Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • 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
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
SPOP mutations increase PARP inhibitor sensitivity via CK2/PIAS1/SPOP axis in prostate cancer
Hui Zhang, Lili Kong, Jinhui Li, Zhihan Liu, Yiting Zhao, Xiuyi Lv, Liangpei Wu, Lin Chai, Hongjie You, Jiabei Jin, Xinyi Cao, Zhong Zheng, Yadong Liu, Zejun Yan, Xiaofeng Jin
Hui Zhang, Lili Kong, Jinhui Li, Zhihan Liu, Yiting Zhao, Xiuyi Lv, Liangpei Wu, Lin Chai, Hongjie You, Jiabei Jin, Xinyi Cao, Zhong Zheng, Yadong Liu, Zejun Yan, Xiaofeng Jin
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Cell biology Genetics Oncology

SPOP mutations increase PARP inhibitor sensitivity via CK2/PIAS1/SPOP axis in prostate cancer

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

It is well documented that impaired DNA damage repair (DDR) induces genomic instability that can efficiently increase the sensitivity of prostate cancer (PCa) cells to PARP inhibitors; however, the underlying mechanism remains elusive. Here, we found profound genomic instability in PCa cells with SPOP gene mutations and confirmed the sensitivity of SPOP-mutated PCa cells to olaparib-induced apoptosis. Mechanistically, we identified olaparib-induced CK2-mediated phosphorylation of PIAS1-S468, which in turn mediated SUMOylation of SPOP, thus promoting its E3 ligase activity in the DDR. Moreover, an abnormal CK2/PIAS1/SPOP axis due to SPOP mutations or defects in CK2-mediated phosphorylation of PIAS1, as well as SPOP inhibitor treatment, led to impaired DDR, thus increasing olaparib-induced apoptosis of PCa cells and enhancing olaparib sensitivity in animal models and patient-derived organoids. This suggested that disruption of the CK2/PIAS1/SPOP signaling axis could serve as an indicator for targeted therapy of PCa using a PARP inhibitor.

Authors

Hui Zhang, Lili Kong, Jinhui Li, Zhihan Liu, Yiting Zhao, Xiuyi Lv, Liangpei Wu, Lin Chai, Hongjie You, Jiabei Jin, Xinyi Cao, Zhong Zheng, Yadong Liu, Zejun Yan, Xiaofeng Jin

×

Figure 7

Dysregulation of the PIAS1/SPOP axis affects the response of CDX models to olaparib treatment.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Dysregulation of the PIAS1/SPOP axis affects the response of CDX models ...
(A) The flowchart for detecting the sensitivity of the CDX models to olaparib. Created in BioRender. (B) Each group of PC-3 cells was inoculated into the right flank of BALB/c nude mice, which were then treated with vehicle or olaparib (50 mg/kg). Tumor growth was measured every 4 days. On the 17th day after PC-3 cell inoculation, each group of CDX models (n = 10) was divided into 2 groups: vehicle (n = 5) and olaparib (n = 5), to assess the sensitivity of each group of CDX models to olaparib treatment. Tumors in each group were harvested on day 30 and photographed. (C) The tumor growth curves and statistical graph of tumor volume before and after olaparib treatment. (D) Representative images of γH2AX staining (left) and the graph (right) of γH2AX staining intensity for each group. (E) Representative images of TUNEL staining (left) and the graph (right) of TUNEL staining intensity for each group. Scale bars: 100 μm. Data are shown as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. The differences between 2 groups were analyzed using unpaired, 2-tailed Student’s t test, and multiple comparisons were performed using 2-way ANOVA.

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

Sign up for email alerts