Explore the vast range of titles available.

The process of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation and the major enzyme that catalyses this reaction, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1), were discovered more than 50 years ago. Since then, advances in our understanding of the roles of PARP1 in cellular processes such as DNA repair, gene transcription and cell death have allowed the investigation of therapeutic PARP inhibition for a variety of diseases — particularly cancers in which defects in DNA repair pathways make tumour cells highly sensitive to the inhibition of PARP activity. Efforts to identify and evaluate potent PARP inhibitors have so far led to the regulatory approval of four PARP inhibitors for the treatment of several types of cancer, and PARP inhibitors have also shown therapeutic potential in treating non-oncological diseases. This Review provides a timeline of PARP biology and medicinal chemistry, summarizes the pathophysiological processes in which PARP plays a role and highlights key opportunities and challenges in the field, such as counteracting PARP inhibitor resistance during cancer therapy and repurposing PARP inhibitors for the treatment of non-oncological diseases.Several poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have now been approved as treatments for various types of cancer. In this Review, Curtin and Szabo discuss the history of the development of PARP inhibitors and progress in their use for cancer therapy, as well as the potential for repurposing PARP inhibitors for the treatment of non-oncological diseases such as stroke.

Key Points The DNA damage response (DDR) coordinates the repair of DNA and the activation of cell cycle checkpoints to arrest the cell to allow time for repair. DNA is subject to a high level of endogenous damage and the DDR is essential for the maintenance of genomic stability and survival. Dysregulation of the DDR can lead to genomic instability that promotes cancer development but that is exploitable with both conventional cytotoxic therapy and DDR inhibitors. Downregulated DDR pathways render the tumour sensitive to specific cytotoxics and some DDR inhibitors. Upregulated DDR pathways confer therapeutic resistance. Inhibitors of the DDR have been developed to overcome resistance and to augment the activity of conventional therapy. Loss of a DDR pathway can lead to dependence on a compensatory pathway, and targeting this second pathway may render endogenous DNA damage cytotoxic by a process termed synthetic lethality, which will be tumour-specific because the normal tissues in the animal (or person) will have functional DNA repair. Despite promising preclinical data combining DDR inhibitors with conventional cytotoxic agents, these combinations have been less successful in the clinic and are often associated with toxicity. Exploitation of DDR defects by synthetic lethality is a more promising approach. Clinical data on the use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in homologous recombination repair (HRR)-defective tumours are encouraging. Robust and validated biomarkers to identify DDR defects that are exploitable by both conventional cytotoxic therapy and agents targeting the DDR are needed to effectively stratify patients. The DNA damage response (DDR) is often altered in tumour cells and this Review discusses the many strategies to target the pathways that comprise the DDR as single agents and in combination to produce synthetic lethality specifically in tumour cells. Dysregulation of DNA damage repair and signalling to cell cycle checkpoints, known as the DNA damage response (DDR), is associated with a predisposition to cancer and affects responses to DNA-damaging anticancer therapy. Dysfunction of one DNA repair pathway may be compensated for by the function of another compensatory DDR pathway, which may be increased and contribute to resistance to DNA-damaging chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Therefore, DDR pathways make an ideal target for therapeutic intervention; first, to prevent or reverse therapy resistance; and second, using a synthetic lethal approach to specifically kill cancer cells that are dependent on a compensatory DNA repair pathway for survival in the context of cancer-associated oxidative and replicative stress. These hypotheses are currently being tested in the laboratory and are being translated into clinical studies

The DNA damage response (DDR) is a network of proteins that coordinate DNA repair and cell-cycle checkpoints to prevent damage being transmitted to daughter cells. DDR defects lead to genomic instability, which enables tumour development, but they also create vulnerabilities that can be used for cancer therapy. Historically, this vulnerability has been taken advantage of using DNA-damaging cytotoxic drugs and radiotherapy, which are more toxic to tumour cells than to normal tissues. However, the discovery of the unique sensitivity of tumours defective in the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway to PARP inhibition led to the approval of six PARP inhibitors worldwide and to a focus on making use of DDR defects through the development of other DDR-targeting drugs. Here, we analyse the lessons learnt from PARP inhibitor development and how these may be applied to new targets to maximize success. We explore why, despite so much research, no other DDR inhibitor class has been approved, and only a handful have advanced to later-stage clinical trials. We discuss why more reliable predictive biomarkers are needed, explore study design from past and current trials, and suggest alternative models for monotherapy and combination studies. Targeting multiple DDR pathways simultaneously and potential combinations with anti-angiogenic agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors are also discussed. Defects in the DNA damage response have been utilized therapeutically for cancer for a decade. This Review analyses the lessons learnt from the development of PARP inhibitors and how these may be applied to new targets to maximize success. Targeting multiple DNA damage response pathways simultaneously and combinations with other therapies are also discussed.

Targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) is a new therapeutic approach in cancer that shows great promise for tumour selectivity. Key components of the DDR are the ataxia telangiectasia mutated and Rad3 related (ATR) and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) kinases. This review article describes the role of ATR and its major downstream target, CHK1, in the DDR and why cancer cells are particularly reliant on the ATR-CHK1 pathway, providing the rationale for targeting these kinases, and validation of this hypothesis by genetic manipulation. The recent development of specific inhibitors and preclinical data using these inhibitors not only as chemosensitisers and radiosensitisers but also as single agents to exploit specific pathologies of tumour cells is described. These potent and specific inhibitors have now entered clinical trial and early results are presented.

DNA damage response (DDR) pathway prevents high level endogenous and environmental DNA damage being replicated and passed on to the next generation of cells via an orchestrated and integrated network of cell cycle checkpoint signalling and DNA repair pathways. Depending on the type of damage, and where in the cell cycle it occurs different pathways are involved, with the ATM-CHK2-p53 pathway controlling the G1 checkpoint or ATR-CHK1-Wee1 pathway controlling the S and G2/M checkpoints. Loss of G1 checkpoint control is common in cancer through TP53, ATM mutations, Rb loss or cyclin E overexpression, providing a stronger rationale for targeting the S/G2 checkpoints. This review will focus on the ATM-CHK2-p53-p21 pathway and the ATR-CHK1-WEE1 pathway and ongoing efforts to target these pathways for patient benefit.

Purpose PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are effective in homologous recombination repair (HRR) defective (HRD) cancers. To (re)sensitise HRR proficient (HRP) tumours to PARPi combinations with other drugs are being explored. Our aim was to determine the mechanism underpinning the sensitisation to PARPi by inhibitors of cell cycle checkpoint kinases ATR, CHK1 and WEE1. Experimental design A panel of HRD and HRP cells (including matched BRCA1 or 2 mutant and corrected pairs) and ovarian cancer ascites cells were used. Rucaparib (PARPi) induced replication stress (RS) and HRR (immunofluorescence microscopy for γH2AX and RAD51 foci, respectively), cell cycle changes (flow cytometry), activation of ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 (Western Blot for pCHK1S345, pCHK1S296 and pCDK1Y15, respectively) and cytotoxicity (colony formation assay) was determined, followed by investigations of the impact on all of these parameters by inhibitors of ATR (VE-821, 1 µM), CHK1 (PF-477736, 50 nM) and WEE1 (MK-1775, 100 nM). Results Rucaparib induced RS (3 to10-fold), S-phase accumulation (2-fold) and ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 activation (up to 3-fold), and VE-821, PF-477736 and MK-1775 inhibited their targets and abrogated these rucaparib-induced cell cycle changes in HRP and HRD cells. Rucaparib activated HRR in HRP cells only and was (60-1,000x) more cytotoxic to HRD cells. VE-821, PF-477736 and MK-1775 blocked HRR and sensitised HRP but not HRD cells and primary ovarian ascites to rucaparib. Conclusions Our data indicate that, rather than acting via abrogation of cell cycle checkpoints, ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 inhibitors cause an HRD phenotype and hence “induced synthetic lethality” with PARPi.

The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, Rubraca®, was given its first accelerated approval for BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer by the FDA at the end of 2016, and further approval by the FDA, EMA and NICE followed. Scientists at Newcastle University initiated the early stages, and several collaborations with scientists in academia and the pharmaceutical industry enabled its final development to the approval stage. Although originally considered as a chemo- or radiosensitiser, its current application is as a single agent exploiting tumour-specific defects in DNA repair. As well as involving intellectual and physical effort, there have been a series of fortuitous occurrences and coincidences of timing that ensured its success. This review describes the history of the relationship between science and serendipity that brought us to the current position.

We know little about the role of faculty mentoring in the development of interest in pursuing an academic career among doctoral students. Drawing on Social Cognitive Career Theory, this study examined the relationships between different kinds of mentoring (instrumental, psychosocial, and sponsorship) and academic career self-efficacy, interests, and goals. Analyses controlled for race, gender, field, and candidacy status. Psychosocial and instrumental mentoring predicted feelings of self-efficacy in one's ability to pursue an academic career, and exerted significant indirect effects through that selfefficacy, on students' interest in such a career. Race-gender comparisons indicated that sponsorship was not an important predictor for non-URM men, in contrast to the other groups.

BRCA1/2 mutations and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are paradigmatic of synthetic lethal therapy. However, the activity of PARP inhibitors seems to vary considerably across BRCA1/2-mutant cancers and new insights into the tumour-lineage dependency of this synthetic lethal relationship might explain why BRCA1/2 mutations are not tumour-agnostic biomarkers of a response to PARP inhibitors.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1) is a zinc-finger DNA-binding enzyme that is activated by binding to DNA breaks. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation of nuclear proteins by PARP-1 converts DNA damage into intracellular signals that activate either DNA repair by the base-excision pathway or cell death. A family of 18 PARPs has been identified, but only the most abundant, PARP-1 and PARP-2, which are both nuclear enzymes, are activated by DNA damage. PARP inhibitors of ever-increasing potency have been developed in the 40 years since the discovery of PARP-1, both as tools for the investigation of PARP-1 function and as potential modulators of DNA-repair-mediated resistance to cytotoxic therapy. Owing to the high level of homology between the catalytic domains of PARP-1 and PARP-2, the inhibitors probably affect both enzymes. Convincing biochemical evidence, which has been corroborated by genetic manipulation of PARP-1 activity, shows that PARP inhibition is associated with increased sensitivity to DNA-alkylating agents, topoisomerase I poisons and ionising radiation. Novel PARP inhibitors of sufficient potency and suitable pharmacokinetic properties to allow evaluation in animal models have been shown to enhance the antitumour activity of temozolomide (a DNA-methylating agent), topoisomerase poisons and ionising radiation; indeed, the combination with temozolomide resulted in complete tumour regression in two independent studies. The combination of a PARP inhibitor and temozolomide is currently undergoing clinical evaluation for the first time.