Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:14:55.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ADP-ribose hydrolases: biological functions and potential therapeutic targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2024

Jingpeng Wang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, P. R. China
Zhao-Qi Wang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, P. R. China Faculty of Biological Sciences, Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena, Jena 07743, Germany
Wen Zong*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, P. R. China
*
Corresponding author: Wen Zong; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ADP-ribosylation (ADPRylation), which encompasses poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation and mono(ADP-ribosyl)ation, is an important post-translational modification catalysed by the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme superfamily. The process involves writers (PARPs) and erasers (ADP-ribose hydrolases), which work together to precisely regulate diverse cellular and molecular responses. Although the PARP-mediated synthesis of ADP-ribose (ADPr) has been well studied, ADPr degradation by degrading enzymes deserves further investigation. Nonetheless, recent studies have provided important new insights into the biology and functions of ADPr hydrolases. Notably, research has illuminated the significance of the poly(ADP-ribose) degradation pathway and its activation by the coordinated actions of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase and other ADPr hydrolases, which have been identified as key components of ADPRylation signalling networks. The degradation pathway has been proposed to play crucial roles in key cellular processes, such as DNA damage repair, chromatin dynamics, transcriptional regulation and cell death. A deep understanding of these ADPr erasing enzymes provides insights into the biological roles of ADPRylation in human health and disease aetiology and paves the road for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. This review article provides a summary of current knowledge about the biochemical and molecular functions of ADPr erasers and their physiological implications in human pathology.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

ADP-ribosylation (hereinafter ADPRylation) is an evolutionarily conserved post-translational modification (PTM) process in which ADP-ribose (ADPr) is transferred from nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) onto specific amino acid residues (Asp, Glu, Arg, Ser, Lys, Cys) of target proteins primarily through the activity of members of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) superfamily (Refs Reference Barkauskaite, Jankevicius and Ahel1, Reference Leidecker2). The mammalian PARP family consists of 17 members which catalyse either mono(ADP-ribosyl)ation (MARylation) or poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation) (Ref. Reference Lüscher3). MARylation, which is catalysed by the mono(ADP-ribosyl) transferases (e.g. PARP3, PARP4, PARP6–12 and PARP14–16), involves the covalent binding of a single ADPr molecule to the target protein. PARylation, which is catalysed by the poly(ADP-ribosyl) transferases (e.g. PARP1, PARP2, PARP5a and PARP5b), connects multiple ADPr molecules to form linear or branched poly-ADPr (PAR) chains (albeit PARP5a and PARP5b do not have branching activity) (Refs Reference Lüscher3Reference Challa, Stokes and Kraus5).

Similar to other transient biological processes, the turnover of ADPRylation relies on both synthesis and degradation mechanisms. Both PAR and mono-ADPr (MAR) modifications on acceptor proteins in response to cellular and extracellular stimuli have been shown to be short-lived (Refs Reference Wielckens6, Reference Wei and Yu7). This rapid turnover underscores the importance of ADPr hydrolases in maintaining tight PAR homeostasis. In vertebrates, the hydrolysis of PAR or MAR is performed by members of two evolutionarily distinct families of ADPr hydrolases: the macrodomains and ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolases (ARHs) (Ref. Reference Rack, Palazzo and Ahel8) (Table 1). A third family of microbial-derived ADPr hydrolases, known as the NADAR superfamily, has no known orthologues in vertebrates (Refs Reference de Souza and Aravind9, Reference Schuller10). The macrodomain family members include macrodomain-containing proteins (MacroD1 and MacroD2), terminal ADP-ribose glycohydrolase (TARG1) and poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG). The ARH family consists of three members (ARH1–ARH3), although ARH2 lacks apparent enzymatic activity (Ref. Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11). The hydrolysis of PAR chains is performed mainly by PARG, whereas the much less-active ARH3 is speculated to serve as a PARG backup for this process (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11Reference Fontana13). By contrast, ARH1 only hydrolyses MAR, mediating the release of ADPr from arginine residues of the target protein (Ref. Reference Moss, Jacobson and Stanley14). MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1 hydrolyse MAR at the glutamate and aspartate residues of the substrate, and TARG1 is also capable of cleaving PAR chains (Refs Reference Rosenthal15, Reference Sharifi16) (Fig. 1).

Table 1. The family of human ADP-ribose hydrolases

Note: Five PARG isoforms have been reported in human and have distinct subcellular localisation. PARG111 is localised in the nucleus, PARG102 and PARG99 are localised in cytoplasm, PARG60 is localised in cytoplasm and mitochondria, PARG55 is localised in mitochondria. The hydrolysis of MAR or PAR by ARH2 has not been demonstrated owing to the absence of critical amino acid residues necessary for enzymatic activity. PAR, poly(ADP-ribose); MAR, mono(ADP-ribose); Macro, microdomain; Ribosyl_crysJ1, ADP-ribosylation/Crystallin J1 fold.

Figure 1. Catabolism of ADP-ribosylation. ADP-ribosylated proteins with bond-specific chemical cleavage sites for each ADP-ribose hydrolase. PARG is the primary poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR)-degrading enzyme, catalysing the glycosidic hydrolysis of the PAR chain. However, it is unable to cleave the last ADP-ribose moiety from mono(ADP-ribosyl)ated proteins. ARH3 catalyses the glycosidic hydrolysis of PAR chains, generating free ADP-ribose and short PAR chains. It also harbours hydrolysing mono(ADP-ribosyl)ation activity, specifically targeting O-linked ADP-ribosylation. ARH1 cleaves mono(ADP-ribosyl)ated substrates modified on arginine residues. MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1 hydrolyse mono(ADP-ribose) on the aspartate and glutamate residues of target proteins, and TARG1 can also cleave PAR chains.

ADPRylation homeostasis is vital for ensuring normal cellular activities. PAR metabolism has been well studied, mainly through research on the biological functions of PARPs and their inhibitors (PARPi), with great progress made in clinical applications of the latter (Ref. Reference Slade17). Nevertheless, mounting evidence suggests that regulated MARylation also contributes to a wide range of cellular events, including endoplasmic reticulum and genotoxic stress, cellular metabolism and infection (Ref. Reference Bütepage18). Because many informative excellent review articles have already focused on the functions of ADPr-synthesising protein families (Refs Reference Zong19Reference Wang, Luo and Wang24), we instead summarise herein recent findings on the roles of several ADPr hydrolases (PARG, ARH1, ARH3, MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1) in biochemical and physiological processes as well as the progress made in developing their corresponding inhibitors as potential pharmaceutical interventions.

Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase

Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG), originally identified in a calf thymus nuclear preparation (Ref. Reference Miwa and Sugimura25), is the primary hydrolase involved in PAR chain degradation, being 1–2 orders of magnitude more active than ARH3 in this regard (Ref. Reference Prokhorova26). In mice, a single gene encodes two main PARG isoforms: 60 kDa (localised in the cytoplasm and mitochondria) and 110 kDa (in the nucleus) (Refs Reference Lin27Reference Meyer29). By contrast, humans have five PARG isoforms: 55 kDa (in the mitochondria), 60 kDa (in the cytoplasm and mitochondria), 99 kDa (in the cytoplasm), 102 kDa (in the cytoplasm) and 111 kDa (in the nucleus) (Refs Reference Meyer29Reference Whatcott32) (Table 1). The large human PARG isoforms (99, 102 and 111 kDa) are known to be yielded through alternative splicing (Ref. Reference Meyer-Ficca30), whereas it remains unclear whether the short PARGs (55 and 60 kDa) result from degradation of the 111 kDa protein or alternative splicing.

In both humans and mice, the PARG gene consists of 18 exons. The full-length PARG protein comprises a putative regulatory domain (1–426 amino acids, encoded by exons 1–3) at the N-terminus and a conservative catalytic domain (486–838 amino acids, encoded by exons 9–14) at the C-terminus (Refs Reference Meyer29, Reference Min and Wang31) (Fig. 2). One study found that the existence of a mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS) is the basis to ensure the catalytic activity of PARG, since the mutation of hydrophobic leucine residues in this element led to inactivation of the 59 and 111 kDa isoforms (albeit the specific mechanism behind this is unknown) (Ref. Reference Botta and Jacobson33). In human PARG, two primary α-helical sub-domains flanking a twisted, mixed, 10-stranded β-sheet core are arranged to form a central cleft above the β-sheet in the catalytic domain, whereas in the mouse, the enzyme has one mixed nine-stranded β-sheet (Refs Reference Tucker34, Reference Wang35). The deep cleft is the main ADPr-binding site and catalytic centre. After PARG binds to ADPr, the adjacent β 12α 10 loop moves in a concerted manner near the binding site, and the Phe-902 side chain rotates to stack against the adenine moiety, which is secured by a network of direct and water molecule-mediated hydrogen bonds (Ref. Reference Tucker34). Glu-755 and Glu-756 (Glu-748 and Glu-749 in mice; Glu-114 and Glu-115 in bacteria) are the key catalytic residues (Refs Reference Tucker34Reference Slade37). The critical ribose–ribose O-glycosidic linkage at the PAR terminal position is in direct hydrogen-bond contact with Glu-756, which then protonates the ribose' 2′-OH leaving group (Refs Reference Tucker34, Reference Slade37). A tightly bound water molecule, positioned by interactions with Glu-755 and Asp-737, is activated through the concomitant protonation by Glu-756 and attacks the oxocarbenium intermediate, resulting in the release of ADPr and short unbranched PAR chains (Refs Reference Tucker34, Reference Slade37).

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of human ADP-ribose hydrolases. The hydrolytic domains are Macro (macrodomain) and Ribosyl_crysJ1 (ADP-ribosylation/Crystallin J1 fold). No reports related ARH2 structure has been published. The N-terminal putative regulatory domain of PARG consists of two nuclear localisation signals (NLSs) and two nuclear export signals (NESs). The catalytic C-terminal domain contains one mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS), one NES and one NLS. The N-terminal region of MacroD1 also contains one MTS.

Biological function of PARG

Importance for animal development

PARG is the most well studied of the ADPr hydrolases. Its complete absence resulted in the death of Drosophila melanogaster larvae at the normal incubation temperature of 25 °C (Ref. Reference Hanai38). When the developmental temperature was increased to 29 °C, 25% of the mutants were able to develop into adulthood, albeit they only survived for approximately two weeks compared with the more than 1 month survival time of wild-type flies (Ref. Reference Hanai38). These surviving flies showed excessive PAR accumulation in the central nervous system as well as progressive neurodegeneration with reduced locomotor activity (Ref. Reference Hanai38), indicating the importance of PARG-mediated PAR degradation in the nervous system. Additionally, the phosphorylation of PARG by casein kinase 2 affected Drosophila larval development, with the loss of PARG phosphorylation reducing insect survival from the egg to adult stages (Ref. Reference Bordet, Kotova and Tulin39). In mice, the deletion of all PARG isoforms resulted in early embryonic lethality, with blastocytes accumulating PAR and subsequently dying (Refs Reference Chen40, Reference Koh41). Although the deletion of PARP1 partially rescued the PARG-deficient embryos, Parg/Parp1 double-knockout mice which survived postnatally exhibited growth retardation and severe kidney failure and died within 3 months of birth (Ref. Reference Chen40), indicating an essential role of ADPRylation homeostasis under the physiological status. However, the promoter sequence of the translocase of inner mitochondrial membrane 23 (Timm23) gene was additionally deleted in this Parg-knockout mice, thus reducing Timm23 expression (Ref. Reference Chen40). Therefore, whether the kidney failure was caused by PARylation imbalance or Timm23 disruption remains unclear. Interestingly, hypomorphic mutant mice lacking the 110 kDa PARG isoform are viable and fertile, suggesting that the 60 kDa isoform may sufficiently compensate for PARG activity in essential processes (Ref. Reference Cortes28). These studies indicate that PARG activity is essential for the development of organisms.

Gametogenesis

Two isoforms of PARG (60 and 110 kDa) are present in rat germinal cells, with the 110 kDa protein being predominantly present and active in the nuclear fraction of primary spermatocytes and the 60 kDa isoform abundant in the cytoplasmic fraction of round sperm cells (Ref. Reference Di Meglio42). The different intracellular distributions of the PARG isoforms indicate their possible roles in meiosis and post-meiosis. Loss of 110 kDa PARG resulted in decreased fertility in mice and reduced chromatin integrity in their sperm cells, although it did not affect sperm motility (Ref. Reference Meyer-Ficca43). In germ cells of Caenorhabditis elegans, depletion of PARG2 (the orthologue of mammalian PARG) rendered the cells sensitive to ionising radiation and induced the over-expression of exonuclease 1 (EXO1) after DNA double-strand break (DSB) formation, leading to excessive end resection at the DSBs (Ref. Reference Bae44). The resultant DNA intermediates with a long stretch of single-stranded DNA could not be processed by homologous recombination (HR), the main DSB repair pathway. The repair of DNA intermediates through the highly error-prone alternative end-joining pathway likely caused the high embryonic death rate after ionising radiation treatment (Ref. Reference Bae44). PARG1, another C. elegans orthologue of mammalian PARG, promotes meiotic DSB formation and repair in a manner independent of its catalytic activity, ensuring the correct progression of germ cells (Ref. Reference Janisiw45). The simultaneous depletion of PARG1 and the E3 ubiquitin ligase BRC1 resulted in decreased crossover formation and impaired DNA repair, leading to gamete death (Ref. Reference Trivedi, Blazícková and Silva46). These findings indicate the role of PARG in the repair of DSBs, which are essential for spermatogenesis or general gametogenesis. Moreover, in Drosophila, the phosphorylation of PARG regulates the differentiation of germline stem cells into cystoblasts (Ref. Reference Bordet, Kotova and Tulin39). Taken together, these results identify the critical role of PARG in spermatogenesis or germ cell development as well as the reproductive process.

Stress response and cell death

Because excessive PAR accumulation can cause cell death, PARP1/2-mediated PARylation is a transient process, being eliminated by PARG in a short period (Ref. Reference Wei and Yu7). The loss of PARG was shown to cause defects in the repair of single- and double-strand breaks and increase the radiosensitivity of the cells (Ref. Reference Amé47). At the same time, the irradiated PARG-deficient cells exhibited centrosome expansion and mitotic defects, which induced polyploidy or cell death (Ref. Reference Amé47). In embryonic trophoblasts, the lack of PARG caused compromised cell proliferation, PAR accumulation of histones, sensitivity to DNA damage agents and increased cell death (Refs Reference Koh41, Reference Zhou, Feng and Koh48). Low PARG activity in neuronal cells also increased their death and sensitivity to N-methyl-D-aspartate, an excitotoxic inducer for neurons (Refs Reference Andrabi49, Reference Mandir50). Hypomorphic mutation of PARG (i.e. lacking the 110 kDa isoform) rendered mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) hypersensitive to the DNA damage agents N-methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine and Adriamycin and increased their susceptibility to death (Refs Reference Gao51, Reference Min52). The absence of PARG results in the excessive accumulation of PAR, which can lead to parthanatos, a cell death process that occurs when PAR binds to apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) on the cytosolic side of the mitochondrial outer membrane, thereby interrupting binding of the factor to the mitochondria, which is lethal (Refs Reference Yu53Reference Harraz, Dawson and Dawson56). Unlike traditional apoptosis, parthanatos does not involve caspase activation or the formation of typical apoptotic bodies (Ref. Reference Harraz, Dawson and Dawson56). Instead, the process relies on PAR and is hyper-stimulated by the release of AIF from mitochondria to elicit nuclear DNA cleavage (Refs Reference Yu55, Reference Zhou, Feng and Koh57, Reference Susin58).

Tumour development

PARG is overexpressed in various malignant diseases, such as hepatocellular carcinoma and cancers of the oesophagus, endometrium, colon and rectum, and ovaries (Refs Reference Yu59Reference Matanes63). The enzyme can promote cancer cell proliferation and metastasis (Refs Reference Yu59, Reference Yan60). Mechanistically, PARG dePARylates damage-specific DNA binding protein 1 (DDB1), thereby up-regulating its auto-ubiquitination and decreasing its stability in hepatocellular carcinoma cells (Ref. Reference Yu59). DDB1 acts as a component of the E3 ubiquitin ligase complex to ubiquitinate Myc for degradation (Ref. Reference Choi64). The presence of PARG indirectly stabilises Myc and promotes cancer cell proliferation (Ref. Reference Yu59). In cancerous oesophageal cells, PARG promotes disease progression through activation of the WNT/β-catenin signalling pathway; however, the exact molecular mechanism involved remains unclear (Ref. Reference Yan60). The O-GlcNAcylation of PARG results in its destabilisation and reduces DDB1 dePARylation, which decreases c-Myc protein levels, ultimately inhibiting tumour growth (Ref. Reference Li65). Moreover, in the presence of PARPi, PARG knockdown significantly induced G2/M cell cycle arrest and cell death (Ref. Reference Matanes63). Simultaneous PARG knockdown and PARP inhibition suppressed the liver metastatic potency of colon carcinoma cells by inhibiting the expression of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) and activating the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) signalling pathway (Refs Reference Li66, Reference Wang67).

During DNA replication, unligated Okazaki fragments activate PARP1 to generate endogenous S-phase PAR (Ref. Reference Hanzlikova68). PARG must remove these PAR molecules to ensure proper cell cycle progression, as failure to do so will cause DNA damage and cell death (Ref. Reference Nie69). PARG inhibition leads to the collapse of replication forks in the absence of HR proteins and thereby induces cell death (Refs Reference Fathers70, Reference Gravells71). These findings imply that PARG could be a potential target molecule for treating tumours deficient in HR-mediated repair. However, several reports have shown that the presence of PARG can restrict the growth of tumours and delay their onset (Refs Reference Johnson72, Reference Molloy-Simard73), suggesting that PARG has diverse roles depending on the specific cell type or the physiological status of the cells. Therefore, elucidation of the molecular mechanism of PARG in tumourigenesis should provide powerful theoretical support for the use of PARG inhibitors (PARGi) as cancer therapeutics.

ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase

The ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase (ARH) family is an evolutionarily highly conserved structural module, adopting a predominantly α-orthogonal bundle architecture, typically consisting of 290–360 residues (Ref. Reference Ishiwata-Endo74). The protein family was first discovered in Rhodospirillum rubrum, where the activating factor dinitrogenase reductase-activating glycohydrolase (DraG) was found to reverse dinitrogenase reductase (Fe-protein), an inhibitor of Arg-ADPRylation (Ref. Reference Ludden and Burris75). Subsequently, a similar enzyme with comparable properties, designated ARH1, was identified in animal cells (Ref. Reference Moss, Jacobson and Stanley14).

Although the three members (ARH1, ARH2 and ARH3) of the ARH family exhibit significant amino acid sequence similarity (Refs Reference Rack, Palazzo and Ahel8, Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11, Reference Glowacki76), ARH1 and ARH3 display distinct substrate specificities: ARH1 cleaves MARylated substrates modified on Arg residues (Ref. Reference Moss77), whereas ARH3 hydrolyses PAR and O-acetyl-ADPr (OAADPr) as well as serine-linked MARylation (Ser-ADPr) (Refs Reference Fontana13, Reference Mueller-Dieckmann78Reference Kasamatsu80) (Fig. 1, Table 1). By contrast, ARH2 has not been shown to hydrolyse MAR or PAR, because it lacks the amino acid residues critical for enzymatic activity, which are conserved in both ARH1 and ARH3 (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11, Reference Bu, Kato and Moss81, Reference Smith82).

ARH1

ARH1, the first ARH family member discovered, was initially isolated from turkey erythrocytes in 1988 and subsequently identified in human, rat and mouse tissues (Refs Reference Moss77, Reference Moss83). As a widely expressed cytoplasmic protein, ARH1 is an Arg-MAR hydrolase, meaning that it hydrolyses the N-glycosidic bond between ADPr and the Arg guanidino group, thereby releasing ADPr from Arg residue (Ref. Reference Moss77) (Table 1). Human ARH1 is a 357-amino-acid protein (Ref. Reference Moss83) (Fig. 2). Its crystal structure in complex with ADP and K+ shows α-helical protein folds consisting of four helical bundle sub-domains (Refs Reference Karlberg84, Reference Kernstock85). The enzymatic activities of the rat, mouse and turkey ARH1 molecules are enhanced by dithiothreitol and Mg2+, whereas human ARH1 is dithiothreitol independent (Ref. Reference Takada, Iida and Moss86). Mg2+ is crucial for ARH1 activity, as it helps to properly position the substrate at the catalytic site (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11, Reference Rack87). Substituting Asp-60 or Asp-61 with Ala, Gln or Asn notably decreased the hydrolase activity of ARH1, indicating the critical role of these amino acid residues at the active site (Ref. Reference Konczalik and Moss88).

Kato et al. (Ref. Reference Kato89) found that although Arh1-knockout (Arh1 –/–) mice were viable, they developed various tumours and were susceptible to Vibrio cholerae infections. Moreover, Arh1 deletion in MEFs and tissues enhanced the sensitivity of the cells and mice to cholera toxin by abolishing the hydrolysis of the endogenously Arg-ADPr-modified α-subunit of the intestinal Gs protein (Gsα), indicating the crucial role of ARH1 as the primary Arg-specific hydrolase involved in dePARylation (Ref. Reference Kato89). Additionally, the intestinal mucosa in Arh1 –/– mice showed a pathological response with an elevated efflux of fluid and electrolytes (Refs Reference Kato89, Reference Watanabe90). Arh1 –/– and Arh1 +/– mice are prone to various tumour types, including carcinomas, sarcomas and lymphomas, likely because of accelerated cell proliferation caused by a shortened G1 phase (Ref. Reference Kato91). Changes in the endogenous oestrogen level in Arh1 –/– mice appear to be important for lung tumourigenesis, showcasing a gender-specific phenotype (Ref. Reference Shim92). Furthermore, although the exact mechanism of tumourigenesis in Arh1-deficient mice remains largely unknown, the high tumour susceptibility of heterozygous Arh1 +/– mice highlights the haploinsufficiency of the remaining Arh1 allele, affecting Arg-MAR hydrolase activity (Refs Reference Kato91, Reference Kato93). Other phenotypic observations in Arh1-knockout mice include age- and gender-dependent cardiomyopathy characterised by decreased cardiac contractility (Ref. Reference Ishiwata-Endo94). In summary, ARH1 plays a key role in intracellular signal transduction, tumourigenesis and cholera toxin susceptibility, highlighting its significance in cellular functions and disease processes. However, the molecular mechanisms behind these pathological changes remain to be elucidated.

ARH3

ARH3, a conserved ARH member, is found in various eukaryotes but missing in some eukaryotic taxa, such as the Nematoda, Lepidoptera and most Diptera (including all Drosophila species) (Ref. Reference Fontana95). It is widely expressed in many tissues and cells of humans and mice (Ref. Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11), being found in the cytoplasm (65%) (Refs Reference Niere96, Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss97); the mitochondrial matrix (25%), where its presence depends on an MTS (Refs Reference Niere96, Reference Niere98); and the nucleus (10%), despite lacking a nuclear localisation signal (Ref. Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss97) (Table 1). The nuclear presence of ARH3 may vary depending on the cell type, because it has been observed in mouse brain tissue and MEFs but not in HepG2 cells (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11, Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss97). Nonetheless, ARH3 may participate in the regulation of mitochondrial functions involving sirtuin (SIRT) 3, SIRT4 and SIRT5, given that these enzymes are located in the mitochondrial matrix and conduct NAD+-dependent deacetylase activity, generating OAADPr (Ref. Reference Haigis and Guarente99).

Human ARH3 has 40% sequence similarity and 20% identity with human ARH1 (Ref. Reference Mashimo and Moss100). However, unlike ARH1, which cleaves only MARylated residues, ARH3 can degrade long PAR polymers, cleaving the Ser-ADPr linkage, and also hydrolyse OAADPr (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11Reference Fontana13). The ARH3 gene, which comprises 6 exons, encodes a 363-amino-acid protein that includes a predicted N-terminal MTS (Refs Reference Mueller-Dieckmann78, Reference Niere98) (Fig. 2). Mueller-Dieckmann et al. (Ref. Reference Mueller-Dieckmann78) determined the crystal structure of ARH3 (with a 16-amino-acid truncation at the N terminus), in the presence and absence of ADP, at a resolution of 1.6 angstroms and found that the enzyme has an all-α-helical fold form, with the active-site crevice flanked by two Mg2+ ions surrounded by highly conserved amino acids. ARH3-catalysed reactions are significantly stimulated by Mg2+ and enhanced by dithiothreitol (Refs Reference Ono79, Reference Kasamatsu80, Reference Rack87). A conformational change in the Glu-41-containing flap motif of ARH3 enables specific substrate recognition and cleavage (Ref. Reference Pourfarjam101). Asp-77 and Asp-78 mutations in ARH3 abolish its ADPr hydrolase activity but do not affect its binding to ADPr (Ref. Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11). Likewise, Gly-115, Ser-148, Tyr-149, His-182, Asp-314 and Thr-317 mutations abolish the enzyme's ability to hydrolyse ADP-ribosylated substrates (Ref. Reference Abplanalp12). Human ARH3 exhibits a micromolar affinity for free ADPr and efficiently conducts deADPRylation of PARylated but not MARylated proteins (Ref. Reference Mueller-Dieckmann78). The activities of both ARH1 and ARH3 are inhibited by ADPr (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11, Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss102). Additionally, ARH3 is inhibited by ADP-(hydroxymethyl) pyrrolidinediol (ADP-HPD) (Ref. Reference Rack87). Although ARH1 and ARH3 share high structural similarity, they exhibit different modes of ligand binding. The elucidation of their structures has provided insights into their observed selectivity of α-1100-linked substrates (Ref. Reference Rack87).

PARG is the primary enzyme responsible for breaking down PAR chains, hydrolysing both endo- and exo-glycosidic bonds, whereas ARH3 is unable to cleave branched PAR chains and instead catalyses the exo-glycosidic hydrolysis of linear PAR forms, generating free ADPr molecules and short PAR chains (Refs Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss102, Reference Rack103). As ARH3 and PARG are the main members of PAR-degrading enzymes, their simultaneous inhibition causes cell death owing to the excessive accumulation of PAR and PARylated proteins that may disturb cellular activities (Ref. Reference Prokhorova26). Additionally, the loss of either PARG or ARH3 increases cellular resistance to PARPi. In the presence of PARPi, PARG deletion reduces PARP1–DNA complex formation, prevents unrestricted replication fork progression and partially rescues recruitment of the scaffold protein X-ray repair cross complementing 1 to sites of DNA damage, thereby leading to a reduction in PARPi-induced DNA damage and cell death (Ref. Reference Gogola104). Although the feasibility of ARH3 loss as a PARPi-resistant mechanism remains unclear, PARPi have therapeutic potential for treating neurodegeneration caused by ARH3 deficiency (Ref. Reference Prokhorova26). Because ARH3 exhibits less than 10% of the catalytic activity of PARG, it possibly acts as a backup for PARG to remove the excessive PAR moieties that are produced under stress conditions (Refs Reference Oka, Kato and Moss11Reference Fontana13). The Ser-ADPRylation catalysed by the cooperative activities of PARP1/2 and histone PARylation factor 1 is the primary form of ADPRylation in the DNA damage response (DDR) of cells (Refs Reference Fontana13, Reference Bonfiglio105). Therefore, as the only enzyme that can specifically hydrolyse Ser-ADPr, ARH3 plays an important role in DNA repair.

Arh3 –/– mutant mice are viable but susceptible to cerebral ischaemia reperfusion (Ref. Reference Mashimo106). Interestingly, in the absence of both ARH3 and PARG, PAR accumulates, which in turn promotes parthanatos (Refs Reference Zhou, Feng and Koh57, Reference Mashimo, Kato and Moss97). Thus, collaboration of these two PAR erasers is important for regulating the cell response to oxidative stress-mediated parthanatos. This is consistent with the observation that ARH3-deficient mice appeared to be normal under physiological conditions until environmental stress insults were encountered, which is in contrast to a total loss of PARG leading to embryonic death (Refs Reference Koh41, Reference Mashimo106). The distinct functions of ARH3 and PARG perhaps rely on their sub-cellular localisations, PARylated substrates (amino acid residues), stressors and cell-type specificity. ARH3 deficiency is associated with neurological degeneration in humans (Ref. Reference Ishiwata-Endo74). The enzyme plays a critical role in preventing stress-induced PARP1-dependent neuronal cell death through its PAR-degrading activity, which correlates with the clinical presentation of ARH3-deficient individuals, whose phenotypes appear to be induced by environmental stress (Refs Reference Mashimo106Reference Danhauser111). These observations indicate that ARH3 likely participates in an important regulatory pathway to prevent parthanatos in neurons by maintaining PAR homeostasis.

Macrodomain-containing proteins MacroD1 and MacroD2

The macrodomain fold, which is a compact globular-shaped structure of approximately 25 kDa size, is widely distributed among all life forms (including viruses) and evolutionarily conserved (Ref. Reference O'Sullivan112). It is present in MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1, which possess the ability to hydrolyse MAR from proteins (Ref. Reference Schuhwerk113). In humans, MacroD1 and MacroD2 are highly similar members of the MacroD-type class. Although both were initially identified as deacetylases of OAADPr (Ref. Reference Chen114), they were later found to hydrolyse MAR, specifically targeting the ester bond formed by ADP-ribosylated Asp/Glu residues (Refs Reference Rosenthal15, Reference Jankevicius115) (Fig. 1). MacroD1 is predominantly localised to the mitochondrial matrix (Refs Reference Neuvonen and Ahola116, Reference Agnew117), whereas MacroD2 is distributed in the cytosol and nucleus (Refs Reference Jankevicius115, Reference Golia118) (Table 1). The mRNA of MacroD1 is expressed in various tissues, with a high level in skeletal muscle (Ref. Reference Žaja119), whereas the mRNA of MacroD2 is expressed in multiple tissues during the embryonic period, including the liver, brain, lung, thymus, heart, kidney, etc., highly expressed in the brain neurons at embryonic and adult stage (Refs Reference Ito120, Reference Nicole121). According to these reports, the distinct localisation of the macrodomain proteins suggests that they have unique roles to play, despite their structural similarities.

The approximately 35 kDa MacroD1 protein is encoded by 11 exons. Analysis of its crystal structure revealed that it comprises an N-terminal region (91–136 amino acids, encoded by exons 1–3), a macrodomain region (151–322 amino acids, encoded by exons 3–9) (Ref. Reference Chen114) and an MTS (1–85 amino acids, encoded by exon 1) (Ref. Reference Jankevicius115) (Fig. 2). MacroD2 is an approximately 47 kDa protein that is encoded by 17 exons. Similar to MacroD1, the crystal structure of MacroD2 constitutes an N-terminal region (7–47 amino acids, encoded by exons 1–2) and a macrodomain region (78–228 amino acids, encoded by exons 3–9) (Ref. Reference Wazir, Maksimainen and Lehtio122). In both MacroD1 and MacroD2, the N-terminal region is arranged as helical segments and a short β-sheet, while the macrodomain region resembles a canonical macrodomain fold, being composed of a three-layered αβα sandwich with a central six-stranded β-sheet (Refs Reference Chen114, Reference Wazir, Maksimainen and Lehtio122, Reference Yang123). MacroD1 and MacroD2 have similar catalytic mechanisms for mediating ADPr hydrolysis. Upon either enzyme binding to ADPr, structural re-arrangement occurs to ensure the correct positioning of the substrate (Refs Reference Jankevicius115, Reference Wazir, Maksimainen and Lehtio122, Reference Yang123). Meanwhile, the hydrogen bond network formed among water molecules, ADPr α-phosphates and other elements is responsible for the precise positioning of water molecule in the catalytic pocket (Ref. Reference Yang123). Then, ADPr α-phosphates activate the water molecule, allowing it to make a nucleophilic attack on the distal ribose C1" atom of ADPr, thereby cleaving the glycosidic bond between this atom and the acceptor Asp/Glu residue (Refs Reference Jankevicius115, Reference Yang123).

MacroD1, also known as leukaemia-related protein 16, is primarily localised in the mitochondrial matrix (Ref. Reference Žaja119). Nonetheless, it has been associated with several nuclear functions, including the activation of NF-κB signalling, binding and regulation of oestrogen and androgen receptors, and counteracting of PARP7-mediated MARylation (Refs Reference Wu124Reference Bindesbøll127). MacroD1 has also been proposed as a negative regulator of the insulin signalling pathway through its down-regulation of insulin receptor substrate protein 1 (Ref. Reference Zang128). Additionally, MacroD1 expression and gene fusions have been implicated in the tumourigenesis of leukaemia and breast, gastric, liver, lung and colorectal cancers (Refs Reference Imagama129Reference Hertweck132). Crawford et al. (Ref. Reference Crawford133) reported that Macrod1-knockout mice were viable and fertile but exhibited a female-specific motor coordination defect. Loss of MacroD1 in rhabdomyosarcoma cells resulted in mitochondrial fragmentation (Ref. Reference Žaja119). MacroD2 has been shown to undergo phosphorylation by ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated kinase in response to DNA DSBs and to be involved in reversing the ADPRylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta, a key kinase in the WNT-mediated signal transduction pathway (Refs Reference Golia118, Reference Feijs134). However, the role of MacroD1 in DNA damage repair has yet to be fully elucidated.

MacroD2 is highly expressed in neuronal tissues and cells, which supports the observation that its mutation leads to a neurodegenerative phenotype (Refs Reference Lombardo135, Reference Jones136). The Macrod2 gene locus is linked to several neurological syndromes (e.g. autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia), which correlates with the notable expression of the protein in neurons during brain development (Ref. Reference Ito120). According to Crawford et al. (Ref. Reference Crawford133), Macrod2-knockout mice exhibited age-dependent hyperactivity along with a gait resembling bradykinesia, but neither Macrod1- nor Macrod2-knockout mice showed any defects in short-term working memory or attention span.

Terminal ADP-ribose glycohydrolase

Terminal ADP-ribose glycohydrolase (TARG1), also called O-acyl-ADP-ribose deacylase 1 (OARD1), which has been well characterised as an enzyme that hydrolyses MARylation, is ubiquitously expressed in various tissues and found in both the nucleus and cytoplasm, with high levels in the nucleolus (Ref. Reference Žaja119). It was initially found to be enriched in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia cells and subsequently demonstrated to possess deacylation activity, producing free ADPr from OAADPr, OPADPr (O-propionyl-ADPr) and OBADPr (O-butyryl-ADPr) deacylation (Refs Reference Marina137, Reference Peterson138). Additionally, TARG1 has been reported to remove ADPr units from MARylated PARP1, which is auto-modified at the Asp/Glu residues (Ref. Reference Sharifi16) (Fig. 1, Table 1).

The approximately 17 kDa TARG1 protein, which is encoded by 8 exons, consists of a macrodomain (1–152 amino acids, encoded by exons 4–8) that contains only the core domain and lacks the N- and C-terminal extension structures common in other macrodomains (Ref. Reference Peterson138) (Fig. 2). Similar to other macrodomains, the TARG1 macrodomain consists of a three-layer αβα sandwich containing a six-stranded β-sheet flanked by four α-helical elements (Refs Reference Sharifi16, Reference Peterson138). A hydrophobic pocket that can embed an adenosine moiety is formed by Leu-21 and Phe-22 on the β 1β 2 loop, Ile-44 and Leu-47 on the β 2α 1 loop, and Pro-118, Tyr-150 and the C-terminal Leu-152 residue (Ref. Reference Peterson138). The active centre located in the vicinity of the distal ribose is composed of Ser-35, Lys-84 and Asp-125 (Refs Reference Sharifi16, Reference Peterson138). The hydroxyl group of Ser-35 forms a hydrogen bond with the carbonyl oxygen of an ester, polarising the carbonyl bond (Ref. Reference Peterson138). Lys-84 forms a covalent intermediate with ADPr through the Amadori re-arrangement mechanism, following which Asp-125 hydrolysis and ADPr release ensue (Ref. Reference Sharifi16).

Because research on TARG1 is still in its infancy, the physiological role of this enzyme in organisms remains largely unknown. TARG1 deficiency caused the senescence of U2OS and 293T cells and decreased the proliferation of 293T but not HeLa cells (Refs Reference Sharifi16, Reference Bütepage139). TARG1 is enriched in the nucleolus, where its loss leads to an increase in the number of nucleoli and hyper-active transcription (Ref. Reference Žaja119), implying its importance in nucleolar homeostasis and function. Moreover, it can shuttle rapidly between the nucleoplasmic and nucleolar compartments (Ref. Reference Bütepage139). When DNA damage occurs, TARG1 moves quickly from the nucleolus into the nucleoplasm where it interacts with the PAR units enriched at the DNA damage site. The deletion of TARG1 rendered cells sensitive to DNA damage agents, topoisomerase II and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) inhibition and also damaged HR repair (Refs Reference Sharifi16, Reference Bütepage139, Reference Groslambert140), suggesting that the enzyme is involved in DNA repair. TARG1 mutations which result in truncated proteins without catalytic activity have been reported to cause neurodegeneration in humans (Ref. Reference Sharifi16). Whether this is due to the cytotoxicity of the truncated protein or an imbalance of MARylation remains unclear. Given these findings, the molecular mechanism underlying the roles of TARG1 in nucleolar homeostasis and the DDR remains to be studied.

ADPRylation occurs not only in proteins but also in DNA and RNA (Refs Reference Matta141Reference Talhaoui144). DNA ADP-ribosyl transferase (DarT), a DNA-modifying PARP-like bacterial toxin, can be released by bacteria into human host cells where it targets single-stranded DNA during DNA replication to induce DNA ADPRylation, thereby triggering the DDR (Refs Reference Tromans-Coia145Reference Cohen and Chang147). One study found that TARG1 could eliminate the toxic DNA ADPRylation induced by ectopic DarT expression in host cells, thereby ensuring normal cell proliferation (Ref. Reference Tromans-Coia145). This finding suggests that TARG1 plays a protective role against bacterial toxins analogous to DarT, similar to the effect of ARH1 against cholera toxin (Ref. Reference Kato89). In ovarian cancer cells, the PARP14-mediated site-specific MARylation of receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) promoted the assembly of stress granules in response to external stimuli (Ref. Reference Challa148). RACK1 is a scaffold protein of the 40S ribosome subunit and an essential member of stress granules (Refs Reference Buchan and Parker149, Reference Rabl150). TARG1 erases MARylation and dissociates RACK1 from stress granules (Ref. Reference Challa148), implying that it may serve as a potential molecular target for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1 are the most extensively characterised macrodomain-containing hydrolases. Although they belong to the same family and hydrolyse MAR, they target different substrates through distinct molecular mechanisms (Ref. Reference Barkauskaite, Jankevicius and Ahel1). The physiological functions of these three enzymes remain elusive, and further research is necessary to comprehend their precise role in MAR hydrolysis. For instance, the nuclear function of MacroD1 and the reason behind its predominantly mitochondrial localisation warrant further study. Additional much-needed investigations include whether these enzymes exhibit substrate specificity, which depends on different MARylation sites and the physiological status of the cells and tissues.

Inhibitors of PAR hydrolases

PARylation and ADPr metabolism play fundamental roles in DNA repair to maintain genome stability, and the targeting of PARylation synthesizing PARP enzymes within this pathway has shown therapeutic potential (Ref. Reference Zong19). Various PARPi have been developed for cancer treatment, with olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib already approved for clinical use against specific tumour types (Refs Reference Slade17, Reference Lord and Ashworth151, Reference Zeng152). Recently, PARGi have also generated immense interest in relation to the pharmacological intervention of different maladies and emerged as promising targets for a variety of cancers and other diseases (Refs Reference Min and Wang31, Reference Kassab, Yu and Yu153Reference Pillay158).

Proflavine, ethacridine, ellipticine, daunomycin and tilorone, which are all DNA intercalators, were found to inhibit PARG activity, which may be indirectly caused by their insertion into the DNA molecule, resulting in the release of inhibitory histones (Ref. Reference Tavassoli, Tavassoli and Shall159). However, owing to the high cytotoxicity of these DNA intercalators, a second generation of PARGi based on tilorone (viz. GPI16552 and GPI18214) were developed. GPI16552 significantly reduced the cerebral infarction volume in a rat model of focal cerebral ischaemia and attenuated the inflammatory response and tissue damage caused by spinal cord trauma (Refs Reference Lu160, Reference Cuzzocrea161). Treatment with GPI18214 attenuated zymosan-induced multiple organ failure in mice, reducing peritonitis in the animals as well as their mortality rate (Ref. Reference Genovese162). GPI16552 and GPI18214 can mitigate splanchnic artery occlusion as well as reperfusion- and dinitrobenzene sulphonic acid-induced intestinal injury (Refs Reference Cuzzocrea163, Reference Cuzzocrea164). PARG inhibition significantly reduces the expression of the pro-inflammatory cytokines tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) and interleukin 1 beta (IL1β) as well as neutrophil infiltration (Refs Reference Cuzzocrea161, Reference Genovese162, Reference Cuzzocrea164), which account for the protective effect of PARGi.

Tannins, particularly gallotannins and ellagitannins, are naturally occurring polyphenol compounds with PARG-inhibiting activity, which is mediated through their competitive binding to PAR with PARG (Ref. Reference Tsai165). With regard to the oligomeric forms of ellagitannin, the dimer nobotanin B exhibits stronger PARG inhibitory activity than the trimer nobotanin E and the tetramer nobotanin K (Ref. Reference Tsai165). Gallotannins and nobotanin B significantly reduce the oxidative death of astrocytes and neurons by accumulating PAR and thus slowing its turnover, thereby blocking PARP1-mediated cell death (Ref. Reference Ying166). PARG inhibition by gallotannin decreased ischaemic brain damage and significantly ameliorated infarct formation and neurological deficits in rats (Ref. Reference Wei167), indicating that PARGi have a neuroprotective function. Galloyl-glucose derivatives based on gallotannin have potent PARG inhibitory activity, albeit with low cell permeability, reducing PARP1-dependent cell death to some extent (Ref. Reference Formentini168). ADP-HPD is an amino-ribose analogue of ADPr, in which half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) reaches the nanomolar grade (Ref. Reference Slama169). However, because of its low cell permeability, it is mostly used in in vitro studies to elucidate the structure and catalytic activity of PARG. Pargamicin, a cyclic peptide isolated from an Amycolatopsis sp. fermentation product, has weak PARG inhibitory activity (Ref. Reference Masutani170). With the advancement of identification methods, a series of PARGi xanthene compounds (Eosin Y and Phloxin B) (Ref. Reference Okita171), salicylanilide (Ref. Reference Steffen172), RBPIs (rhodanine-based PARGi) (Ref. Reference Finch173) and phenolic hydrazide hydrazones (Ref. Reference Islam174) with IC50 values in the micromolar range have been reported. Recently, newly developed quinazolinedione sulphonamides (PDD00017273 and PDD00017238) and a thio-xanthine/methylxanthine derivative (JA2131) have achieved PARG inhibitory activity comparable to that of ADP-HPD (Refs Reference James175Reference Houl177). PDD00017273 is effective against pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells carrying the BRCA2 mutation but has no effect on breast cancer cell lines with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (Refs Reference James175, Reference Jain178), implying that its PARG inhibitory effect is potent for only certain types of cancer. JA2131 inhibits PARG activity by binding to the enzyme's adenine-binding pocket, thereby killing cancer cells by promoting PAR accumulation and γH2AX foci in the nucleus (Ref. Reference Houl177). COH34, a small molecule with anti-tumour effects, can bind specifically to PARG to inhibit its activity at sub-nanomolar concentrations, resulting in extended PARylation, which blocks DNA repair and inhibits the growth of cancer cells with DNA repair defects (Ref. Reference Chen and Yu179). Recently, the company IDEAYA Biosciences has conducted a clinical trial of PARGi for patients bearing tumours harbouring HR deficiency (HRD), including ER+, Her2-, HRD breast cancer and HRD ovarian cancer (https://www.ideayabio.com/pipeline/). Deploying PARGi or targeting dePARylation enzymes represents a novel clinical approach to fighting human diseases, including cancer.

As mentioned previously, ARH3 is the only known ADPr hydrolase to remove ADPr from serine residues, which is the major type of ADPRylation of histones during DNA damage repair. Thus, ARH3 inhibitors are currently being developed as a chemotherapeutic strategy for tumour suppression (Ref. Reference Liu180). In contrast to the PARP family, which consists of multiple members, the PARG family comprises only a single member. This characteristic lends the advantage of specificity to targeted PARG therapy and helps to overcome the issue of tumour cell resistance to PARPi (Ref. Reference Schuhwerk113). Furthermore, PARP1 is highly abundant in cells, with an estimated 106 molecules per cell (Ref. Reference Ludwig181). By contrast, each cell contains approximately 2000 PARG molecules (Ref. Reference Hatakeyama182), suggesting that PARG may offer enhanced potency and cell-type specificity for cancer treatment. Of note, ADPr homeostasis involves not only dePARylation but also deMARylation. Therefore, the identification or development of inhibitors targeting both these processes could have a profound impact on cancer research. Although many PARGi have been reported, whether they also target other enzymes or proteins relevant to ADPr degradation has not been well studied.

The successful Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals of the clinical use of PARPi for cancer treatment have gained momentum (Ref. Reference Parkes and Kennedy183). However, owing to the issue of cancer resistance to PARPi in some patients, alternative therapeutic strategies need to be explored. Targeting PARG and other ADPr hydrolases to modulate PAR metabolism may represent a novel approach for cancer chemotherapy. The elucidation of the X-ray crystal structure of PARG (Refs Reference Wang35, Reference Slade37, Reference Barkauskaite184) is considered a significant achievement in ADPr hydrolase research, as the findings have the potential to greatly expedite the development of novel and potent PARGi, which will undoubtedly contribute to the creation of therapeutic drugs that target ADPr-degrading enzymes.

Perspectives

ADPRylation is a prevalent PTM that regulates various cellular pathways and is involved in disease pathogenesis processes, including the DDR, cell death, transcription, chromatin remodelling, neurodegenerative disorders and inflammatory reactions (Ref. Reference Suskiewicz185). Unravelling the molecular and biological functions as well as substrate specificities of the synthetising and degrading enzymes of PARylation and MARylation will aid in the elucidation of their roles in specific signalling pathways and the identification of potential targets for clinical applications. Different ADPr hydrolases have distinct substrates and sub-cellular localisations, working collaboratively to coordinate the removal of ADPRylation modifications. PARG predominantly degrades (long and branched) PAR chains but has limited activity on short PAR polymers, indicating that other erasers, such as ARH3, may act in concert with the hydrolases to erase ADPr efficiently (Ref. Reference Barkauskaite184). Complete reversal of MARylation is performed solely or in concert by MacroD1, MacroD2, TARG1, ARH1 and ARH3. However, despite great efforts, the specific similarities and differences in the hydrolysis process catalysed by these enzymes, as well as the precise nature of their regulation, remain poorly understood. Given the importance of PARylation and MARylation in diverse signalling networks, further investigations into the roles of the erasers of these PTM processes in different cell types and tissues, as well as in cancerous versus non-cancerous cells, are needed. These studies will not only help to elucidate the biological roles of the ADPr hydrolases but also provide valuable reference information for the future development of chemotherapeutic strategies against PAR homeostasis-related diseases, including cancer.

Acknowledgements

There are many excellent papers published by laboratories conducting research on PARGs and ADP-ribose hydrolases. We apologise to those whose work could not be discussed owing to the focussed theme and limited space allowed in the manuscript.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the literature search and the writing of the manuscript.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Shandong University Fund for Distinguished Fellow (SdUF-DF) to Z.-Q. W.

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors give consent for publication.

References

Barkauskaite, E, Jankevicius, G and Ahel, I (2015) Structures and mechanisms of enzymes employed in the synthesis and degradation of PARP-dependent protein ADP-ribosylation. Molecular Cell 58, 935946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.05.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leidecker, O et al. (2016) Serine is a new target residue for endogenous ADP-ribosylation on histones. Nature Chemical Biology 12, 9981000. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüscher, B et al. (2022) ADP-ribosyltransferases, an update on function and nomenclature. The FEBS Journal 289, 73997410. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.16142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hottiger, MO (2015) Nuclear ADP-ribosylation and its role in chromatin plasticity, cell differentiation, and epigenetics. Annual Review of Biochemistry 84, 227263. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-034506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Challa, S, Stokes, MS and Kraus, WL (2021) MARTs and MARylation in the cytosol: biological functions, mechanisms of action, and therapeutic potential. Cells 10, 313. doi: 10.3390/cells10020313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wielckens, K et al. (1982) DNA fragmentation and NAD depletion. their relation to the turnover of endogenous mono(ADP-ribosyl) and poly(ADP-ribosyl) proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 257, 1287212877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)33596-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, H and Yu, X (2016) Functions of PARylation in DNA damage repair pathways. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics 14, 131139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpb.2016.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rack, JGM, Palazzo, L and Ahel, I (2020) (ADP-ribosyl)hydrolases: structure, function, and biology. Genes & Development 34, 263284. doi: 10.1101/gad.334631.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Souza, RF and Aravind, L (2012) Identification of novel components of NAD-utilizing metabolic pathways and prediction of their biochemical functions. Molecular BioSystems 8, 16611677. doi: 10.1039/C2MB05487FCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuller, M et al. (2023) Molecular basis for the reversible ADP-ribosylation of guanosine bases. Molecular Cell 83, 23032315.e2306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2023.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, S, Kato, J and Moss, J (2006) Identification and characterization of a mammalian 39-kDa poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 281, 705713. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M510290200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abplanalp, J et al. (2017) Proteomic analyses identify ARH3 as a serine mono-ADP-ribosylhydrolase. Nature Communications 8, 2055. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02253-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontana, P et al. (2017) Serine ADP-ribosylation reversal by the hydrolase ARH3. eLife 6, e28533. doi: 10.7554/eLife.28533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, J, Jacobson, MK and Stanley, SJ (1985) Reversibility of arginine-specific mono(ADP-ribosyl)ation: identification in erythrocytes of an ADP-ribose-L-arginine cleavage enzyme. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 82, 56035607. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.17.5603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, F et al. (2013) Macrodomain-containing proteins are new mono-ADP-ribosylhydrolases. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 20, 502507. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharifi, R et al. (2013) Deficiency of terminal ADP-ribose protein glycohydrolase TARG1/C6orf130 in neurodegenerative disease. The EMBO Journal 32, 12251237. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2013.51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slade, D (2020) PARP and PARG inhibitors in cancer treatment. Genes & Development 34, 360394. doi: 10.1101/gad.334516.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bütepage, M et al. (2015) Intracellular mono-ADP-ribosylation in signaling and disease. Cells 4, 569595. doi: 10.3390/cells4040569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zong, W et al. (2022) PARP1: liaison of chromatin remodeling and transcription. Cancers 14, 4162. doi: 10.3390/cancers14174162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisemann, T and Pascal, JM (2020) Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzymes and the maintenance of genome integrity. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 77, 1933. doi: 10.1007/s00018-019-03366-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadam, A et al. (2020) Role of PARP-1 in mitochondrial homeostasis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – General Subjects 1864, 129669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2020.129669CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascal, JM (2018) The comings and goings of PARP-1 in response to DNA damage. DNA Repair 71, 177182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.08.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vida, A et al. (2017) Metabolic roles of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 63, 135143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.12.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Luo, W and Wang, Y (2019) PARP-1 and its associated nucleases in DNA damage response. DNA Repair 81, 102651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2019.102651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miwa, M and Sugimura, T (1971) Splitting of the ribose-ribose linkage of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) by a calf thymus extract. Journal of Biological Chemistry 246, 63626364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)61798-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokhorova, E et al. (2021) Unrestrained poly-ADP-ribosylation provides insights into chromatin regulation and human disease. Molecular Cell 81, 26402655.e2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.04.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, W et al. (1997) Isolation and characterization of the cDNA encoding bovine poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272, 1189511901. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.18.11895CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortes, U et al. (2004) Depletion of the 110-kilodalton isoform of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase increases sensitivity to genotoxic and endotoxic stress in mice. Molecular and Cellular Biology 24, 71637178. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.16.7163-7178.2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, RG et al. (2007) Two small enzyme isoforms mediate mammalian mitochondrial poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) activity. Experimental Cell Research 313, 29202936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2007.03.043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer-Ficca, ML et al. (2004) Human poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase is expressed in alternative splice variants yielding isoforms that localize to different cell compartments. Experimental Cell Research 297, 521532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2004.03.050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, W and Wang, Z-Q (2009) Poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) and its therapeutic potential. FBL 14, 16191626. doi: 10.2741/3329Google ScholarPubMed
Whatcott, CJ et al. (2009) A specific isoform of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase is targeted to the mitochondrial matrix by a N-terminal mitochondrial targeting sequence. Experimental Cell Research 315, 34773485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2009.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botta, D and Jacobson, MK (2010) Identification of a regulatory segment of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Biochemistry 49, 76747682. doi: 10.1021/bi100973mCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, JA et al. (2012) Structures of the human poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase catalytic domain confirm catalytic mechanism and explain inhibition by ADP-HPD derivatives. PLoS ONE 7, e50889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050889CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Z et al. (2014) Crystallographic and biochemical analysis of the mouse poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. PLoS ONE 9, e86010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel Chandra, N et al. (2005) Identification of three critical acidic residues of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase involved in catalysis: determining the PARG catalytic domain. Biochemical Journal 388, 493500. doi: 10.1042/bj20040942CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slade, D et al. (2011) The structure and catalytic mechanism of a poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Nature 477, 616620. doi: 10.1038/nature10404CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanai, S et al. (2004) Loss of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase causes progressive neurodegeneration in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 8286. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2237114100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bordet, G, Kotova, E and Tulin, AV (2022) Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ating pathway regulates development from stem cell niche to longevity control. Life Science Alliance 5, e202101071. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202101071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L et al. (2019) Development of renal failure in PargParp-1 null and Timm23 hypomorphic mice. Biochemical Pharmacology 167, 116124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2019.07.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koh, DW et al. (2004) Failure to degrade poly(ADP-ribose) causes increased sensitivity to cytotoxicity and early embryonic lethality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 1769917704. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406182101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Meglio, S et al. (2003) Poly(ADPR) polymerase-1 and poly(ADPR) glycohydrolase level and distribution in differentiating rat germinal cells. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 248, 8591. doi: 10.1023/A:1024136927637CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer-Ficca, ML et al. (2009) Disruption of poly(ADP-ribose) homeostasis affects spermiogenesis and sperm chromatin integrity in mice1. Biology of Reproduction 81, 4655. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.108.075390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bae, W et al. (2020) Hypersensitivity to DNA double-strand breaks associated with PARG deficiency is suppressed by exo-1 and polq-1 mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. The FEBS Journal 287, 11011115. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janisiw, E et al. (2020) Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase coordinates meiotic DNA double-strand break induction and repair independent of its catalytic activity. Nature Communications 11, 4869. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18693-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, S, Blazícková, J and Silva, N (2022) PARG and BRCA1–BARD1 cooperative function regulates DNA repair pathway choice during gametogenesis. Nucleic Acids Research 50, 1229112308. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac1153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amé, J-C et al. (2009) Radiation-induced mitotic catastrophe in PARG-deficient cells. Journal of Cell Science 122, 19902002. doi: 10.1242/jcs.039115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, Y, Feng, X and Koh, DW (2010) Enhanced DNA accessibility and increased DNA damage induced by the absence of poly(ADP-ribose) hydrolysis. Biochemistry 49, 73607366. doi: 10.1021/bi100979jCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrabi, SA et al. (2006) Poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymer is a death signal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 1830818313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606526103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandir, AS et al. (2000) NMDA but not non-NMDA excitotoxicity is mediated by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. The Journal of Neuroscience 20, 80058011. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.20-21-08005.2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, H et al. (2007) Altered poly(ADP-ribose) metabolism impairs cellular responses to genotoxic stress in a hypomorphic mutant of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Experimental Cell Research 313, 984996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2006.12.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, W et al. (2010) Deletion of the nuclear isoform of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) reveals its function in DNA repair, genomic stability and tumorigenesis. Carcinogenesis 31, 20582065. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgq205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, S-W et al. (2006) Apoptosis-inducing factor mediates poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymer-induced cell death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 1831418319. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606528103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y et al. (2011) Poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) binding to apoptosis-inducing factor is critical for PAR polymerase-1-dependent cell death (Parthanatos). Science Signaling 4, ra20. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2000902CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, S-W et al. (2002) Mediation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1-dependent cell death by apoptosis-inducing factor. Science 297, 259263. doi: 10.1126/science.1072221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harraz, MM, Dawson, TM and Dawson, VL (2008) Advances in neuronal cell death 2007. Stroke 39, 286288. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.511857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, Y, Feng, X and Koh, DW (2011) Activation of cell death mediated by apoptosis-inducing factor due to the absence of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Biochemistry 50, 28502859. doi: 10.1021/bi101829rCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susin, SA et al. (1999) Molecular characterization of mitochondrial apoptosis-inducing factor. Nature 397, 441446. doi: 10.1038/17135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, M et al. (2022) PARG inhibition limits HCC progression and potentiates the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy. Journal of Hepatology 77, 140151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, J et al. (2023) PARG promotes esophagus cancer cell metastasis by activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Biochemical Genetics 62, 761774. doi: 10.1007/s10528-023-10434-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Y et al. (2023) The role of poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase in phosphatase and tensin homolog deficiency endometrial cancer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 49, 12441254. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, L et al. (2009) Relationship of PARG with PARP, VEGF and b-FGF in colorectal carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 21, 135141. doi: 10.1007/s11670-009-0135-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matanes, E et al. (2021) Inhibition of poly ADP-ribose glycohydrolase sensitizes ovarian cancer cells to poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors and platinum agents. Frontiers in Oncology 11, 745981. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.745981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, SH et al. (2010) Myc protein is stabilized by suppression of a novel E3 ligase complex in cancer cells. Genes & Development 24, 12361241. doi: 10.1101/gad.1920310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J et al. (2023) O-GlcNAc has crosstalk with ADP-ribosylation via PARG. Journal of Biological Chemistry 299, 105354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.105354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q et al. (2012) RNA interference of PARG could inhibit the metastatic potency of colon carcinoma cells via PI3-kinase/Akt pathway. Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 29, 361372. doi: 10.1159/000338491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, JQ et al. (2019) PARG regulates the proliferation and differentiation of DCs and T cells via PARP/NF-κB in tumour metastases of colon carcinoma. Oncology Reports 41, 26572666. doi: 10.3892/or.2019.7051Google Scholar
Hanzlikova, H et al. (2018) The importance of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase as a sensor of unligated Okazaki fragments during DNA replication. Molecular Cell 71, 319331.e313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nie, L et al. (2024) DePARylation is critical for S phase progression and cell survival. eLife 12, RP89303. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.89303.4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fathers, C et al. (2012) Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) specifically kills BRCA2-deficient tumor cells. Cell Cycle 11, 990997. doi: 10.4161/cc.11.5.19482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gravells, P et al. (2017) Specific killing of DNA damage-response deficient cells with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. DNA Repair 52, 8191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2017.02.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, S et al. (2022) PARG suppresses tumorigenesis and downregulates genes controlling angiogenesis, inflammatory response, and immune cell recruitment. BMC Cancer 22, 557. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09651-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molloy-Simard, V et al. (2012) Altered expression of the poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation enzymes in uveal melanoma and regulation of PARG gene expression by the transcription factor ERM. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 53, 62196231. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishiwata-Endo, H et al. (2022) ARH family of ADP-ribose-acceptor hydrolases. Cells 11, 3853. doi: 10.3390/cells11233853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludden, PW and Burris, RH (1976) Activating factor for the iron protein of nitrogenase from Rhodospirillum rubrum. Science 194, 424426. doi: 10.1126/science.824729CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glowacki, G et al. (2002) The family of toxin-related ecto-ADP-ribosyltransferases in humans and the mouse. Protein Science 11, 16571670. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0200602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, J et al. (1988) Purification and characterization of ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase from Turkey erythrocytes. Biochemistry 27, 58195823. doi: 10.1021/bi00415a063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller-Dieckmann, C et al. (2006) The structure of human ADP-ribosylhydrolase 3 (ARH3) provides insights into the reversibility of protein ADP-ribosylation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 1502615031. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606762103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T et al. (2006) The 39-kDa poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase ARH3 hydrolyzes O-acetyl-ADP-ribose, a product of the Sir2 family of acetyl-histone deacetylases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 1668716691. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0607911103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasamatsu, A et al. (2011) Hydrolysis of O-acetyl-ADP-ribose isomers by ADP-ribosylhydrolase 3*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286, 2111021117. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.237636CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bu, X, Kato, J and Moss, J (2019) Emerging roles of ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolases (ARHs) in tumorigenesis and cell death pathways. Biochemical Pharmacology 167, 4449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2018.09.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, SJ et al. (2016) The cardiac-restricted protein ADP-ribosylhydrolase-like 1 is essential for heart chamber outgrowth and acts on muscle actin filament assembly. Developmental Biology 416, 373388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.05.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, J et al. (1992) Molecular and immunological characterization of ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolases. Journal of Biological Chemistry 267, 1048110488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)50043-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlberg, T et al. (2013) Structural biology of the writers, readers, and erasers in mono- and poly(ADP-ribose) mediated signaling. Molecular Aspects of Medicine 34, 10881108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2013.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kernstock, S et al. (2009) Cloning, expression, purification and crystallization as well as X-ray fluorescence and preliminary X-ray diffraction analyses of human ADP-ribosylhydrolase 1. Acta Crystallographica Section F 65, 529532. doi: 10.1107/S1744309109014067Google Scholar
Takada, T, Iida, K and Moss, J (1993) Cloning and site-directed mutagenesis of human ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 268, 1783717843. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(17)46780-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rack, JGM et al. (2018) (ADP-ribosyl)hydrolases: structural basis for differential substrate recognition and inhibition. Cell Chemical Biology 25, 15331546.e1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konczalik, P and Moss, J (1999) Identification of critical, conserved vicinal aspartate residues in mammalian and bacterial ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolases*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274, 1673616740. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.274.24.16736CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, J et al. (2007) Enhanced sensitivity to cholera toxin in ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase-deficient mice. Molecular and Cellular Biology 27, 55345543. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00302-07CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, K et al. (2018) Enhanced sensitivity to cholera toxin in female ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase (ARH1)-deficient mice. PLoS ONE 13, e0207693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207693CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, J et al. (2011) ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase regulates cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Cancer Research 71, 53275335. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-10-0733CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shim, B et al. (2013) Sex-specific lung diseases: effect of oestrogen on cultured cells and in animal models. European Respiratory Review 22, 302311. doi: 10.1183/09059180.00002813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, J et al. (2015) Mutations of the functional ARH1 allele in tumors from ARH1 heterozygous mice and cells affect ARH1 catalytic activity, cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Oncogenesis 4, e151. doi: 10.1038/oncsis.2015.5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishiwata-Endo, H et al. (2018) Role of a TRIM72 ADP-ribosylation cycle in myocardial injury and membrane repair. JCI Insight 3, e97898. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.97898CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontana, P et al. (2023) Serine ADP-ribosylation in Drosophila provides insights into the evolution of reversible ADP-ribosylation signalling. Nature Communications 14, 3200. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38793-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niere, M et al. (2008) Functional localization of two poly(ADP-ribose)-degrading enzymes to the mitochondrial matrix. Molecular and Cellular Biology 28, 814824. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01766-07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashimo, M, Kato, J and Moss, J (2013) ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase 3 regulates poly (ADP-ribose) degradation and cell death during oxidative stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1896418969. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312783110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niere, M et al. (2012) ADP-ribosylhydrolase 3 (ARH3), not poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) isoforms, is responsible for degradation of mitochondrial matrix-associated poly(ADP-ribose)*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 287, 1608816102. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.349183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigis, MC and Guarente, LP (2006) Mammalian sirtuins – emerging roles in physiology, aging, and calorie restriction. Genes & Development 20, 29132921. doi: 10.1101/gad.1467506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashimo, M and Moss, J (2016) Functional role of ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase 3 in poly(ADPRibose) polymerase-1 response to oxidative stress. Current Protein & Peptide Science 17, 633640. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1389203717666160419144603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pourfarjam, Y et al. (2018) Structure of human ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolase 3 bound to ADP-ribose reveals a conformational switch that enables specific substrate recognition. Journal of Biological Chemistry 293, 1235012359. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.003586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mashimo, M, Kato, J and Moss, J (2014) Structure and function of the ARH family of ADP-ribosyl-acceptor hydrolases. DNA Repair 23, 8894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rack, JGM et al. (2021) Mechanistic insights into the three steps of poly(ADP-ribosylation) reversal. Nature Communications 12, 4581. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24723-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gogola, E et al. (2018) Selective loss of PARG restores PARylation and counteracts PARP inhibitor-mediated synthetic lethality. Cancer Cell 33, 10781093.e1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfiglio, JJ et al. (2017) Serine ADP-ribosylation depends on HPF1. Molecular Cell 65, 932940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.01.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mashimo, M et al. (2019) PARP1 inhibition alleviates injury in ARH3-deficient mice and human cells. JCI Insight 4, e124519. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.124519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, A et al. (2022) Case report: stress-induced childhood-onset neurodegeneration with ataxia-seizures syndrome caused by a novel compound heterozygous mutation in ADPRHL2. Frontiers in Neurology 13, 807291. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.807291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, B et al. (2021) Dystonia and myelopathy in a case of stress-induced childhood-onset neurodegeneration with ataxia and seizures (CONDSIAS). Movement Disorders Clinical Practice 8, 156158. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beijer, D et al. (2021) Biallelic ADPRHL2 mutations in complex neuropathy affect ADP ribosylation and DNA damage response. Life Science Alliance 4, e202101057. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202101057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aryan, H et al. (2020) Novel imaging and clinical phenotypes of CONDSIAS disorder caused by a homozygous frameshift variant of ADPRHL2: a case report. BMC Neurology 20, 291. doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01873-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danhauser, K et al. (2018) Bi-allelic ADPRHL2 mutations cause neurodegeneration with developmental delay, ataxia, and axonal neuropathy. The American Journal of Human Genetics 103, 817825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Sullivan, J et al. (2019) Emerging roles of eraser enzymes in the dynamic control of protein ADP-ribosylation. Nature Communications 10, 1182. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08859-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuhwerk, H et al. (2017) PARPing for balance in the homeostasis of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 63, 8191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.09.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, D et al. (2011) Identification of macrodomain proteins as novel O-acetyl-ADP-ribose deacetylases*. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286, 1326113271. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.206771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jankevicius, G et al. (2013) A family of macrodomain proteins reverses cellular mono-ADP-ribosylation. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 20, 508514. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuvonen, M and Ahola, T (2009) Differential activities of cellular and viral macro domain proteins in binding of ADP-ribose metabolites. Journal of Molecular Biology 385, 212225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2008.10.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agnew, T et al. (2018) Macrod1 is a promiscuous ADP-ribosyl hydrolase localized to mitochondria. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 20. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golia, B et al. (2016) ATM induces MacroD2 nuclear export upon DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Research 45, 244254. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw904CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Žaja, R et al. (2020) Comparative analysis of MACROD1, MACROD2 and TARG1 expression, localisation and interactome. Scientific Reports 10, 8286. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64623-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, H et al. (2018) Biochemical and morphological characterization of a neurodevelopmental disorder-related mono-ADP-ribosylhydrolase, MACRO domain containing 2. Developmental Neuroscience 40, 278287. doi: 10.1159/000492271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicole, MCM et al. (2007) The C20orf133 gene is disrupted in a patient with Kabuki syndrome. Journal of Medical Genetics 44, 562. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2007.049510Google Scholar
Wazir, S, Maksimainen, MM and Lehtio, L (2020) Multiple crystal forms of human MacroD2. Acta Crystallographica Section F 76, 477482. doi: 10.1107/S2053230X20011309Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, X et al. (2020) Molecular basis for the MacroD1-mediated hydrolysis of ADP-ribosylation. DNA Repair 94, 102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2020.102899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Z et al. (2011) LRP16 integrates into NF-κB transcriptional complex and is required for its functional activation. PLoS ONE 6, e18157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J et al. (2009) The single-macro domain protein LRP16 is an essential cofactor of androgen receptor. Endocrine-Related Cancer 16, 139153. doi: 10.1677/erc-08-0150CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, W-D et al. (2007) Estrogenically regulated LRP16 interacts with estrogen receptor α and enhances the receptor's transcriptional activity. Endocrine-Related Cancer 14, 741753. doi: 10.1677/erc-06-0082CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bindesbøll, C et al. (2016) TCDD-inducible poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (TIPARP/PARP7) mono-ADP-ribosylates and co-activates liver X receptors. Biochemical Journal 473, 899910. doi: 10.1042/bj20151077CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zang, L et al. (2013) Identification of LRP16 as a negative regulator of insulin action and adipogenesis in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Hormone and Metabolic Research 45, 349358. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1331215Google ScholarPubMed
Imagama, S et al. (2007) LRP16 is fused to RUNX1 in monocytic leukemia cell line with t(11;21)(q13;q22). European Journal of Haematology 79, 2531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00858.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Y et al. (2015) Aberrant LRP16 protein expression in primary neuroendocrine lung tumors. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology 8, 65606565.Google ScholarPubMed
Sakthianandeswaren, A et al. (2018) MACROD2 haploinsufficiency impairs catalytic activity of PARP1 and promotes chromosome instability and growth of intestinal tumors. Cancer Discovery 8, 9881005. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0909CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertweck, KL et al. (2023) Clinicopathological significance of unraveling mitochondrial pathway alterations in non-small-cell lung cancer. The FASEB Journal 37, e23018. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202201724RRCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, K et al. (2021) Behavioural characterisation of Macrod1 and Macrod2 knockout mice. Cells 10, 368. doi: 10.3390/cells10020368CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feijs, KLH et al. (2013) ARTD10 substrate identification on protein microarrays: regulation of GSK3β by mono-ADP-ribosylation. Cell Communication and Signaling 11, 5. doi: 10.1186/1478-811X-11-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lombardo, B et al. (2019) Intragenic deletion in MACROD2: a family with complex phenotypes including microcephaly, intellectual disability, polydactyly, renal and pancreatic malformations. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 158, 2531. doi: 10.1159/000499886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RM et al. (2014) MACROD2 gene associated with autistic-like traits in a general population sample. Psychiatric Genetics 24, 241248. doi: 10.1097/YPG.0000000000000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marina, O et al. (2010) Serologic markers of effective tumor immunity against chronic lymphocytic leukemia include nonmutated B-cell antigens. Cancer Research 70, 13441355. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-09-3143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, FC et al. (2011) Orphan macrodomain protein (human C6orf130) is an O-acyl-ADP-ribose deacylase: solution structure and catalytic properties. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286, 3595535965. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.276238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bütepage, M et al. (2018) Nucleolar-nucleoplasmic shuttling of TARG1 and its control by DNA damage-induced poly-ADP-ribosylation and by nucleolar transcription. Scientific Reports 8, 6748. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25137-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groslambert, J et al. (2023) The interplay of TARG1 and PARG protects against genomic instability. Cell Reports 42, 113113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matta, E et al. (2020) Insight into DNA substrate specificity of PARP1-catalysed DNA poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation. Scientific Reports 10, 3699. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60631-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munnur, D and Ahel, I (2017) Reversible mono-ADP-ribosylation of DNA breaks. The FEBS Journal 284, 40024016. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munnur, D et al. (2019) Reversible ADP-ribosylation of RNA. Nucleic Acids Research 47, 56585669. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talhaoui, I et al. (2016) Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases covalently modify strand break termini in DNA fragments in vitro. Nucleic Acids Research 44, 92799295. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw675Google ScholarPubMed
Tromans-Coia, C et al. (2021) TARG1 protects against toxic DNA ADP-ribosylation. Nucleic Acids Research 49, 1047710492. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jankevicius, G et al. (2016) The toxin-antitoxin system DarTG catalyzes reversible ADP-ribosylation of DNA. Molecular Cell 64, 11091116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, MS and Chang, P (2018) Insights into the biogenesis, function, and regulation of ADP-ribosylation. Nature Chemical Biology 14, 236243. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2568CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Challa, S et al. (2024) A PARP14/TARG1-regulated RACK1 MARylation cycle drives stress granule dynamics in ovarian cancer cells. bioRxiv, 2023.10.13.562273. doi: 10.1101/2023.10.13.562273Google ScholarPubMed
Buchan, JR and Parker, R (2009) Eukaryotic stress granules: the ins and outs of translation. Molecular Cell 36, 932941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2009.11.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabl, J et al. (2011) Crystal structure of the eukaryotic 40S ribosomal subunit in complex with initiation factor 1. Science 331, 730736. doi: 10.1126/science.1198308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, CJ and Ashworth, A (2017) PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science 355, 11521158. doi: 10.1126/science.aam7344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, Y et al. (2023) PARP inhibitors: a review of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenetics. Seminars in Oncology 51, 1924. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2023.09.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kassab, MA, Yu, LL and Yu, X (2020) Targeting dePARylation for cancer therapy. Cell & Bioscience 10, 7. doi: 10.1186/s13578-020-0375-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fauzee, NJS, Pan, J and Wang, Y-L (2010) PARP and PARG inhibitors – new therapeutic targets in cancer treatment. Pathology & Oncology Research 16, 469478. doi: 10.1007/s12253-010-9266-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanuma, S-I et al. (2016) New insights into the roles of NAD + -poly(ADP-ribose) metabolism and poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Current Protein & Peptide Science 17, 668682. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1389203717666160419150014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanuma, S-I et al. (2019) Targeting poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase to draw apoptosis codes in cancer. Biochemical Pharmacology 167, 163172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2019.06.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrision, D et al. (2020) Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) vs. poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) – function in genome maintenance and relevance of inhibitors for anti-cancer therapy. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 7, 191. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.00191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillay, N et al. (2021) DNA replication stress and emerging prospects for PARG inhibitors in ovarian cancer therapy. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 163, 160170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.01.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavassoli, M, Tavassoli, MH and Shall, S (1985) Effect of DNA intercalators on poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase activity. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology 827, 228234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4838(85)90207-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X-CM et al. (2003) Post-treatment with a novel PARG inhibitor reduces infarct in cerebral ischemia in the rat. Brain Research 978, 99103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-8993(03)02774-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuzzocrea, S et al. (2006) Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase activity mediates post-traumatic inflammatory reaction after experimental spinal cord trauma. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 319, 127138. doi: 10.1124/jpet.106.108076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genovese, T et al. (2004) Treatment with a novel poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase inhibitor reduces development of septic shock-like syndrome induced by zymosan in mice. Critical Care Medicine 32, 13651374. doi: 10.1097/01.Ccm.0000127775.70867.0cCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuzzocrea, S et al. (2005) PARG activity mediates intestinal injury induced by splanchnic artery occlusion and reperfusion. The FASEB Journal 19, 558566. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.04-3117comCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuzzocrea, S et al. (2007) Role of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase in the development of inflammatory bowel disease in mice. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 42, 90105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2006.09.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, YJ et al. (1992) Mouse mammary tumor virus gene expression is suppressed by oligomeric ellagitannins, novel inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 267, 1443614442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)49731-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ying, W et al. (2001) Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase mediates oxidative and excitotoxic neuronal death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 1222712232. doi: 10.1073/pnas.211202598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, G et al. (2007) Intranasal administration of a PARG inhibitor profoundly decreases ischemic brain injury. FBL 12, 49864996. doi: 10.2741/2443Google Scholar
Formentini, L et al. (2008) Mono-galloyl glucose derivatives are potent poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibitors and partially reduce PARP-1-dependent cell death. British Journal of Pharmacology 155, 12351249. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjp.2008.370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slama, JT et al. (1995) Specific inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase by adenosine diphosphate (hydroxymethyl)pyrrolidinediol. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 38, 389393. doi: 10.1021/jm00002a021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masutani, M et al. (2002) Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase activity by cyclic peptide antibiotics containing piperazic acid residues. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B 78, 1517. doi: 10.2183/pjab.78.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okita, N et al. (2010) Discovery of novel poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase inhibitors by a quantitative assay system using dot-blot with anti-poly(ADP-ribose). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 392, 485489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.01.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, JD et al. (2011) Discovery and structure–activity relationships of modified salicylanilides as cell permeable inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 54, 54035413. doi: 10.1021/jm200325sCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finch, KE et al. (2012) Selective small molecule inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG). ACS Chemical Biology 7, 563570. doi: 10.1021/cb200506tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, R et al. (2014) Design and synthesis of phenolic hydrazide hydrazones as potent poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibitors. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 24, 38023806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2014.06.065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, DI et al. (2016) First-in-class chemical probes against poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) inhibit DNA repair with differential pharmacology to olaparib. ACS Chemical Biology 11, 31793190. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.6b00609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waszkowycz, B et al. (2018) Cell-active small molecule inhibitors of the DNA-damage repair enzyme poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG): discovery and optimization of orally bioavailable quinazolinedione sulfonamides. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 61, 1076710792. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b01407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houl, JH et al. (2019) Selective small molecule PARG inhibitor causes replication fork stalling and cancer cell death. Nature Communications 10, 5654. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13508-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, A et al. (2019) Poly (ADP) ribose glycohydrolase can be effectively targeted in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Research 79, 44914502. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-18-3645CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, S-H and Yu, X (2019) Targeting dePARylation selectively suppresses DNA repair-defective and PARP inhibitor-resistant malignancies. Science Advances 5, eaav4340. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav4340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X et al. (2020) AI26 inhibits the ADP-ribosylhydrolase ARH3 and suppresses DNA damage repair. Journal of Biological Chemistry 295, 1383813849. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA120.012801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, A et al. (1988) Immunoquantitation and size determination of intrinsic poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase from acid precipitates. an analysis of the in vivo status in mammalian species and in lower eukaryotes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 263, 69936999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)68594-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatakeyama, K et al. (1986) Purification and characterization of poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. different modes of action on large and small poly(ADP-ribose). Journal of Biological Chemistry 261, 1490214911. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)66802-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkes, EE and Kennedy, RD (2016) Clinical application of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. The Oncologist 21, 586593. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkauskaite, E et al. (2013) Visualization of poly(ADP-ribose) bound to PARG reveals inherent balance between exo- and endo-glycohydrolase activities. Nature Communications 4, 2164. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suskiewicz, MJ et al. (2023) ADP-ribosylation from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic implications. Cell 186, 44754495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. The family of human ADP-ribose hydrolases

Figure 1

Figure 1. Catabolism of ADP-ribosylation. ADP-ribosylated proteins with bond-specific chemical cleavage sites for each ADP-ribose hydrolase. PARG is the primary poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR)-degrading enzyme, catalysing the glycosidic hydrolysis of the PAR chain. However, it is unable to cleave the last ADP-ribose moiety from mono(ADP-ribosyl)ated proteins. ARH3 catalyses the glycosidic hydrolysis of PAR chains, generating free ADP-ribose and short PAR chains. It also harbours hydrolysing mono(ADP-ribosyl)ation activity, specifically targeting O-linked ADP-ribosylation. ARH1 cleaves mono(ADP-ribosyl)ated substrates modified on arginine residues. MacroD1, MacroD2 and TARG1 hydrolyse mono(ADP-ribose) on the aspartate and glutamate residues of target proteins, and TARG1 can also cleave PAR chains.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of human ADP-ribose hydrolases. The hydrolytic domains are Macro (macrodomain) and Ribosyl_crysJ1 (ADP-ribosylation/Crystallin J1 fold). No reports related ARH2 structure has been published. The N-terminal putative regulatory domain of PARG consists of two nuclear localisation signals (NLSs) and two nuclear export signals (NESs). The catalytic C-terminal domain contains one mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS), one NES and one NLS. The N-terminal region of MacroD1 also contains one MTS.