Cited by 9PARP inhibition in cancer therapyChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchDNA Repair Mechanisms

Differences in Durability of PARP Inhibition by Clinically Approved PARP Inhibitors: Implications for Combinations and Scheduling

Open access
Smith, Hannah L., Willmore, Elaine, Mukhopadhyay, Asima, Drew, Yvette, Curtin, Nicola J.·2022·Cancers

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Six PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for cancer therapy as monotherapy agents in daily or twice-daily continuous dosing schedules to maintain the necessary continuous suppression of PARP activity. Continuous PARP inhibition is required for single-agent anticancer activity. To investigate if such intense schedules are necessary, we determined the durability of PARP inhibition up to 72 h after a 1 h pulse of 1 µM of five of the approved PARPi, rucaparib, olaparib, niraparib, talazoparib and pamiparib, in IGROV-1 and ES-2 (human ovarian cancer) cells. Rucaparib caused the most persistent inhibition of PARP activity when maintained at ≥75% at 72 h after drug withdrawal in both IGROV-1 and ES-2 cells, but inhibition was more rapidly lost with the other PARPi. PARPi are also under clinical investigation with ATR inhibitors, and thus, we evaluated the implications for scheduling with an ATR inhibitor (VE-821). Rucaparib enhanced VE-821 cytotoxicity in co-exposure, sequential and delayed (24 h drug-free) schedules in IGROV-1 and ES-2 cells. Olaparib and niraparib enhanced VE-821 cytotoxicity only in co-exposed cells and not in sequential exposures. These data have clinical implications for the scheduling of PARPi as a monotherapy and in combination with ATR inhibitors and other cytotoxic drugs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/cancers14225559

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Smith, H. L., Willmore, E., Mukhopadhyay, A., Drew, Y., & Curtin, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (IN)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Curtin, Nicola J.
Venue
Cancers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-11-12
Volume
14
Issue
22
Pages
5559
ISSN
2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4309035055
Cited by
9
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Collections
Funders
CRUK/Department of Biotechnology India’s Affordable approaches to cancer (IA/AAC/19/1/700079)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › PARP inhibition in cancer therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
Keywords
PARP inhibitors, rucaparib, olaparib, niraparib, talazoparib, pamiparib, ATR inhibitors, VE-821, drug scheduling, combination therapy, ovarian cancer, drug withdrawal, cytotoxicity enhancement, IGROV-1 cells, ES-2 cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review