Bio US 2025: Chemistry Conference Guide for Biopharma R&D

1. Why the bio us 2025 Chemistry Conference Is a Must-See for Biopharmaceutical R&D Professionals

 ACS Fall 2026 is scheduled to take place August 23–27, 2026, in Chicago, USA—a highlight of bio us 2025. As one of the world’s largest academic conferences in the field of chemistry, the American Chemical Society (ACS) Fall Meeting attracts tens of thousands of researchers, engineers, and industry representatives from the fields of chemistry, medicinal chemistry, and biochemistry each year.The 2025 Fall Meeting, held in Washington, D.C., drew over 11,800 registered attendees from 80 countries, including more than 3,900 first-time attendees, who submitted nearly 10,000 scientific abstracts. These figures demonstrate the ACS’s influence and reach within the global chemistry community.

 But if you’re an R&D professional working on ADCs, peptides, nucleic acid therapeutics, small molecules, or biocoupling, traveling to Chicago for five days doesn’t make much sense just to look at these numbers.The real question is: What can you bring back from these five days that will be useful for your project? The answer is that at ACS, you can see the underlying R&D details behind many product stories—how molecules were designed, what reaction routes were followed, how linkers were attached, how payloads were selected, how impurities were controlled, and how analytical methods were developed. These details are rarely seen at clinical conferences, but when deciding whether a project can move forward, they are more critical than any clinical data abstract.

 1.1 It’s not a typical clinical oncology conference; it’s a place to assess whether a drug can actually be developed

 The biopharmaceutical industry has no shortage of conferences. Clinical or translational research conferences like ASCO, ESMO, and AACR are ideal for examining efficacy signals, clinical trial designs, and indication expansions. At these events, the focus is on which drugs are performing how in which clinical trial phases, what the ORR and PFS rates are, and whether there are statistically significant differences in OS. While this information is certainly important, it answers the question “Does this drug work?” rather than “Why can this drug be developed?”

 ACS takes a completely different approach. Here, you’ll find data on the 48-hour plasma stability of a specific ADC linker; details on how impurities in the shortmers of a particular oligonucleotide sequence were reduced to below 0.5% through purification processes; and insights into how the solid-phase synthesis route for a specific peptide drug maintains a purity of over 95% even after scaling up to the kilogram level.This content may not seem as exciting as clinical data, but these are precisely the core factors that determine whether a molecule can progress from a research paper to clinical trials and from clinical trials to the market.

 If you’re only interested in “which drug is the next big hit,” you don’t necessarily need to attend ACS. Information on pharmaceutical companies’ pipeline progress, FDA approval announcements, and industry media headlines can all be accessed right from your office. But if you’re interested in “why this drug can be developed, where the challenges lie, and whether it can be scaled up,” the value of ACS becomes very tangible.In the exhibition halls and breakout sessions, you’ll encounter chemists and engineers who are actually designing molecules, performing coupling reactions, and developing analytical methods in the lab—not analysts preparing investment reports. What they discuss is sometimes very detailed and technical, but it is precisely these details that determine whether your project will run into pitfalls during the scale-up phase.

 Table 1: Comparison of Key Differences Between the ACS Fall Meeting and Clinical Oncology Conferences

Comparison Dimensions	ACS Fall Meeting	ASCO / ESMO / AACR
Core Focus	Molecular design, synthetic routes, coupling chemistry, analytical characterization, process scale-up	Clinical efficacy, safety, indication expansion, survival data
Attendee Profile	Pharmaceutical chemists, process engineers, analytical chemists, CDMO technical teams	Clinicians, Medical Directors, Translational Researchers, Regulatory Affairs Professionals
Level of Detail	Reaction conditions, impurity profiles, DAR distribution, linker release kinetics	ORR, PFS, OS, objective response rate, adverse event grading
Value for ADC R&D	Assess conjugation methods, linker stability, payload synthesis, and analytical platform	Examine clinical profiles, safety signals, and indication selection
Suitable problems to address	Can this molecule be synthesized? Can it be scaled up? Can quality be controlled?	Is this drug effective in clinical trials? What is its safety profile?

 The table above clearly illustrates the fundamental difference between these two types of meetings. One is responsible for answering “Can it be developed?” while the other addresses “Will it be effective once developed?” For R&D professionals in the ADC and bioconjugation fields, both questions are important, but ACS addresses the former—which is often overlooked yet is the stage most likely to lead to project failure.

 Let’s take a concrete example. A certain ADC molecule demonstrated excellent cytotoxic activity in preclinical studies but was stalled for a full 14 months during CMC review after entering the IND phase. The reason was that the method for controlling DAR distribution was not robust enough, and batch-to-batch variability exceeded the FDA’s acceptable range—the target was correct, and payload toxicity was controllable, but the molecule failed to meet the uniformity requirement.At the ACS MEDI session, you can hear how others have solved similar DAR control issues. Such issues are rarely discussed at clinical conferences, but at the ACS MEDI session, you can hear how others have solved similar DAR control issues, what analytical platforms they used, and how they designed coupling sites to reduce heterogeneity.

 Table 2: Core ACS Sessions and Their Relevance to ADC/Conjugation Technologies

ACS Sessions	Full Name	Relation to ADC/Conjugation Technology	Typical Topics
MEDI	Division of Medicinal Chemistry	ADC linker design, small-molecule toxin synthesis, novel payloads, early-stage small-molecule discovery	Linker-payload design, target discovery, SAR studies, druggability optimization
BIOL	Division of Biological Chemistry	Bioconjugation technologies, oligonucleotide modification, peptide substrate chemistry	Site-specific coupling, modification strategies, enzyme-catalyzed coupling, peptide chemistry
ORGN	Division of Organic Chemistry	New Reaction Methodologies, Synthetic Routes for Complex Molecules	Novel coupling reactions, heterocyclic synthesis, asymmetric catalysis
ANYL	Division of Analytical Chemistry	ADC Characterization Methods, Impurity Analysis, Mass Spectrometry	DAR Analysis, HIC Separation, LC-MS Characterization, Impurity Profiling
MPPG	Medicinal Chemistry Planning Group (MPPG)	Drug Developability Assessment, CMC Strategy	Developability Assessment Framework, Process Transfer Strategy

 The purpose of this table is not to memorize the abbreviations for each section, but to help you determine where to focus your time. If you work on ADC conjugation and analysis, the MEDI, BIOL, and ANYL sections should take up most of your schedule. If you work on peptide synthesis, the overlapping content in ORGN and MEDI will be more useful. The key is to prioritize your focus before you leave so you won’t be overwhelmed by hundreds of presentations once you arrive.

 1.2 The MEDI and BIOL sessions are worth paying attention to because many product issues first emerge here

 The MEDI and BIOL sessions deserve special mention because the topics discussed there often reveal a project’s true challenges two to three years before clinical data becomes available.For an ADC molecule to progress from proof of concept to Phase 1 clinical trials, it must undergo linker screening, optimization of coupling conditions, DAR control, purification method development, stability studies, and analytical method validation. A problem in any of these stages could result in millions of dollars in rework costs later on. In the MEDI and BIOL sessions, you’ll hear exactly about the pitfalls others have encountered in these stages and the solutions they’ve found.

 The value of the MEDI session lies in its coverage of the most critical chemical aspects of the ADC development process. How should linkers be designed to remain sufficiently stable in plasma while effectively releasing their payload in the tumor microenvironment? What synthetic routes for small-molecule toxins should be adopted to balance yield, purity, and safe handling?How can the structure-activity relationship of novel payloads be optimized to broaden the therapeutic window while maintaining high activity? These questions will be discussed in great detail in the MEDI sessions, including reaction conditions, yield data, purification strategies, and case studies of failures.

 The BIOL session, on the other hand, focuses more on the methodological aspects of bioconjugation. How can site-specific conjugation be performed to reduce DAR heterogeneity? What are the respective advantages and disadvantages of enzyme-catalyzed and chemical conjugation? How do oligonucleotide modification strategies affect stability and immunogenicity?What are the latest advances in peptide substrate chemistry for PROTACs and molecular glues? For teams developing biocoupling platform technologies, the information density in these sessions far exceeds that of industry review articles.

 Table 3: ACS Fall 2025 Attendance Data and Its Practical Implications for Attendees

ACS Fall 2025 Metrics	Value	Implications for Attendees
Number of Registered Attendees	11,800+	A scale in the tens of thousands indicates broad reach and abundant opportunities for interdisciplinary exchange
Number of Participating Countries	80	An international perspective, offering insights into R&D strategies under different regulatory systems
First-time attendees	3,900+	With many new participants, discussions on new technologies and directions are lively
Number of scientific abstracts	Nearly 10,000	A vast amount of information—be sure to pre-select key presentations
Number of exhibitors	250+	Direct access to suppliers of reagents, consumables, CDMOs, and analytical instruments

 With nearly 10,000 abstracts, it’s impossible to review them all. A practical approach is to visit the ACS website two weeks before the conference, search for reports related to your project using keywords, and create a prioritized list.Flag presentations in the MEDI and BIOL sessions that are directly related to ADC linkers, payloads, coupling methods, and oligonucleotide modifications, then set aside 20% of your time for interdisciplinary presentations and the exhibition hall. This is the best way to maximize your efficiency over the five-day conference.

Another often-overlooked resource is the exhibition hall.The ACS exhibition hall is not just a place for exhibitors to set up booths; many reagent and consumable suppliers are available at their booths to discuss technical details.pharmaceutical R&D conference. If you’re struggling to select the right reagent for a coupling reaction or want to understand how a specific purification resin performs in peptide amplification, face-to-face interactions in the exhibition hall are far more efficient than sending emails. Bring your business cards and prepare specific technical questions—this is one of the activities with the highest return on investment during the five-day conference.

 Action recommendations for this section: Complete three tasks one week before departure—first, list the three technical questions you most want answered regarding your current project; second, search the ACS website using keywords to find relevant presentations and prioritize them; third, contact 3–5 key suppliers in advance to schedule technical discussions at their booths. Going to the conference with specific questions in mind yields vastly different results than simply going to listen.

 Historical data shows that both attendance and the number of abstracts at the ACS Fall Meeting have grown steadily over the past three years. The 2023 Fall Meeting in San Francisco drew approximately 9,500 registered attendees, the 2024 event in Denver attracted about 10,600, and the 2025 meeting in Washington, D.C., reached 11,800.This growth trend reflects the resurgence of chemistry’s importance in biopharmaceutical R&D—as ADCs, peptide conjugates, and oligonucleotide drugs become the mainstays of drug pipelines, the value of underlying chemical capabilities is being reevaluated. The 2026 Chicago conference is expected to continue this growth momentum, with the number of ADC- and bioconjugate-related presentations in the MEDI and BIOL divisions also projected to reach new highs.

 For first-time attendees, here’s a practical tip: ACS presentations are typically divided into two formats—oral presentations and poster presentations. Oral presentations are ideal for quickly gaining an overview, while poster presentations are better suited for in-depth discussions.In the poster session area, you can discuss topics face-to-face with presenters and ask any technical questions you may have—this offers far greater value than passively listening to a 15-minute oral presentation in a lecture hall. We recommend setting aside at least an hour and a half each day to make targeted visits to the poster session area.

 Chicago, the host city for the 2026 ACS Fall Meeting, is itself a key hub for the biopharmaceutical industry in the U.S. Midwest. Pharmaceutical companies such as AbbVie, Abbott, Baxter, and Astellas have their headquarters or major R&D centers in the Chicago metropolitan area.Attendees can use breaks between sessions to arrange technical exchanges or business development meetings with local companies. McCormick Place in Chicago is one of the largest convention centers in North America. The ACS exhibition halls and breakout sessions are typically spread across multiple halls within the center. On the first day of the conference, it’s recommended that you spend an hour familiarizing yourself with the layout and marking the locations of the booths and breakout sessions you’re most interested in, to avoid wasting time navigating the vast venue in the days that follow.

Regarding the conference budget, registration fees for the ACS Fall Meeting typically range from $500 to $800 (depending on membership status and registration timing). When combined with airfare, hotel accommodations, and meals, the total cost for a five-day conference is approximately $3,000 to $5,000.For startups or academic institutions with limited R&D budgets, it may be worth considering registering only for a Poster Day pass (which is typically half the price) or attending only the middle portion of the conference (days 2–4) to cover the most intensive presentation schedule. However, from the perspective of information acquisition, the value of attending the full five days far exceeds that of partial attendance—the first day usually features short courses and workshops, while the final day includes panel discussions and industry outlook sessions, which often contain a wealth of practical information.

2. Following the Rise of PD-1 × VEGF Bispecific Antibodies, the bio us 2025 Industry Must Now Examine the “Developability” Behind Combination Therapies

 In the first half of 2026, PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibodies, represented by ivonescimab, continued to generate clinical data showing “head-to-head” victories over traditional PD-1 monoclonal antibodies across multiple first-line solid tumor indications. The significance of this trend extends beyond mere news—it indicates that immunotherapy for solid tumors is shifting from competition among monoclonal antibodies to multi-mechanism combinations.At the same time, the combination of bispecific antibodies and ADCs (bispecific antibody + ADC) has also become one of the most mainstream approaches in combination therapy for advanced solid tumors.

 However, behind this hype lies an overlooked issue: as molecular formats evolve from monoclonal antibodies to bispecific antibodies, and from bispecific antibodies to bispecific antibodies plus ADCs, the complexity of these products is increasing exponentially.Mismatched bispecific antibody chains, DAR heterogeneity in ADCs, and the narrowing of the safety window following combination therapy—none of these issues can be resolved simply by “selecting the right target.” R&D competition will extend from “target combinations” to molecular manufacturability, drug-linker design, toxicity windows, analytical controllability, and supply chain capabilities. These are precisely the areas where ACS Fall 2026 can help you find answers.

 2.1 Bispecific Antibodies Outperforming Monoclonal Antibodies: It’s Not Just About Efficacy, but Also a Reminder of Rising Product Complexity

 Why has evosimab attracted so much attention? Because in the AK105-303 study, as a PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibody, it head-to-head outperformed pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in terms of efficacy data for first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive NSCLC.This trial represented a direct challenge to the world’s best-selling cancer drug in its core indication, with both the sample size and trial design standing up to scrutiny.Coupled with the intense competition and price wars surrounding PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies both domestically and internationally, a ceiling is already emerging—by 2025, the annual treatment cost for PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies in China has dropped to 30,000–50,000 RMB, with profit margins for some products squeezed to the point where R&D investments are barely sustainable.

 The appeal of bispecific antibodies lies in their significantly enhanced efficacy, while simultaneously resolving the challenge of cumulative toxicity associated with the traditional combination therapy of “monoclonal antibodies plus anti-vascular small molecules.” Yivosi monoclonal antibody uses a single polypeptide to simultaneously block both the PD-1 and VEGF pathways, achieving the effects of combination therapy at the molecular level while avoiding the pharmacokinetic (PK) discrepancies, dosage adjustment difficulties, and cumulative toxicity associated with administering the two drugs separately. This design concept is, in itself, elegant.

 The problem, however, is that the production of bispecific antibodies is far more complex than that of monoclonal antibodies. Bispecific antibodies are prone to issues such as heavy-chain-to-heavy-chain mismatches, heavy-chain-to-light-chain mismatches, and homodimer byproducts. During the process development phase for a certain bispecific antibody, the proportion of homodimer byproducts once reached as high as 18%; it took six months of process optimization to reduce it to below 2%. Such problems are virtually nonexistent in monoclonal antibody production but are the norm for bispecific antibodies.The more complex the molecule, the greater the need for clearer structural characterization, CMC pathways, batch-to-batch consistency, and long-term quality control.

 Table 4: Comparison of Product Complexity Between PD-1 Monoclonal Antibodies and PD-1×VEGF Bispecific Antibodies

Comparison Dimensions	PD-1 monoclonal antibody (e.g., Keytruda)	PD-1 × VEGF Bispecific Antibody (e.g., Ivosib)
Molecular Structure	Mono-specific IgG4	Bispecific; requires control of heavy-chain pairing
Typical byproducts	Aggregates, fragments	Heterodimers, mismatched products, and half-antibodies
CMC complexity	Mature platform, stable process	Requires development of a dedicated purification strategy; narrow process window
Analytical Characterization Requirements	Standard release testing is sufficient	Requires additional validation of pairing accuracy and function
Production Costs (Relative)	1.0x baseline	1.5x–2.5x (depending on the technology platform)
Clinical advantages	Extensive validation data available	Improved efficacy and better toxicity management
Commercialization Risks	Patent cliff, price wars	High production costs and limited production capacity

 The most noteworthy aspect of the table above is the row on production costs. The production cost of bispecific antibodies is 1.5 to 2.5 times that of monoclonal antibodies—and these figures are based on data from after the manufacturing process has matured. In the early development stages, the batch failure rate, process development cycle, and CMC investment for bispecific antibodies are all significantly higher than those for monoclonal antibodies.For business development and investment teams, evaluating a bispecific antibody project requires more than just assessing the quality of clinical data; it also involves determining whether the underlying technology platform can support stable production and cost control.

 This is precisely why attendees can use this hot topic as a checklist to seek answers at ACS regarding chemical and analytical aspects. How can the mismatch issue in bispecific antibodies be resolved?What technical approaches are available (KiH structures, CrossMab, DVD-Ig, shared light chains, etc.)? What are the purification strategies and yield performance for each? How are analytical methods used to validate pairing accuracy? These questions will be discussed in detail in the MEDI and BIOL session presentations. Attending these sessions against the backdrop of the current bispecific antibody boom will give you a completely different perspective and yield far greater insights than a general overview of the technology.

 Table 5: Comparison of Pairing Control and Purification Challenges Across Mainstream Bispecific Antibody Technology Platforms

Bispecific Antibody Technology Platforms	Pairing Control Mechanisms	Typical Byproduct Levels	Purification Challenges	Suitable Applications
KiH (Knobs-into-Holes)	Engineered mutations to promote heterodimer formation	Homodimer level: 1%–5%	HIC or ion exchange required to remove byproducts	Symmetric bispecific antibodies
CrossMab	Heavy-chain–light-chain cross-substitution to prevent mismatches	Semi-antibodies 1%–3%	Requires affinity chromatography optimization	Asymmetric bispecific antibodies
DVD-Ig	Tandem arrangement of variable regions	Simple format, few byproducts	Relatively simple purification	Bispecific antibodies with closely spaced targets
Shared light chain	Two heavy chains share one light chain	Depends on heavy-chain pairing efficiency	Heavy-chain pairing still requires optimization	Simplified production process
Quadroma	Quadroma hybridoma	High byproduct yield, 10%–30%	Purification is the greatest challenge	Early-stage proof of concept

 The value of this table lies in allowing you to quickly assess the technical level of the approach being presented during a report. If a report claims to have produced high-purity bispecific antibodies using the Quadroma platform, you should ask about the purification yield and batch-to-batch consistency. If the presenter is using a KiH structure, you should focus on the recovery rate during the HIC purification step and the performance after process scale-up. The technical maturity of different platforms varies greatly, so one cannot generalize.

 2.2 “Bispecific Antibodies + ADCs” Sounds Promising, but Ask About Linker, Exposure, and Safety Margins at the Presentation

 The combined application of bispecific antibodies and ADCs is one of the hottest design trends in solid tumor therapy for 2025–2026. The logic is straightforward: bispecific antibodies regulate the immune microenvironment, while ADCs deliver cytotoxic agents precisely to kill tumor cells; these two pathways are complementary and, in theory, can produce synergistic effects.But the phrase “in theory” is precisely the most dangerous part—when two complex drugs enter the body simultaneously, you are no longer dealing with their individual safety margins, but rather the combination of multiple variables such as drug-drug interactions, cross-toxicity at target sites, cumulative pharmacokinetic effects, and amplified toxicity due to immune activation.

 The more popular combination therapies become, the more we must look beyond mere conceptual combinations. At the ACS conference, you should be asking questions at the chemical and analytical levels: Is the stability of the ADC linker affected in the plasma environment during combination therapy?Does the bispecific antibody alter the tissue distribution of the ADC? Does payload exposure increase due to changes in vascular permeability caused by the bispecific antibody? Can DAR distribution and impurity profiles still be independently monitored after co-administration? These issues are rarely discussed at clinical conferences, yet they directly determine whether combination therapies can safely advance to late-stage clinical trials.

 Table 6: Key Technical Risks and On-Site Inquiry Directions for Bispecific Antibody + ADC Combination Therapy

Risk Dimensions of Combination Therapy	Monotherapy Scenario	Changes After Combination Therapy	Questions to Ask During the Session
Linker Stability	Controlled Release in Plasma	Bispecific antibodies may alter plasma protein composition, affecting linker stability	Are there any data on changes in linker release kinetics following co-administration?
Payload Exposure	Monotherapy PK is known	Bispecific antibodies may alter tissue distribution and vascular permeability	Are there any changes in the Cmax and AUC of the free payload following co-administration?
Safety margin	Monotherapy MTD is known	Cross-toxicity between targets may narrow the safety margin	Can the DLT observed with the combination be attributed to a specific drug?
Immune-activating toxicity	Controllable with monotherapy	Bispecific antibodies + ADCs may amplify immune activation	Are the incidence rates of CRS and ICANS higher than expected based on the sum of monotherapy effects?
Analysis and Monitoring	Separate Monitoring	The risk of analytical interference may increase following co-administration	Is it possible to monitor the PK and immunogenicity of the two drugs independently?

 The table above highlights a core contradiction: the clinical design of combination therapies is becoming increasingly aggressive, but the analytical and CMC data supporting these designs often lag behind.In a Phase 1 clinical trial of a bispecific antibody plus ADC combination regimen, three cases of Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the ADC payload exposure increased by 40% following co-administration, whereas no similar toxicity was observed when the bispecific antibody was used alone. Such issues could have been anticipated if combined PK studies and interference assessments had been conducted during the IND phase.

 At the ACS conference, you should pay attention to presentations discussing methods for evaluating linker stability under combination dosing conditions, the impact of bispecific antibodies on ADC pharmacokinetics, and impurity monitoring strategies for combination therapies. While the titles of these presentations may not include the keyword “combination therapy,” the in vitro and in vivo release models, plasma stability experimental designs, and mass spectrometry analysis methods discussed in their content are precisely the tools needed to address the questions mentioned above.

 Table 7: Increasing Developability Requirements from Monoclonal Antibodies to Bispecific Antibodies + ADC Combination Therapies

Dimensions of Developability Assessment	Monoclonal Antibody/Monotherapy Benchmark	Bispecific Antibody Requirements	Bispecific Antibody + ADC Combination Requirements	Information Obtainable via ACS
Structural Characterization	Conventional Mass Spectrometry + CE-SDS	Additional verification of pairing accuracy is required	Structural characterization of each of the two molecules	MEDI/ANYL Session Report
Purification Strategy	One-step Protein A purification	Multi-step chromatography is required to remove byproducts	Separate Purification of the Two Molecules + Quality Risks	BIOL Section Process Report
Analytical Methods	HPLC + CE is well-established	Paired validation methods need to be developed	Analytical methods for the two drugs must be distinguished	ANYL Subcommittee Analytical Methods Report
Stability Studies	Conventional accelerated + long-term stability	Conformational stability of bispecific antibodies must be addressed	Stability of Combination Formulations (if applicable)	MEDI Subcommittee Stability Report
Impurity Control	Aggregates + Fragments	Homodimers + Mismatched Products	Impurity Profiles for Each Drug	ANYL/MEDI Joint Report
CMC Costs	Benchmark 1.0x	1.5x–2.5x	2.5x–4.0x (depending on the collaboration model)	CDMO Networking Session in the Exhibition Hall

 The key takeaway from this table is that with each increase in molecular complexity, the requirements for developability rise significantly. Much of the experience gained during the monoclonal antibody era cannot be directly applied to the era of bispecific antibodies and combination therapies. If you are a member of a business development (BD) team evaluating a bispecific antibody + ADC combination project, every row in the table above should be on your due diligence checklist. The ACS event can help you identify industry benchmarks and best practices across these dimensions.

 Action Recommendations for This Section: At the ACS conference, focus on gathering three types of information: First, the latest technical approaches and yield data for bispecific antibody mismatch control, to assess the process maturity of your target project; second, evaluation methods for linker stability and payload exposure under combination dosing conditions, to predict safety risks associated with combination therapies; third, the current state of CDMO production capacity and process capabilities in the bispecific antibody and ADC fields, to evaluate a project’s outsourceability and scale-up pathways.

 From an industry perspective, the intensifying competition in the PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody sector has reached a tipping point in 2025. The annual treatment cost for PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies in the Chinese market has dropped from over 200,000 yuan in 2018 to 30,000–50,000 yuan in 2025, with the quoted prices for six domestically produced PD-1 monoclonal antibodies hitting new lows during national health insurance negotiations.This price pressure has forced companies to seek paths to differentiation—bispecific antibodies are one of the most natural choices. However, differentiation does not necessarily equate to profitability; if the production cost of a bispecific antibody is more than double that of a monoclonal antibody, yet pricing cannot be increased proportionally, the business model will face challenges. This is why it is particularly important for business development and investment teams to learn about the latest progress in bispecific antibody process optimization at ACS.

 Another noteworthy trend is the strategic moves by major multinational pharmaceutical companies (MNCs) in the bispecific antibody space. Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb are all acquiring PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibodies or similar pipelines through collaborations or in-house R&D. MNC involvement typically signals that a technology has passed the proof-of-concept stage, but these companies also evaluate the manufacturability and commercial viability of technology platforms against very stringent standards.At the ACS conference, paying attention to presentations on research projects funded by or in collaboration with MNCs often yields technical data that is closer to industrial standards than academic reports.

3. The next phase of ADCs at bio us 2025 is not about introducing a new target, but about proving that the conjugation and payload systems are sufficiently reliable

 The ADC field has experienced explosive growth from 2020 to the present. The number of ADC projects in development globally has increased from fewer than 200 in 2020 to over 500 by 2025, and at least 12 ADC pipeline collaborations valued at over $1 billion took place between 2023 and 2025.Yet behind this hype lies a fundamental assessment: whether ADCs can truly go the distance ultimately depends on foundational capabilities such as conjugation chemistry, payload synthesis, linker design, and analytical characterization.

 The value of ACS Fall 2026 for the ADC field should be centered on foundational chemistry and bio-conjugation capabilities, rather than merely noting that the ADC market is booming. While the discovery of a new target may slightly broaden the scope of the ADC field, a breakthrough in a conjugation method, an improvement in linker stability, or the standardization of an analytical method could collectively boost the overall success rate of a cohort of ADC projects. This is the unique value that chemistry conferences like ACS can provide.

 3.1 Linker Stability Determines How Far an ADC Story Can Go

The linker is not merely an accessory to an ADC; it is the chemical bridge connecting the antibody to the payload, directly determining when, where, and how much of the payload is released in vivo.drug development summit. An unstable linker can cause premature release of the payload into the bloodstream, leading to off-target toxicity and a narrowed therapeutic window; conversely, an overly stable linker may result in insufficient release of the payload within tumor cells, compromising therapeutic efficacy. Linker design is all about finding the right balance between these two extremes.

 Don’t treat the linker as merely a technical term to be defined. Its true significance lies in the fact that linker stability data is one of the core criteria for determining whether an ADC project can advance to clinical trials, scale up, and pass CMC review. At ACS, the specific questions you should ask include: What is the evidence for the linker’s stability in plasma and the tumor microenvironment? Are there comparable in vitro and in vivo release data? Does the linker’s release mechanism remain consistent when different payloads are used?

 Table 8: Comparison of Release Mechanisms and Stability Characteristics of Major ADC Linker Types

Linker Type	Release Mechanism	Plasma Stability	Release Efficiency in the Tumor Microenvironment	Typical Examples	Major Risks
Cleavable—Acid-Sensitive (Imide Bond)	pH-dependent; cleaves in acidic environments	Moderate (half-life 24–72 h)	High	MMAE-class ADCs	Premature release in plasma leads to toxicity
Cleavable—disulfide bonds	Cleavage in reducing environments (GSH)	Higher	High (high GSH concentration in tumors)	Some Maytansinoid ADCs	Can also be cleaved by reductases in non-tumor tissues
Cleavable—enzyme-sensitive (Val-Cit)	Cleaved by cathepsin B	High	High (lysosomal enzyme specificity)	Adcetris, Polivy	Differences in enzyme expression affect therapeutic efficacy
Cannot be cleaved (sulfide bond)	Released upon antibody degradation	Extremely high	Dependent on lysosomal degradation	Kadcyla, Enhertu	Payload active metabolites require validation
New β-glucuronide bond	Cleavage by β-glucuronidase	High	High (high enzyme expression in the tumor microenvironment)	Next-generation ADC	Enzyme expression profile requires validation

 The table above contains a great deal of information, but the most critical takeaway is: no single linker is a one-size-fits-all solution.The Val-Cit linker performs well in hematologic malignancies, but its efficacy may be compromised in certain solid tumors due to insufficient tissue protease B expression. Non-cleavable linkers offer the highest plasma stability, but whether the metabolites released from the payload have sufficient bystander effects requires further validation. When listening to presentations at ACS, you should place the linker types discussed within this framework to assess what problems they solve and what new challenges they introduce.

A real-world example: An ADC project used an acid-sensitive imine linker that performed exceptionally well in preclinical mouse models, but severe thrombocytopenia and hepatotoxicity occurred once the project entered Phase I clinical trials.Post-hoc analysis revealed that esterase activity in human plasma is significantly higher than in mice, resulting in a linker half-life of only 12 hours in human plasma (compared to 48 hours in mice) and causing premature, massive release of the payload into the circulation. If the team had conducted human plasma stability studies during the IND phase (rather than relying solely on mouse data), this issue could have been identified earlier.

 Table 9: Mainstream Methods for Assessing Linker Stability and Their Applicable Stages

Linker Stability Assessment Methods	Testing Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Applicable Stage
Plasma Incubation + LC-MS	Incubate the ADC in plasma and take periodic samples to measure the free payload	Directly reflects plasma release kinetics	Cannot distinguish between specific and nonspecific release	Preclinical/IND Phase
In vitro release from lysosome extracts	Assess linker cleavage efficiency in isolated lysosomes	Simulates the intracellular release environment	Significant variability in lysosome preparation	Early-stage screening
In vivo PK/PD modeling	Measuring payload concentrations in plasma and tumors after administration to animals	Most closely approximates in vivo conditions	Extrapolation is affected by interspecies differences	Preclinical
Humanized mouse models	Evaluation using human plasma and tumor grafts	Reduces species differences	High cost, long timeline	Late-stage validation
Stability-indicating analytical methods	Evaluation of linker cleavage under forced degradation conditions	Supports CMC stability studies	Conditions differ from physiological environments	CMC/Commercialization Phase

 The key takeaway from this table is that linker stability cannot be assessed using a single method alone. Results from preclinical mouse plasma studies and human plasma studies may differ significantly; relying solely on a single data source to make judgments is extremely risky. At the ACS conference, you should pay attention to reports that discuss cross-validation using multiple assessment methods, rather than those that merely present a single set of favorable data.

 Action recommendations for this section: At ACS, prioritize gathering two types of information—first, baseline stability data for different linker types in human plasma, to calibrate linker selection for your own project; second, progress on standardizing linker stability assessment methods, to refine the CMC stability study protocol for your project. If you encounter presentations discussing linker release kinetics in humanized mouse models, make it a priority to attend them.

 3.2 DAR Distribution, Coupling Uniformity, and Impurity Profiles: More Worth Listening To Than the Term “Next-Generation ADC”

 DAR (Drug-to-Antibody Ratio) is one of the most critical quality attributes of ADCs. If the DAR is too low, payload delivery is insufficient, and therapeutic efficacy is compromised; if the DAR is too high, the risk of antibody aggregation increases, PK parameters deteriorate, and toxicity rises. However, the challenge with DAR lies not only in whether the “average value is correct,” but also in whether the “distribution is uniform.”An ADC with an average DAR of 4—if it is actually composed of a mixture of DAR 0, DAR 2, DAR 4, DAR 6, and DAR 8—will have unconjugated antibodies (DAR 0) accounting for wasted payload, while over-conjugated antibodies (DAR 8) will contribute disproportionate toxicity.

 Tone down the marketing hype and emphasize validation metrics. When a report is titled “Next-Generation ADC Platform,” you need to ask substantive questions: Where are the conjugation sites located? What does the HPLC profile of the DAR distribution look like? What is the proportion of unconjugated antibodies? How is free payload controlled? Does the aggregate level change before and after conjugation? Have highly active impurities been identified and quantified?

 Table 10: Comparison of ADC DAR Analysis and Control Methods

DAR Analysis/Control Methods	Principle	DAR Distribution Information	Throughput	Technical Barriers	Typical Applications
HIC (Hydrophobic Interaction Chromatography)	The higher the DAR, the stronger the hydrophobicity	Can separate species with DAR values ranging from 0 to 8	Medium	Medium	Routine DAR distribution analysis
RP-HPLC (reverse-phase)	Differential Hydrophobicity Separation	Separation of Light and Heavy Chains by DAR	Medium	Medium-High	Subunit-level DAR analysis
LC-MS (Mass Spectrometry)	Precise determination of molecular weight	Average DAR + Species Ratios	Low	High	Precise DAR determination/method development
UV-Vis (Ultraviolet)	Ratio of antibody to payload absorbance	Average DAR Only	High	Low	Rapid Release Testing
CE-SDS (Capillary Electrophoresis)	Molecular Weight Differential Separation	Indirect Measurement of DAR	High	Low	Purity/Uniformity Support
Site-specific coupling	Engineered site-specific coupling	Narrow DAR distribution, high uniformity	N/A	High	Next-Generation ADC Design

 The most noteworthy entries in the table above are the rows for HIC and site-specific conjugation. HIC is currently the most widely used method for analyzing DAR distribution in the industry, but its resolution is limited; it may not fully distinguish between ADCs with small DAR differences (e.g., DAR 3 vs. DAR 4).Site-specific coupling, on the other hand, offers a fundamental solution to the problem of DAR heterogeneity—by engineering the antibody sequence to introduce reactive residues at specific positions (e.g., THIOMAB technology), it achieves a uniform DAR distribution. However, site-specific coupling involves a longer process development cycle and may affect antibody yield, requiring careful trade-offs.

 Table 11: Major ADC Impurity Categories, Risks, and Control Strategies

ADC Impurity Categories	Source	Risks	Control Strategies	Analytical Method
Unconjugated Antibody (DAR 0)	Insufficient conjugation efficiency	Competition for antigen-binding sites, reducing therapeutic efficacy	Optimize conjugation conditions/purify to remove	HIC, CE-SDS
Free payload	Insufficient purification after conjugation/payload detachment	Nonspecific toxicity, narrowing of the therapeutic window	Multi-step purification/hydrophobic removal	RP-HPLC, LC-MS
Over-conjugated antibodies (high DAR)	Excessive conjugation conditions	Increased aggregation, impaired PK, and increased hepatotoxicity	Control the stoichiometric ratio of the reaction	HIC, SEC
Aggregates	Increased stress/hydrophobicity during the conjugation process	Increased immunogenicity, accelerated clearance	Optimization of buffer, temperature, and stirring	SEC, DLS
Fragmentation/fragments	Enzymatic cleavage/chemical degradation	Reduced activity, altered PK	Add protease inhibitors/control temperature	CE-SDS, SEC
Cross-linked products	Linker bifunctional reaction	Aggregation/DAR uncontrollable	Optimize linker chemistry/reaction conditions	SEC, CE-SDS
Solvent/reagent residues	Synthesis/purification process	Safety risks	Process control/flushing buffer	GC, IC

 The value of this table lies in the fact that it breaks down ADC impurity control from the broad concept of “quality control” into seven actionable dimensions.At the ACS conference, you can use it as a checklist to verify, item by item, whether the ADC projects mentioned in the reports cover the analysis and control of these impurity categories. If a report only presents impressive average DAR values and preclinical efficacy data but makes no mention of the impurity profile, you should question the CMC maturity of that project.

 The advantage of conferences like ACS is that they allow attendees to see the chemical and analytical foundation underlying the impressive clinical curves of ADCs.When an ADC reports a 60% ORR at ASCO, what you see is the result; but at ACS, you can see the DAR distribution profiles, impurity spectra data, linker stability curves, and analytical method validation reports that underpin that result. This information is far more useful than clinical data for assessing the maturity of a technology platform, evaluating pipeline risks, and planning CMC strategies.

 3.3 Production safeguards for highly active payloads are the watershed moment for ADCs moving from the laboratory to the production line

 ADC payloads are typically highly active cytotoxins with potency 100 to 1,000 times greater than that of conventional small-molecule drugs.The OEL (Occupational Exposure Limit) for MMAE is approximately 0.03 μg/m³, while the OEL for certain next-generation payloads (such as PBD dimers) may be as low as 0.001 μg/m³. This means that even extremely low levels of exposure during production can pose serious health risks to operators. Production safety measures for highly active substances are the key factor determining whether an ADC project can truly scale up to commercial production.

 Table 12: OEB Classification for Highly Active Substances and Corresponding Protection Requirements

OEB Level	OEL Range (μg/m³)	Representative Substances	Protection Requirements	Typical Facilities
OEB 1	>1000	Conventional small-molecule APIs	Standard Oral Solid Dosage Form Facility	General Production Area
OEB 2	100–1,000	Selected small-molecule APIs	Standard containment + local exhaust ventilation	General-purpose workshop + LEV
OEB 3	10–100	Some highly reactive APIs	Isolator + Negative Pressure + PPE	Isolator-equipped facility
OEB 4	1–10	MMAE, MMAF	Contained System + Dual HEPA + Negative Pressure	Highly Active Workshop
OEB 5	0.1–1	Partial next-generation payload	Fully Contained + Isolator + Continuous Monitoring	Facility dedicated to HPAPIs
OEB 6/7	<0.1	Ultra-high-efficiency payloads such as PBD dimers	Extreme containment + robotic operation	Ultra-HPAPI Dedicated Facilities

 The key message conveyed by the table above is that there are significant differences in containment levels for different payloads, which directly impacts the investment and operating costs of production facilities.The construction cost of an OEB Class 4 MMAE coupling facility may be 3–5 times that of a standard antibody production facility. Meanwhile, there are no more than 10 CDMOs worldwide capable of providing OEB Class 5/6 facilities for ultra-high-potency payloads. For BD teams, when evaluating an ADC project using a novel, highly active payload, the question of “whether a suitable CDMO can be found for production” may have a greater impact on the project’s feasibility than “whether the clinical data is good.”

 Table 13: Key Differences Between High-Potency ADC Payload Production and Conventional Antibody Production

Production Process	Conventional Antibody Production	High-Potency ADC Payload Production	Core Challenges
Payload Synthesis	Not applicable	OEB Classes 4–6 Contained Synthesis	Scarce facilities, limited production capacity
Coupling Reactions	Not applicable	Closed-system coupling + local containment	Reaction condition control + safety precautions
Purification	Protein A + ion exchange	Multi-step purification + removal of free payload	Disposal of waste containing free payload
Cleaning Validation	Routine Cleaning + TOC Testing	Extremely low cleaning limits (ng level)	High sensitivity requirements for analytical methods
Waste Liquid Treatment	Conventional wastewater treatment	Inactivation treatment for highly reactive waste liquids	Validation of inactivation efficiency + compliant disposal
Equipment Sharing	Can be shared with other products	Typically requires dedicated equipment	Extremely high risk of cross-contamination
Operators	Standard GMP training	HPAPI-specific training + health monitoring	Personnel are scarce, and training takes a long time

 The key takeaway from this table is that ADC production is not as simple as “making an antibody” and “attaching a payload.”From payload synthesis to conjugation, purification, cleaning validation, and waste disposal, every step presents challenges unique to highly active substances. Cleaning validation deserves special attention—while cleaning limits in standard antibody production facilities are typically in the microgram (μg) range, those for highly active payloads may need to reach the nanogram (ng) level, placing extremely high demands on the sensitivity of analytical methods and the effectiveness of cleaning processes.

 For CDMOs, process teams, and business development teams, these details determine whether a project can truly be outsourced, scaled up, and delivered consistently. At the ACS exhibition hall, you should discuss these issues directly with the CDMO’s technical team: Do you have coupling capacity meeting OEB 4 or higher? What are the acceptance criteria for cleaning validation? Have you worked on projects with similar payloads? What is the batch-to-batch consistency data like? The answers to these questions provide a more accurate picture than any information found in the CDMO’s promotional brochures.

 Table 14: ADC CDMO Capability Assessment Checklist

CDMO Capability Assessment Dimensions	Key Questions	Passing Criteria	Excellence Criteria
HPAPI Production Capacity	What is the production capacity for OEB 4 and above?	One or more OEB 4 production lines	OEB 5/6 production lines + flexible switching
Coupling technology	What coupling chemistries are supported?	Conventional cysteine/lysine coupling	Site-specific + multiple coupling chemistries
Analytical Capabilities	What methods are used for DAR analysis?	HIC + UV-Vis	HIC + RP-HPLC + LC-MS Full Suite
Cleaning Validation	What is the achievable cleanliness limit?	Microgram level (1–10 μg)	ng level (<100 ng)
Production Capacity	Maximum coupling capacity?	50–200 L coupling	Coupling of 500 L or more
Regulatory Experience	Do you have any FDA/EMA-approved ADC projects?	Experience at the IND stage	Experience with BLA and commercialization
Batch Consistency	What is the DAR RSD between batches?	RSD < 10%	RSD < 5%

 This evaluation checklist can be used directly during CDMO discussions at the ACS exhibition hall. There’s no need to formally email each question; a face-to-face conversation of about ten to fifteen minutes with technical staff at their booth is sufficient to make a preliminary assessment of their actual capabilities. If they are evasive about issues such as cleaning limits or DAR RSD, or if they only mention “we’ve done many ADC projects” without providing specific data, you should remain cautious about their actual capabilities.

 Action recommendations for this section: Complete three tasks at the ACS conference—first, collect information on HPAPI production capacity and ADC coupling capabilities from 3–5 CDMOs to establish a shortlist of potential suppliers; second, identify 2–3 reports discussing clean validation and cross-contamination control for highly active substances to update your clean validation strategy;third, discuss optimization strategies for DAR analytical methods directly with 2–3 analytical instrument suppliers in the exhibition hall, particularly regarding improvements in HIC resolution and LC-MS throughput.

 Attendees should familiarize themselves with the evolution of ADC coupling chemistry. First-generation ADCs used non-specific lysine coupling, resulting in extremely uneven DAR distributions (ranging from 0 to 8), high product heterogeneity, and analytical challenges.Second-generation ADCs introduced cysteine-mediated coupling (following partial reduction of interchain disulfide bonds), which improved DAR distribution but still resulted in non-uniformity (primarily a mixture of DAR 2, 4, 6, and 8).Third-generation ADCs are evolving toward site-specific conjugation—either by introducing cysteine residues at specific antibody locations using THIOMAB technology, or by achieving site-specific conjugation through enzyme-catalyzed reactions (such as Sortase A or Transglutaminase). At the MEDI and BIOL sessions of ACS, you can hear about the latest advancements in these technologies and process scale-up data.

 The advantages of site-specific conjugation include not only a narrower DAR distribution but also improved pharmacokinetics (PK), reduced toxicity, and enhanced batch-to-batch consistency. For a certain THIOMAB-based ADC, process optimization improved the DAR distribution from 4.0 ± 1.2 (for traditional cysteine conjugation) to 4.0 ± 0.3, and reduced the relative standard deviation (RSD) of DAR between batches from 15% to 4%.This indicates significant improvements in both the stability of CMC control and the comparability between clinical batches. However, site-specific conjugation also comes at a cost—antibody engineering may affect expression levels and stability, and conjugation efficiency may be impacted by steric hindrance. When evaluating such technologies at the ACS conference, it is important to consider both the advantages and the trade-offs.

 A topic frequently discussed but often overlooked at the ACS ANYL session is whether ADC analytical method development should be conducted “upstream” or “downstream.”The traditional approach is to first develop the conjugation process, followed by the analytical methods. However, if methods for DAR analysis, free payload detection, and aggregate monitoring are developed concurrently during the conjugation condition screening phase, process issues can be identified early on, thereby avoiding rework later in the process. This “analytical front-loading” approach has become increasingly accepted in recent years in ADC development and is one of the best practices worth highlighting in the ACS report.

 Looking at the competitive landscape of the global ADC market, by the end of 2025, 15 ADC drugs had already received FDA approval for marketing, with over 500 additional ADC projects in preclinical or clinical development. This means that competition in the ADC field has shifted from “whether there are new targets” to “who has more stable CMC, better cost control, and a more reliable supply chain.”At this stage, differences in underlying chemical and analytical capabilities will become the key factors determining a project’s success or failure. ACS Fall 2026 provides precisely this platform for exchanging insights on these foundational capabilities—here, you can see how others are solving the very same problems you’re facing, and discover challenges you may not yet be aware of but will soon encounter.

 When evaluating the ADC supply chain, there is another dimension worthy of attendees’ careful consideration: the supply chain security of payloads and linker-payload intermediates. Globally, there are no more than 10 suppliers capable of providing GMP-grade highly active payloads, and even fewer that can simultaneously offer linker-payload assembly services. This means that the supply chain for any ADC project is vulnerable—if a key supplier experiences capacity bottlenecks, quality issues, or compliance risks, the project’s timeline could be severely delayed.At the ACS exhibition hall, it is recommended to take the time to understand the capabilities and production capacity of multiple potential suppliers and to establish a shortlist of candidates for evaluation. This proactive approach to supply chain management is critical for the long-term, smooth progress of ADC projects.

 When evaluating ADC technologies at the ACS conference, there is one easily overlooked but useful perspective to consider: pay attention to the type of institution the presenter represents. Presenters from industry typically focus more on process scale-up, batch consistency, and CMC strategies; their information is highly practical but may not cover the latest chemical developments. Presenters from academia typically focus more on new reaction methodologies and molecular designs; their information is highly forward-looking but may still be some distance from industrialization.Presenters from CDMOs occupy a middle ground—they are exposed to multiple projects and understand common industry challenges and best practices, yet they must protect client confidentiality and therefore cannot report overly specific data. Adjusting your expectations and the direction of your follow-up questions based on the presenter’s background is one of the techniques for maximizing the efficiency of your conference participation.

4. Peptides, Nucleic Acids, and Small Molecules at bio us 2025 Are Not Supporting Actors—They Are Redefining the Boundaries of Drug Design

 While ADCs and bispecific antibodies dominate industry attention, advances in peptide, oligonucleotide, and small-molecule chemistry are equally reshaping the boundaries of drug design. The tremendous commercial success of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the field of metabolic diseases has reignited enthusiasm for peptide drug R&D, with the number of peptide drugs in development globally exceeding 600 by 2025.Oligonucleotide therapies continue to expand into the fields of rare and chronic diseases, with the modification chemistry of siRNA and ASO becoming increasingly mature. Small molecules, meanwhile, have found new roles—as payloads for ADCs, projectiles for PROTACs, and scaffolds for molecular glues.

biotech industry event. However, we must avoid a common misconception: do not treat peptides, nucleic acids, and small molecules as separate “hot fields.” In the context of ACS Fall 2026, their shared value lies in how chemical modifications transform concepts into products.Just because a peptide sequence is active in vitro does not mean it can be developed into a drug; just because an oligonucleotide sequence can knock down a target gene does not mean impurities can be controlled; and just because a small molecule exhibits high cytotoxicity does not mean it can be safely synthesized and conjugated. The ACS chemistry sessions are designed to help you bridge the gap between concept and product.

 4.1 Following the Peptide Boom, What Is Now in Short Supply Is the Ability to Integrate Stable Synthesis, Purification, and Formulation

 The buzz surrounding GLP-1 has brought peptide drugs back into the spotlight for investment and R&D. The commercial success of semaglutide and tirzopentide demonstrates the immense potential of peptide drugs in the field of chronic diseases. However, beneath this hype lies a reality that is repeatedly underestimated: the challenge in peptide drug projects often lies not in “whether an active sequence can be designed,” but in whether it can be produced stably, cost-effectively, and reproducibly.

 The core challenges in peptide synthesis lie in sequence length and the complexity of modifications. For linear peptides with fewer than 25 amino acids, solid-phase synthesis (SPPS) is already quite mature, with yields and purity levels sufficient to meet clinical requirements.However, when the sequence exceeds 40 amino acids, or when non-natural amino acids, cyclization modifications, or fatty acid modifications (such as the C18 fatty acid side chain in semaglutide) are introduced, the difficulty of synthesis increases dramatically. Yields decline, impurities increase, and purification pressures rise; every step can become a bottleneck in scale-up production.

 Table 15: Comparison of the Scope of Application and Characteristics of Mainstream Peptide Synthesis Methods

Peptide Synthesis Methods	Applicable Length	Typical Yield	Scalability	Impurity Control	Cost Characteristics
Solid-Phase Synthesis (SPPS)	5–50 aa	80%–95% (short peptides)	Gram to kilogram scale	Primarily deletion sequences/truncated peptides	Short peptides are cost-effective; long peptides are expensive
Liquid-phase synthesis	2–15 aa	85%–95%	Kilogram to metric ton scale	Controllable byproducts	Good large-scale economic viability
Solid-liquid mixed synthesis	20–60 aa	60%–85%	Gram to 100-gram scale	Impurities from fragment condensation must be controlled	Moderate cost
Biological fermentation/recombinant	50+ amino acids	Varies by sequence	Kilogram to metric ton scale	Host proteins/endotoxins must be removed	Lowest cost for large-scale production
Enzyme-catalyzed synthesis	10–50 amino acids	70%–90%	Gram to kilogram scale	Enzyme-derived impurities must be controlled	Green process, emerging field

 The table above highlights a key consideration: when selecting a synthesis method, one must not only consider yields at the laboratory scale but also evaluate performance upon scale-up. While SPPS can easily produce short peptides with 95% purity in the lab, scaling up to the kilogram scale requires re-optimization of solvent consumption, reactor design, resin swelling control, and purification strategies.In a certain peptide project, purity was 98% during gram-scale synthesis, but dropped to 89% after scaling up to the kilogram scale. The primary cause was a decrease in coupling efficiency during scale-up, leading to an increase in truncated peptides, which required an additional preparative chromatography step, increasing costs by 40%.

 Table 16: Major Impurity Types, Sources, and Control Strategies for Peptide Drugs

Types of Peptide Impurities	Source	Risk	Detection Method	Control Strategies
Deletion	Insufficient coupling efficiency	Reduced Activity/Immunogenicity	LC-MS, RP-HPLC	Dual-Coupling/Kaiser Detection and Monitoring
Truncated Peptides	Deprotection side reactions	Increased impurity levels	LC-MS	Optimization of Deprotection Conditions
Diastereomers	Amino acid racemization	Changes in activity/stability	LC-MS, CE	Optimization of coupling conditions/stereoselective synthesis
Oxidation products	Met/Trp Oxidation	Reduced activity/Aggregation	LC-MS	Inert atmosphere/antioxidants
Aggregates	Hydrophobic interactions	Increased immunogenicity	SEC, DLS	Optimized purification/formulation conditions
DKP/pyrrolidone	Cyclization side reactions	N-terminal impurities	LC-MS	Optimizing Protection Strategy
Fatty acid modification residues	Insufficient modification efficiency	Competitive binding of unmodified peptides	RP-HPLC	Optimizing Modification Reactions/Purification

 The value of this table lies in its breakdown of peptide impurity control into seven actionable dimensions. When attending a peptide chemistry presentation at an ACS conference, you can use it to assess the comprehensiveness of the presentation. If the presenter only reports yield and purity data but makes no mention of the specific composition of the impurity profile or control strategies, you should exercise caution regarding the CMC maturity of this project.

 Formulation integration capability is another hidden hurdle for peptide drugs. The physicochemical properties of peptides lie between those of small molecules and proteins—they face both the chemical stability issues of small molecules and the conformational stability challenges of proteins.Peptides are prone to degradation, aggregation, and adsorption in aqueous solutions, and the development of lyophilized formulations requires meticulous formulation screening. The fact that semaglutide could be developed into a once-weekly long-acting formulation is due only half to the fatty acid modification that extended its half-life; the other half is attributable to the ingenious design of the formulation. At the MEDI session of the ACS, you can hear the latest advancements from the front lines of peptide formulation development.

 4.2 Oligonucleotide Modification Requires Attention to Sequence-Related Impurities, Not Just the Delivery Story

 Oligonucleotide therapeutics reached a new milestone in 2025—following the approval of Alnylam’s Patisiran, the application of siRNA therapy in the field of rare diseases has continued to expand, and several ASO products have also been launched for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).However, discussions regarding nucleic acid therapeutics often overemphasize delivery systems (LNP, GalNAc conjugation) while neglecting the more fundamental issues of modification chemistry and impurity control.

 ACS is better suited to focus on modification chemistry, shortmers, longmers, raw material quality, purification, analytical comparability, and platform reuse. These topics are easily overlooked in the glow of the delivery narrative, yet they are precisely the core elements that determine whether an oligonucleotide project can pass CMC review, be produced stably, and keep costs under control.At ACS events, if a presentation focuses solely on delivery efficiency while sidestepping issues related to impurities and analysis, you should take its informational value with a grain of salt.

 Table 17: Mainstream Oligonucleotide Modification Types and Their Impact on Impurity Profiles

Oligonucleotide Modification Types	Modification Site	Primary Function	Impact on Impurity Profiles	Synthesis Difficulty
Phosphodiester backbone → Thio-phosphate (PS)	Skeleton	Resistance to Nuclease Degradation	Increase in Diastereomers	Moderate
2′-O-methylation (2′-OMe)	Sugar ring	Improved binding affinity/stability	Methylation efficiency affects purity	Moderate
2′-O-methoxyethylation (2′-MOE)	Sugar ring	Improved Affinity/Half-Life	High cost of MOE monomers	Medium to high
2′-Fluorinated (2′-F)	Sugar ring	Increases binding affinity	Conformational uniformity requires verification	Medium
constrained ethyl (cEt)	Sugar ring	High affinity, low dosage	Multiple synthesis steps	High
5-Methylcytosine (5-mC)	Base	Reduced immunogenicity	Modification efficiency Affects purity	Low to moderate
GalNAc Coupling	3′ or 5′ end	Liver-targeted delivery	Coupling efficiency / Uncoupled oligonucleotides	High

 The most important information in the table above is that each modification alters the impurity profile. Thio-phosphate modification introduces diastereomers, meaning that a single sequence may have 2^n stereoisomers (where n is the number of PS modifications). The biological activity of these isomers may vary, but the industry typically controls and releases them as a single entity.As regulatory requirements become stricter, the stereochemical control of PS modifications may become a new regulatory focus. At the ACS BIOL and ANYL divisions, you should pay close attention to discussions on this topic.

 Table 18: Major Impurity Categories and Control Strategies for Oligonucleotide Drugs

Oligonucleotide Impurity Categories	Source	Risk	Analytical Methods	Control Strategies
Shortmers (n-1, n-2)	Insufficient coupling efficiency	Reduced activity/competitive binding	IP-RP-HPLC, LC-MS	Optimization of coupling cycle/purification
Longmers (n+1)	Incomplete deprotection	Impurities/Unknown activity	IP-RP-HPLC, LC-MS	Optimized Deprotection/Purification
Deprotection byproducts	Harsh deprotection conditions	Sequence modification/altered activity	LC-MS	Mild Deprotection Conditions
Diastereomers	PS-modified chiral centers	Possible differences in biological activity	No effective separation method currently available	Currently controlled as a whole
Phosphate (PO) Impurities	Incomplete thiolation	Reduced stability	LC-MS, 31P NMR	Optimization of sulfidation conditions
Aggregates	Hydrophobic interactions	Changes in immunogenicity/efficacy	SEC, CGE	Optimization of Purification/Formulation
Organic solvent residues	Synthesis/purification process	Safety risks	GC	Process Control/Freeze-Drying
Unconjugated GalNAc products	Insufficient coupling efficiency	Competition from unconjugated oligonucleotides	RP-HPLC	Optimization of Coupling/Purification

 The key takeaway from this table is that impurity control for oligonucleotides is far more complex than most people realize. Shortmers and longmers are the most common types of impurities, but diastereomers and PO impurities are quality attributes that are easily overlooked.In one siRNA project, the FDA required the submission of comparative bioactivity data for diastereomers during the IND phase, resulting in a six-month delay in the review process. Had the team addressed this issue early on and prepared the necessary data in advance, this delay could have been avoided.

 Platform reuse is another key issue in the oligonucleotide field. If a delivery platform (such as GalNAc conjugation) can only be used for specific sequences, development costs cannot be spread across multiple projects. However, if the modification chemistry and purification methods are versatile, a single platform can serve multiple pipelines.At the ACS conference, you should focus on presentations discussing platform-based synthesis strategies, universal purification methods, and analytical comparability, rather than those reporting data on a single product.

 4.3 Small molecules remain critical in the era of bispecific antibodies and ADCs, as payload and target discovery cannot proceed without them

 In the shadow of bispecific antibodies and ADCs, small molecules are often labeled as part of the “traditional track.” But the reality is that small molecules play an irreplaceable role in these new drug formats.The payload of an ADC is itself a highly active small-molecule toxin; the design of the linker-payload relies on innovations in organic synthesis; the projectiles in PROTACs and molecular glues are small molecules; and the chemical probes used in target discovery are also small molecules. Small molecules have not faded into the background—they have simply shifted to a different role in drug innovation.

 Table 19: The Role and Chemical Challenges of Small Molecules in Novel Drug Formulations

The Role of Small Molecules in Novel Drug Formulations	Function	Chemical Challenges	Information Available from ACS	Featured Sessions
ADC Payload	Cytotoxins, Killing Target Cells	High-Potency Synthesis / Safe Handling / Structure-Activity Optimization	MEDI Subcommittee Payload Design Report	MEDI
Linker-Payload Design	Linking Chemistry / Release Control	Coupling Chemistry / Release Mechanism / Stability	MEDI/BIOL Coupling Technology Report	MEDI, BIOL
PROTAC Warhead	Target Protein Degradation	Ternary Complex Optimization/Linker Design	MEDI Session: PROTAC Report	MEDI
Molecular Gel Scaffold	Target Protein Degradation/Stabilization	Optimization of Surface Binding Sites	MEDI Section Molecular Gel Report	MEDI
Chemical probes	Target Validation/Selectivity Assessment	Selectivity/Activity/Cell Permeability	MEDI Subdivision Chemical Probe Report	MEDI
Covalent Inhibitors	Irreversible Target Inhibition	Reactivity/Selectivity Balance	MEDI/ORGN Section Report	MEDI, ORGN
Small Molecule-Drug Conjugates (SMDC)	Targeted Delivery	Ligand Design/Linking Chemistry	MEDI Section SMDC Report	MEDI

 The value of the table above lies in its challenge to the stereotype that “small molecules are a traditional field.”Small molecules serve as core components in novel drug formats such as ADCs, PROTACs, molecular adhesives, and SMDCs. At the MEDI session during ACS Fall 2026, you’ll hear about the latest methodologies for synthesizing toxin small molecules, structure-activity relationship studies of novel payloads, drugability optimization strategies, and approaches to safety margin design. For teams working on ADC payloads and targeted drug discovery, the information density of these sessions far exceeds that of typical industry conferences.

 Table 20: Comparison of Mainstream ADC Payload Types, Activity, and Synthesis Challenges

Payload Type	Mechanism of Action	IC50 Range (nM)	Synthesis Challenges	Safe Operating OEB Level	Representative Drugs/Projects
MMAE (Microtubule Inhibition)	Inhibits microtubule polymerization	0.1–1	Multiple chiral centers / Moderate yield	OEB 4	Adcetris
MMAF (microtubule inhibition)	Inhibits microtubule polymerization	0.5–5	Similar to MMAE	OEB 4	Besponsa
DM1 (microtubule inhibition)	Inhibits microtubule polymerization	1–10	Maytansinoid skeleton	OEB 4	Kadcyla
DXd (topoisomerase I inhibition)	DNA damage	1–10	New scaffold/patent	OEB 4	Enhertu
PBD dimer (DNA cross-linking)	DNA cross-linking	0.01–0.1	High activity/complex synthesis	OEB 5–6	Multiple in development
SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibition)	DNA damage	1–10	Camptothecin derivatives	OEB 3-4	Onivyve
α-Amanitin (RNA Pol II inhibitor)	Transcription inhibition	0.1–1	Natural product/difficult to synthesize	OEB 5	Multiple in development

 The key takeaway from this table is that payload selection should not be based solely on IC50 values, but must also take into account synthesis difficulty, safety handling classification, and patent status.PBD dimers have the lowest IC50 (0.01–0.1 nM) and the strongest cytotoxic activity; however, their OEB 5–6 safety classification means that very few CDMOs are capable of manufacturing them, and the process development cycle is longer. DXd, as the payload in Enhertu, owes part of its success to its relatively controllable synthetic route and moderate safety classification (OEB 4), striking a balance between manufacturability and efficacy.

 At the ACS conference, attendees can focus on the synthesis of toxic small molecules, novel payloads, druggability optimization, and safety window design. These topics are typically covered in special sessions at the MEDI symposium, featuring content such as the design of synthetic routes for new scaffold molecules, structure-activity relationship studies, optimization of metabolic stability, and safety window assessments. For teams working on ADC payload and linker-payload design, the information provided by these presentations is more direct and specific than any literature review.

 There is another often-overlooked yet highly significant aspect of payload design: the impact of the linker-payload binding site on payload activity. For the same payload molecule, different choices of binding sites can result in a several-fold difference in release efficiency and cytotoxic activity after conjugation.Take MMAE as an example: when the Val-Cit linker is attached to the N-terminus of MMAE versus a side-chain position, the in vivo release rate and bystander effects differ dramatically. These subtle yet critical chemical design choices represent the most valuable practical insights to gather from the ACS reports. Attendees are advised to pay particular attention to the rationale behind binding site selection and structure-activity relationship data when listening to payload design presentations.

 Another trend worth noting is the exploration of “novel payload mechanisms.” Traditional ADC payloads have focused on two major categories: microtubule inhibition and DNA damage; however, in recent years, RNA Pol II inhibitors (such as α-amanitin) and immunostimulatory payloads have begun to enter preclinical and clinical development. The synthetic routes, stability profiles, and in vivo metabolic behavior of these novel payloads differ significantly from those of traditional payloads, requiring entirely new analytical methods and control strategies.At ACS Fall 2026, we recommend paying close attention to presentations in the MEDI session regarding novel payload mechanisms, particularly those reporting on the feasibility of synthetic routes and preliminary safety window data—these may represent the next-generation technological direction for ADC payloads.

 Action recommendations for this section: Complete three tasks at ACS—first, gather key takeaways from 3–5 presentations on the scale-up of peptide synthesis and impurity control to calibrate your project’s CMC strategy; second, identify 2–3 presentations discussing oligonucleotide modification chemistry and impurity analysis to understand the versatility of modification strategies and the potential for platform reuse;third, at the MEDI session, focus on presentations regarding novel payloads and linker-payload designs to assess the synthetic feasibility and safe operating levels of new toxins.

 Formulation development for peptide drugs is a severely underestimated technical field. Peptide molecular weights typically range from 1,000 to 5,000 Da, presenting both the chemical stability issues typical of small molecules (such as oxidation, deamidation, and diastereomerization) and the physical stability issues similar to those of proteins (such as aggregation, adsorption, and conformational changes).Lyophilized formulations are the most common dosage form for peptide drugs, but the design of a lyophilization formulation requires consideration of multiple variables, including the use of sucrose or trehalose as lyophilization protectants, buffer pH optimization, filler selection, and the design of the freeze-drying profile.The formulation of semaglutide injection uses sodium phosphate buffer and phenol as preservatives, while fatty acid modification extends its in vivo half-life—this may seem simple, but over 200 formulation combinations were screened during the development process. At the MEDI session of ACS, you can hear about the latest methodologies and case studies in peptide formulation development.

 In the field of oligonucleotides, there is another topic frequently discussed at ACS but rarely addressed in the literature: raw material quality control. Solid-phase synthesis of oligonucleotides relies on the quality of phosphoramidite monomers, yet there are no more than 15 suppliers worldwide capable of providing GMP-grade phosphoramidite monomers.Impurities in the monomers—such as diastereoisomers and free nucleosides—are directly carried over into the final product, forming impurities that are difficult to remove. In one siRNA project, it was discovered after process scale-up that the level of shortmer impurities had risen from 2% to 5%; upon investigation, the cause was traced to a change in the phosphoramidite monomer supplier, which resulted in a drop in monomer purity from 99.5% to 98.8%.This case illustrates that supply chain management for oligonucleotide projects is more sensitive than most people realize. At the ACS exhibition hall, we recommend taking the time to discuss raw material quality control strategies and alternative supplier options with technology suppliers.

 Peptide and oligonucleotide drugs share a common challenge in terms of analytical methods: their molecular weights fall into a “gray area” between traditional small molecules and proteins.Conventional small-molecule analytical methods (such as reverse-phase HPLC) can be used for purity analysis of peptides and oligonucleotides, but resolution and detection methods require specialized optimization. Mass spectrometry also presents challenges—the molecular weights of peptides and oligonucleotides may exceed the mass range of conventional LC-MS, requiring the use of specialized ionization methods (such as ESI) and high-mass-range mass spectrometers.At the ACS ANYL Division meeting, you can learn about the latest advances in analytical methods for peptides and oligonucleotides, including the application of ion-pair reverse-phase chromatography (IP-RP-HPLC) in oligonucleotide separation, strategies for multidimensional chromatography in peptide impurity analysis, and the role of high-resolution mass spectrometry in sequence confirmation and impurity identification.

 From an industry chain perspective, the CDMO ecosystem for peptide and oligonucleotide drugs is rapidly evolving. The global peptide CDMO market was valued at approximately $1.5 billion in 2018 and exceeded $3.5 billion by 2025, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 12%. The oligonucleotide CDMO market grew from approximately $800 million in 2018 to about $2.5 billion by 2025.This growth has given rise to a number of CDMOs specializing in peptides and oligonucleotides, but CDMOs capable of providing end-to-end services—from R&D to commercialization—remain scarce. At the ACS exhibition hall, business development and procurement teams can systematically evaluate different CDMOs’ scope of capabilities, production capacity, and technical strengths in the fields of peptides and oligonucleotides, gathering firsthand information to inform outsourcing decisions.

5. Molecular Design for Medicinal Chemists, Impurity Control for CMC Professionals, and Deliverability for BD Teams—bio us 2025 Differentiated Attendee Itineraries for ACS Fall 2026

 ACS Fall 2026 features nearly 10,000 presentations and hundreds of exhibitors in the exhibition hall. Over the course of five days, attendees in different roles will have distinct objectives; if everyone approaches the event in the same way, some are bound to waste a significant amount of time without gaining anything of value.Pharmaceutical chemistry teams, CMC teams, and BD teams have entirely different priorities—one focuses on new approaches to molecular design, another on the details of impurity control, and the third on the deliverability of technologies and commercialization pathways. Only by clearly defining your role in advance can you maximize your return on investment over the five days.

 5.1 Medicinal Chemistry and Early Research Teams Should Attend with the Question “How to Design Next-Generation Molecules” in Mind

 The role of the Medicinal Chemistry and Early Research teams at ACS is that of “technology scouts”—your mission is to discover new approaches to molecular design, new coupling methods, new modification strategies, and new structure-activity relationships, and bring these back to your team to inform the design of next-generation molecules. This means you should focus your time on methodological presentations in the MEDI and BIOL sessions, rather than industry overviews or market analysis reports.

Listen less to conceptual hype and take more notes on transferable methodologies.If a presentation spends 30 minutes discussing “the importance of this field” and “how great our platform is,” but only 5 minutes providing specific reaction conditions, yield data, and SAR tables, you should take the information density of that presentation with a grain of salt.medicinal chemistry meeting. The truly important presentations are those that discuss failure cases, the process of reaction optimization, and disclose specific experimental data. At ACS, what you need are the “how” (how it’s done) and the “why” (why it’s done that way).

 Table 21: Priorities for Medicinal Chemistry/Early Research Teams at ACS Fall 2026

Focus Areas for Medicinal Chemistry/Early Research Teams	Specific Content	Key ACS Sessions	On-Site Follow-Up Questions	Outputs to Bring Back to the Team
Novel Linker Designs	Release Mechanism/Stability/Scalability	MEDI	Human plasma stability data? Release kinetics?	List of Linker Candidates + Evaluation Framework
New Payloads	Scaffold/Activity/Selectivity/Synthesis Route	MEDI	OEB classification? Synthesis route yield? Patent status?	Payload Shortlist + Synthesis Routes
Coupling Methodology	Site-specificity / Chemical selectivity / Enzyme-catalyzed	MEDI, BIOL	Coupling efficiency? DAR distribution? Scalability?	Update on Coupling Strategies
Peptide Modification Strategies	Non-natural amino acids / Cyclization / Fatty acid modification	MEDI, ORGN	Modification efficiency? Impact on activity? Scaling-up costs?	Optimization Plans for Modification Strategies
Oligonucleotide Modification	Backbone/Sugar Ring/Base Modification	BIOL	Modification versatility? Impact of impurities? Platform reuse?	List of Modification Strategies
PROTAC/Molecular Glue Design	Projectile/Linker/Target Selection	MEDI	Ternary complex data? Selectivity? Degradation efficiency?	Design Approach for Degradation Agents

 The value of the table above lies in its transformation of “what the medicinal chemistry team should look for” into an actionable checklist. Each row corresponds to a task you need to complete at ACS. We recommend printing this table before you leave, keeping it with you at the conference, and recording key information in the corresponding row after each relevant presentation. By the end of the five days, you’ll return to your team with a structured set of technical intelligence.

 Table 22: Types and Priorities of Information That Pharmaceutical Chemistry Teams Should Collect at ACS

Information Type	What the Pharmaceutical Chemistry Team Should Record	Purpose	Priority
Transferable Methodology	Reaction Conditions/Yield/Purification Methods	Directly applicable to your own project	Highest
Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR)	SAR diagrams/key substituents	Guidance for Molecular Design	Top
Failure Threshold	Under what conditions does the reaction fail/is the molecule inactive?	Avoiding Repeated Errors	High
Reproducible Conditions	Detailed Experimental Parameters/Supplier Information	Reproduction in the lab	High
New Reagents/Catalysts	Reagent Name/Supplier/Application Scenarios	Procurement and Trial Use	In progress
Analytical and Characterization Methods	New Analytical Methods/Characterization Strategies	Enhancing Analytical Platforms	In
Concepts/Trends	New Directions/New Approaches (Unverified)	Long-Term Planning Reference	Low

 The key takeaway from this table is that the pharmaceutical and chemical teams’ takeaways from ACS should not merely be “what new things they heard,” but rather “what they can take back and apply.” Transferable methodologies, SAR, and failure boundaries are the highest-priority information, as they can directly guide the design of the next round of experiments. While concepts and trends are interesting, their informational value is limited without concrete data to support them, so they are not worth spending too much time on.

 There is another high-value resource at ACS that the medicinal chemistry team often overlooks: the poster session area. Oral presentations last only 15 minutes, and presenters typically report only core conclusions and the best data; there is rarely time to discuss experimental details or cases of failure. Poster sessions, however, are different—you can engage in in-depth, face-to-face discussions with presenters in front of their posters, asking detailed questions about reaction conditions, yield optimization processes, byproduct analysis, and experimental reproducibility.Much of the “unflattering data” that is skipped over in oral presentations can actually be obtained through poster discussions. It is recommended that pharmaceutical chemistry teams set aside at least an hour and a half each day to systematically tour the poster area, focusing on posters in the MEDI and BIOL tracks.

 5.2 CMC and Analytical Teams Should Focus on Quality Issues Others Are Reluctant to Discuss in Detail

 The role of the CMC and Analytical teams at ACS is that of “quality detectives”—your task is to uncover the quality details that others are reluctant to discuss in depth at presentations: How was the impurity profile established? How were analytical methods validated? How is batch-to-batch consistency ensured? How were stability studies designed? While these topics may not be the most eye-catching, they are most likely to determine the risks involved before a project advances to IND, clinical trials, and commercialization.

 At the ACS ANYL and MEDI sessions, some presentations focus specifically on analytical method development and impurity control strategies. These sessions typically draw small audiences because they aren’t as “sexy” as efficacy data or novel molecular designs. However, for CMC and analytical teams, the information in these presentations is extremely valuable—you can learn how others have solved the very same problems you may be facing.

 CMC teams attending ACS should also pay special attention to one particular aspect: the latest regulatory expectations regarding analytical methods. Over the past two years, the FDA and EMA have imposed increasingly detailed CMC requirements for ADCs and peptide drugs—regulatory agencies have set more specific requirements regarding the reporting of DAR distributions for ADCs, quantification limits for free payload, and control strategies for genotoxic impurities in peptides.Occasionally, ACS sessions feature speakers from industry who share their experiences communicating CMC issues with regulatory agencies. This information is virtually impossible to find in the literature but can be obtained through on-site discussions at ACS. It is recommended that CMC teams mark these sessions on their conference agendas and prioritize attending them.

 Table 23: Checklist for CMC/Analytical Teams at ACS Fall 2026

Focus Areas for CMC/Analytical Teams	Specific Content	Key ACS Sessions	On-Site Follow-Up	Outputs to Bring Back to the Team
Establishment of Impurity Profiles	Impurity Identification/Classification/Source Analysis	ANYL	Impurity identification methods? List of known impurities?	Impurity spectrum reference framework
Validation of Analytical Methods	Specificity/Accuracy/Precision/Range	ANYL	Validation strategy? Acceptance criteria? Method transfer?	Analytical Method Optimization Plan
Batch-to-Batch Consistency	DAR RSD / Purity RSD / Impurity RSD	ANYL, MEDI	Batch data? Comparability after process changes?	Consistency Baseline Data
Stability Study Design	Forced degradation/accelerated/long-term stability	ANYL, MEDI	Degradation pathways? Stability assessment methods?	Stability Study Protocol Update
Release Testing Strategy	Release Specifications/Test Methods/Acceptance Criteria	ANYL	Key Quality Attributes? Release vs. Characterization?	Release Testing Optimization
Method Transfer	Transfer Strategy / Acceptance Criteria / Handling of Deviations	ANYL	Transfer Success Rate? Common Issues?	Method Transfer SOP Update
Cleaning Validation	Cleaning Limits / Analytical Methods / Validation Strategy	MEDI	Basis for Limits? Sensitivity Requirements?	Cleaning Validation Protocol Reference

 The key takeaway from the table above is that the mission of CMC and analytical teams at ACS is to “learn from the experts”—to study best practices in quality control and analytical methods. This information rarely appears in publicly published literature, as companies are typically reluctant to disclose their CMC details. However, through academic presentations and technical exchanges with exhibitors at ACS, you can gain practical, hands-on experience that is more authentic and specific than what’s found in the literature.

 A practical tip: At ACS, pay close attention to analytical chemistry presentations that have smaller audiences but offer substantial content. These presentations are often delivered by industrial analytical chemists or CDMO technical teams and cover specific method development case studies, validation strategies, and troubleshooting experiences. While the titles may not be as catchy as “Next-Generation ADC Platforms,” for CMC teams, a good presentation could save you three months of method development time.

 5.3 BD, Strategy, and Investment Teams Must Translate “Hot Technologies” into “Deliverable Assets”

 The role of BD, Strategy, and Investment teams at ACS is that of “translators”—your task is to translate the “technological advances” in academic presentations into an assessment of whether “this technology can be turned into a deliverable asset.” This requires a conference strategy distinct from that of the Medicinal Chemistry and CMC teams: don’t get bogged down in reaction conditions and yield details, but instead focus on the executable path behind the technology, supplier dependencies, scalability, and barriers to commercialization.

 Table 24: Focus Areas and Evaluation Criteria for BD/Investment Teams at ACS Fall 2026

BD/Investment Team Focus Areas	Key Questions	Channels for Gathering Information at ACS	Evaluation Criteria
Technology Maturity	What stage is this technology in? Proof of concept/early-stage/mature?	MEDI/BIOL Reports + Exhibition Hall	Is there kilogram-scale data available? Is there IND experience?
Supplier Dependency	Does the key technology rely on scarce suppliers?	CDMO Networking in the Exhibition Hall	How many potential suppliers are there? What are the switching costs?
Maturity of Analytical Methods	Have the analytical methods been standardized?	ANYL Session Report	Are there pharmacopoeial methods? Are there validation case studies?
Feasibility of Scale-Up	What are the barriers to scaling up from the laboratory to the kilogram scale?	MEDI/BIOL Process Report + CDMO Discussion	Are there any scale-up data? How do yield and purity change after scale-up?
Patent Status	Is the core technology covered by patents?	Exhibition Hall + Presentation Content	When do the core patents expire? What is the FTO scope?
Commercialization Costs	Production Costs / CDMO Quotes / Production Capacity Bottlenecks	Networking with CDMO exhibitors	COGS Estimate? Commercialization Capacity Requirements?
Regulatory risks	Regulatory authorities’ stance on this technology?	Presentations + Exhibitor Networking	Is there any experience with FDA/EMA reviews?

 The value of the table above lies in the fact that it provides a structured framework for technology evaluation to business development and investment teams. At the ACS event, you don’t need to understand every reaction condition, but you do need to be able to assess: Has this technology been validated at the kilogram scale? How many key suppliers are there? Are the analytical methods mature? Has anyone scaled up production? The answers to these questions determine the gap between “hot technology” and “deliverable assets.”

 The approach BD and investment teams take when interacting in the ACS exhibition hall also warrants careful consideration. Don’t limit yourself to talking with CDMO sales representatives—their answers are typically “We can do it.” Instead, seek direct communication with the CDMO’s technical lead or process development manager; their responses will be closer to “To what extent can we actually achieve this?”Here’s an effective screening method: Ask, “What was the largest batch size you’ve actually produced in the past 12 months?” or “What was the biggest process scale-up challenge you’ve encountered?” CDMOs that can provide specific figures and case studies generally demonstrate more reliable technical capabilities and project management skills. Those that offer only vague promises require further verification.

Key questions to explore include: Does the technology rely on scarce suppliers? Are the key analytical methods mature? Has scale-up been demonstrated? Will the safety and cost of combination therapies impact commercialization? If a technology performs exceptionally well in academic reports but only one CDMO worldwide can produce it, or if the key analytical methods are still in the method development stage, you should remain cautious about the technology’s near-term commercial prospects.

 For BD teams, ACS also offers a hidden value: talent discovery. In the poster sessions and lecture halls, you’ll encounter many young researchers from academia and startups. Their research topics may represent the nascent directions of next-generation technologies. Even if these projects are still in the early stages, establishing connections and following up regularly could become a key channel for technology licensing or talent recruitment in two or three years.BD teams may want to prepare a “Talent and Technology Radar List” before the conference, documenting researchers and research directions worth watching, and follow up regularly after the event. This long-term strategy is crucial for pipeline development at technology-driven companies.

 Table 25: Comparison of Strategies for Different Attendee Roles at ACS Fall 2026

Attendee Role	Core Objectives	Key Sessions	Exhibition Hall Strategy	Takeaways
Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Early-Stage Research	Discovery of New Methods/New Molecular Design Approaches	MEDI, BIOL, ORGN	Networking with Reagent/Catalyst Suppliers	Technical Intelligence + Methodology List
CMC/Analytics	Learning Best Practices in Impurity Control and Analysis	ANYL, MEDI	Analytical Instruments/CDMO Technical Exchange	Analytical Solutions + Consistency Benchmarks
BD/Investment	Assessing Technical Feasibility and Commercialization Pathways	MEDI/BIOL Overview + Exhibition Hall	CDMO Capability Assessment + Patent Research	Technology Assessment Report + Supplier Database
Process Engineering	Understanding Scale-Up Process and Equipment Requirements	MEDI, BIOL	Communication with Equipment Suppliers/CDMOs	Process Scale-Up Plan + Equipment List
Regulatory/Quality	Understanding Regulatory Trends and Quality Standards	ANYL, MEDI	Consulting Firms/Standards Organizations Exchange	Regulatory Intelligence + Quality Standard Updates

 The purpose of this table is to help each attendee role quickly determine their conference strategy. If you’re on the BD team, you shouldn’t spend your time listening to presentations on reaction condition optimization; instead, you should focus on face-to-face discussions with CDMO technical teams in the exhibition hall to gather information on production capacity and costs. If you’re on the CMC team, you should prioritize methodological presentations at the ANYL session rather than molecular design presentations at the MEDI session. Different roles require different strategies.

 Action Recommendations for This Section: Finalize your role definition and conference plan before departure—the Medicinal Chemistry team should prioritize methodological presentations in the MEDI/BIOL/ORGN sessions; the CMC team should prioritize the ANYL sessions and the Impurity Control track; and the BD team should prioritize networking with CDMOs in the exhibition hall and attending review presentations. Each role should prepare its own list of questions and seek answers to them one by one over the course of the five days.

 For attendees who fulfill multiple roles (such as a startup’s CSO who may handle medicinal chemistry, CMC, and BD simultaneously), it is recommended to allocate daily priorities by role—on the first day, scan key presentations in the MEDI/BIOL sessions from a medicinal chemistry perspective; on the second day, shift to a CMC perspective for in-depth exploration of the ANYL sessions; and on the third day, assess CDMO capabilities in the exhibition hall from a BD perspective.This “daily focus” approach is more efficient than frequently switching between the three roles each day, as continuous, in-depth engagement in a single role helps build a more comprehensive framework of information.

 Another practical tip is to make full use of the ACS mobile conference app.ACS typically provides a conference schedule app that allows you to search for and bookmark presentations by session, keyword, or presenter. Before departing, search for and bookmark relevant presentations using keywords (such as “ADC linker,” “DAR distribution,” “oligonucleotide impurity,” or “peptide synthesis scale-up”), and the app will automatically generate a personalized schedule. Once at the venue, follow your personalized schedule to avoid wasting time making last-minute decisions among hundreds of presentations.

6. Prepare a list of questions before bio us 2025 to avoid getting sidetracked by buzzwords

 ACS Fall 2026 features nearly 10,000 presentations and hundreds of exhibitors in the exhibition hall. Attendees without a list of questions can easily get swept up in the conference atmosphere—they might find whatever they happen to hear interesting. While the volume of information over five days is vast, very little of it will be directly applicable to their projects. Attending with specific questions in mind is the most effective way to avoid being swayed by buzzwords.The following list of questions is not exhaustive, but it can help you quickly assess the value of a presentation or an exhibitor.

 6.1 When Attending ADC Presentations, Ask These Five Questions at a Minimum

 ADCs are one of the hot topics at ACS Fall 2026, but the quality of presentations varies widely. The following five questions can help you quickly identify high-value presentations:

 What is the evidence for linker stability? — Does the presentation report release kinetics data in human plasma? If only mouse plasma data is provided, the reliability of extrapolating to humans should be taken with a grain of salt. Ideally, both plasma incubation experiments and in vivo PK data should be reported.

 How is DAR distribution controlled? — Does the report include HIC chromatograms or LC-MS data on DAR distribution? If only an average DAR value is provided without distribution profiles, it suggests the team may not have conducted in-depth work on DAR control. Pay close attention to the percentage of DAR 0—this represents waste of unconjugated antibodies.

 Where are the safety boundaries for the payload? — What is the OEB classification of the payload? What level of containment is required for the manufacturing facility? The answer to this question directly determines the scope of CDMO selection and production costs for the project. If a report claims to use a highly potent payload (IC50 < 0.1 nM) but completely omits discussion of safety operating procedures, you should question the project’s manufacturability.

 How is the production of highly active substances managed?—What are the limits for cleaning validation? Is the equipment dedicated or switchable? How is waste liquid handled? The answers to these questions reveal the true hurdles the project faces in moving from the lab to the production line.

Can the analytical methods support batch-to-batch comparability? — Have the methods for DAR analysis, free payload detection, and aggregate analysis been validated?biopharmaceutical gathering. What is the RSD between batches? If the methods are not validated or the RSD exceeds 10%, there may be risks to batch-to-batch consistency.

 Table 26: Evaluation Criteria for On-Site Issues in ADC Reports

ADC On-Site Issues	Acceptable Responses	Excellent Response	Red Flag
Linker Stability	Data on release from mouse plasma	Human plasma and in vivo PK data available	Only a conceptual description; no data
DAR Distribution Control	Average DAR and HIC profiles provided	Report DAR RSD between batches	Only the average DAR value is provided
Payload safety margin	Know the OEB classification	Have a safety operating procedure and CDMO selection	Avoid safety issues
Production of Highly Active Substances	Understanding Basic Containment Requirements	Have cleaning validation and equipment policies in place	No discussion of production whatsoever
Analytical Methods	Basic analytical methods are in place	Method validation + batch RSD data	Method not validated

 You can print out this table and bring it to the conference to quickly evaluate each ADC presentation as you listen to it. If three or more of the five questions fall into the “Red Flag” column, it indicates that the presentation offers limited value and is not worth spending time asking follow-up questions. If most answers fall into the “Excellent Answer” column, the presentation is worth further discussion; you may even contact the presenter after the session to discuss it further.

 6.2 When Reviewing Bispecific Antibodies and Combination Therapies, Don’t Focus Solely on Efficacy Data

 Presentations on bispecific antibodies and combination therapies for ACS typically focus on molecular design and conjugation chemistry, but attendees are easily drawn to efficacy data and may overlook issues related to developability. Here are specific questions to ask during the session:

 Is the toxicity of the combination therapy explainable? — Can adverse events occurring after co-administration be attributed to a specific drug? If not, this indicates an insufficient understanding of the PK and toxicity mechanisms of both drugs, and the safety risk of the combination regimen is relatively high.

 Does co-administration with ADCs amplify safety risks? — Bispecific antibodies may alter vascular permeability or immune activation states, thereby affecting the tissue distribution and payload exposure of ADCs. Does the presentation discuss PK changes under co-administration conditions?

 Does molecular complexity affect manufacturing and quality control? — Can the control of mismatch byproducts for bispecific antibodies and the control of DAR distribution for ADCs still be performed independently in a combination regimen? If shared facilities are required for the production of both drugs, how is the risk of cross-contamination managed?

 Are the clinical benefits sufficient to offset manufacturing costs and development challenges? — The production cost of combination therapies may be 2.5 to 4 times that of monotherapies; can this cost increase be offset by clinical benefits? Does the report discuss issues related to commercial viability?

 Table 27: On-site Question Assessment Criteria for Bispecific Antibody/Combination Therapy Reports

Bispecific Antibody/Combination Therapy Questions	Acceptable Responses	Excellent Answer	Red Flags
Explanation of Combination Toxicity	DLT data available	Can be attributed to a specific drug and mechanism	Incomplete toxicity data
Security Risks Associated with ADC Integration	Combined Security Data Available	Data on combined PK and payload exposure is available	Avoid combined safety data
Impact on Manufacturing/Quality Control	Understanding the CMC Complexity of Bispecific Antibodies	Combined manufacturing strategy and quality control plan	Production issues not discussed
Commercial Feasibility	Cost estimates available	Analysis of COGS, production capacity, and pricing	Discuss efficacy only; do not discuss costs
Accuracy of molecular pairing	Matching validation methods available	Data on pairing efficiency + batch RSD	Avoiding pairing issues

 The key takeaway from this table is: when reviewing reports on bispecific antibodies and combination therapies, apply the “bispecific antibody + ADC” trend from industry news to your R&D assessment. If a report only presents efficacy data for the combination therapy but makes no mention of PK changes under combined administration, safety amplification effects, or production costs, that report offers limited value for your project decision-making. You need to ask, “What is the cost behind the efficacy?” rather than “How good is the efficacy?”

 6.3 When evaluating peptide and nucleic acid therapeutics, ask whether the platform can be reused across projects

 Reports on peptides and nucleic acid therapeutics often present the activity and data for a specific sequence, but what attendees really need to assess is: Can the platform’s modification strategies, synthesis methods, and analytical systems be applied to other sequences and projects? The reusability of the platform determines whether development costs can be shared, technical expertise can be accumulated, and the pipeline can be rapidly expanded.

 Are the modification strategies versatile? — Are the modification methods reported (e.g., fatty acid modification, 2′-OMe modification, GalNAc conjugation) applicable only to specific sequences, or can they be extended to other sequences? Is there application data across different sequences?

 Does impurity control rely on case-by-case experience? — Does the impurity profile need to be established from scratch for each sequence, or is there a universal framework for impurity control? If impurity identification and control strategies must be developed separately for each sequence, development cycles and costs will increase significantly.

 Can the purification method be scaled up? — Can the preparative chromatography conditions used in the laboratory be directly scaled up to production scale? Are the costs of packing material, solvent consumption, and separation time controllable after scaling up?

 Is analytical comparability well-defined? — How is analytical comparability demonstrated for products from different batches or different synthetic routes? Is there data showing correlations between biological activity and physicochemical properties?

 Can the delivery or formulation platform be reused across different sequences and indications? — If a delivery platform (e.g., LNP, GalNAc) can only be used for specific targets, development costs cannot be shared. A truly useful platform should be able to serve multiple pipelines.

 Table 28: Evaluation Criteria for On-Site Issues in Peptide/Nucleic Acid Drug Reports

Peptide/Nucleic Acid Drug Issues	Acceptable Answers	Excellent Answer	Red Flags
Modification Versatility	Has data from 2 or more sequence applications	Data spanning multiple targets/indications	Single-sequence data only
Contaminant Control Framework	Impurity inventory available	General impurity control strategy in place	Developed from scratch for each sequence
Scale up purification methods	Preliminary data on scale-up available	Kilogram-scale purification data available	Only gram-scale data available
Analysis of comparability	Data available across batches	Comparability across synthetic routes	No comparable data
Platform Reusability	Applied to 2 or more projects	Platform data across indications	Single sequence, single project

 The key takeaway from this table is: when reviewing reports on peptide and nucleic acid therapeutics, focus on the “platform” rather than the “product.” No matter how impressive the data for a single product may be, if the platform cannot be reused, development costs cannot be shared. At the ACS conference, you should evaluate the long-term value of each report within the framework of “how many projects this platform can support.”

 Action Recommendations for This Section: Before you leave, print out the three question assessment sheets above (Tables 26, 27, and 28) and bring them with you to the conference. After each relevant presentation, spend two minutes conducting a quick assessment. By the end of the five-day event, you’ll have a structured report evaluation checklist that’s far more useful than scattered notes. You can also use these questions as a framework for conversations in the exhibition hall to guide suppliers in providing more specific technical information.

 In addition to the three types of question lists mentioned above, attendees can also prepare a set of “general follow-up questions” applicable to any type of presentation. These include: Does the data in the presentation come from GMP batches or R&D batches? Has the analytical method been validated? What stage of development is the project currently in (preclinical/IND/Phase I/Phase II/commercialization)? Is there process data at the kilogram scale or larger? These general follow-up questions will help you quickly assess the credibility of the information and its applicable stage after any presentation.

 When networking in the exhibition hall, there is an effective conversation strategy worth adopting. Don’t start by asking, “What can you do?”—this will only elicit a sales pitch. A better approach is to first describe a specific problem you’re facing (for example, “We’re developing a DAR 4 ADC using a Val-Cit linker, but it released 15% in human plasma over 48 hours. Do you think this level is normal?”), and then observe the other party’s reaction.Suppliers with genuine technical expertise will offer specific assessments and recommendations, while those with only sales skills will avoid technical details and instead launch into a company overview. Using specific technical questions as a filter is a key technique for effective communication at the exhibition hall.

7. Whether a hot technology at bio us 2025 can be commercialized ultimately depends on whether the product can be developed, stabilized, and scaled up

 Biopharmaceutical innovation in 2026 is not lacking in hot mechanisms and combination ideas.PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibodies, bispecific antibody + ADC combination therapies, next-generation ADC payloads, GLP-1 peptide drugs, and oligonucleotide therapies—each of these areas boasts exciting clinical data and pipeline progress. But what is truly scarce is the ability to develop complex molecules clearly, control them effectively, scale them up, and gain regulatory and market acceptance.

 The value of ACS Fall 2026 lies in its ability to enable attendees to reassess these trending areas from the perspectives of chemistry, analysis, and process development. At this conference, you’ll be able to evaluate whether “the chemical foundation behind this drug is solid enough.”How long will the linker remain stable in human plasma? Can the DAR distribution achieve an RSD of less than 5%? Are there any CDMOs capable of handling highly active payloads? How much does the purity of peptides drop after scale-up synthesis? Can the impurity control strategies for oligonucleotide “shortmers” be reused across different sequences? The answers to these questions are better predictors of a project’s long-term prospects than any single piece of clinical data.

 7.1 The true benefit of attending a conference isn’t how many presentations you remember, but updating your project evaluation framework

 If, after the five-day ACS conference, you’ve only retained a few memorable presentations, it suggests there’s room for improvement in how efficiently you attended the event. The truly valuable takeaway from attending is updating your framework for evaluating projects and technical routes. After the conference, you should organize three types of information to form actionable decision-making references.

 Table 29: Three Types of Information to Organize After Attending ACS

Type of Information to Organize After the Conference	Specific Content	Purpose	Delivery Format
Credible Technical Roadmap	Technical routes with kilogram-scale data, IND experience, and batch consistency verification	As a basis for technology selection in one’s own project	Technical Roadmap Credibility Assessment Table
Technologies Still at the Conceptual Stage	Technology routes with only preclinical data / only single-sequence validation / no scale-up data	Marked as “Monitor but Do Not Rely On”; continue to monitor	Technology Maturity Tracking Checklist
Suppliers, teams, or methods worthy of further follow-up	CDMO capability assessment results / Useful analytical methods / Teams open to collaboration	Establish long-term partnerships / procurement channels	Supplier and Collaboration List

 The key takeaway from the table above is that the post-conference follow-up is more important than the conference itself. After five days of information overload, if you don’t complete a structured review within a week, most of the information will be forgotten within two weeks. It is recommended to start organizing your notes on the flight home, categorizing them according to three dimensions: “viable technology roadmaps,” “concept-level technologies,” and “suppliers worth following up with.”

 There is another critical step in post-conference organization: comparing the collected information with your project’s technical roadmap. Specifically, compare the credible technical routes gathered at ACS with the technical route currently used in your project—are there alternative or optimized solutions? Are there lower-cost synthesis routes? Are there more reliable analytical methods? Are there more suitable CDMO partners? This comparative analysis can help you identify potential areas for optimization in your project’s current approach and may also help you identify technical risks in advance.We recommend organizing an internal technical review meeting within two weeks after the conference to discuss the findings from the ACS in light of the project’s current status and develop a list of actionable optimization recommendations.

 For companies with team members attending the conference, post-conference knowledge sharing is also a component that requires planning.The amount of information each individual can absorb in five days is limited, but if the team shares their key findings, the overall scope of information covered will expand significantly. We recommend scheduling a two-hour internal knowledge-sharing session within one week after the conference, with each attendee preparing a 10-minute presentation on their key findings, focusing on “technical information of direct relevance to our company’s projects.” This structured approach to knowledge sharing is more efficient than verbal communication and ensures that the investment in attending ACS yields the maximum return at the team level.

 This conclusion reads more like a professional conference guide than a promotional piece. ACS Fall 2026 is not a conference that needs to be “looked forward to”—it has been held for decades and delivers the same value year after year. What truly matters is the attendee themselves: Did you go with specific questions in mind? Did you find answers? Did you update your decision-making framework? If your answer is yes, then this conference was worth attending for you.

 7.2 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

 Below are frequently asked questions about attending ACS Fall 2026 and the topics covered in this article, for readers’ quick reference.

 FAQ 1: Which biopharmaceutical professionals should attend ACS Fall 2026?

 ACS Fall 2026 is suitable for professionals in the following fields: medicinal chemists, process engineers, and analytical chemists specializing in ADCs and bioconjugation technologies; developers of peptide drug synthesis and formulation; chemists and analysts involved in the modification of oligonucleotide drugs; teams focused on small-molecule payload synthesis and target discovery;process development and technical support teams at CDMOs; and personnel in business development and investment teams who need to evaluate the technical feasibility of deliverables. If you work in any of the above fields and are concerned with questions such as “Can the molecule be synthesized? Can it be scaled up? Can quality be controlled?”, ACS Fall 2026 is well worth your five days.

FAQ 2: Why should ADC R&D professionals pay attention to ACS?

 At ACS, ADC R&D professionals can access foundational technical information not typically available at clinical conferences: release kinetics data for linkers in human plasma; HIC maps of DAR distributions and inter-batch RSD; identification and control strategies for impurity profiles; safety handling levels for highly active payloads and CDMO production capacity information; and experience with the validation and transfer of analytical methods. This information directly impacts whether an ADC project can pass CMC review, achieve stable production, and control costs.The three ACS subdivisions—MEDI, BIOL, and ANYL—are the key channels for obtaining this information.

 FAQ 3: What is the connection between the growing popularity of bispecific antibodies and ADCs and chemistry conferences?

 The growing popularity of bispecific antibodies and ADCs indicates that drug molecules are evolving from simple to complex structures; however, this increase in molecular complexity means that challenges at the chemical and analytical levels are also multiplying. Issues such as mismatch control in bispecific antibodies, DAR distribution and impurity profiles in ADCs, and linker stability and payload exposure under combination therapy conditions—these are questions that clinical data cannot answer; solutions must be sought at the chemical and analytical levels.As the world’s largest chemistry conference, ACS is the ideal platform for discussing these fundamental technical issues. Approaching ACS with the current buzz around bispecific antibodies and ADCs in mind to seek answers at the chemical and analytical levels is far more targeted than merely gaining a general understanding of the technology.

 FAQ 4: What should attendees focusing on peptides and nucleic acid therapeutics prioritize?

 Attendees focusing on peptides should prioritize: the scalability of synthesis methods (SPPS vs. liquid-phase vs. hybrid synthesis); analysis of impurity types and sources (deleted sequences, truncated peptides, diastereomers); scalability strategies and costs for purification methods; and progress in formulation development.Attendees in the nucleic acid therapeutics field should focus on: the versatility of modification chemistry (whether modifications such as 2′-OMe, 2′-F, PS, and cEt can be reused across sequences); the impurity control framework (shortmers, longmers, PO impurities, and non-enantiomers); strategies for analytical comparability; and assessments of platform reusability.The key criterion is whether a platform’s modification strategies and purification methods can be reused across projects, as this determines whether development costs can be shared.

 FAQ 5: What is the difference between ACS Fall 2026 and the Clinical Oncology Conference?

 ACS Fall 2026 addresses the question of “Can this drug be developed?”—how to design the molecule, what reaction pathways to follow, how to attach the linker, how to control impurities, how to validate analytical methods, and whether scale-up production is feasible. Clinical oncology conferences such as ASCO, ESMO, and AACR address the question of “Will this drug be effective once developed?”—what the ORR and PFS are, what the safety profile is like, and how to expand indications.These two types of conferences are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. For R&D professionals working on ADCs, bispecific antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acid therapeutics, the information provided by ACS is more closely tied to the fundamental factors that determine a project’s success or failure—if a molecule is unstable, uncontrollable, or cannot be scaled up, even the best clinical design cannot be implemented.

 FAQ 6: What preparations should I make for my first time attending ACS Fall?

 First-time attendees are advised to complete the following preparations before departure. First, register and download the ACS conference app; use keywords to search for your areas of interest and create a five-day schedule in advance, including both oral and poster presentations. Second, review the list of exhibitors on the ACS website, mark the booth numbers of 3–5 suppliers you wish to meet with, and email them in advance to schedule technical discussions.Third, prepare a list of technical questions related to your current project (no more than 10 questions), written in English, to bring with you as a communication tool. Fourth, bring plenty of business cards—there are more networking and collaboration opportunities at ACS than you might imagine. Fifth, wear comfortable shoes—the walking distance between the ACS exhibition hall and the lecture halls is usually considerable, and managing your physical stamina and energy over the five days is key to attending the conference efficiently.

 FAQ 7: How can I extract information from ACS presentations that’s useful for my own project?

 The key to extracting useful information from ACS presentations is to “listen with questions in mind” rather than “passively absorb” the content. After each presentation, take two minutes to answer three questions: Which issue on my list of questions did this presentation address? From which development stage (preclinical/IND/clinical/commercialization) did the data in the presentation come? Can this technology or method be directly applied to my current project, and what conditions are required? If you attend a presentation but cannot answer all three questions, it indicates that the presentation has limited value for your project.Don’t try to remember every detail of every presentation; instead, focus on those that directly address your project’s questions, and organize them into structured notes within 24 hours of the session.

 FAQ 8: What are some tips for networking with CDMOs at the ACS exhibition hall?

 The exhibition hall is one of the most practical parts of ACS, but many people don’t know how to make the most of it. First, don’t go to the exhibition hall on the first afternoon—it’s crowded and noisy then, and the quality of interactions is low.It’s recommended to visit on the morning of the second or third day, when exhibitors have more time for in-depth discussions. Second, avoid asking vague questions like “What can you do?” Instead, approach conversations with specific technical questions. For example: “We’re developing a DAR 4 ADC, and the Val-Cit linker released 15% in human plasma over 48 hours—do you have similar data for your linker?”—Specific questions like this quickly help identify suppliers with the necessary technical capabilities.Third, after exchanging business cards, send a brief email that same evening summarizing the key points of your discussion and the areas of collaboration you’re interested in. After ACS concludes, fewer than 10% of the business cards you receive may actually hold value for follow-up; timely follow-up can prevent leads from slipping away.

 7.3 Tailored Recommendations for Attendees in Different Roles

 Attendees at ACS Fall 2026 come from diverse backgrounds, and different roles derive varying levels of value from the same conference. The following provides tailored recommendations for three core roles: pharmaceutical and chemical researchers, CMC/process engineers, and BD/investment professionals.

 Table 30: Tailored Recommendations for Attendees in Different Roles

Attendee Role	Key ACS Sessions to Focus On	Key Learning Objectives	Post-Conference Actions
Pharmaceutical and Chemical Researcher	MEDI, BIOL, ORGN	Novel linker-payload designs, coupling chemistry methodologies, payload activity and toxicity data	Compile applicable molecular design strategies and update drug design approaches for projects
CMC/Process Engineer	ANYL, MEDI Process Special Topics	Impurity control strategies, analytical method validation, process scale-up data, cleaning validation methods	Update CMC strategy documents and evaluate whether adjustments to impurity control plans are necessary
BD/Investment Personnel	CDMO Networking at the Exhibition Hall, Overview Reports	CDMO Capacity and Capability Assessment, Technology Roadmap Maturity Assessment, Industry Trends	Update the supplier evaluation checklist and provide guidance for technical due diligence

 The key takeaway from the table above is that different roles extract information from ACS through different lenses, and their post-conference follow-up and action plans also vary. Medicinal chemists focus on “how to design better molecules,” CMC engineers focus on “how to ensure the molecule is stable and well-characterized,” while BD and investment professionals focus on “whether this technology can be delivered and who has the capability to do so.” Clarifying your role and learning objectives before attending can significantly improve the efficiency of your participation.

 Finally, here’s a practical tip: there should be cross-functional engagement among different roles. The medicinal chemistry team shouldn’t limit themselves to attending molecular design sessions; they should also occasionally attend the ANYL session to hear presentations on analytical methods—understanding how analytical chemists view the molecules you design will help you create molecules that are easier to analyze and control for quality. The value of this shift in perspective often exceeds expectations.Similarly, the CMC team shouldn’t focus solely on impurity control; occasionally attending the MEDI division to hear about trends in novel molecular design can help you anticipate the analytical challenges future projects might face. Cross-functional knowledge exchange is one of the most underrated competitive advantages in complex molecular project teams.

 For companies sending teams to the conference, there is another coordination strategy worth considering. If multiple people are attending ACS, assign roles before departure—with each person responsible for in-depth coverage of a different division or exhibition area, and spending 30 minutes each evening sharing the day’s key findings. This division of labor allows a team of 3–5 people to cover all relevant content at ACS, making the conference several times more efficient than if everyone attended independently.At the same time, internal knowledge sharing within the team helps professionals from different functions benefit from each other’s perspectives—the medicinal chemistry team gains insight into CMC’s impurity control challenges, while the CMC team understands the molecular design logic of medicinal chemistry. This cross-functional understanding is critical for advancing complex molecular projects. If the team can consolidate the findings gathered through this division of labor into an internal technical intelligence document after the conference, the long-term accumulation of such knowledge will become one of the company’s most valuable technical assets.

 This conclusion reads more like a professional conference guide than a promotional piece. ACS Fall 2026 is not a conference that needs to be “looked forward to”—it has been held for decades and delivers the same value year after year. What truly matters is the attendee themselves: Did you go with specific questions in mind? Did you find answers? Did you update your decision-making framework? If your answer is yes, then this conference was worth attending for you.In the biopharmaceutical industry of 2026, there will be many hot trends, but teams and platforms capable of reliably, clearly, and at scale developing complex molecules will remain scarce. We hope this guide will help you re-examine the technical risks obscured by clinical data from the perspectives of chemistry, analysis, and process development, and find the answers at ACS Fall 2026 that will truly drive your projects forward.