31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Structural Implications for Selective Targeting of PARPs

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a family of enzymes that use NAD + as a substrate to synthesize polymers of ADP-ribose (PAR) as post-translational modifications of proteins. PARPs have important cellular roles that include preserving genomic integrity, telomere maintenance, transcriptional regulation, and cell fate determination. The diverse biological roles of PARPs have made them attractive therapeutic targets, which have fueled the pursuit of small molecule PARP inhibitors. The design of PARP inhibitors has matured over the past several years resulting in several lead candidates in clinical trials. PARP inhibitors are mainly used in clinical trials to treat cancer, particularly as sensitizing agents in combination with traditional chemotherapy to reduce side effects. An exciting aspect of PARP inhibitors is that they are also used to selectivity kill tumors with deficiencies in DNA repair proteins (e.g., BRCA1/2) through an approach termed “synthetic lethality.” In the midst of the tremendous efforts that have brought PARP inhibitors to the forefront of modern chemotherapy, most clinically used PARP inhibitors bind to conserved regions that permits cross-selectivity with other PARPs containing homologous catalytic domains. Thus, the differences between therapeutic effects and adverse effects stemming from pan-PARP inhibition compared to selective inhibition are not well understood. In this review, we discuss current literature that has found ways to gain selectivity for one PARP over another. We furthermore provide insights into targeting other domains that make up PARPs, and how new classes of drugs that target these domains could provide a high degree of selectivity by affecting specific cellular functions. A clear understanding of the inhibition profiles of PARP inhibitors will not only enhance our understanding of the biology of individual PARPs, but may provide improved therapeutic options for patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tankyrase inhibition stabilizes axin and antagonizes Wnt signalling.

          The stability of the Wnt pathway transcription factor beta-catenin is tightly regulated by the multi-subunit destruction complex. Deregulated Wnt pathway activity has been implicated in many cancers, making this pathway an attractive target for anticancer therapies. However, the development of targeted Wnt pathway inhibitors has been hampered by the limited number of pathway components that are amenable to small molecule inhibition. Here, we used a chemical genetic screen to identify a small molecule, XAV939, which selectively inhibits beta-catenin-mediated transcription. XAV939 stimulates beta-catenin degradation by stabilizing axin, the concentration-limiting component of the destruction complex. Using a quantitative chemical proteomic approach, we discovered that XAV939 stabilizes axin by inhibiting the poly-ADP-ribosylating enzymes tankyrase 1 and tankyrase 2. Both tankyrase isoforms interact with a highly conserved domain of axin and stimulate its degradation through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. Thus, our study provides new mechanistic insights into the regulation of axin protein homeostasis and presents new avenues for targeted Wnt pathway therapies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Small-molecule inhibition of Wee1 kinase by MK-1775 selectively sensitizes p53-deficient tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents.

            Wee1 is a tyrosine kinase that phosphorylates and inactivates CDC2 and is involved in G(2) checkpoint signaling. Because p53 is a key regulator in the G(1) checkpoint, p53-deficient tumors rely only on the G(2) checkpoint after DNA damage. Hence, such tumors are selectively sensitized to DNA-damaging agents by Wee1 inhibition. Here, we report the discovery of a potent and selective small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1 kinase, MK-1775. This compound inhibits phosphorylation of CDC2 at Tyr15 (CDC2Y15), a direct substrate of Wee1 kinase in cells. MK-1775 abrogates G(2) DNA damage checkpoint, leading to apoptosis in combination with DNA-damaging chemotherapeutic agents such as gemcitabine, carboplatin, and cisplatin selectively in p53-deficient cells. In vivo, MK-1775 potentiates tumor growth inhibition by these agents, and cotreatment does not significantly increase toxicity. The enhancement of antitumor effect by MK-1775 was well correlated with inhibition of CDC2Y15 phosphorylation in tumor tissue and skin hair follicles. Our data indicate that Wee1 inhibition provides a new approach for treatment of multiple human malignancies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Iniparib plus chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

              Triple-negative breast cancers have inherent defects in DNA repair, making this cancer a rational target for therapy based on poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition. We conducted an open-label, phase 2 study to compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and carboplatin with or without iniparib, a small molecule with PARP-inhibitory activity, in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. A total of 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and carboplatin (at a dose equivalent to an area under the concentration-time curve of 2) on days 1 and 8--with or without iniparib (at a dose of 5.6 mg per kilogram of body weight) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11--every 21 days. Primary end points were the rate of clinical benefit (i.e., the rate of objective response [complete or partial response] plus the rate of stable disease for ≥6 months) and safety. Additional end points included the rate of objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The addition of iniparib to gemcitabine and carboplatin improved the rate of clinical benefit from 34% to 56% (P=0.01) and the rate of overall response from 32% to 52% (P=0.02). The addition of iniparib also prolonged the median progression-free survival from 3.6 months to 5.9 months (hazard ratio for progression, 0.59; P=0.01) and the median overall survival from 7.7 months to 12.3 months (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; P=0.01). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in either treatment group included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, fatigue or asthenia, leukopenia, and increased alanine aminotransferase level. No significant difference was seen between the two groups in the rate of adverse events. The addition of iniparib to chemotherapy improved the clinical benefit and survival of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer without significantly increased toxic effects. On the basis of these results, a phase 3 trial adequately powered to evaluate overall survival and progression-free survival is being conducted. (Funded by BiPar Sciences [now owned by Sanofi-Aventis]; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00540358.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                20 December 2013
                2013
                : 3
                : 301
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [2] 2Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Research, Jefferson Pancreas, Biliary, and Related Cancer Center, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [3] 3Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                Author notes

                Edited by: Christina Annunziata, National Cancer Institute, USA

                Reviewed by: Dana Victor Ferraris, Johns Hopkins University Brain Science Institute, USA; Myron Jacobson, University of North Texas Health Science Center, USA

                *Correspondence: John M. Pascal, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, 233 South 10th Street, BLSB 804, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA e-mail: john.pascal@ 123456jefferson.edu

                This article was submitted to Cancer Molecular Targets and Therapeutics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology.

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2013.00301
                3868897
                24392349
                01d2ad53-7aee-4496-af57-826690751002
                Copyright © 2013 Steffen, Brody, Armen and Pascal.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 30 July 2013
                : 26 November 2013
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 90, Pages: 14, Words: 9923
                Categories
                Oncology
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                parp,structure,inhibitor design,selectivity
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                parp, structure, inhibitor design, selectivity

                Comments

                Comment on this article