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 throughTP53, ATMmutations, 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.

PARP inhibition results in the accumulation of DNA SSBs, causing replication stress (RS) and lesions that can only be resolved by homologous recombination repair (HRR). Defects in HRR, e.g., due to BRCA2 mutation, confer profound sensitivity to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) cytotoxicity. In response to RS, CHK1 is activated to signal to S and G2/M cell cycle checkpoints and also to HRR. To determine the relative contribution of these two functions of CHK1 to survival following PARPi exposure, we investigated the effects of rucaparib (a PARPi) and PF-477736 (a CHK1 inhibitor) alone and in combination in cells with mutated and corrected BRCA2. The BRCA2 mutated V-C8 cells were 1000× more sensitive to rucaparib cytotoxicity than their matched BRCA2 corrected V-C8.B2 cells, but no more sensitive to PF-477736 despite having seven-fold higher levels of RS. PF-477736 caused a five-fold enhancement of rucaparib cytotoxicity in the V-C8.B2 cells, but no enhancement in the V-C8 cells. This differential sensitivity was not due to a difference in PARP1 or CHK1 expression or activity. PF-477736 increased rucaparib-induced RS (γH2AX foci) and completely inhibited RAD51 focus formation, indicating a profound suppression of HRR. Our data suggested that inhibition of HRR was the main mechanism of sensitisation to rucaparib, compounded with an inhibition of cell cycle checkpoints by PF-477736.

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.

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 kinase 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 synthetic lethality with PARPi.

Background: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) exploit defects in homologous recombination repair (HRR) to selectively kill tumour cells. Continuous PARP inhibition is required for cytotoxicity. PARPis rucaparib, olaparib, and niraparib have been approved for use in ovarian cancer on continuous schedules. Previous studies demonstrate prolonged PARP inhibition by rucaparib [¹]. Aim: To determine if persistent PARP inhibition is a class effect. Methods: IGROV-1 (human ovarian cancer) cells were treated with 1 µM of rucaparib, olaparib, niraparib, talazoparib, or pamiparib for 1 h before drug was washed off and replaced with fresh media for 0, 1, 24, 48, or 72 h prior to harvesting. Cellular PARP activity was measured using a GCLP-validated assay [²] in comparison with untreated controls and where 1 µM inhibitor was added to the reaction. Results: rucaparib, olaparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib each inhibited PARP activity in permeabilized cells > 99% when 1 µM was present during the reaction. After 2 h in drug-free medium, rucaparib-induced PARP inhibition was maintained at 92.3 ± 4.3%, but was much less with talazoparib (58.6 ± 5.0%), pamiparib (56.0 ± 4.5%) olaparib (48.3 ± 19.8%), and niraparib (37.3 ± 11.6%). PARP inhibition in rucaparib-treated cells was maintained for 72 h in drug-free medium (77.7 ± 12.3%). This sustained PARP inhibition was not observed with the other PARPis. PARP inhibition was only 12.3 ± 5.2% and 12.5 ± 4.9% 72 h after talazoparib and pamiparib, respectively, and undetectable with olaparib and niraparib. Conclusion: Rucaparib is unique in its ability to cause persistent PARP inhibition and it is not a class effect. These data have clinical implications for the different uses of PARPi, as a single agent use to exploit HRR defects vs. chemo and radiosensitization.