Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 17;10(1):2585.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59074-4.

The kinase polypharmacology landscape of clinical PARP inhibitors

Affiliations

The kinase polypharmacology landscape of clinical PARP inhibitors

Albert A Antolin et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Polypharmacology plays an important role in defining response and adverse effects of drugs. For some mechanisms, experimentally mapping polypharmacology is commonplace, although this is typically done within the same protein class. Four PARP inhibitors have been approved by the FDA as cancer therapeutics, yet a precise mechanistic rationale to guide clinicians on which to choose for a particular patient is lacking. The four drugs have largely similar PARP family inhibition profiles, but several differences at the molecular and clinical level have been reported that remain poorly understood. Here, we report the first comprehensive characterization of the off-target kinase landscape of four FDA-approved PARP drugs. We demonstrate that all four PARP inhibitors have a unique polypharmacological profile across the kinome. Niraparib and rucaparib inhibit DYRK1s, CDK16 and PIM3 at clinically achievable, submicromolar concentrations. These kinases represent the most potently inhibited off-targets of PARP inhibitors identified to date and should be investigated further to clarify their potential implications for efficacy and safety in the clinic. Moreover, broad kinome profiling is recommended for the development of PARP inhibitors as PARP-kinase polypharmacology could potentially be exploited to modulate efficacy and side-effect profiles.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

A.A.A., M.A., U. B., P.A.C., P.W. and B.A.-L. are/were employees of The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), which has a commercial interest in a range of drug targets, including protein kinases and are involved in a patent on the use of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated cancers which results in commercial income. The ICR operates a Rewards to Inventors scheme whereby employees of the ICR may receive financial benefit following commercial licensing of a project. P.W. is a consultant/scientific advisory board member for Nextech Invest Ltd, Storm Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Nuevolution and CV6 and holds stock in Chroma Therapeutics, NextInvest and Storm Therapeutics; he is also a Non-Executive Director of Storm Therapeutics and the Royal Marsden NHS Trust and a Director of the non-profit Chemical Probes Portal. B.A.-L. is/was a consultant/scientific advisory board member for GSK, Open Targets, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma and is an ex-employee of Inpharmatica Ltd. A.A.A., B.A.-L. and P.W. have been instrumental in the creation/development of canSAR and Probe Miner. B.A.-L was instrumental in the creation of ChEMBL.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Chemical structures and known PARP activities of FDA-approved PARP inhibitors. (a) Chemical structures of the four FDA-approved PARP drugs. The benzamide core pharmacophore shared by all clinical PARP inhibitors is highlighted in bold with orange shading. The rest of the chemical structure that is not shared between the inhibitors and confers them with different size and flexibility has grey shading. (b) Known target profile of clinical PARP inhibitors across members of the PARP enzyme family. IC50 values are obtained from the literature and the ChEMBL database (www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/) and ranges are given where there is more than one published value,.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kinome profiling of the four FDA-approved PARP inhibitors across 392 unique human kinases and 76 mutated, atypical and other forms. This was carried out using the in vitro binding platform of DiscoveRx’s KinomeScan®. The assays were perfomed at a single 10 μM concentration. The TREEspot™ representations of the kinome tree, with superimposed in vitro binding data for each PARP inhibitor, illustrate how rucaparib and niraparib bind to a significant number of kinases while talazoparib only modestly binds to two kinases and olaparib does not bind to any of the kinases tested. The chemical structures of the PARP drugs are included and their different R-groups highlighted in blue shading to illustrate different side-chains that may influence polypharmacology.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Concentration-response curves for the most potent kinase off-target interactions of clinical PARP inhibitors. (a) concentration-response curves and IC50 calculation of the most potent interactions in the in vitro binding assay (see Methods) of niraparib (top) and rucaparib (bottom) analysed in triplicate using Reaction Biology’s HotSpot radiometric assay that directly measures kinase catalytic activity. (b) concentration-response curve and EC50 calculation for rucaparib against CDK16 and niraparib against DYRK1A using a target-engagement cellular assay based on NanoBRET technology and an optimized set of cell-permeable kinase tracers (see Methods for details). Olaparib was used as a negative control. The target engagement cellular assays were performed in quadruplicate (two technical repeats in each of two independent experiments). (c) table summarising the calculated IC50 and EC50 values for the kinase off-targets DYRK1B, CDK16, PIM3 and DYRK1A.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The nineteen differential adverse reactions between FDA-approved clinical PARP inhibitors. Data were extracted from the FDA prescribing information and published results of the largest clinical trials. Side-effect frequencies are not considered due to the differences between the cut-offs used in each trial and FDA prescribing information for each PARP inhibitor (see Methods for details). Each adverse reaction considered common for at least one PARP drug and not identified for at least another PARP inhibitor is represented as a circle. The circles are coloured according to the drugs that present this adverse reaction in their prescribing information or publication of their largest clinical trial.

References

    1. Roth BL, Sheffler DJ, Kroeze WK. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004;3:353–359. doi: 10.1038/nrd1346. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006;24:805–815. doi: 10.1038/nbt1228. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antolin AA, Workman P, Mestres J, Al-lazikani B. Polypharmacology in precision oncology: current applications and future prospects. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016;22:6935–6945. doi: 10.2174/1381612822666160923115828. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Santos R, et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2017;16:19–34. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.230. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peters JU. Polypharmacology - Foe or friend? J. Med. Chem. 2013;56:8955–8971. doi: 10.1021/jm400856t. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms