The dynamic process of covalent and non-covalent PARylation in the maintenance of genome integrity: a focus on PARP inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribosylation) (PARylation) by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) is a highly regulated process that consists of the covalent addition of polymers of ADP-ribose (PAR) through post-translational modifications of substrate proteins or non-covalent interactions with PAR via PAR binding domains and motifs, thereby reprogramming their functions. This modification is particularly known for its central role in the maintenance of genomic stability. However, how genomic integrity is controlled by an intricate interplay of covalent PARylation and non-covalent PAR binding remains largely unknown. Of importance, PARylation has caught recent attention for providing a mechanistic basis of synthetic lethality involving PARP inhibitors (PARPi), most notably in homologous recombination (HR)-deficient breast and ovarian tumors. The molecular mechanisms responsible for the anti-cancer effect of PARPi are thought to implicate both catalytic inhibition and trapping of PARP enzymes on DNA. However, the relative contribution of each on tumor-specific cytotoxicity is still unclear. It is paramount to understand these PAR-dependent mechanisms, given that resistance to PARPi is a challenge in the clinic. Deciphering the complex interplay between covalent PARylation and non-covalent PAR binding and defining how PARP trapping and non-trapping events contribute to PARPi anti-tumour activity is essential for developing improved therapeutic strategies. With this perspective, we review the current understanding of PARylation biology in the context of the DNA damage response (DDR) and the mechanisms underlying PARPi activity and resistance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".