The majority of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) rely on the mRNA stability factor HuR (ELAV-L1) to drive cancer growth and progression. Here, we show that CRISPR-Cas9–mediated silencing of the HuR locus increases the relative sensitivity of PDAC cells to PARP inhibitors (PARPi). PDAC cells treated with PARPi stimulated translocation of HuR from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, specifically promoting stabilization of a new target, poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) mRNA, by binding a unique sequence embedded in its 3′ untranslated region. HuR-dependent upregulation of PARG expression facilitated DNA repair via hydrolysis of polyADP-ribose on related repair proteins. Accordingly, strategies to inhibit HuR directly promoted DNA damage accumulation, inefficient PAR removal, and persistent PARP-1 residency on chromatin (PARP-1 trapping). Immunoprecipitation assays demonstrated that the PARP-1 protein binds and posttranslationally modifies HuR in PARPi-treated PDAC cells. In a mouse xenograft model of human PDAC, PARPi monotherapy combined with targeted silencing of HuR significantly reduced tumor growth compared with PARPi therapy alone. Our results highlight the HuR–PARG axis as an opportunity to enhance PARPi-based therapies. Cancer Res; 77(18); 5011–25. ©2017 AACR.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States (1, 2). PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are the best example of a personalized approach to treating PDAC with mutations in the BRCA2/Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway (3–5). The primary target, PARP-1, senses and initiates DNA damage repair (DDR) through automodification, by covalently adding poly (ADP-ribose) (PAR) onto itself and transmodifying other acceptor proteins (6). PARylated PARP-1 modulates chromatin dynamics, recruits key DNA damage repair factors, and contributes to multiple pathways of DNA strand break repair (7). Poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) is a critical DDR-related enzyme that works in concert with PARP-1 to coordinate the efficient repair of DNA lesions. Through exo- and endo-glycolytic activity, PARG removes PAR moieties from PARP-1 and other repair factors, and is critical for restarting replication forks and resolving DDR (8–10). Germline or somatic defects in such DDR and related genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, PALB2, and FA genes) render PDAC cells dependent on PARP-1 for homologous repair–driven repair, thereby making PARPi and platinum-based therapies promising strategies to treat a distinct subset of PDAC tumors (4, 7, 11).

Despite the promise of PARPi therapies, most responsive tumors develop drug resistance (12, 13). Previous studies highlight adaptive resistance mechanisms such as genomic alterations and copy-number variations (e.g., BRCA2 reversion mutations; refs. 14, 15). However, genetic events selected for over time are unlikely to solely contribute to the acute plasticity required by cancer cells to rapidly adapt to anticancer agents (16). Beyond mutations, posttranscriptional gene regulation via RNA-binding proteins (RBP) is an adaptable reprogramming mechanism that may drive PARPi resistance. Our group has previously shown that the RBP, HuR [Hu antigen R; embryonic lethal abnormal vision-like 1 (ELAVL1)], promotes a drug-resistant phenotype, through its stress-induced cytoplasmic translocation and stabilization of prosurvival mRNA targets (17–20). Herein, we report for the first time that the antitumor response to several clinically relevant PARPi in PDAC is regulated by the HuR-dependent stabilization of PARG.

Cell culture

PDAC cell lines (MIA PaCa-2, PANC-1, Capan-1, Hs 766T, PL11) were purchased from the ATCC (2012). All cell lines were routinely tested for mycoplasma using the LookOut Mycoplasma PCR Detection Kit (MP0035 SIGMA), and only early passage (<10) mycoplasma-negative cell lines were used for in vitro and in vivo experiments. As further validation, genomic DNA was extracted, PCR amplified, and sent for Sanger sequencing. All cell lines were validated as per the expected KRAS and p53 mutation status (21). Cells were cultured in standard DMEM media supplemented with 10% FBS, 1% l-glutamine, and 1% penicillin–streptomycin (Invitrogen) at 37°C and 5% CO2. MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T with clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 knockout of HuR and MIA PaCa-2 cells with doxycycline (DOX)-inducible silencing of HuR were generated and characterized as previously described (18, 22).

Transfection

Transient siRNA silencing and overexpression of HuR were performed as previously described (20). A Myc-DDK–tagged overexpression plasmid (Origene) and commercially available siRNA (Dharmacon) were used for modulating PARG expression. In all experiments, a fraction of cells were analyzed by qRT-PCR to assess knockdown efficiency, and all functional assays were performed 48 hours after transfection.

qRT-PCR and mRNA expression analysis

Cells transfected with indicated siRNAs for 48 hours were directly harvested (mRNA steady-state level) or treated with 5 μg/mL actinomycin D and harvested at indicated time points. Total RNA extraction and qRT-PCR were performed as previously described (18). Relative quantification was performed using the 2–ΔΔCt method. For detecting PARG isoforms, primers were designed to amplify exclusive regions based on splice sites (available upon request), and a qPCR protocol was modified accordingly to accommodate variations in amplicon size and annealing temperatures.

Immunoblot analysis

Cytoplasmic and nuclear extracts were isolated using the NE-PER Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Extraction Kit (Thermo-Scientific) as per the manufacturer's instructions. Total protein extracts were isolated, and immunoblotting was performed as previously described (18). Primary antibodies used are HuR (3A2, 1:10,000; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH; 1:10,000; Cell Signaling Technology), PARP-1 (1:1,000; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), PAR (1:1,000; Trevigen), PARG (1:1,000; Millipore, Abcam), caspase-3 (1:1,000; Cell Signaling Technologies), γH2AX (1:1,000; Millipore), and Lamin A/C (1:1,000; Cell Signaling Technology). The membranes were scanned and quantified using Odyssey Infrared Imaging System (LI-COR Biosciences).

Ribonucleoprotein immunoprecipitation assay

PARPi-treated cells were fractionated and immunoprecipitated, and HuR-bound mRNAs were detected as previously described (17, 20, 23).

Cell growth and survival assays

Cells were seeded at 1,000 cells per well in 96-well plates and treated after 24 hours with increasing concentrations of indicated drugs. Short- and long-term cell survival was assessed by staining with Quant-iT Pico Green (Invitrogen) and soft-agar colony formation assays, respectively, and as previously described (19). IC50 values were determined through nonlinear regression analysis.

Chromatin tethering

Cells cultured and treated in 150 mm dishes were washed 3 times with ice-cold PBS, collected in 1 mL PBS by scraping, and pelleted by spinning at 400 g for 5 minutes. Sequential fractionation was performed with ice-cold 0.1% Triton X-100 in the cytoskeletal buffer containing 10 mmol/L PIPES pH 7.0, 100 mmol/L NaCl, 300 mmol/L sucrose, 3 mmol/L MgCl2, 1 mmol/L EGTA, 1 mmol/L dithiothreitol, 1 mmol/L PMSF, 1 μg/mL proteae inhibitors, 0.1 mmol/L Na orthovanadate, as previously described (24), and the final pellet containing chromatin-bound proteins and total cell pellets were lysed in the RIPA buffer. Histone H3 is used as a positive control and GAPDH a negative control for the chromatin-bound fraction.

Immunoprecipitation

Cell lysates were extracted using a NP-40 lysis buffer (50 mmol/L Tris-HCl, 150 nmol/L NaCl, 1% NP-40, and protease inhibitors). Sepharose beads coated with primary antibodies (anti-rabbit IgG, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, anti-rabbit HuR, MBL; anti–rabbit N-terminal PARP-1, Active Motif) were incubated overnight, added to the precleared lysates, and rotated end-over-end at 4°C for 4 to 6 hours. Beads were washed 3 to 5 times with lysis buffer and boiled with Laemmli buffer at 95°C for 10 minutes. Equal amounts of input and immunoprecipitated proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE gel electrophoresis and visualized by Licor.

Immunofluorescence

MIA PaCa-2 cells were cultured at 5,000 cells per 8 mm coverslip. After treatment, cells were fixed, permeabilized, stained, and mounted as previously described (Primary: γH2AX; Millipore; 1:500, HuR; 1:200; Santa Cruz Biotechnology; Secondary: Alexa Fluor 488 F anti-mouse; DAPI ProLong Gold, Life Technologies). Coverslips were imaged with a Zeiss LSM-510 Confocal Laser Microscope, and Image J was used for foci counting, as previously reported (17, 20).

PAR ELISA

Total protein lysates were analyzed for PARylation using HT Colorimetric PARP/Apoptosis Assay (Trevigen) as per the manufacturer's instructions (25, 26).

Luciferase reporter assays

Full-length PARG 3′ untranslated region (UTR) and a deletion series of putative HuR-binding sites on PARG 3′UTR were subcloned into the XhoI and NotI sites of the psiCheck2 vector (Promega). Luciferase activity was performed using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (Promega).

Apoptosis assays

Apoptosis was detected by flow cytometry using a fluorogenic substrate for activated caspase-3/7 in live cells (CellEvent Caspase-3/7 Green Detection Reagent; Life Technologies).

Xenograft study

Two independent sets of 6-week-old, female, athymic nude mice received 3 × 106 Mia.shHuR cells per flank, prepared in 100 μL solution comprised of 80% DPBS and 20% Matrigel, through subcutaneous injections. Tumors were allowed to grow to an average of 50 mm3 (Set I: day 7; Set II: day 23). Mice were randomized into four groups, two of which were started with DOX chow (200 mg/kg; Bio-Serv, cat. #S3888) to induce HuR silencing. When tumors reached an average volume of 100 mm3 (Set I: day 15, Set II: day 23), olaparib was administered through intraperitoneal injection (Set I: 100 mg/kg/day, Set II: 50 mg/kg/day, 5 days a week). Mouse weights and tumors were measured 3 times per week using an electronic caliper, and tumor volumes were calculated using the formula Volume = (Length × Width2)/2. No mice lost more than 5% of their initial body weight. Mice were sacrificed and tumors harvested, when one of them surpassed 1,500 mm3 (Set I: day 36; Set II: day 56). Mouse protocols were approved by the Thomas Jefferson University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Statistical analysis

Data and statistical analysis was performed using ISM SPSS (Version 20.0.0, IBM). Tumors that did not reach a calculated volume of 20 mm3 by day 25 were excluded from the analysis (Set I: one tumor, in the combined olaparib-siHuR treatment group; Set II: two tumors, in the olaparib-only group). Individual tumor volume fold changes were used to normalized tumor volume to a set starting volume of 50 mm3 (Set I: at day 16; Set II: at day 25). Log2 (fold change) function was used to calculate relative tumor duplications and to extract mean tumor duplication time: Δtime/(tumor duplications). Tumor volumes were analyzed for normality of distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Normally distributed continuous parameters were compared using the Student t test and non-normally distributed parameters compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. Continuous parameters were presented as mean (±SE). A P value of less than 0.05 was defined as significant.

Genetic deletion of HuR enhances PARPi sensitivity

To assess PARPi efficacy, the IC50 values for a panel of PDAC cell lines were determined. Consistent with previous reports, the DNA repair–deficient (DDR-D) cell lines, Capan-1 (loss of BRCA2) and Hs 766T (defective in FANCG), are significantly more sensitive to the PARPis olaparib (Fig. 1A), veliparib (Supplementary Fig. S1A) and rucaparib, than the DNA repair–proficient (DDR-P) PDAC cell lines, MIA PaCa-2 and PANC-1 (Supplementary Table S1; refs. 27–30).

Figure 1.

HuR expression regulates sensitivity to PARPi in PDAC cells. Cell survival of PDAC cell lines (A), HuR-knockout CRIPSR cell lines, MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T [HuR(+/+) vs. HuR(−/−)] (B), and HuR-silenced MiaPaCa-2 and Capan-1 cells (C) treated with increasing doses of olaparib for 7 days. D, Representative images of MIA.HuR(+/+) vs. MIA.HuR(−/−) and HST.HuR(+/+) vs. HST.HuR(−/−) cells seeded and cultured in soft agar in the presence of respective IC50 doses of olaparib for 4 weeks. E, HuR expression in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with indicated IC50 doses of PARPi for 12 hours and fractionated as indicated. Lamin A/C and α-tubulin were used as controls to determine the integrity of nuclear and cytosolic lysates, respectively. Mitomycin C was used as positive control for cytoplasmic translocation of HuR. F, Immunofluorescent images of HuR (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with PARPi for 12 hours. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. Magnification, ×40. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01.

Figure 1.

HuR expression regulates sensitivity to PARPi in PDAC cells. Cell survival of PDAC cell lines (A), HuR-knockout CRIPSR cell lines, MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T [HuR(+/+) vs. HuR(−/−)] (B), and HuR-silenced MiaPaCa-2 and Capan-1 cells (C) treated with increasing doses of olaparib for 7 days. D, Representative images of MIA.HuR(+/+) vs. MIA.HuR(−/−) and HST.HuR(+/+) vs. HST.HuR(−/−) cells seeded and cultured in soft agar in the presence of respective IC50 doses of olaparib for 4 weeks. E, HuR expression in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with indicated IC50 doses of PARPi for 12 hours and fractionated as indicated. Lamin A/C and α-tubulin were used as controls to determine the integrity of nuclear and cytosolic lysates, respectively. Mitomycin C was used as positive control for cytoplasmic translocation of HuR. F, Immunofluorescent images of HuR (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with PARPi for 12 hours. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. Magnification, ×40. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01.

Close modal

To evaluate the role of HuR in PARPi response in vitro and in vivo, we used three strategies: (1) siRNA targeting HuR (17, 20); (2) two characterized CRISPR-generated PDAC cell lines (DDR-P MIA PaCa-2 and DDR-D Hs 766T) with HuR genetically knocked out (Supplementary Fig. S1B; ref. 22); and (3) a DOX-inducible siHuR cell line MIA.sh290 (18). Dose–response curves from cell survival assays in response to several clinically relevant PARPi indicate that CRISPR knockout of HuR (Table 1) in both MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T [HuR (+/+) vs. HuR (−/−)] caused a dramatic 20-fold decrease in sensitivity to the PARPis olaparib (Fig. 1B) and veliparib (Supplementary Fig. S1C; Table 1). In contrast, we observed a smaller fold change in non-PARPi agents, oxaliplatin (≤7-fold) and gemcitabine (≤3-fold; Supplementary Fig. S1C; ref. 17). We validated these results with siRNA knockdown of HuR in another DDR-D cell line, Capan-1 (Fig. 1C; Supplementary Fig. S1D; Table 1). Soft-agar growth assays indicated that CRISPR knockout of HuR in MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T as well as siRNA silencing of HuR in MIA PaCa-2 and Capan-1 suppresses colony formation and anchorage-independent growth under PARPi treatment (Fig. 1D; Supplementary Fig. S1E). Accordingly, HuR overexpression promotes resistance to veliparib (2.3-fold change; Supplementary Fig. S1F). Together, these data indicate that HuR expression dramatically modulates the response to PARPi, independent of DDR mutational status.

Table 1.

Models to evaluate the role of HuR in PARPi response

OlaparibVeliparibRucaparib
DDR statusCell linesIC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)IC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)IC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)
CRIPSR knockout Deficient HST.HuR(+/+) 8.30 21.8 >0.0001 2.20 2.6 0.0009 4.56 12.6 >0.0001 
  HST.HuR(−/−) 0.38   0.85   0.36   
 Proficient MIA.HuR(+/+) 12.52 21.9 >0.0001 12.04 15.5 >0.0001 10.22 20.8 >0.0001 
  MIA.HuR(−/−) 0.57   0.76   0.49   
siRNA silencing Deficient Capan-1 (siCon) 1.28 3.5 >0.0001 4.25 10.1 >0.0001 10.40 5.3 >0.0001 
  Capan-1 (siHuR) 0.36   0.42   1.95   
 Deficient Hs 766T (siCon) 8.40 3.8 >0.0001 6.25 2.0 >0.0001 9.25 2.76 >0.0001 
  Hs 766T (siHuR) 2.24   3.12   3.35   
 Proficient MIA PaCa-2 (siCon) 13.21 6.20 >0.0001 13.32 5.3 >0.0001 15.60 6.24 >0.0001 
  MIA PaCa-2 (siHuR) 2.13   2.50   2.50   
Small-molecule inhibition (MS-444) Deficient Capan-1 (Vehicle) 1.87 3.0 0.0009 1.20 2.1 0.0009 1.65 3.8 >0.0001 
  Capan-1 (MS-444) 0.62   0.56   0.43   
 Deficient Hs 766T (Vehicle) 4.32 2.3 >0.001 3.0 4.1 >0.0001 4.18 3.2 >0.001 
  Hs 766T (MS-444) 1.87   0.73   1.31   
 Proficient MIA PaCa-2 (Vehicle) 11.67 4.4 >0.0001 12.56 4.0 >0.0001 11.88 3.2 0.0009 
  MIA PaCa-2 (MS-444) 2.68   3.20   3.68   
OlaparibVeliparibRucaparib
DDR statusCell linesIC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)IC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)IC50 (μmol/L)Fold changeP value (two-tailed)
CRIPSR knockout Deficient HST.HuR(+/+) 8.30 21.8 >0.0001 2.20 2.6 0.0009 4.56 12.6 >0.0001 
  HST.HuR(−/−) 0.38   0.85   0.36   
 Proficient MIA.HuR(+/+) 12.52 21.9 >0.0001 12.04 15.5 >0.0001 10.22 20.8 >0.0001 
  MIA.HuR(−/−) 0.57   0.76   0.49   
siRNA silencing Deficient Capan-1 (siCon) 1.28 3.5 >0.0001 4.25 10.1 >0.0001 10.40 5.3 >0.0001 
  Capan-1 (siHuR) 0.36   0.42   1.95   
 Deficient Hs 766T (siCon) 8.40 3.8 >0.0001 6.25 2.0 >0.0001 9.25 2.76 >0.0001 
  Hs 766T (siHuR) 2.24   3.12   3.35   
 Proficient MIA PaCa-2 (siCon) 13.21 6.20 >0.0001 13.32 5.3 >0.0001 15.60 6.24 >0.0001 
  MIA PaCa-2 (siHuR) 2.13   2.50   2.50   
Small-molecule inhibition (MS-444) Deficient Capan-1 (Vehicle) 1.87 3.0 0.0009 1.20 2.1 0.0009 1.65 3.8 >0.0001 
  Capan-1 (MS-444) 0.62   0.56   0.43   
 Deficient Hs 766T (Vehicle) 4.32 2.3 >0.001 3.0 4.1 >0.0001 4.18 3.2 >0.001 
  Hs 766T (MS-444) 1.87   0.73   1.31   
 Proficient MIA PaCa-2 (Vehicle) 11.67 4.4 >0.0001 12.56 4.0 >0.0001 11.88 3.2 0.0009 
  MIA PaCa-2 (MS-444) 2.68   3.20   3.68   

NOTE: This table indicates the IC50 values of i, CRISPR-generated PDAC cell lines DDR-P MIA PaCa-2 and DDR-D Hs 766T with HuR genetically knocked out HuR (+/+), HuR (−/−); ii, siRNA oligos against the HuR coding region as previously described (17, 20); and iii, a small-molecule inhibitor, MS-444 (39).

PARPi induces cytoplasmic translocation of HuR

We previously demonstrated that veliparib causes HuR translocation in a time-dependent manner (17), peaking at 24 hours. (Supplementary Fig. S1G). Building upon these data, we treated MIA PaCa-2 cells with IC50 doses of a panel of PARP inhibitors (veliparib, olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib) for 24 hours. Immunoblotting of fractionated lysates (Fig. 1E) and immunofluorescence (Fig. 1F) indicated that cytoplasmic translocation of HuR significantly increased with PARPi stress while total and nuclear expression remained unchanged.

PARP-1 binds and PARylates HuR under stress

Ke and colleagues recently demonstrated that under LPS stimulation, PARP-1 directly binds HuR, thus resulting in its PARylation and modulating its nucleocytoplasmic shuttling as well as mRNA target binding (31). Though these findings were established in murine macrophages and human kidney cells, they could potentially have profound implications in carcinogenesis and tumor response, particularly in HuR-mediated stress response pathway. Therefore, we treated MIA PaCa2 cells with PARPi olaparib and a non-PARPi DNA-damaging agent oxaliplatin. We demonstrated that HuR and PARP-1 bind directly through protein–protein interactions, which is further enhanced upon stress; this results in subsequent PARylation of HuR (Supplementary Fig. S2A). Future studies will define the role of this protein–protein interaction in PDAC cells.

HuR binds PARG mRNA under PARPi stress

As an RBP, HuR promotes PDAC cell survival under stress by regulating expression of prosurvival mRNAs (17, 19, 20, 32, 33). We performed a focused screen of DNA repair enzymes critical for regulating PAR turnover to identify potential mRNA targets (34). A 90% knockdown in HuR expression in MIA PaCa-2 cells was validated with a 40% downregulation of an established HuR target, dCK (Supplementary Fig. S2B; ref. 19). The key members of the PARP family, PARPs 1 and 2, are unchanged, demonstrating HuR's selectivity in regulating DDR-related transcripts (Supplementary Fig. S2A). However, with HuR knockdown, we detected a significant 65% decrease in PARG expression, the main enzyme responsible for PAR degradation through its endo- and exo-glycolytic activity. Other PAR-catabolizing enzymes such as terminal (ADP) ribose glylcohydrolase (TARG), ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase 3 (ARH3), Macro Domain 1, Ectonucleotide Pyrophosphatase/Phosphodiesterase 1 (ENPP1), and nudix hydrolase 16 remain unchanged with HuR knockdown. Such HuR-dependent expression changes in PARG were further validated in both MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T HuR-CRIPSR cell lines (Supplementary Fig. S2C).

To determine if these mRNA expression changes are directly due to HuR binding, we performed messenger ribonucleoprotein immunoprecipitation (mRNP-IP) assays (23) on cytoplasmic lysates of MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with respective IC50 doses of PARPi, veliparib (12 μmol/L) and olaparib (9 μmol/L) for 12 hours (Fig. 2A). HuR binds to PARG mRNA (11.26 and 9.04 fold change, P ≤ 0.001) in response to PARP inhibition (Fig. 2B) and does not significantly bind to any other established PAR polymerases or hydrolases (Supplementary Fig. S2D). These findings were validated through RNP-IP analysis of the HuR knockout MIA PaCa2 cell line, with the isogenic control (Supplementary Fig. S2E).

Figure 2.

HuR regulates PARG mRNA expression. A, mRNP-IP assay performed with cytoplasmic fraction of MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of veliparib (12 μmol/L) and olaparib (9 μmol/L) for 12 hours; α-tubulin was used as a loading control for the input and a negative control for the immunoprecipitation samples; and Lamin A/C was used as a control to detect nuclear contamination in the input. B, The relative binding of PARG mRNA to HuR, normalized to respective IgG controls, as determined by qRT-PCR using 18S rRNA as a loading control, dCK as positive control, and PARP-1 as negative control. n.s., nonsignificant. C, HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells were treated with actinomycin D (5 μg/mL) for the indicated times. PARG, GAPDH, and PARP-1 mRNA stability was assayed by qRT-PCR using 18S rRNA as a loading control. D, qRT-PCR indicating HuR and PARG mRNA expression in HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells incubated in the presence of olaparib for 24 hours. E, PARG expression in DDR- P MIA PaCa-2 and DDR-D Capan-1 and Hs 766T cells treated with veliparib for indicated time points. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001; n.s., nonsignificant.

Figure 2.

HuR regulates PARG mRNA expression. A, mRNP-IP assay performed with cytoplasmic fraction of MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of veliparib (12 μmol/L) and olaparib (9 μmol/L) for 12 hours; α-tubulin was used as a loading control for the input and a negative control for the immunoprecipitation samples; and Lamin A/C was used as a control to detect nuclear contamination in the input. B, The relative binding of PARG mRNA to HuR, normalized to respective IgG controls, as determined by qRT-PCR using 18S rRNA as a loading control, dCK as positive control, and PARP-1 as negative control. n.s., nonsignificant. C, HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells were treated with actinomycin D (5 μg/mL) for the indicated times. PARG, GAPDH, and PARP-1 mRNA stability was assayed by qRT-PCR using 18S rRNA as a loading control. D, qRT-PCR indicating HuR and PARG mRNA expression in HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells incubated in the presence of olaparib for 24 hours. E, PARG expression in DDR- P MIA PaCa-2 and DDR-D Capan-1 and Hs 766T cells treated with veliparib for indicated time points. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001; n.s., nonsignificant.

Close modal

PARG is known to undergo alternative splicing, resulting in several isoforms (hPARG111, hPARG102, and hPARG 99), which localize to different cellular compartments and maintain PAR homeostasis within the cell. We designed isoform-specific primers of PARG and interrogated HuR-dependent expression changes. HuR knockout MIA PaCa2 cells indicate a significant downregulation of all PARG isoforms (Supplementary Fig. S3A), as well as increased mRNA binding in mRNP-IP assays (Supplementary Fig. S3B). However, through protein expression assays, we detected and focused on the functional significance of HuR's regulation of isoform hPARG111, which is primarily nuclear and responsible for the majority of PAR degradation (35). Despite varying levels of hPARG111 mRNA expression, the relevant PDAC cell lines, MIA PaCa-2 and PANC-1 (DDR-P) and Capan-1, Hs 766T, and PL11 (DDR-D), have similar PARG protein expression (Supplementary Fig. S3C).

HuR knockdown decreases PARG mRNA half-life and expression under PARPi stress

HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells (Supplementary Fig. S2D) treated with a transcriptional inhibitor actinomycin D over a time course (17, 20, 36) revealed that HuR knockdown resulted in a significant 4-fold decrease in PARG mRNA half-life, whereas GAPDH and PARP-1 mRNA stability was not affected (Fig. 2C; Supplementary Fig. S2F; ref. 20). Additional qRT-PCR assays confirmed that HuR knockdown decreases PARG expression, both in the presence and absence of PARPi treatment (Fig. 2D). The striking induction of PARG mRNA under olaparib treatment correlates with an increase in PARG protein expression in a time-dependent (Fig. 2E) and dose-dependent manner (Supplementary Fig. S3E). Treatment with sub-IC50 doses of non-PARPi DNA-damaging agents [gemcitabine (1 μmol/L) and oxaliplatin (1 μmol/L)] for 24 hours resulted in cytoplasmic translocation of HuR and corresponding induction of PARG protein expression in MIA PaCa-2 cells (Supplementary Fig. S3F). However, for purposes of this study, we sought to explore and focus on the role of PARG expression in regulating PARPi response.

HuR binds to two discrete AU-rich elements in PARG 3′UTR

HuR binds to its target mRNAs through distinct AU-rich elements (ARE) in their 3′UTRs (37). Reporter assays indicated an increase in luciferase activity in cells coexpressing full-length PARG 3′UTR (Luc+3′UTR) and an HuR overexpression plasmid (Fig. 3A), likely due to an increase in HuR's regulation of PARG via its 3′UTR. Accordingly, this regulatory induction in the presence of veliparib treatment was lost when HuR was silenced (Fig. 3B). Computational sequence predictions identified three putative AREs within PARG 3′UTR. To further identify the minimal regulatory HuR-binding sequence, a deletion series of constructs derived from PARG 3′UTR (Supplementary Fig. S3G) was cotransfected with HuR overexpression plasmid in MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T cells (Supplementary Fig. S3H and S3I). Deletion of either or both sites 1 (41 bp) and 3 (43 bp) caused significant reduction in luciferase activity, suggesting that both contribute to HuR's regulation of PARG 3′UTR.

Figure 3.

HuR regulates PARG protein expression and function. Luciferase activity in MIA PaCa-2 cells coexpressing a luciferase reporter construct with PARG 3′UTR and HuR overexpression (A) or HuR silencing (B) or HuR, PARG, and PAR protein expression (C) in total lysates from HuR- and PARG-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of indicated PARPi for 24 hours, using α-tubulin as a loading control. D, ELISA indicating relative PARylation in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected and treated as above. The indicated fold changes are mean of three independent experiments, normalized to control-transfected sample under NT. E, DSBs assessed by immunofluorescence staining for γH2AX (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected and treated as described above. F, DNA damage foci were quantified and plotted ± SD. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001; n.s., nonsignificant.

Figure 3.

HuR regulates PARG protein expression and function. Luciferase activity in MIA PaCa-2 cells coexpressing a luciferase reporter construct with PARG 3′UTR and HuR overexpression (A) or HuR silencing (B) or HuR, PARG, and PAR protein expression (C) in total lysates from HuR- and PARG-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of indicated PARPi for 24 hours, using α-tubulin as a loading control. D, ELISA indicating relative PARylation in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected and treated as above. The indicated fold changes are mean of three independent experiments, normalized to control-transfected sample under NT. E, DSBs assessed by immunofluorescence staining for γH2AX (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected and treated as described above. F, DNA damage foci were quantified and plotted ± SD. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001; n.s., nonsignificant.

Close modal

HuR regulates PARG protein expression

Irrespective of their DDR status, PDAC cell lines treated with respective IC50 doses of olaparib showed a significant increase in basal PARG expression (as previously shown, Fig. 2E). MIA PaCa-2 cells were transfected with HuR and PARG siRNAs for 48 hours, followed by treatment with IC50 doses of 3 clinically relevant PARPi for 24 hours (Fig. 3C). As expected, PARP inhibition induced a mild increase in PARG protein expression in control cells. However, HuR silencing significantly decreased PARG protein expression under no treatment (NT), as well as the corresponding PARPi-treated conditions in both MIA PaCa-2 cells (Fig. 3C) and Hs 766T (Supplementary Fig. S4A), demonstrating that PARG expression is mediated by HuR even in the absence of stress and independent of DDR status.

HuR regulates PARylation through PARG

Downregulation of PARG, either through HuR silencing or via a PARG-specific siRNA, directly affects the extent of PAR degradation, therefore causing persistence of total PAR polymers, i.e., PARylation, as assessed by immunoblotting (Fig. 3C, top) and ELISA (Fig. 3D). Similar results were obtained in DDR-D Hs 766T cells (Supplementary Fig. S4A and S4B). Extensive protein expression studies also showed that PARG is significantly downregulated with HuR knockout in both DDR-P MIA PaCa2 and deficient Hs 766T cells, whereas expression of other PAR-catabolizing enzymes such as TARG1, ARH3, ENPP1, and MarcoD1 is not affected (Supplementary Fig. S4C). Concurrently, HuR overexpression resulted in PARG upregulation causing a decrease in overall PAR levels in MIA PaCa-2 cells (Supplementary Fig. S3D). These data show that HuR regulates PARG expression as well as its downstream function of PAR degradation.

HuR-mediated upregulation of PARG affects DNA damage response and apoptosis

To assess the effects of HuR-mediated PARG regulation on DDR, we performed relative quantification of γH2AX foci, a marker of DSBs in DNA. In control cells, the basal level of DNA damage is increased markedly upon PARP inhibition (Fig. 3E and F) and as previously shown (4). However, both HuR and PARG silencing further increased veliparib- and olaparib-induced DNA damage foci in DDR-P MIA PaCa-2 cell line.

The enhanced DNA damage due to HuR and PARG silencing correlated with a dramatic increase in apoptosis upon PARPi treatment, as indicated by staining the apoptotic population with a highly sensitive probe for activated caspase-3/-7 in MIA PaCa-2 and Hs766T cells (Fig. 4A; Supplementary S5A). Our results indicate that HuR and/or PARG silencing enhanced PARPi-induced DNA damage and apoptosis regardless of DDR proficiency.

Figure 4.

HuR and PARG inhibition enhances PARPi-induced apoptosis and PARP-1 trapping on chromatin and increases PARPi efficacy. A, Relative number of apoptotic cells quantified and normalized to control-(NT) MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T cells. A 3-hour treatment with soluble TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (sTRAIL) was used as a positive control. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; n.s., nonsignificant. B, HuR- and PARG-silenced DDR-P MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of indicated PARPi for 6 hours were harvested and fractionated to isolate soluble and chromatin-tethered proteins. HuR, PARG, PARP-1, and PAR expression was analyzed, with GAPDH (total protein extract) and Histone H3 (nuclear chromatin-tethered fraction) as the loading controls. A representative image of one of three independent experiments is shown. C, Cell survival in HuR- and PARG-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells was treated with increasing doses of olaparib and veliparib for 5 days.

Figure 4.

HuR and PARG inhibition enhances PARPi-induced apoptosis and PARP-1 trapping on chromatin and increases PARPi efficacy. A, Relative number of apoptotic cells quantified and normalized to control-(NT) MIA PaCa-2 and Hs 766T cells. A 3-hour treatment with soluble TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (sTRAIL) was used as a positive control. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; n.s., nonsignificant. B, HuR- and PARG-silenced DDR-P MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with IC50 doses of indicated PARPi for 6 hours were harvested and fractionated to isolate soluble and chromatin-tethered proteins. HuR, PARG, PARP-1, and PAR expression was analyzed, with GAPDH (total protein extract) and Histone H3 (nuclear chromatin-tethered fraction) as the loading controls. A representative image of one of three independent experiments is shown. C, Cell survival in HuR- and PARG-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells was treated with increasing doses of olaparib and veliparib for 5 days.

Close modal

HuR and PARG inhibition enhances PARP trapping on chromatin by PARP inhibitors

In addition to preventing PAR production, a crucial step in DDR, PARPis can also behave as “poisons” that induce cytotoxic accumulation of inactivated PARP-1–DNA complexes tethered to chromatin (26, 38), thus preventing PARP-1 release from unrepaired DNA strand breaks. We hypothesized that HuR stabilization of PARG in stressed cells could reduce PARPi-induced “trapping” of PARP-1 on chromatin, which potentially allows successful resolution of DNA repair and replication fork progression. We silenced HuR and PARG in MIA PaCa-2 cells followed by treatment with IC50 doses of olaparib, veliparib, and rucaparib for 6 hours, and isolated soluble and chromatin-associated proteins. As above, HuR silencing downregulated PARG expression, and silenced HuR and PARG expression resulted in persistent PARylation in the presence of PARP inhibition (Fig. 4B, total protein).

Consistent with previous reports, all three PARPis resulted in increased PARP-1–DNA complexes (trapped PARP-1; Fig. 4B, chromatin-bound), with olaparib and rucaparib exhibiting a higher PARP trapping potency. Furthermore, HuR and PARG silencing significantly enhanced the extent of trapped PARP-1 on chromatin, both under NT and PARPi-treated conditions. Similar results in DDR-D Hs 766T (Supplementary S4B) indicated that once again, irrespective of the presence of DNA repair mutations, HuR and PARG silencing enhanced PARPi cytotoxicity; in both cases, this was associated with increasing PARP-1 trapping on chromatin.

Prioritizing the importance of HuR and PARG expression on PARPi efficacy in PDAC cells

The role of PARG expression in regulating response to PARP inhibition is further highlighted by over a 5-fold decrease in IC50 values of olaparib and veliparib with PARG silencing in MIA PaCa-2 cells, respectively (Fig. 4C). Further, PARG overexpression alone in MIA PaCa-2 cells caused increased resistance to veliparib (Fig. 5A) and olaparib (Supplementary Fig. S6A). Although HuR knockdown enhances sensitivity to PARPi, a rescue of PARG expression in HuR-silenced cells partially restores PARPi resistance. Rescuing PARG expression in the presence or absence of HuR indicated efficient removal of PARylation, particularly in the presence of PARP inhibition shown via immunoblotting and ELISA (Fig. 5B and C). As shown before (Figs. 3C and 4C; Supplementary Fig. S4A and S4B), HuR inhibition in the presence of PARPi treatment resulted in persistence of PARylation and increased chromatin-trapped PARP-1. Importantly, PARG rescue facilitated PARP-1 release from chromatin, potentially recycling PARP-1 for enhanced repair and thus contributing to a resistant phenotype (Fig. 5B).

Figure 5.

PARG overexpression rescues HuR's regulation of PARPi response. A, Cell survival of MIA PaCa-2 cells cotransfected with HuR siRNA and PARG overexpression plasmid and treated with olaparib for 7 days. B, PARG rescued via an overexpression plasmid in HuR silenced cells, wherein PARP-1 was used a s a negative control and GAPDH and Histone H3 were used as loading controls for total protein and chromatin-tethered nuclear extracts, respectively. C, ELISA to quantitate relative PARylation with PARG rescue in HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells. D, Immunofluorescence of HuR (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with veliparib for 12 hours, with or without a 6-hour pretreatment of small-molecule HuR inhibitor, MS-444. Nuclei stained with DAPI (blue). Magnification, ×40. E, Relative PARylation and immunoblotting of total protein lysates of MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with increasing dosage of MS-444, in the presence of veliparib for 12 hours. F, Cell survival of MIA PaCa-2 and Capan-1 cells treated with indicated doses of veliparib, with or without 5 μmol/L MS-444. G, Luciferase activity in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected with luciferase reporter constructs with PARG 3′UTR and incubated in the presence of MS-444 for 24 hours. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; n.s., nonsignificant.

Figure 5.

PARG overexpression rescues HuR's regulation of PARPi response. A, Cell survival of MIA PaCa-2 cells cotransfected with HuR siRNA and PARG overexpression plasmid and treated with olaparib for 7 days. B, PARG rescued via an overexpression plasmid in HuR silenced cells, wherein PARP-1 was used a s a negative control and GAPDH and Histone H3 were used as loading controls for total protein and chromatin-tethered nuclear extracts, respectively. C, ELISA to quantitate relative PARylation with PARG rescue in HuR-silenced MIA PaCa-2 cells. D, Immunofluorescence of HuR (green) in MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with veliparib for 12 hours, with or without a 6-hour pretreatment of small-molecule HuR inhibitor, MS-444. Nuclei stained with DAPI (blue). Magnification, ×40. E, Relative PARylation and immunoblotting of total protein lysates of MIA PaCa-2 cells treated with increasing dosage of MS-444, in the presence of veliparib for 12 hours. F, Cell survival of MIA PaCa-2 and Capan-1 cells treated with indicated doses of veliparib, with or without 5 μmol/L MS-444. G, Luciferase activity in MIA PaCa-2 cells transfected with luciferase reporter constructs with PARG 3′UTR and incubated in the presence of MS-444 for 24 hours. *, P = 0.01 to 0.05; **, P = 0.001 to 0.01; n.s., nonsignificant.

Close modal

Small-molecule HuR inhibitor MS-444 affects PARG expression and resensitizes PDAC cells to PARPi

HuR function was perturbed using a small-molecule inhibitor MS-444 that prevents HuR dimerization, a step critical for its stress-induced translocation to the cytoplasm (39, 40). Immunoblotting (Supplementary Fig. S6B) and immunofluorescence (Fig. 5D) show that veliparib-induced translocation is blocked effectively by MS-444 at concentrations as low as 2.5 μmol/L. HuR inhibition via MS-444 correlates with a strong decrease in overall PARG expression (Fig. 5E) and an associated accumulation of total PARylation (Fig. 5F). Concurrently, cotreatment with a sublethal dose of MS-444 (5 μmol/L; ref. 20) that prevents HuR translocation, but does not affect cell survival, enhanced sensitivity to veliparib (Fig. 5G) and olaparib (Supplementary Fig. S6C; Table 1) in both MIA PaCa-2 and Capan-1 cells. Concurrently, MS-444 also abrogates the PARPi-induced stabilization of PARG mRNA in both DDR-D and DDR-P PDAC cells (Fig. 5H; Supplementary Fig. S6D). Taken together, these data indicate that small-molecule inhibition of HuR inhibits PARG upregulation and function (i.e., PARylation) and could be potentially used to increase efficacy of PARPi.

Inducible shHuR silencing in vivo enhances olaparib-mediated suppression of PDAC xenograft growth

Based on our in vitro findings and previously published studies emphasizing the role of HuR in tumor development and growth (18), we sought to investigate the role of HuR in PDAC xenografts under PARP inhibition. We used previously characterized MIA PaCa-2 cells (DDR-P), in which HuR silencing can be induced upon DOX treatment (MIA.shHuR, previously reported as MIA.sh290; ref. 18). In vitro characterization indicated a decrease in sensitivity to olaparib (18-fold, P < 0.001) with DOX treatment (Supplementary Fig. S7A and S7B). Athymic nude female mice were injected subcutaneously in their hind flanks with MIA.shHuR, and respective groups were treated with DOX chow and olaparib (100 mg/kg/day, 5 days a week). In the vehicle-treated arms, the effect of DOX chow was significantly evident as early as day 21 (P < 0.05) and continued this trend, ending with a 3.6-fold decrease in median-normalized tumor volume as compared with mice on a normal diet (no DOX) at the end of the study (1,212 ± 472 mm3 vs. 336 ± 104 mm3, P < 0.05; Fig. 6A and B; Supplementary Fig. S7C). Olaparib treatment resulted in a significantly noticeable retardation in growth for all time points (P < 0.05) with a final 5.6-fold decrease in tumor volume when compared with vehicle only (1,212 ± 472 mm3 vs. 216 ± 41 mm3, P < 0.01). Moreover, this effect further progressed to a 9.3-fold change in tumor volume when HuR is silenced (1,212 ± 472 mm3 vs. 131 ± 76 mm3 mm3, P < 0.001). Tumor volumes indicate a significant reduction with HuR silencing, in both vehicle, as previously described (18), and olaparib treatment arms (starting at days 34 and 24, respectively; Supplementary Fig. S7C). In addition, olaparib treatment caused a 3-fold increase in the duplication time of tumors, further aggravated to a ≥5-fold (P < 0.001) increase with HuR silencing (Fig. 6C). In an independent experiment at a lower dosage of olaparib (50 mg/kg/day) treatment, similar trends of growth delay were observed in xenografted tumors (Supplementary Fig. S7C and S7D). Although low-dose olaparib (50 mg/kg/day) treatment did not significantly affect tumor growth rate (400 ± 44 mm3 vs. 394 ± 23 mm3, P = NS), the addition of HuR inhibition resulted in a significant growth delay (2.3-fold increase in duplication time, P < 0.01) and relative decrease in tumor volume (400 ± 44 mm3 vs. 236 ± 24 mm3, P < 0.01).

Figure 6.

HuR silencing in vivo enhances olaparib-mediated suppression of PDAC xenograft growth. Mia.shHuR xenografts in athymic, nude mice were randomized into DOX and olaparib treatment groups. A, Tumor volumes are plotted, with each point representing the mean ± 2SE of each group; *, P < 0.05. Inset shows differences in number of duplications. B, Representative image of mice and tumor per group. C, Tumor duplication time (days) per group. D, HuR, PARG, and PARP-1 mRNA expression in extracted tumors, relative to vehicle-treated DOX group. Each bar represents the mean ± SEM (n = 3 per group). n.s., nonsignificant. E, HuR protein expression when tumors were harvested (day 36, n = 3). F, Working model. In response to PARPi stress, cytoplasmic HuR binds to and stabilizes PARG mRNA, thereby increasing PARG expression and modulating PARP-1-chromatin dynamics. HuR and PARG inhibition breaks such acute resistance by enhancing chromatin-trapped PARP-1 and accumulation of damaged DNA and apoptosis.

Figure 6.

HuR silencing in vivo enhances olaparib-mediated suppression of PDAC xenograft growth. Mia.shHuR xenografts in athymic, nude mice were randomized into DOX and olaparib treatment groups. A, Tumor volumes are plotted, with each point representing the mean ± 2SE of each group; *, P < 0.05. Inset shows differences in number of duplications. B, Representative image of mice and tumor per group. C, Tumor duplication time (days) per group. D, HuR, PARG, and PARP-1 mRNA expression in extracted tumors, relative to vehicle-treated DOX group. Each bar represents the mean ± SEM (n = 3 per group). n.s., nonsignificant. E, HuR protein expression when tumors were harvested (day 36, n = 3). F, Working model. In response to PARPi stress, cytoplasmic HuR binds to and stabilizes PARG mRNA, thereby increasing PARG expression and modulating PARP-1-chromatin dynamics. HuR and PARG inhibition breaks such acute resistance by enhancing chromatin-trapped PARP-1 and accumulation of damaged DNA and apoptosis.

Close modal

Expression analysis of tumors harvested on day 36 (Set I) and day 56 (Set II) validated a significant decrease in HuR and PARG expression upon DOX induction at the mRNA and protein levels (Fig. 6D and E; Supplementary Fig. S7E) in both vehicle and olaparib treatment groups. The overall findings indicate that HuR inhibition enhances olaparib-mediated reduction of PDAC tumor growth in vivo. These findings support the notion that HuR inhibition can sensitize PDAC cells to PARPi therapy in vivo, even in a DDR-P PDAC cell line.

To date, the best personalized strategy for PDAC is the synthetic lethal approach to treat patients' tumors with DNA repair gene mutations. Recent next-generation sequencing and copy-number variation studies estimate that a portion of PDACs may have a DDR molecular signature that may render these tumors sensitive to PARPi and platinum-based therapies (41). In fact, ongoing clinical trials demonstrate that selected BRCA-mutated PDACs have progression-free survival times of 12 months or more, with response rates of over 50% (42). Collectively, these data are intriguing, but also point to the sobering reality that (1) even in the best setting where patients are identified with BRCA2 or related gene mutations, many patients respond to therapy but ultimately succumb to disease (42); and (2) the majority of PDAC patients (DDR-P) will most likely not benefit from PARPi therapy.

Our study directly addresses the above two unexplored points. It should be noted that even the model drug for personalized oncology, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, imatinib (Gleevec), which targets the BCR-ABL translocation in cancer, required further development of next-generation compounds because the cancer cells frequently develop resistance to therapy (43). Even though mutations in BCR-ABL have been found that confer resistance to imatinib, many other proposed and unknown molecular mechanisms can also account for the relapse of disease (44). Similarly, the general mechanism by which PARPi resistance occurs is still unknown, though some published instances highlight reversion mutations in the BRCA2 gene as the proposed mechanism (14, 15, 42). Moreover, even in patients with drug resistance mutations, it is unknown how the cancer cell survives while selecting for a reversion mutation (e.g., BRCA2; refs. 45, 46).

Based on our data, we propose that PDAC cells hijack an innate rapid stress response pathway governed by the RBP, HuR (Fig. 6). This is the first study to show that DNA damage triggers activation of PARG, which is directly related to the ability of HuR to rapidly stabilize specific mRNA (i.e., PARG; refs. 17, 18, 20, 32). The link between PARG activation and DNA repair is emerging (47–49). Our data indicate that in response to (or during) DNA damage, an HuR-dependent increase in PARG expression and activity (i.e., reduced PAR levels; Figs. 2, 3) may serve as a buffer on the total number of PAR-dependent signal factories that form in the cell. We hypothesize that a repair system with greater PARG activity and correspondingly diminished PAR production could modulate the number of PARP-1–dependent PAR-binding sites on chromatin and improve PDAC cell survival in the face of damage. Inversely, with diminished PARG (i.e., HuR silencing), PARP-1 could potentially form an excess of repair complexes that are difficult to resolve, leading to an increase in chromatin-bound PARP-1 (Fig. 4B; Supplementary Fig. S5B). This would negate an efficient DNA repair response. We believe that inhibition of the HuR/PARG axis enhances PARP trapping on chromatin, and can be translated to improve PARPi efficacy in all PDACs, regardless of DNA repair status. In fact, we inhibited PARG expression using MS-444, a previously characterized tool for HuR inhibition (20, 32, 40). We consequently observed increased PARPi efficacy both in vitro and in vivo, independent of the cell line used (Figs. 3C and 5A). Ongoing DNA repair mechanistic studies will depict the importance of the HuR/PARG axis on (1) recruitment of downstream repair factors (RAD51, XRCC1) to sites of damage; and (2) the overall efficiency of specific repair pathways (e.g., homologous recombination, DNA interstrand cross-link repair) by introducing exogenous nicks and DSBs (50).

We further speculate that PARG inhibitors may work better against cancer than PARP inhibitors (48, 51, 52). First, due to HuR's established overabundance in cancer (19, 53–56), an HuR-dependent increase in PARG in tumor versus normal cells provides a therapeutic window. Second, PARG has a high specific activity for PAR degradation and helps maintain ADP-ribosylation dynamics within the cell (6), and thus could be a selective target. Third, despite their opposing enzymatic activities, PARP-1 and PARG localize to target promoters and regulate several common DDR- and metabolism-related genes (51, 57). Therefore, inhibiting PARG could potentially also target genes regulated by PARP-1, including those involved in cell structure, stress response, maintaining genetic stability and damage repair, metabolism, and GTPase regulation. Fourth, most PARPis do not selectively hit PARP-1 activity and thus may have unwanted off-target effects (58). Meanwhile, PARG is the primary enzyme for hydrolyzing PARylation, and thus inhibiting this enzyme in the context of the HuR regulated-DNA repair process (17) could potentially increase specificity and reduce toxicity compared with currently studied pan-PARP inhibitors. With increasing evidence for PARG's role in the DDR pathway, future studies will aim to study PARG inhibition in PDAC with small-molecule inhibitors (52) and gene silencing methods. These studies will ultimately reveal whether targeting PARG is a better therapeutic strategy than targeting PARP in cancer cells.

HuR has been independently identified by multiple studies as a PAR-binding protein in response to DNA damage (under H2O2 or methyl methane sulfonate stimulation), indicating PARylation as a means of coordinating HuR-specific RNA metabolic processes (59, 60). The role of PARylation in facilitating nuclear export, especially in CRM1-dependent pathways, has been well documented (61, 62), which further indicates that HuR-CRM1 nuclear export could be modulated with PARP activity and expression. In addition to the striking similarities between PAR and nucleic acids, the ability of RNA recognition motifs to function as alternative PAR-binding motifs adds an additional layer of complexity wherein PAR could compete with RNA and thus prevent protein functions such as localization, stability, splicing, etc. (63). Herein, we provide support for a new mechanistic insight into PARP-1′s regulation of HuR (Supplementary Fig. S2A; ref. 31). PARP-1 activation, upon genotoxic stress, results in PARylated HuR, which not only facilitates its cytoplasmic translocation, but also regulates its target binding (31). Cytoplasmic HuR selectively binds to several target mRNAs, which could presumably be affected by the degree of PARylation (as well as other PTMs such as phosphorylation, ubiquitination, etc.). PARylation potentially contributes to HuR's function by affecting (1) its specificity, wherein extent (length, branching, etc.) of ADPribose polymers regulates binding affinities and (2) its selectivity, wherein the extent of PARylation allows differential binding to disparate pools of target mRNAs. HuR's stabilization of PARG mRNA and protein expression, in addition to enhancing DNA repair, also supports a putative feedback loop wherein PARG dePARylates HuR, thus facilitating its release from target mRNAs and shuttling back into the nucleus. Further studies will investigate the specific PARG isoforms that regulate HuR's function and vice versa, as well as further elucidate the timing and spatiotemporal organization of this complex process.

Finally, directly targeting HuR in PDAC cells may remain our best strategy to enhance clinical effectiveness of PARPi, as it regulates a cadre of prosurvival transcripts (17, 19, 20, 32, 33). Therefore, promising attempts to target HuR are ongoing via small-molecule inhibitors or a siHuR nanoparticle strategy (Fig. 5; refs. 40, 64, 65) in combination with DNA-damaging agents. Complementary studies will define and target the specific upstream mechanisms (e.g., kinases) that facilitate HuR translocation to the cytoplasm in PDAC (17). Finally, it will be interesting to determine if the HuR/PARG axis has an essential role in DNA repair in normal cellular and developmental biology, or if this HuR-regulated repair mechanism is unique to cancer cells.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: S.N. Chand, M. Zarei, K.E. Knudsen, C.J. Yeo, J.M. Winter, J.R. Brody

Development of methodology: S.N. Chand, M. Zarei, M.J. Schiewer, A.R. Kamath, L. Scolaro, J.M. Winter, J.R. Brody

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S.N. Chand, M. Zarei, A.R. Kamath, C. Romeo, S. Lal, A. Nevler, L. Scolaro, J.R. Brody

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S.N. Chand, M. Zarei, A.R. Kamath, C. Romeo, A. Nevler, L. Scolaro, E. Londin, W. Jiang, M.J. Pishvaian, C.J. Yeo, J.M. Pascal, J.M. Winter, J.R. Brody

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S.N. Chand, M.J. Schiewer, A.R. Kamath, S. Lal, N. Meisner-Kober, M.J. Pishvaian, K.E. Knudsen, C.J. Yeo, J.M. Pascal, J.M. Winter, J.R. Brody

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): S.N. Chand, J.A. Cozzitorto, N. Meisner-Kober, J.R. Brody

Study supervision: S.N. Chand, L. Scolaro, J.R. Brody

This work was supported by a seed grant from the Hirshberg Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research (J.R. Brody and J.M. Pascal), NIH-NCI R21 CA182692 01A1 (J.R. Brody), 1R01CA212600-01 (J.R. Brody), American Cancer Society MRSG-14-019-01-CDD (J.M. Winter and J.R. Brody), the Mary Halinski Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund (J.R. Brody and A. Nevler), and Fund A Cure and the Michele Barnett Rudnick Fund (J.R. Brody and S.N. Chand). A. Nevler was supported by a scholarship from the Dr. P. Borenstein Talpiot Medical Leadership Program (2012, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Israel).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Rahib
L
,
Smith
BD
,
Aizenberg
R
,
Rosenzweig
AB
,
Fleshman
JM
,
Matrisian
LM
. 
Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States
.
Cancer Res
2014
;
74
:
2913
21
.
2.
American Cancer Society
. 
American Cancer Society: cancer facts and figures
. 
2015
.
Available from
: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics.html.
3.
Carnevale
J
,
Ashworth
A
. 
Assessing the significance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in pancreatic cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
3080
1
.
4.
Bryant
HE
,
Schultz
N
,
Thomas
HD
,
Parker
KM
,
Flower
D
,
Lopez
E
, et al
Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase
.
Nature
2005
;
434
:
913
7
.
5.
Forster
MD
,
Dedes
KJ
,
Sandhu
S
,
Frentzas
S
,
Kristeleit
R
,
Ashworth
A
, et al
Treatment with olaparib in a patient with PTEN-deficient endometrioid endometrial cancer
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2011
;
8
:
302
6
.
6.
D'Amours
D
,
Desnoyers
S
,
D'Silva
I
,
Poirier
GG
. 
Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation reactions in the regulation of nuclear functions
.
Biochem J
1999
;
342
(
Pt 2
):
249
68
.
7.
Farmer
H
,
McCabe
N
,
Lord
CJ
,
Tutt
AN
,
Johnson
DA
,
Richardson
TB
, et al
Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy
.
Nature
2005
;
434
:
917
21
.
8.
Brochu
G
,
Duchaine
C
,
Thibeault
L
,
Lagueux
J
,
Shah
GM
,
Poirier
GG
. 
Mode of action of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
1994
;
1219
:
342
50
.
9.
Fisher
AE
,
Hochegger
H
,
Takeda
S
,
Caldecott
KW
. 
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 accelerates single-strand break repair in concert with poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase
.
Mol Cell Biol
2007
;
27
:
5597
605
.
10.
Barkauskaite
E
,
Brassington
A
,
Tan
ES
,
Warwicker
J
,
Dunstan
MS
,
Banos
B
, et al
Visualization of poly(ADP-ribose) bound to PARG reveals inherent balance between exo- and endo-glycohydrolase activities
.
Nat Commun
2013
;
4
.
11.
Tutt
A
,
Bertwistle
D
,
Valentine
J
,
Gabriel
A
,
Swift
S
,
Ross
G
, et al
Mutation in Brca2 stimulates error-prone homology-directed repair of DNA double-strand breaks occurring between repeated sequences
.
EMBO J
2001
;
20
:
4704
16
.
12.
Bouwman
P
,
Jonkers
J
. 
Molecular pathways: how can BRCA-mutated tumors become resistant to PARP inhibitors?
Clin Cancer Res
2014
;
20
:
540
7
.
13.
Johnson
N
,
Johnson
SF
,
Yao
W
,
Li
YC
,
Choi
YE
,
Bernhardy
AJ
, et al
Stabilization of mutant BRCA1 protein confers PARP inhibitor and platinum resistance
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2013
;
110
:
17041
6
.
14.
Sakai
W
,
Swisher
EM
,
Jacquemont
C
,
Chandramohan
KV
,
Couch
FJ
,
Langdon
SP
, et al
Functional restoration of BRCA2 protein by secondary BRCA2 mutations in BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
6381
6
.
15.
Edwards
SL
,
Brough
R
,
Lord
CJ
,
Natrajan
R
,
Vatcheva
R
,
Levine
DA
, et al
Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2
.
Nature
2008
;
451
:
1111
5
.
16.
Oplustilova
L
,
Wolanin
K
,
Mistrik
M
,
Korinkova
G
,
Simkova
D
,
Bouchal
J
, et al
Evaluation of candidate biomarkers to predict cancer cell sensitivity or resistance to PARP-1 inhibitor treatment
.
Cell Cycle
2012
;
11
:
3837
50
.
17.
Lal
S
,
Burkhart
RA
,
Beeharry
N
,
Bhattacharjee
V
,
Londin
ER
,
Cozzitorto
JA
, et al
HuR posttranscriptionally regulates WEE1: implications for the DNA damage response in pancreatic cancer cells
.
Cancer Res
2014
;
74
:
1128
40
.
18.
Jimbo
M
,
Blanco
FF
,
Huang
YH
,
Telonis
AG
,
Screnci
BA
,
Cosma
GL
, et al
Targeting the mRNA-binding protein HuR impairs malignant characteristics of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells
.
Oncotarget
2015
;
6
:
27312
31
.
19.
Costantino
CL
,
Witkiewicz
AK
,
Kuwano
Y
,
Cozzitorto
JA
,
Kennedy
EP
,
Dasgupta
A
, et al
The role of HuR in gemcitabine efficacy in pancreatic cancer: HuR Up-regulates the expression of the gemcitabine metabolizing enzyme deoxycytidine kinase
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
4567
72
.
20.
Blanco
FF
,
Jimbo
M
,
Wulfkuhle
J
,
Gallagher
I
,
Deng
J
,
Enyenihi
L
, et al
The mRNA-binding protein HuR promotes hypoxia-induced chemoresistance through posttranscriptional regulation of the proto-oncogene PIM1 in pancreatic cancer cells
.
Oncogene
2016
;
35
:
2529
41
.
21.
Deer
EL
,
Gonzalez-Hernandez
J
,
Coursen
JD
,
Shea
JE
,
Ngatia
J
,
Scaife
CL
, et al
Phenotype and genotype of pancreatic cancer cell lines
.
Pancreas
2010
;
39
:
425
35
.
22.
Lal
S
,
Cheung
EC
,
Zarei
M
,
Preet
R
,
Chand
SN
,
Mambelli-Lisboa
NC
, et al
CRISPR knockout of the HuR gene causes a xenograft lethal phenotype
.
Mol Cancer Res
2017
;
15
:
696
707
.
23.
Cozzitorto
JA
,
Jimbo
M
,
Chand
S
,
Blanco
F
,
Lal
S
,
Gilbert
M
, et al
Studying RNA-binding protein interactions with target mRNAs in eukaryotic cells: native ribonucleoprotein immunoprecipitation (RIP) assays
.
Methods Mol Biol
2015
;
1262
:
239
46
.
24.
Sever-Chroneos
Z
,
Angus
SP
,
Fribourg
AF
,
Wan
H
,
Todorov
I
,
Knudsen
KE
, et al
Retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein signals through inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase 2 activity to disrupt PCNA function in S phase
.
Mol Cell Biol
2001
;
21
:
4032
45
.
25.
Kummar
S
,
Chen
A
,
Ji
J
,
Zhang
Y
,
Reid
JM
,
Ames
M
, et al
Phase I study of PARP inhibitor ABT-888 in combination with topotecan in adults with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas
.
Cancer Res
2011
;
71
:
5626
34
.
26.
Murai
J
,
Huang
SY
,
Das
BB
,
Renaud
A
,
Zhang
Y
,
Doroshow
JH
, et al
Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by clinical PARP inhibitors
.
Cancer Res
2012
;
72
:
5588
99
.
27.
McCabe
N
,
Lord
CJ
,
Tutt
AN
,
Martin
NM
,
Smith
GC
,
Ashworth
A
. 
BRCA2-deficient CAPAN-1 cells are extremely sensitive to the inhibition of Poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase: an issue of potency
.
Cancer Biol Ther
2005
;
4
:
934
6
.
28.
Gallmeier
E
,
Kern
SE
. 
Targeting Fanconi anemia/BRCA2 pathway defects in cancer: the significance of preclinical pharmacogenomic models
.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
4
10
.
29.
Gallmeier
E
,
Calhoun
ES
,
Rago
C
,
Brody
JR
,
Cunningham
SC
,
Hucl
T
, et al
Targeted disruption of FANCC and FANCG in human cancer provides a preclinical model for specific therapeutic options
.
Gastroenterology
2006
;
130
:
2145
54
.
30.
van der Heijden
MS
,
Brody
JR
,
Dezentje
DA
,
Gallmeier
E
,
Cunningham
SC
,
Swartz
MJ
, et al
In vivo therapeutic responses contingent on Fanconi anemia/BRCA2 status of the tumor
.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
7508
15
.
31.
Ke
Y
,
Han
Y
,
Guo
X
,
Wen
J
,
Wang
K
,
Jiang
X
, et al
PARP1 promotes gene expression at the post-transcriptiona level by modulating the RNA-binding protein HuR
.
Nat Commun
2017
;
8
:
14632
.
32.
Romeo
C
,
Weber
MC
,
Zarei
M
,
DeCicco
D
,
Chand
SN
,
Lobo
AD
, et al
HuR contributes to TRAIL resistance by restricting death receptor 4 expression in pancreatic cancer cells
.
Mol Cancer Res
2016
;
14
:
599
611
.
33.
Pineda
DM
,
Rittenhouse
DW
,
Valley
CC
,
Cozzitorto
JA
,
Burkhart
RA
,
Leiby
B
, et al
HuR's post-transcriptional regulation of Death Receptor 5 in pancreatic cancer cells
.
Cancer Biol Ther
2012
;
13
:
946
55
.
34.
Gibson
BA
,
Kraus
WL
. 
New insights into the molecular and cellular functions of poly(ADP-ribose) and PARPs
.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol
2012
;
13
:
411
24
.
35.
Meyer-Ficca
ML
,
Meyer
RG
,
Coyle
DL
,
Jacobson
EL
,
Jacobson
MK
. 
Human poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase is expressed in alternative splice variants yielding isoforms that localize to different cell compartments
.
Exp Cell Res
2004
;
297
:
521
32
.
36.
Wang
W
,
Furneaux
H
,
Cheng
H
,
Caldwell
MC
,
Hutter
D
,
Liu
Y
, et al
HuR regulates p21 mRNA stabilization by UV light
.
Mol Cell Biol
2000
;
20
:
760
9
.
37.
Lopez de Silanes
I
,
Zhan
M
,
Lal
A
,
Yang
X
,
Gorospe
M
. 
Identification of a target RNA motif for RNA-binding protein HuR
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2004
;
101
:
2987
92
.
38.
Murai
J
,
Huang
SY
,
Renaud
A
,
Zhang
Y
,
Ji
J
,
Takeda
S
, et al
Stereospecific PARP trapping by BMN 673 and comparison with olaparib and rucaparib
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2014
;
13
:
433
43
.
39.
Meisner
NC
,
Hintersteiner
M
,
Mueller
K
,
Bauer
R
,
Seifert
JM
,
Naegeli
HU
, et al
Identification and mechanistic characterization of low-molecular-weight inhibitors for HuR
.
Nat Chem Biol
2007
;
3
:
508
15
.
40.
Blanco
FF
,
Preet
R
,
Aguado
A
,
Vishwakarma
V
,
Stevens
LE
,
Vyas
A
, et al
Impact of HuR inhibition by the small molecule MS-444 on colorectal cancer cell tumorigenesis
.
Oncotarget
2016
;
7
:
74043
58
.
41.
Waddell
N
,
Pajic
M
,
Patch
AM
,
Chang
DK
,
Kassahn
KS
,
Bailey
P
, et al
Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer
.
Nature
2015
;
518
:
495
501
.
42.
Pishvaian
MJ
,
Biankin
AV
,
Bailey
P
,
Chang
DK
,
Laheru
D
,
Wolfgang
CL
, et al
BRCA2 secondary mutation-mediated resistance to platinum and PARP inhibitor-based therapy in pancreatic cancer
.
Br J Cancer
2017
;
116
:
1021
6
.
43.
Shah
NP
,
Nicoll
JM
,
Nagar
B
,
Gorre
ME
,
Paquette
RL
,
Kuriyan
J
, et al
Multiple BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations confer polyclonal resistance to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib (STI571) in chronic phase and blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia
.
Cancer Cell
2002
;
2
:
117
25
.
44.
Lamontanara
AJ
,
Gencer
EB
,
Kuzyk
O
,
Hantschel
O
. 
Mechanisms of resistance to BCR-ABL and other kinase inhibitors
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
2013
;
1834
:
1449
59
.
45.
Swisher
EM
,
Sakai
W
,
Karlan
BY
,
Wurz
K
,
Urban
N
,
Taniguchi
T
. 
Secondary BRCA1 mutations in BRCA1-mutated ovarian carcinomas with platinum resistance
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
2581
6
.
46.
Ashworth
A
. 
Drug resistance caused by reversion mutation
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
10021
3
.
47.
Shirai
H
,
Poetsch
AR
,
Gunji
A
,
Maeda
D
,
Fujimori
H
,
Fujihara
H
, et al
PARG dysfunction enhances DNA double strand break formation in S-phase after alkylation DNA damage and augments different cell death pathways
.
Cell Death Dis
2013
;
4
:
e656
.
48.
Nakadate
Y
,
Kodera
Y
,
Kitamura
Y
,
Tachibana
T
,
Tamura
T
,
Koizumi
F
. 
Silencing of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase sensitizes lung cancer cells to radiation through the abrogation of DNA damage checkpoint
.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
2013
;
441
:
793
8
.
49.
Ray Chaudhuri
A
,
Ahuja
AK
,
Herrador
R
,
Lopes
M
. 
Poly(ADP-ribosyl) glycohydrolase prevents the accumulation of unusual replication structures during unperturbed S phase
.
Mol Cell Biol
2015
;
35
:
856
65
.
50.
Bindra
RS
,
Goglia
AG
,
Jasin
M
,
Powell
SN
. 
Development of an assay to measure mutagenic non-homologous end-joining repair activity in mammalian cells
.
Nucleic Acids Res
2013
;
41
:
e115
.
51.
Kim
IK
,
Stegeman
RA
,
Brosey
CA
,
Ellenberger
T
. 
A quantitative assay reveals ligand specificity of the DNA scaffold repair protein XRCC1 and efficient disassembly of complexes of XRCC1 and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 by poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase
.
J Biol Chem
2015
;
290
:
3775
83
.
52.
James
DI
,
Smith
KM
,
Jordan
AM
,
Fairweather
EE
,
Griffiths
LA
,
Hamilton
NS
, et al
First-in-class chemical probes against Poly(ADP-ribose) Glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibit DNA repair with differential pharmacology to olaparib
.
ACS Chem Biol
2016
;
11
:
3179
90
.
53.
Richards
NG
,
Rittenhouse
DW
,
Freydin
B
,
Cozzitorto
JA
,
Grenda
D
,
Rui
H
, et al
HuR status is a powerful marker for prognosis and response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients
.
Ann Surg
2010
;
252
:
499
505
;
discussion -6
.
54.
Lopez de Silanes
I
,
Fan
J
,
Yang
X
,
Zonderman
AB
,
Potapova
O
,
Pizer
ES
, et al
Role of the RNA-binding protein HuR in colon carcinogenesis
.
Oncogene
2003
;
22
:
7146
54
.
55.
Nabors
LB
,
Gillespie
GY
,
Harkins
L
,
King
PH
. 
HuR, a RNA stability factor, is expressed in malignant brain tumors and binds to adenine- and uridine-rich elements within the 3′ untranslated regions of cytokine and angiogenic factor mRNAs
.
Cancer Res
2001
;
61
:
2154
61
.
56.
Young
LE
,
Sanduja
S
,
Bemis-Standoli
K
,
Pena
EA
,
Price
RL
,
Dixon
DA
. 
The mRNA binding proteins HuR and tristetraprolin regulate cyclooxygenase 2 expression during colon carcinogenesis
.
Gastroenterology
2009
;
136
:
1669
79
.
57.
Frizzell
KM
,
Gamble
MJ
,
Berrocal
JG
,
Zhang
T
,
Krishnakumar
R
,
Cen
Y
, et al
Global analysis of transcriptional regulation by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 and poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells
.
J Biol Chem
2009
;
284
:
33926
38
.
58.
Steffen
JD
,
Brody
JR
,
Armen
RS
,
Pascal
JM
. 
Structural implications for selective targeting of PARPs
.
Front Oncol
2013
;
3
:
301
.
59.
Gagne
JP
,
Isabelle
M
,
Lo
KS
,
Bourassa
S
,
Hendzel
MJ
,
Dawson
VL
, et al
Proteome-wide identification of poly(ADP-ribose) binding proteins and poly(ADP-ribose)-associated protein complexes
.
Nucleic Acids Res
2008
;
36
:
6959
76
.
60.
Jungmichel
S
,
Rosenthal
F
,
Altmeyer
M
,
Lukas
J
,
Hottiger
MO
,
Nielsen
ML
. 
Proteome-wide identification of poly(ADP-Ribosyl)ation targets in different genotoxic stress responses
.
Mol Cell
2013
;
52
:
272
85
.
61.
Zerfaoui
M
,
Errami
Y
,
Naura
AS
,
Suzuki
Y
,
Kim
H
,
Ju
J
, et al
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 is a determining factor in Crm1-mediated nuclear export and retention of p65 NF-kappa B upon TLR4 stimulation
.
J Immunol
2010
;
185
:
1894
902
.
62.
Kanai
M
,
Hanashiro
K
,
Kim
SH
,
Hanai
S
,
Boulares
AH
,
Miwa
M
, et al
Inhibition of Crm1-p53 interaction and nuclear export of p53 by poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation
.
Nat Cell Biol
2007
;
9
:
1175
83
.
63.
Teloni
F
,
Altmeyer
M
. 
Readers of poly(ADP-ribose): designed to be fit for purpose
.
Nucleic Acids Res
2016
;
44
:
993
1006
.
64.
Wu
X
,
Lan
L
,
Wilson
DM
,
Marquez
RT
,
Tsao
WC
,
Gao
P
, et al
Identification and validation of novel small molecule disruptors of HuR-mRNA interaction
.
ACS Chem Biol
2015
;
10
:
1476
84
.
65.
Huang
YH
,
Peng
W
,
Furuuchi
N
,
Gerhart
J
,
Rhodes
K
,
Mukherjee
N
, et al
Delivery of therapeutics targeting the mRNA-binding protein HuR using 3DNA nanocarriers suppresses ovarian tumor growth
.
Cancer Res
2016
;
76
:
1549
59
.

Supplementary data