.M. Ishoey M. Plasticity in Binding Confers Selectivity in Ligand-Induced Protein Degradation Article Nat. Chem. Biol. 2018 14 706 714 10.1038/s41589-018-0055-y 29892083 PMC6202246

17. Pliatsika D. Blatter C. Riedl R. Targeted Protein Degradation: Current Molecular Targets, Localization, and Strategies Drug Discov. Today 2024 29 104178 10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104178 39276920

18. Vikal A. Maurya R. Patel B.B. Sharma R. Patel P. Patil U.K. Das Kurmi B. Protacs in Cancer Therapy: Mechanisms, Design, Clinical Trials, and Future Directions Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2024 15 1801 1827 10.1007/s13346-024-01754-z 39614036

19. Burke M.R. Smith A.R. Zheng G. Overcoming Cancer Drug Resistance Utilizing PROTAC Technology Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022 10 872729 10.3389/fcell.2022.872729 35547806 PMC9083012

20. An S. Fu L. Small-Molecule PROTACs: An Emerging and Promising Approach for the Development of Targeted Therapy Drugs eBioMedicine 2018 36 553 562 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.09.005 30224312 PMC6197674

21. Pettersson M. Crews C.M. PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs)—Past, Present and Future Drug Discov. Today Technol. 2019 31 15 27 10.1016/j.ddtec.2019.01.002 31200855 PMC6578591

22. Sakamoto K.M. Kim K.B. Kumagai A. Mercurio F. Crews C.M. Deshaies R.J. Protacs: Chimeric Molecules That Target Proteins to the Skp1-Cullin-F Box Complex for Ubiquitination and Degradation Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001 98 8554 8559 10.1073/pnas.141230798 11438690 PMC37474

23. Bondeson D.P. Mares A. Smith I.E.D. Ko E. Campos S. Miah A.H. Mulholland K.E. Routly N. Buckley D.L. Gustafson J.L. Catalytic in Vivo Protein Knockdown by Small-Molecule PROTACs Nat. Chem. Biol. 2015 11 611 617 10.1038/nchembio.1858 26075522 PMC4629852

24. Burslem G.M. Crews C.M. Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras as Therapeutics and Tools for Biological Discovery Cell 2020 181 102 114 10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.031 31955850 PMC7319047

25. Ten Ways Degraders Differentiate from Traditional Small Molecules Available online: https://drughunter.com/resource/ten-ways-degraders-differentiate-from-traditional-small-molecules (accessed on 6 August 2025)

26. Haridas V. Dutta S. Munjal A. Singh S. Inhibitors to Degraders: Changing Paradigm in Drug Discovery iScience 2024 27 109574 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109574 38646175 PMC11031827

27. Graham H. The Mechanism of Action and Clinical Value of PROTACs: A Graphical Review Cell. Signal. 2022 99 110446 10.1016/j.cellsig.2022.110446 35995302

28. Wang Y. Jiang X. Feng F. Liu W. Sun H. Degradation of Proteins by PROTACs and Other Strategies Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2020 10 207 238 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.08.001 32082969 PMC7016280

29. Liu Y. Yang J. Wang T. Luo M. Chen Y. Chen C. Ronai Z. Zhou Y. Ruppin E. Han L. Expanding PROTACtable Genome Universe of E3 Ligases Nat. Commun. 2023 14 6509 10.1038/s41467-023-42233-2 37845222 PMC10579327

30. Belcher B.P. Ward C.C. Nomura D.K. Ligandability of E3 Ligases for Targeted Protein Degradation Applications Biochemistry 2023 62 588 600 10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00464 34473924 PMC8928483

31. Mi D. Li Y. Gu H. Li Y. Chen Y. Current Advances of Small Molecule E3 Ligands for Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras Design Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2023 256 115444 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115444 37178483

32. Kannt A. Đikić I. Expanding the Arsenal of E3 Ubiquitin Ligases for Proximity-Induced Protein Degradation Cell Chem. Biol. 2021 28 1014 1031 10.1016/j.chembiol.2021.04.007 33945791

33. Rodríguez-Gimeno A. Galdeano C. Drug Discovery Approaches to Target E3 Ligases ChemBioChem 2025 26 e202400656 10.1002/cbic.202400656 39686906

34. Safari-Alighiarloo N. Taghizadeh M. Rezaei-Tavirani M. Goliaei B. Peyvandi A.A. Protein-Protein Interaction Networks (PPI) and Complex Diseases Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench 2014 7 17 25436094 PMC4017556

35. Chen Y. Xia Z. Suwal U. Rappu P. Heino J. De Wever O. De Geest B.G. Dual-Ligand PROTACS Mediate Superior Target Protein Degradation In Vitro and Therapeutic Efficacy In Vivo Chem. Sci. 2024 15 17691 10.1039/D4SC03555K 39391379 PMC11462456

36. Sun D. Li X. Nie S. Liu J. Wang S. Disorders of Cancer Metabolism: The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabinoids Biomed. Pharmacother. 2023 157 113993 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113993 36379120

37. Sobierajski T. Małolepsza J. Pichlak M. Gendaszewska-Darmach E. Błażewska K.M. The Impact of E3 Ligase Choice on PROTAC Effectiveness in Protein Kinase Degradation Drug Discov. Today 2024 29 104032 10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104032 38789027

38. Kelm J.M. Pandey D.S. Malin E. Kansou H. Arora S. Kumar R. Gavande N.S. PROTAC’ing Oncoproteins: Targeted Protein Degradation for Cancer Therapy Mol. Cancer 2023 22 62 10.1186/s12943-022-01707-5 36991452 PMC10061819

39. Yokoo H. Naganuma M. Oba M. Demizu Y. Recent Advances in PROTAC Technology Toward New Therapeutic Modalities Chem. Biodivers. 2022 19 e202200828 10.1002/cbdv.202200828 36124821

40. Yuan M. Chu Y. Duan Y. Reversible Covalent PROTACs: Novel and Efficient Targeted Degradation Strategy Front. Chem. 2021 9 691093 10.3389/fchem.2021.691093 34291036 PMC8287302

41. Yang C. Tripathi R. Wang B. Click Chemistry in the Development of PROTACs RSC Chem. Biol. 2023 5 189 10.1039/D3CB00199G 38456041 PMC10915971

42. Imaide S. Riching K.M. Makukhin N. Vetma V. Whitworth C. Hughes S.J. Trainor N. Mahan S.D. Murphy N. Cowan A.D. Trivalent PROTACs Enhance Protein Degradation via Combined Avidity and Cooperativity Nat. Chem. Biol. 2021 17 1157 1167 10.1038/s41589-021-00878-4 34675414 PMC7611906

43. Reynders M. Matsuura B.S. Bérouti M. Simoneschi D. Marzio A. Pagano M. Trauner D. PHOTACs Enable Optical Control of Protein Degradation Sci. Adv. 2020 6 eaay5064 10.1126/sciadv.aay5064 32128406 PMC7034999

44. Cotton A.D. Nguyen D.P. Gramespacher J.A. Seiple I.B. Wells J.A. Development of Antibody-Based PROTACs for the Degradation of the Cell-Surface Immune Checkpoint Protein PD-L1 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021 143 593 598 10.1021/jacs.0c10008 33395526 PMC8154509

45. Haj-Yahia S. Nandi A. Benhamou R.I. Targeted Degradation of Structured RNAs via Ribonuclease-Targeting Chimeras (RiboTacs) Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2023 18 929 942 10.1080/17460441.2023.2224960 37306675

46. Zhong G. Chang X. Xie W. Zhou X. Targeted Protein Degradation: Advances in Drug Discovery and Clinical Practice Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024 9 308 10.1038/s41392-024-02004-x 39500878 PMC11539257

47. Wang Y. Xu Y. Song J. Liu X. Liu S. Yang N. Wang L. Liu Y. Zhao Y. Zhou W. Tumor Cell-Targeting and Tumor Microenvironment-Responsive Nanoplatforms for the Multimodal Imaging-Guided Photodynamic/Photothermal/Chemodynamic Treatment of Cervical Cancer Int. J. Nanomed. 2024 19 5837 5858 10.2147/IJN.S466042 PMC11182360 38887692

48. Urbina A. Hallatt A.J. Robertson J. Ciulli A. A Patent Review of von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)-Recruiting Chemical Matter: E3 Ligase Ligands for PROTACs and Targeted Protein Degradation (2019–Present) Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2025 35 197 10.1080/13543776.2024.2446232 PMC11875441 39834300

49. Shi J. Wang L. Zeng X. Xie C. Meng Z. Campbell A. Wang L. Fan H. Sun H. Precision-Engineered PROTACs Minimize off-Tissue Effects in Cancer Therapy Front. Mol. Biosci. 2024 11 1505255 10.3389/fmolb.2024.1505255 39649701 PMC11621628

50. Snyder L.B. Neklesa T.K. Willard R.R. Gordon D.A. Pizzano J. Vitale N. Robling K. Dorso M.A. Moghrabi W. Landrette S. Preclinical Evaluation of Bavdegalutamide (ARV-110), a Novel PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera Androgen Receptor Degrader Mol. Cancer Ther. 2025 24 511 522 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-23-0655 39670468 PMC11962395

51. Record History|Ver. 14: 2023-11-10| NCT03888612 |ClinicalTrials.Gov Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03888612?tab=history&a=14 (accessed on 8 September 2025)

52. Researcher View| NCT04072952 |A Phase 1/2 Trial of ARV-471 Alone and in Combination with Palbociclib (IBRANCE ® ) in Patients With ER+/HER2- Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer|ClinicalTrials.Gov Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04072952?tab=table (accessed on 8 September 2025)

53. Gough S.M. Flanagan J.J. Teh J. Andreoli M. Rousseau E. Pannone M. Bookbinder M. Willard R. Davenport K. Bortolon E. Oral Estrogen Receptor PROTAC Vepdegestrant (ARV-471) Is Highly Efficacious as Monotherapy and in Combination with CDK4/6 or PI3K/MTOR Pathway Inhibitors in Preclinical ER+ Breast Cancer Models Clin. Cancer Res. 2024 30 3549 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3465 38819400 PMC11325148

54. Khan S. Zhang X. Lv D. Zhang Q. He Y. Zhang P. Liu X. Thummuri D. Yuan Y. Wiegand J.S. A Selective BCL-XL PROTAC Degrader Achieves Safe and Potent Antitumor Activity Nat. Med. 2019 25 1938 1947 10.1038/s41591-019-0668-z 31792461 PMC6898785

55. FDA Grants Fast Track Designation to DT2216 for R/R PTCL, CTCL Treatment Available online: https://www.targetedonc.com/view/fda-grants-fast-track-designation-to-dt2216-for-r-r-ptcl-ctcl-treatment (accessed on 8 September 2025)

56. Zhang D. Harris H.M. Chen J. Judy J. James G. Kelly A. McIntosh J. Tenn-McClellan A. Ambing E. Tan Y.S. NRX-0492 Degrades Wild-Type and C481 Mutant BTK and Demonstrates in Vivo Activity in CLL Patient-Derived Xenografts Blood 2023 141 1584 1596 10.1182/blood.2022016934 36375120 PMC10163313

57. Mato A.R. Wierda W.G. Ai W.Z. Flinn I.W. Tees M. Patel M.R. Patel K. O’Brien S. Bond D.A. Roeker L.E. NX-2127-001, a First-in-Human Trial of NX-2127, a Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase-Targeted Protein Degrader, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and B-Cell Malignancies Blood 2022 140 2329 2332 10.1182/blood-2022-164772

58. EX-99.2 Available online: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1655759/000119312519272040/d819744dex992.htm (accessed on 7 August 2025)

59. Zhang Q. Khan S. Zhang X. Kuruvilla V.M. Ghotbaldini S. Wells J. Baran N. Cai T. Han L. Ferrando A. Targeting BCL-XL By Protac DT2216 Effectively Eliminates Leukemia Cells in T-ALL Pre-Clinical Models Blood 2019 134 3870 10.1182/blood-2019-124744

60. Horwitz S. Jain S. Soumerai J.D. Tees M.T. Stuver R. Ali A. Leahy L. Lobbardi R. Chu R. Hurh E. Initial Results of a Phase 1 First-in-Human Study of Cemsidomide (CFT7455), a Novel MonoDACTM Degrader, in Patients with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Blood 2024 144 467 10.1182/blood-2024-210482

61. Xu J. Li Y. Wang J. Tang P. Liao Y. Zhang C. Yan P. Abstract 6062: Potent and Orally Bioavailable BCL6 Protein Degraders Demonstrate Efficacy in Pre-Clinical Models of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Cancer Res. 2024 84 6062 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2024-6062

62. Petrylak D.P. Gao X. Vogelzang N.J. Garfield M.H. Taylor I. Moore M.D. Peck R.A. III H.A.B. First-in-Human Phase I Study of ARV-110, an Androgen Receptor (AR) PROTAC Degrader in Patients (Pts) with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (MCRPC) Following Enzalutamide (ENZ) and/or Abiraterone (ABI) J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 3500 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.3500

63. Xie H. Liu J. Alem Glison D.M. Fleming J.B. The Clinical Advances of Proteolysis Targeting Chimeras in Oncology Explor. Target. Antitumor Ther. 2021 2 511 10.37349/etat.2021.00061 36046114 PMC9400722

64. Peng X. Liu Z. Luo C. Sun R. Zhang Y. Li B. Zou Y. Zhu J. Yuan R. PSMD12 Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression by Stabilizing CDK1 Front. Immunol. 2025 16 1581398 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1581398 40534847 PMC12174133

65. Snyder L.B. Flanagan J.J. Qian Y. Gough S.M. Andreoli M. Bookbinder M. Cadelina G. Bradley J. Rousseau E. Chandler J. Abstract 44: The Discovery of ARV-471, an Orally Bioavailable Estrogen Receptor Degrading PROTAC for the Treatment of Patients with Breast Cancer Cancer Res. 2021 81 44 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-44

66. Kuter I. Gee J.M.W. Hegg R. Singer C.F. Badwe R.A. Lowe E.S. Emeribe U.A. Anderson E. Sapunar F. Finlay P. Dose-Dependent Change in Biomarkers during Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy with Fulvestrant: Results from NEWEST, a Randomized Phase II Study Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012 133 237 246 10.1007/s10549-011-1947-7 22286314

67. Lin X. Xiang H. Luo G. Targeting Estrogen Receptor α for Degradation with PROTACs: A Promising Approach to Overcome Endocrine Resistance Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020 206 112689 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112689 32829249

68. DT2216, a BCL-XL Proteolysis Targeting Chimera (PROTAC), Is a Potent Anti T-Cell Lymphoma Agent That Does Not Induce Significant Thrombocytopenia Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337427782_DT2216_a_BCL-XL_proteolysis_targeting_chimera_PROTAC_is_a_potent_anti_T-cell_lymphoma_agent_that_does_not_induce_significant_thrombocytopenia (accessed on 25 June 2025)

69. Mahadevan D. Barve M. Mahalingam D. Parekh J. Kurman M. Strauss J. Tremaine L. Hromas R. Sills J. McCulloch J. Abstract CT063: First in Human Phase 1 Study of DT2216, a Selective BCL-XL Degrader, in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Solid Malignancies ( NCT04886622 ) Cancer Res. 2025 85 CT063 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-CT063 PMC12613848 41225624

70. Feng Y. Chen C. Shao A. Wu L. Hu H. Zhang T. Emerging Interleukin-1 Receptor-Associated Kinase 4 (IRAK4) Inhibitors or Degraders as Therapeutic Agents for Autoimmune Diseases and Cancer Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2024 14 5091 5105 10.1016/j.apsb.2024.09.008 39807338 PMC11725142

71. Ferguson F.M. PROTACs Reach Clinical Development in Inflammatory Skin Disease Nat. Med. 2023 29 3006 3007 10.1038/s41591-023-02622-y 37957374

72. Danilov A. Tees M.T. Patel K. Wierda W.G. Patel M. Flinn I.W. Latif T. Ai W. Thompson M.C. Wang M.L. A First-in-Human Phase 1 Trial of NX-2127, a First-in-Class Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) Dual-Targeted Protein Degrader with Immunomodulatory Activity, in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B Cell Malignancies Blood 2023 142 4463 10.1182/blood-2023-179872

73. Wang Z.B. Zhang X. Fang C. Liu X.T. Liao Q.J. Wu N. Wang J. Immunotherapy and the Ovarian Cancer Microenvironment: Exploring Potential Strategies for Enhanced Treatment Efficacy Immunology 2024 173 14 32 10.1111/imm.13793 38618976

74. Montoya S. Bourcier J. Noviski M. Lu H. Thompson M.C. Chirino A. Jahn J. Sondhi A.K. Gajewski S. Tan Y.S. Kinase-Impaired BTK Mutations Are Susceptible to Clinical-Stage BTK and IKZF1/3 Degrader NX-2127 Science 2024 383 eadi5798 10.1126/science.adi5798 38301010 PMC11103405

75. Study Details|Trial of ARV-110 in Patients with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer|ClinicalTrials.Gov Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03888612?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 7 August 2025)

76. Clinical Trial Details|Pfizer Oncology Development Website Available online: https://www.pfizeroncologydevelopment.com/clinical_trial/NCT05548127/molecule/792 (accessed on 7 August 2025)

77. Wang Z. Skwarska A. Poigaialwar G. Chaudhry S. Rodriguez-Meira A. Sui P. Olivier E. Jia Y. Gupta V. Fiskus W. Efficacy of a Novel BCL-XL Degrader, DT2216, in Preclinical Models of JAK2-Mutated Post-MPN AML Blood 2025 146 341 355 10.1182/blood.2024027117 40163809 PMC12333229

78. Robbins D.W. Noviski M.A. Tan Y.S. Konst Z.A. Kelly A. Auger P. Brathaban N. Cass R. Chan M.L. Cherala G. Discovery and Preclinical Pharmacology of NX-2127, an Orally Bioavailable Degrader of Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase with Immunomodulatory Activity for the Treatment of Patients with B Cell Malignancies J. Med. Chem. 2024 67 2321 2336 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c01007 38300987

79. Churcher I. Protac-Induced Protein Degradation in Drug Discovery: Breaking the Rules or Just Making New Ones? J. Med. Chem. 2018 61 444 452 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01272 29144739

80. Mostofian B. Martin H.J. Razavi A. Patel S. Allen B. Sherman W. Izaguirre J.A. Targeted Protein Degradation: Advances, Challenges, and Prospects for Computational Methods J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2023 63 5408 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00603 37602861 PMC10498452

81. Li J. Chen X. Lu A. Liang C. Targeted Protein Degradation in Cancers: Orthodox PROTACs and Beyond Innovation 2023 4 100413 10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100413 37033156 PMC10074253

82. Ning Q. Yang T. Guo X. Huang Y. Gao Y. Liu M. Yang P. Guan Y. Liu N. Wang Y. CHB Patients with RtA181T-Mutated HBV Infection Are Associated with Higher Risk Hepatocellular Carcinoma Due to Increases in Mutation Rates of Tumour Suppressor Genes J. Viral Hepat. 2023 30 951 958 10.1111/jvh.13886 37735836

83. Syahputra E.W. Lee H. Cho H. Park H.J. Park K.S. Hwang D. PROTAC Delivery Strategies for Overcoming Physicochemical Properties and Physiological Barriers in Targeted Protein Degradation Pharmaceutics 2025 17 501 10.3390/pharmaceutics17040501 40284496 PMC12030311

84. Gao X. Burris H.A. III Vuky J. Dreicer R. Sartor A.O. Sternberg C.N. Percent I.J. Hussain M.H.A. Rezazadeh Kalebasty A. Shen J. Phase 1/2 Study of ARV-110, an Androgen Receptor (AR) PROTAC Degrader, in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (MCRPC) J. Clin. Oncol. 2022 40 17 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.017

85. Liu J. Liu Y. Tang J. Gong Q. Yan G. Fan H. Zhang X. Pu C. Recent Advances in Dual PROTACs Degrader Strategies for Disease Treatment Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2024 279 116901 10.1016/j.ejmech.2024.116901 39341095

86. Casan J.M.L. Seymour J.F. Degraders Upgraded: The Rise of PROTACs in Hematological Malignancies Blood 2024 143 1218 1230 10.1182/blood.2023022993 38170175

87. Wu K.Y. Hung T.I. Chang C.A. PROTAC-Induced Protein Structural Dynamics in Targeted Protein Degradation eLife 2025 13 RP101127 10.7554/eLife.101127.3 40014381 PMC11867615

88. Troup R.I. Fallan C. Baud M.G.J. Current Strategies for the Design of PROTAC Linkers: A Critical Review Explor. Target. Antitumor Ther. 2020 1 273 10.37349/etat.2020.00018 36046485 PMC9400730

89. Cromm P.M. Crews C.M. Targeted Protein Degradation: From Chemical Biology to Drug Discovery Cell Chem. Biol. 2017 24 1181 1190 10.1016/j.chembiol.2017.05.024 28648379 PMC5610075

90. Chutake Y.K. Mayo M.F. Dumont N. Filiatrault J. Breitkopf S.B. Cho P. Chen D. Dixit V.S. Proctor W.R. Kuhn E.W. KT-253, a Novel MDM2 Degrader and P53 Stabilizer, Has Superior Potency and Efficacy than MDM2 Small-Molecule Inhibitors Mol. Cancer Ther. 2024 24 497 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-24-0306 PMC11962396 39648478

91. Kymera Therapeutics Presents Preclinical Data Highlighting Biological Superiority of MDM2 Degradation over Inhibition and Shares Profile of Clinical Candidate KT-253 at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2022|Kymera Therapeutics, Inc Available online: https://investors.kymeratx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/kymera-therapeutics-presents-preclinical-data-highlighting/ (accessed on 8 September 2025)

92. Hao J. Li Y. Huang L. Qi N. Sun Y. He C. Yang S. Niu Z. Qi X. Xiang B. Smart Nanoarchitectures for Precision RNA Delivery: Harnessing Endogenous and Exogenous Stimuli in Cancer Treatment Theranostics 2025 15 7747 7778 10.7150/thno.112492 40756358 PMC12316030

93. Osman J. Thompson P.E. Jörg M. Scanlon M.J. Methods to Accelerate PROTAC Drug Discovery Biochem. J. 2025 482 921 10.1042/BCJ20243018 40570202 PMC12312393

94. Yang X. Pan Z. Choudhury M.R. Yuan Z. Anifowose A. Yu B. Wang W. Wang B. Making Smart Drugs Smarter: The Importance of Linker Chemistry in Targeted Drug Delivery Med. Res. Rev. 2020 40 2682 10.1002/med.21720 32803765 PMC7817242

95. Holz E. Darwish M. Tesar D.B. Shatz-Binder W. A Review of Protein- and Peptide-Based Chemical Conjugates: Past, Present, and Future Pharmaceutics 2023 15 600 10.3390/pharmaceutics15020600 36839922 PMC9959917

96. 9.4: Isomerism—Chemistry LibreTexts Available online: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Inorganic_Chemistry_(LibreTexts)/09%3A_Coordination_Chemistry_I_-_Structure_and_Isomers/9.04%3A_Isomerism (accessed on 8 September 2025)

97. Nie W. Wan Q. Sun J. Chen M. Gao M. Chen S. Ultra-High-Throughput Mapping of the Chemical Space of Asymmetric Catalysis Enables Accelerated Reaction Discovery Nat. Commun. 2023 14 6671 10.1038/s41467-023-42446-5 37865636 PMC10590410

98. Fantoni N.Z. El-Sagheer A.H. Brown T. A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Click-Chemistry with Nucleic Acids Chem. Rev. 2021 121 7122 7154 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00928 33443411

99. Cabrera-Quiñones N.C. López-Méndez L.J. Cruz-Hernández C. Guadarrama P. Click Chemistry as an Efficient Toolbox for Coupling Sterically Hindered Molecular Systems to Obtain Advanced Materials for Nanomedicine Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024 26 36 10.3390/ijms26010036 39795895 PMC11719597

100. Wang S. Feng Z. Qu C. Yu S. Zhang H. Deng R. Luo D. Pu C. Zhang Y. Li R. Novel Amphiphilic PROTAC with Enhanced Pharmacokinetic Properties for ALK Protein Degradation J. Med. Chem. 2024 67 9842 9856 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c02340 38839424

101. Bhujbal S.V. Mitra B. Jain U. Gong Y. Agrawal A. Karki S. Taylor L.S. Kumar S. (Tony) Zhou Q. Pharmaceutical Amorphous Solid Dispersion: A Review of Manufacturing Strategies Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2021 11 2505 2536 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.05.014 34522596 PMC8424289

102. Lou Y. Cheng M. Cao Q. Li K. Qin H. Bao M. Zhang Y. Lin S. Zhang Y. Simultaneous Quantification of Mirabegron and Vibegron in Human Plasma by HPLC-MS/MS and Its Application in the Clinical Determination in Patients with Tumors Associated with Overactive Bladder J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2024 240 115937 10.1016/j.jpba.2023.115937 38198885

103. Feng X. Xin R. Wu J. Zheng J. Wang C. Yu C. AutoFE-Pointer: Auto-Weighted Feature Extractor Based on Pointer Network for DNA Methylation Prediction Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025 311 143668 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.143668 40339839

104. Trachtenberg A. Akabayov B. From Patterns to Pills: How Informatics Is Shaping Medicinal Chemistry Pharmaceutics 2025 17 612 10.3390/pharmaceutics17050612 40430903 PMC12114992

105. Schoenmakers R.G. Van De Wetering P. Elbert D.L. Hubbell J.A. The Effect of the Linker on the Hydrolysis Rate of Drug-Linked Ester Bonds J. Control. Release 2004 95 291 300 10.1016/j.jconrel.2003.12.009 14980777

106. Alfano A.I. Lange H. Brindisi M. Amide Bonds Meet Flow Chemistry: A Journey into Methodologies and Sustainable Evolution ChemSusChem 2022 15 e202102708 10.1002/cssc.202102708 35244343

107. Min X.L. Zhang X.L. Shen R. Zhang Q. He Y. Recent Advances in the Catalytic Asymmetric Construction of Atropisomers by Central-to-Axial Chirality Transfer Org. Chem. Front. 2022 9 2280 2292 10.1039/D1QO01699G

108. Nguyen T.T.L. Kim J.W. Choi H.I. Maeng H.J. Koo T.S. Development of an LC-MS/MS Method for ARV-110, a PROTAC Molecule, and Applications to Pharmacokinetic Studies Molecules 2022 27 1977 10.3390/molecules27061977 35335338 PMC8954769

109. Dhondale M.R. Thakor P. Nambiar A.G. Singh M. Agrawal A.K. Shastri N.R. Kumar D. Co-Crystallization Approach to Enhance the Stability of Moisture-Sensitive Drugs Pharmaceutics 2023 15 189 10.3390/pharmaceutics15010189 36678819 PMC9864382

110. Verma P. Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology: A New Horizon of the Microbial World elibrary.ru Belgorod, Russia 2024 1 1038 10.1007/978-981-97-6270-5

111. Xie N. Shen G. Gao W. Huang Z. Huang C. Fu L. Neoantigens: Promising Targets for Cancer Therapy Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023 8 9 10.1038/s41392-022-01270-x 36604431 PMC9816309

112. Zhong J. Zhao R. Wang Y. Su Y.X. Lan X. Nano-PROTACs: State of the Art and Perspectives Nanoscale 2024 16 4378 4391 10.1039/D3NR06059D 38305466

113. Lim M. Do Cong T. Orr L.M. Toriki E.S. Kile A.C. Papatzimas J.W. Lee E. Lin Y. Nomura D.K. DCAF16-Based Covalent Handle for the Rational Design of Monovalent Degraders ACS Cent. Sci. 2024 10 1318 1331 10.1021/acscentsci.4c00286 39071058 PMC11273451

114. Chen C. Yang Y. Wang Z. Li H. Dong C. Zhang X. Recent Advances in Pro-PROTAC Development to Address On-Target Off-Tumor Toxicity J. Med. Chem. 2023 66 8428 8440 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00302 37317568

115. Gao H. Sun X. Rao Y. PROTAC Technology: Opportunities and Challenges ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2020 11 237 240 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00597 32184950 PMC7073876

116. Vetma V. O’Connor S. Ciulli A. Development of PROTAC Degrader Drugs for Cancer Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 2025 9 119 140 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-061824-105806

117. Shi S. Liu W. B2-ViT Net: Broad Vision Transformer Network with Broad Attention for Seizure Prediction IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2024 32 178 188 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3346955 38145523

118. Zhang S.H. Zeng N. Xu J.Z. Liu C.Q. Xu M.Y. Sun J.X. An Y. Zhong X.Y. Miao L.T. Wang S.G. Recent Breakthroughs in Innovative Elements, Multidimensional Enhancements, Derived Technologies, and Novel Applications of PROTACs Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024 180 117584 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117584 39427546

119. Li F. Tian J. Zhang L. He H. Song D. A Multi-Omics Approach to Reveal Critical Mechanisms of Activator Protein 1 (AP-1) Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024 178 117225 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117225 39084078

120. Hughes S.J. Testa A. Thompson N. Churcher I. The Rise and Rise of Protein Degradation: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead Drug Discov. Today 2021 26 2889 2897 10.1016/j.drudis.2021.08.006 34419629

121. Lu W. Kostic M. Zhang T. Che J. Patricelli M.P. Jones L.H. Chouchani E.T. Gray N.S. Fragment-Based Covalent Ligand Discovery RSC Chem. Biol. 2021 2 354 367 10.1039/D0CB00222D 34458789 PMC8341086

122. Sincere N.I. Anand K. Ashique S. Yang J. You C. PROTACs: Emerging Targeted Protein Degradation Approaches for Advanced Druggable Strategies Molecules 2023 28 4014 10.3390/molecules28104014 37241755 PMC10224132

123. Jeong Y. Oh A.R. Jung Y.H. Gi H.J. Kim Y.U. Kim K.J. Targeting E3 Ubiquitin Ligases and Their Adaptors as a Therapeutic Strategy for Metabolic Diseases Exp. Mol. Med. 2023 55 2097 2104 10.1038/s12276-023-01087-w 37779139 PMC10618535

124. Wei J. Meng F. Park K.S. Yim H. Velez J. Kumar P. Wang L. Xie L. Chen H. Shen Y. Harnessing the E3 Ligase KEAP1 for Targeted Protein Degradation J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021 143 15073 15083 10.1021/jacs.1c04841 34520194 PMC8480205

125. Ward C.C. Kleinman J.I. Brittain S.M. Lee P.S. Chung C.Y.S. Kim K. Petri Y. Thomas J.R. Tallarico J.A. McKenna J.M. Covalent Ligand Screening Uncovers a RNF4 E3 Ligase Recruiter for Targeted Protein Degradation Applications ACS Chem. Biol. 2019 14 2430 2440 10.1021/acschembio.8b01083 31059647 PMC7422721

126. He M. Cao C. Ni Z. Liu Y. Song P. Hao S. He Y. Sun X. Rao Y. PROTACs: Great Opportunities for Academia and Industry (an Update from 2020 to 2021) Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022 7 181 10.1038/s41392-022-00999-9 35680848 PMC9178337

127. Jeong Y. Hoang N.T. Lovejoy A. Stehr H. Newman A.M. Gentles A.J. Kong W. Truong D. Martin S. Chaudhuri A. Role of KEAP1/NRF2 and TP53 Mutations in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma Development and Radiotherapy Response Prediction Cancer Discov. 2016 7 86 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0127 27663899 PMC5222718

128. Cai Z. Moten A. Peng D. Hsu C.C. Pan B.S. Manne R. Li H.Y. Lin H.K. The Skp2 Pathway: A Critical Target for Cancer Therapy Semin. Cancer Biol. 2020 67 16 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.01.013 32014608 PMC9201937

129. Ishida T. Ciulli A. E3 Ligase Ligands for PROTACs: How They Were Found and How to Discover New Ones Slas Discov. 2020 26 484 10.1177/2472555220965528 33143537 PMC8013866

130. Cassidy K. Zhao H. Redefining the Scope of Targeted Protein Degradation: Translational Opportunities in Hijacking the Autophagy-Lysosome Pathway Biochemistry 2023 62 580 587 10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00330 34569233

131. Konstantinidou M. Arkin M.R. Molecular Glues for Protein-Protein Interactions: Progressing toward a New Dream Cell Chem. Biol. 2024 31 1064 1088 10.1016/j.chembiol.2024.04.002 38701786 PMC11193649

132. Austin R.J. Lemon B.D. Aaron W.H. Barath M. Culp P.A. DuBridge R.B. Evnin L.B. Jones A. Panchal A. Patnaik P. Tritacs, a Novel Class of t-Cell–Engaging Protein Constructs Designed for the Treatment of Solid Tumors Mol. Cancer Ther. 2021 20 109 120 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0061 33203731

133. Takahashi D. Ora T. Sasaki S. Ishii N. Tanaka T. Matsuda T. Ikeda M. Moriyama J. Cho N. Nara H. Second-Generation AUTACs for Targeted Autophagic Degradation J. Med. Chem. 2023 66 12342 12372 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00861 37589438

134. Ding Y. Xing D. Fei Y. Luo S. Lu B. Perspectives of Autophagy-Tethering Compounds (ATTECs) in Drug Discovery Med. Plus 2024 1 100004 10.1016/j.medp.2023.100004

135. Guo L. Zhu K. Zhong Y.N. Gao M. Liu J. Qi Z. Liu Z. Rong N. Zhang M. Li D. Structural Basis and Biased Signaling of Proton Sensation by GPCRs Mediated by Extracellular Histidine Rearrangement Mol. Cell 2025 85 1658 1673.e7 10.1016/j.molcel.2025.03.018 40215959

136. Kim S. Kang J. An D. Seo J. Oh D.B. Lysosome-Targeting Chimera Using Mannose-6-Phosphate Glycans Derived from Glyco-Engineered Yeast Bioconjug. Chem. 2025 36 424 436 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.4c00512 40022653

137. Caianiello D.F. Zhang M. Ray J.D. Swartzel J.C. Branham E.M.J. Chirkin E. Sabbasani V.R. Gong A.Z. Mcdonald D.M. Muthusamy V. Bifunctional Small Molecules That Mediate the Degradation of Extracellular Proteins Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020 17 947 953 10.1038/s41589-021-00851-1 34413525

138. Tanowitz M. Hettrick L. Revenko A. Kinberger G.A. Prakash T.P. Seth P.P. Asialoglycoprotein Receptor 1 Mediates Productive Uptake of N-Acetylgalactosamine-Conjugated and Unconjugated Phosphorothioate Antisense Oligonucleotides into Liver Hepatocytes Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 45 12388 12400 10.1093/nar/gkx960 29069408 PMC5716100

139. Zhou Y. Teng P. Montgomery N.T. Li X. Tang W. Development of Triantennary N-Acetylgalactosamine Conjugates as Degraders for Extracellular Proteins ACS Cent. Sci. 2021 7 499 506 10.1021/acscentsci.1c00146 33791431 PMC8006166

140. Jiang H. Xiong H. Gu S.X. Wang M. E3 Ligase Ligand Optimization of Clinical PROTACs Front. Chem. 2023 11 1098331 10.3389/fchem.2023.1098331 36733714 PMC9886873

141. Xiao Y. He Z. Li W. Chen D. Niu X. Yang X. Zeng W. Wang M. Qian Y. Su Y. A Covalent Peptide-Based Lysosome-Targeting Protein Degradation Platform for Cancer Immunotherapy Nat. Commun. 2025 16 1388 10.1038/s41467-025-56648-6 39910101 PMC11799215

142. Hummler H.D. Banke K. Wolfson M.R. Buonocore G. Ebsen M. Bernhard W. Tsikas D. Fuchs H. The Effects of Lung Protective Ventilation or Hypercapnic Acidosis on Gas Exchange and Lung Injury in Surfactant Deficient Rabbits PLoS ONE 2016 11 653 670.e24 10.1371/journal.pone.0147807 PMC4739580 26840779

143. Paudel R.R. Lu D. Roy Chowdhury S. Monroy E.Y. Wang J. Targeted Protein Degradation via Lysosomes Biochemistry 2023 62 564 579 10.1021/acs.biochem.2c00310 36130224 PMC10245383

144. Faryal B. Epigenetic Regulation of Autophagy in Breast Cancer: Implications for Biomarker Discovery and Personalized Therapy Cancer Rep. 2025 8 70389 10.1002/cnr2.70389 PMC12670976 41329030

145. Mamun M.A.A. Bakunts A.G. Chernorudskiy A.L. Targeted Degradation of Extracellular Proteins: State of the Art and Diversity of Degrader Designs J. Hematol. Oncol. 2025 18 52 10.1186/s13045-025-01703-4 40307925 PMC12044797

146. Huang Q. Figueiredo-Pereira M.E. Ubiquitin/Proteasome Pathway Impairment in Neurodegeneration: Therapeutic Implications Apoptosis 2010 15 1292 10.1007/s10495-010-0466-z 20131003 PMC2908192

147. Yamano K. Matsuda N. Tanaka K. The Ubiquitin Signal and Autophagy: An Orchestrated Dance Leading to Mitochondrial Degradation EMBO Rep. 2016 17 300 10.15252/embr.201541486 26882551 PMC4772979

148. Huang X. Liu L. Yao J. Lin C. Xiang T. Yang A. S-Acylation Regulates SQSTM1/P62-Mediated Selective Autophagy Autophagy 2023 20 1467 10.1080/15548627.2023.2297623 38124295 PMC11210891

149. Li F. Aljahdali I.A.M. Ling X. Molecular Glues: Capable Protein-Binding Small Molecules That Can Change Protein–Protein Interactions and Interactomes for the Potential Treatment of Human Cancer and Neurodegenerative Diseases Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 6206 10.3390/ijms23116206 35682885 PMC9181451

150. Fu Y. Lu B. Targeting Lipid Droplets for Autophagic Degradation by ATTEC Autophagy 2021 17 4486 4488 10.1080/15548627.2021.1967616 34436975 PMC8726627

151. Mei L. Chen X. Wei F. Huang X. Liu L. Yao J. Chen J. Luo X. Wang Z. Yang A. Tethering ATG16L1 or LC3 Induces Targeted Autophagic Degradation of Protein Aggregates and Mitochondria Autophagy 2023 19 2997 10.1080/15548627.2023.2234797 37424101 PMC10549199

152. Ji C.H. Lee M.J. Kim H.Y. Heo A.J. Park D.Y. Kim Y.K. Kim B.Y. Kwon Y.T. Targeted Protein Degradation via the Autophagy-Lysosome System: AUTOTAC (AUTOphagy-TArgeting Chimera) Autophagy 2022 18 2259 10.1080/15548627.2022.2091338 35722947 PMC9397417

153. Lee J. Sung K.W. Bae E.J. Yoon D. Kim D. Lee J.S. Park D.H. Park D.Y. Mun S.R. Kwon S.C. Targeted Degradation of ⍺-Synuclein Aggregates in Parkinson’s Disease Using the AUTOTAC Technology Mol. Neurodegener. 2023 18 41 10.1186/s13024-023-00630-7 37355598 PMC10290391

154. Duan W.W. Yang L.T. Liu J. Dai Z.Y. Wang Z.Y. Zhang H. Zhang X. Liang X.S. Luo P. Zhang J. A TGF-β Signaling-Related LncRNA Signature for Prediction of Glioma Prognosis, Immune Microenvironment, and Immunotherapy Response CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2024 30 e14489 10.1111/cns.14489 37850692 PMC11017415

155. Wang H. Yao H. Li C. Shi H. Lan J. Li Z. Zhang Y. Liang L. Fang J.Y. Xu J. HIP1R Targets PD-L1 to Lysosomal Degradation to Alter T Cell–Mediated Cytotoxicity Nat. Chem. Biol. 2019 15 42 50 10.1038/s41589-018-0161-x 30397328

156. Selective Protein Degradation Through Chaperone-Mediated Autophagy: Implications for Cellular Homeostasis and Disease (Review) Available online: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mmr.2024.13378 (accessed on 21 July 2025) 10.3892/mmr.2024.13378 PMC11542157 39513615

157. Zhang H. Han Y. Yang Y. Lin F. Li K. Kong L. Liu H. Dang Y. Lin J. Chen P.R. Covalently Engineered Nanobody Chimeras for Targeted Membrane Protein Degradation J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021 143 16377 16382 10.1021/jacs.1c08521 34596400

158. Takahashi D. Arimoto H. Targeting Selective Autophagy by AUTAC Degraders Autophagy 2020 16 765 766 10.1080/15548627.2020.1718362 31958028 PMC7138220

159. Takahashi D. Moriyama J. Nakamura T. Miki E. Takahashi E. Sato A. Akaike T. Itto-Nakama K. Arimoto H. AUTACs: Cargo-Specific Degraders Using Selective Autophagy Mol. Cell 2019 76 797 810.e10 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.09.009 31606272

160. Walport L.J. Obexer R. Suga H. Strategies for Transitioning Macrocyclic Peptides to Cell-Permeable Drug Leads Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2017 48 242 250 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.07.007 28783603

161. Grześ M. Jaiswar A. Grochowski M. Wojtyś W. Kaźmierczak W. Olesiński T. Lenarcik M. Nowak-Niezgoda M. Kołos M. Canarutto G. A Common Druggable Signature of Oncogenic C-Myc, Mutant KRAS and Mutant P53 Reveals Functional Redundancy and Competition among Oncogenes in Cancer Cell Death Dis. 2024 15 638 10.1038/s41419-024-06965-3 39217152 PMC11365971

162. Akhave N.S. Biter A.B. Hong D.S. Mechanisms of Resistance to KRASG12C-Targeted Therapy Cancer Discov. 2021 11 1345 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1616 33820777 PMC8178176

163. Martín-Acosta P. Xiao X. PROTACs to Address the Challenges Facing Small Molecule Inhibitors Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020 210 112993 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112993 33189436 PMC7779748

164. Hu F. Yang H. Qiu L. Wang X. Ren Z. Wei S. Zhou H. Chen Y. Hu H. Innovation Networks in the Advanced Medical Equipment Industry: Supporting Regional Digital Health Systems from a Local–National Perspective Front. Public Health 2025 13 1635475 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1635475 40823228 PMC12350417

165. Jung H. Lee Y. Targeting the Undruggable: Recent Progress in PROTAC-Induced Transcription Factor Degradation Cancers 2025 17 1871 10.3390/cancers17111871 40507351 PMC12153801

166. Lin X. Liao Y. Chen X. Long D. Yu T. Shen F. Regulation of Oncoprotein 18/Stathmin Signaling by ERK Concerns the Resistance to Taxol in Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Cells Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2016 31 37 43 10.1089/cbr.2015.1921 26881937

167. Hofmann M.H. Gerlach D. Misale S. Petronczki M. Kraut N. Expanding the Reach of Precision Oncology by Drugging All KRAS Mutants Cancer Discov. 2022 12 924 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1331 35046095 PMC9394389

168. Steffen C.L. Kaya P. Schaffner-Reckinger E. Abankwa D. Eliminating Oncogenic RAS: Back to the Future at the Drawing Board Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2023 51 447 10.1042/BST20221343 36688434 PMC9987992

169. Bond M.J. Chu L. Nalawansha D.A. Li K. Crews C.M. Targeted Degradation of Oncogenic KRASG12Cby VHL-Recruiting PROTACs ACS Cent. Sci. 2020 6 1367 1375 10.1021/acscentsci.0c00411 32875077 PMC7453568

170. Weber L.I. Hartl M. Strategies to Target the Cancer Driver MYC in Tumor Cells Front. Oncol. 2023 13 1142111 10.3389/fonc.2023.1142111 36969025 PMC10032378

171. Wang H. Chauhan J. Hu A. Pendleton K. Yap J.L. Sabato P.E. Jones J.W. Perri M. Yu J. Cione E. Disruption of Myc-Max Heterodimerization with Improved Cell- Penetrating Analogs of the Small Molecule 10074-G5 Oncotarget 2013 4 936 947 10.18632/oncotarget.1108 23801058 PMC3757250

172. Bai L. Zhou H. Xu R. Zhao Y. Chinnaswamy K. McEachern D. Chen J. Yang C.Y. Liu Z. Wang M. A Potent and Selective Small-Molecule Degrader of STAT3 Achieves Complete Tumor Regression In Vivo Cancer Cell 2019 36 498 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.10.002 31715132 PMC6880868

173. Gencel-Augusto J. Lozano G. Targeted Degradation of Mutant P53 Reverses the Pro-Oncogenic Dominant-Negative Effect Cancer Res. 2025 85 1955 1956 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-25-1054 40452346

174. Buhimschi A.D. Armstrong H.A. Toure M. Jaime-Figueroa S. Chen T.L. Lehman A.M. Woyach J.A. Johnson A.J. Byrd J.C. Crews C.M. Targeting the C481S Ibrutinib-Resistance Mutation in Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase Using PROTAC-Mediated Degradation Biochemistry 2018 57 3564 3575 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00391 29851337

175. Hallin J. Engstrom L.D. Hargi L. Calinisan A. Aranda R. Briere D.M. Sudhakar N. Bowcut V. Baer B.R. Ballard J.A. The KRASG12C Inhibitor, MRTX849, Provides Insight Toward Therapeutic Susceptibility of KRAS Mutant Cancers in Mouse Models and Patients Cancer Discov. 2019 10 54 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-1167 31658955 PMC6954325

176. Yao R. Zhang M. Zhou J. Liu L. Zhang Y. Gao J. Xu K. Novel Dual-Targeting c-Myc Inhibitor D347-2761 Represses Myeloma Growth via Blocking c-Myc/Max Heterodimerization and Disturbing Its Stability Cell Commun. Signal. 2022 20 73 10.1186/s12964-022-00868-6 35619182 PMC9137135

177. De Araujo E.D. Orlova A. Neubauer H.A. Bajusz D. Seo H.S. Dhe-Paganon S. Keserű G.M. Moriggl R. Gunning P.T. Structural Implications of STAT3 and STAT5 SH2 Domain Mutations Cancers 2019 11 1757 10.3390/cancers11111757 31717342 PMC6895964

178. Chiang Y.T. Chien Y.C. Lin Y.H. Wu H.H. Lee D.F. Yu Y.L. The Function of the Mutant P53-R175H in Cancer Cancers 2021 13 4088 10.3390/cancers13164088 34439241 PMC8391618

179. Du J. Meng X. Yang M. Chen G. Li J. Zhu Z. Wu X. Hu W. Tian M. Li T. NGR-Modified CAF-Derived Exos Targeting Tumor Vasculature to Induce Ferroptosis and Overcome Chemoresistance in Osteosarcoma Adv. Sci. 2025 12 e2410918 10.1002/advs.202410918 PMC11948032 39889249

180. Pujari R. Bhatt S. Soni U. Sharma S. Patil S. Advantages and Disadvantages of PROTACs PROTAC-Mediated Protein Degradation: A Paradigm Shift in Cancer Therapeutics Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2024 67 88 10.1007/978-981-97-5077-1_4

181. Chetry A.B. Ohto K. From Molecules to Data: The Emerging Impact of Chemoinformatics in Chemistry J. Cheminform. 2025 17 121 10.1186/s13321-025-00978-6 40775368 PMC12333164

182. Murakami Y. Ishida S. Cho N. Yuki H. Ohta M. Honma T. Demizu Y. Terayama K. Data-Driven Design of PROTAC Linkers to Improve PROTAC Cell Membrane Permeability ChemRxiv 2025 10.1021/jacsau.6c00033 PMC12933330 41755858

183. Zagidullin A. Milyukov V. Rizvanov A. Bulatov E. Novel Approaches for the Rational Design of PROTAC Linkers Explor. Target. Antitumor Ther. 2020 1 381 10.37349/etat.2020.00023 36046487 PMC9400696

184. Ge J. Li S. Weng G. Wang H. Fang M. Sun H. Deng Y. Hsieh C.Y. Li D. Hou T. PROTAC-DB 3.0: An Updated Database of PROTACs with Extended Pharmacokinetic Parameters Nucleic Acids Res. 2025 53 D1510 D1515 10.1093/nar/gkae768 39225044 PMC11701630

185. Donovan K.A. Ferguson F.M. Bushman J.W. Eleuteri N.A. Bhunia D. Ryu S.S. Tan L. Shi K. Yue H. Liu X. Mapping the Degradable Kinome Provides a Resource for Expedited Degrader Development Cell 2020 183 1714 1731.e10 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.038 33275901 PMC10294644

186. Sathe G. Sapkota G.P. Proteomic Approaches Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2023 44 786 801 10.1016/j.tips.2023.08.007 37778939

187. Li Q. Zhang X. Ke R. Spatial Transcriptomics for Tumor Heterogeneity Analysis Front. Genet. 2022 13 906158 10.3389/fgene.2022.906158 35899203 PMC9309247

188. Kayumov M. Sobirova F.A. Khasanov O. Mukhamedov N. Asrorov A.M. Mirzaakhmedov S. Alantolactone: Structural Enhancements and Therapeutic Insights for Cancer and Inflammation Nat. Prod. Res. 2025 1 18 10.1080/14786419.2025.2571848 41071914

189. Khan A.U. Avazmetova I. Ruzieva M. Matchanova B. Dauletbaev A. Bilalov E. Ibrahim M. Prognostic Value of Postoperative Circulating Tumor DNA for Recurrence-Free Survival in Resected Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2025 10.1007/s12094-025-04182-8 41455868

190. Sahoo K. Lingasamy P. Khatun M. Sudhakaran S.L. Salumets A. Sundararajan V. Modhukur V. Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Epigenomics: A Review on Advances in Pan-Cancer Detection and Precision Medicine Epigenet. Chromatin 2025 18 35 10.1186/s13072-025-00595-5 PMC12166640 40517231

191. Salama A.K.A.A. Trkulja M.V. Casanova E. Uras I.Z. Targeted Protein Degradation: Clinical Advances in the Field of Oncology Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 15440 10.3390/ijms232315440 36499765 PMC9741350

192. Chowdhury I.J. Hossan M.I. Khan M.T.R. Mahboob T.Z. Sutradhar Y. Hossain M.R. Masum M. Revolutionizing Drug Discovery: A Systematic Review of AI and Machine Learning Application Proceedings of the 2025 3rd International Conference on Self Sustainable Artificial Intelligence Systems (ICSSAS) Erode, India 11–13 June 2025 1814 1821 10.1109/ICSSAS66150.2025.11081368