Pharmacological Inhibition of Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Activity in PARP-1 Silenced Tumour Cells Increases Chemosensitivity to Temozolomide and to a N3-Adenine Selective Methylating Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently demonstrated that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 is involved in angiogenesis and tumour aggressiveness. In this study we have compared the influence of abrogation of PARP-1 expression by stable gene silencing to that of the pharmacological inhibition of cellular PARP activity using PARP-1/-2 inhibitors on the chemosensitivity of tumour cells to the wide spectrum methylating agent temozolomide (TMZ) and to the N3-adenine selective methylating agent {1-methyl-4-[1-methyl-4-(3-methoxysulfonylpropanamido)pyrrole-2-carboxamido]-pyrrole-2-carboxamido}propane (Me-Lex). Silencing of PARP-1 in melanoma or cervical carcinoma lines enhanced in vitro sensitivity to TMZ and Me- Lex, and induced a higher level of cell accumulation at the G2/M phase of cell cycle with respect to controls. GPI 15427, which inhibits both PARP-1 and PARP-2, increased sensitivity to TMZ and Me-Lex both in PARP-1-proficient and - deficient cells. However, it induced different cell cycle modulations depending on PARP-1 expression, provoking a G2/M arrest only in PARP-1 silenced cells. Treatment of PARP-1 silenced cells with TMZ or Me-Lex resulted in a more extensive phosphorylation of Chk-1 and p53 as compared to PARP-1 proficient cells. The combination of the methylating agents with GPI 15427 increased Chk-1 and p53 phosphorylation both in PARP-1 proficient or deficient cells. When mice challenged with PARP-1 silenced melanoma cells were treated with the TMZ and PARP inhibitor combination there was an additional reduction in tumour growth with respect to treatment with TMZ alone. These results suggest the involvement of PARP-2 or other PARPs, in the repair of DNA damage provoked by methylating agents, highlighting the importance of targeting both PARP-1 and PARP-2 for cancer therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".