Search

Background: Monotherapy with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors results in limited objective response rate (≤ 60% in most cases) in patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR)-deficient cancer, which suggests a high rate of resistance in this subset of patients to PARP inhibitors (PARPi). To overcome resistance to PARPi and to broaden their clinical use, we performed high-throughput screening of 99 anticancer drugs in combination with PARPi to identify potential therapeutic combinations. Methods: The effects of PARPi combined with glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) inhibitors were investigated in vitro with respect to cell viability, cell cycle and apoptosis. The synergy was assessed by calculation of the combination index (CI). GSK3α null and GSK3β null cells were generated using CRISPR/Cas9 technique. The underlying mechanism was examined by western blotting, flow cytometry, qRT-PCR and fluorescence microscopy. This combination was also evaluated in the mouse xenograft model; tumor growth and tumor lysates were analyzed, and the immunohistochemistry assay was performed. All data are presented as mean ± SD. Comparison between two groups was performed with the Student’s t-test.Result: The data showed that ~25% of oncological drugs and kinase inhibitors that were evaluated displayed synergy with PARPi in HCT-15 cells. Among the tested agents, GSK3 inhibitors (GSK3i) exhibited the strongest synergistic effect with PARPi. Moreover, the synergistic antitumor effect of GSK3 and PARP inhibition was confirmed in a panel of colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines with diverse genetic backgrounds. Additionally, inhibition or genetic depletion of GSK3β was found to impair HRR of DNA and reduce the mRNA and protein level of BRCA1. Finally, we demonstrated that inhibition or depletion of GSK3β could enhance the in vivo sensitivity to simmiparib without toxicity.Conclusion: Our results provide a mechanistic understanding of combination of PARP and GSK3 inhibition, and support the clinical development of this combination therapy for CRC patients.

PARP1 inhibitors (PARPis) are used clinically during cancer therapy and are thought to exert their cytotoxicity through PARP1 polymerase inhibition and PARP1-DNA trapping. Here, we showed no significant correlation between PARP1-DNA trapping and cytotoxicity induced by PARPis. We complemented PARP1-knockout sublines with wild-type PARP1 and 11 mutants with different point mutations that affect the polymerase activity. When examining the PARPi talazoparib, the induced cytotoxicity was highly significantly correlated with cellular PARP1 polymerase activity, but not with its PARP1-DNA trapping or polymerase inhibition. Similarly, talazoparib's PARP1-DNA trapping revealed significant correlation with the polymerase activity rather than its inhibition. Differently, however, when evaluating purified wild-type and mutated PARP1, we identified an almost linear relationship between PARPis' inhibiting PARP1 dissociation from DNA and their cytotoxicity in 17 cancer cell lines. In contrast, no significant correlation existed between PARP1 polymerase inhibition in the histone-based systems and the cytotoxicity. After careful comparisons on different methods and detection targets, we conclude that the PARPi-mediated increase in PARP1-DNA binding by inhibiting autoPARylation of PARP1 on DNA rather than in PARP1-DNA trapping is correlated with PARPi's cytotoxicity. Accordingly, we established a new PARPi screening model that more closely predicts cytotoxicity.

With increasing uses of poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) for cancer therapy, understanding their resistance is becoming urgent. However, acquired PARPi resistance in the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)‐deficient background is poorly understood. We generated 3 PARPi‐resistant PTEN‐deficient glioblastoma U251 variants separately with olaparib (U251/OP), talazoparib (U251/TP) and simmiparib (U251/SP). These variants displayed consistent resistance (2.46‐71.78‐fold) to all 5 PARPi, including niraparib and rucaparib, and showed higher degrees of resistance to the PARPi to which the parental cells were more sensitive. The resistance was characteristic of fast emergence and high stability. However, the resistance acquirement did not cause an increasingly aggressive phenotype. The resistance was not correlated to various factors, including PTEN mutations. The PARPi‐treated variants produced less γH2AX and G2/M arrest. Consistently, loss of 53BP1 occurred in all variants and its compensation enhanced their sensitivity to PARPi by approximately 76%. The variants revealed slightly different cross‐resistance profiles to 13 non‐PARPi anticancer drugs. All were resistant to Ara‐C (6‐8‐fold) but showed differential resistance to 5‐fluorouracil, gemcitabine and paclitaxel. Almost no resistance was observed to the rest drugs, including cisplatin. SAMHD1 was overexpressed in all the variants and its knockout completely restored their sensitivity to Ara‐C but did not affect their PARPi sensitivity. The present study demonstrates a consistent resistance profile to PARPi and a unique cross‐resistance profile to non‐PARPi drugs in different PARPi‐resistant U251 cells and reveals 53BP1 loss and SAMHD1 overexpression as the primary mechanisms responsible for their resistance to PARPi and Ara‐C, respectively. These effects probably result from heritable gene change(s) caused by persistent PARPi exposure.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) regulates gene transcription in addition to functioning as a DNA repair factor. Forkhead box O1 (FoxO1) is a transcription factor involved in extensive biological processes. Here, we report that PARP1 binds to two separate motifs on the FoxO1 promoter and represses its transcription in a polymerase-independent manner. Using PARP1-knock out (KO) cells, wild-type-PARP1-complemented cells and catalytic mutant PARP1E988K-reconstituted cells, we investigated transcriptional regulation by PARP1. PARP1 loss led to reduced DNA damage response and ~362-fold resistance to five PARP inhibitors (PARPis) in Ewing sarcoma cells. RNA sequencing showed 492 differentially expressed genes in a PARP1-KO subline, in which the FoxO1 mRNA levels increased up to more than five times. The change in the FoxO1 expression was confirmed at both mRNA and protein levels in different PARP1-KO and complemented cells. Moreover, exogenous PARP1 overexpression reduced the endogenous FoxO1 protein in RD-ES cells. Competitive EMSA and ChIP assays revealed that PARP1 specifically bound to the FoxO1 promoter. DNase I footprinting, mutation analyses, and DNA pulldown FREP assays showed that PARP1 bound to two particular nucleotide sequences separately located at −813 to −826 bp and −1805 to −1828 bp regions on the FoxO1 promoter. Either the PARPi olaparib or the PARP1 catalytic mutation (E988K) did not impair the repression of PARP1 on the FoxO1 expression. Exogenous FoxO1 overexpression did not impair cellular PARPi sensitivity. These findings demonstrate a new PARP1-gene promoter binding mode and a new transcriptional FoxO1 gene repressor.

PARP1 inhibitors (PARPis) have been successfully used in the clinic for cancer therapy. The mechanisms by which they elicit cytotoxicity in cancer cells remain to be clarified. Initially, inhibition of cellular polymerase activity of PARP1 (reflected as inhibition of cellular poly (ADP-ribose) (PAR) formation or PARylation) was proposed as their primary mechanism. However, either cell-free histone-based or cellular PARylation inhibition displays very low correlation with PARPis’ cytotoxicity or clinical anticancer effects. Subsequently, the Pommier’s group proposed the mechanism of PARP1-DNA trapping and demonstrated that this mechanism showed much higher correlation with PARPis’ cytotoxicity. Nevertheless, contradictory results have been reported since then. Here, we showed no significant correlation between PARP1-DNA trapping and cytotoxicity induced by PARPis. We complemented PARP1-knockout sublines with wild-type PARP1 and 11 mutants with different point mutations that affect the polymerase activity. When examining the PARPi talazoparib, the induced cytotoxicity was highly significantly correlated with cellular PARP1 polymerase activity, but not with its PARP1-DNA trapping or polymerase inhibition. Similarly, talazoparib’s PARP1-DNA trapping revealed significant correlation with the polymerase activity rather than its inhibition. Differently, however, when evaluating purified wild-type and mutated PARP1, we identified an almost linear relationship between PARPis’ inhibiting PARP1 dissociation from DNA and their cytotoxicity in 17 cancer cell lines. In contrast, no significant correlation existed between PARP1 polymerase inhibition in the histone-based systems and the cytotoxicity. After careful comparisons on different methods and detection targets, we conclude that the PARPi-mediated increase in PARP1-DNA binding by inhibiting autoPARylation of PARP1 on DNA rather than in PARP1-DNA trapping is correlated with PARPi’s cytotoxicity. Based on this conclusion, we established a new PARPi screening model that more closely predicts cytotoxicity (r=0.9984; p Citation Format: Hua-Dong Chen, Chuan-Huizi Chen, Yu-Ting Wang, Ne Guo, Yu-Nan Tian, Xia-Juan Huan, Shan-Shan Song, Jin-Xue He, Ze-Hong Miao. Increased PARP1-DNA binding due to autoPARylation inhibition of PARP1 on DNA rather than PARP1-DNA trapping is correlated with PARP1 inhibitor's cytotoxicity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2936.