Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
ATR represents a therapeutic vulnerability in clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Philipp Seidel, Anne Rubarth, Kyra Zodel, Asin Peighambari, Felix Neumann, Yannick Federkiel, Hsin Huang, Rouven Hoefflin, Mojca Adlesic, Christian Witt, David J. Hoffmann, Patrick Metzger, Ralph K. Lindemann, Frank T. Zenke, Christoph Schell, Melanie Boerries, Dominik von Elverfeldt, Wilfried Reichardt, Marie Follo, Joachim Albers, Ian J. Frew
Philipp Seidel, Anne Rubarth, Kyra Zodel, Asin Peighambari, Felix Neumann, Yannick Federkiel, Hsin Huang, Rouven Hoefflin, Mojca Adlesic, Christian Witt, David J. Hoffmann, Patrick Metzger, Ralph K. Lindemann, Frank T. Zenke, Christoph Schell, Melanie Boerries, Dominik von Elverfeldt, Wilfried Reichardt, Marie Follo, Joachim Albers, Ian J. Frew
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Oncology

ATR represents a therapeutic vulnerability in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs) are resistant to DNA-damaging chemotherapies, limiting therapeutic options for patients whose tumors are resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors and/or immune checkpoint therapies. Here we show that mouse and human ccRCCs were frequently characterized by high levels of endogenous DNA damage and that cultured ccRCC cells exhibited intact cellular responses to chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. We identify that pharmacological inhibition of the DNA damage–sensing kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) with the orally administered, potent, and selective drug M4344 (gartisertib) induced antiproliferative effects in ccRCC cells. This effect was due to replication stress and accumulation of DNA damage in S phase. In some cells, DNA damage persisted into subsequent G2/M and G1 phases, leading to the frequent accumulation of micronuclei. Daily single-agent treatment with M4344 inhibited the growth of ccRCC xenograft tumors. M4344 synergized with chemotherapeutic drugs including cisplatin and carboplatin and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in mouse and human ccRCC cells. Weekly M4344 plus cisplatin treatment showed therapeutic synergy in ccRCC xenografts and was efficacious in an autochthonous mouse ccRCC model. These studies identify ATR inhibition as a potential novel therapeutic option for ccRCC.

Authors

Philipp Seidel, Anne Rubarth, Kyra Zodel, Asin Peighambari, Felix Neumann, Yannick Federkiel, Hsin Huang, Rouven Hoefflin, Mojca Adlesic, Christian Witt, David J. Hoffmann, Patrick Metzger, Ralph K. Lindemann, Frank T. Zenke, Christoph Schell, Melanie Boerries, Dominik von Elverfeldt, Wilfried Reichardt, Marie Follo, Joachim Albers, Ian J. Frew

×

Figure 4

Characterization of DNA damage induced by M4344.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Characterization of DNA damage induced by M4344.
(A) Examples of immunof...
(A) Examples of immunofluorescence stainings for 53BP1, p-ATM, EdU, and DAPI and merge of all signals. (B) Cell cycle phase resolution based on quantitative microscopy analysis of DAPI intensity and EdU staining. (C) Example of 1D (right bar) and 2D (cell cycle phase resolved) analysis of the distribution of 53BP1 focus intensities. (D and E) One-dimensional analyses of 53BP1 focus intensities in 786-O (D) and SLR22 (E) cells treated for 48 hours with the indicated concentrations of M4344. (F) Two-dimensional cell cycle resolution of 53BP1 focus intensities in 786-O cells treated for 48 hours with M4344. (G and H) Quantification of 53BP1 focus intensities in G2/M phase 786-O cells treated for 24 hours (G) or 48 hours (H). (I and J) Quantification of p-ATM mean nuclear intensities in S phase 786-O cells treated for 24 hours (I) or 48 hours (J). Box plots show the quartiles, whiskers depict 5th through 95th percentiles, and extreme values to the maximum and minimum are shown by gray dots. Statistical differences between M4344-treated versus control groups were assessed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001). Sample sizes range from 9 to 114 nuclei per condition.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts