• ADP-ribosylation;
  • ARTD/PARP family;
  • macrodomain-containing protein;
  • mass spectrometry;
  • stress response and inflammation


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

Poly-ADP-ribosylation functions in diverse signaling pathways, such as Wnt signaling and DNA damage repair, where its role is relatively well characterized. Contrarily, mono-ADP-ribosylation by for example ARTD10/PARP10 is much less understood. Recent developments hint at the involvement of mono-ADP-ribosylation in transcriptional regulation, the unfolded protein response, DNA repair, insulin secretion and immunity. Additionally, macrodomain-containing hydrolases, MacroD1, MacroD2 and C6orf130/TARG1, have been identified that make mono-ADP-ribosylation reversible. Complicating further progress is the lack of tools such as mono-ADP-ribose-specific antibodies. The currently known functions of mono-ADP-ribosylation are summarized here, as well as the available tools such as mass spectrometry to study this modification in vitro and in cells.




aryl hydrocarbon receptor


ADP-ribosylhydrolase 1




ADP-ribosyltransferase cholera toxin-like


ADP-ribosyltransferase diphtheria toxin-like


endoplasmic reticulum


glycogen synthase kinase beta


Janus kinase






nuclear factor κB




poly-ADP-ribose glycohydrolase


poly-ADP-ribose polymerase




post-translational modification


signal transducer and activator of transcription


terminal ADP-ribose-protein glycohydrolase


Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

The post-translational modification (PTM) ADP-ribosylation represents one of the first PTMs identified but has remained relatively poorly studied to date. ADP-ribosyltransferases use the cofactor NAD+ to covalently attach ADP-ribose (ADPr) onto target proteins while releasing nicotinamide. Only 5 years ago, a distinction was made within the poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) enzyme family of ADP-ribosyltransferases (ARTs) between poly-ADP-ribosylating (PARylating) and mono-ADP-ribosylating (MARylating) enzymes, based on subtle differences in their catalytic center (also referred to as the ADP-ribosyltransferase or ART domain) [1, 2]. The MARylating enzymes lack the catalytic glutamate necessary to stabilize the oxocarbenium intermediate during catalysis. Instead they appear to use a glutamate of the substrate to activate the cofactor NAD+; hence the mechanism is referred to as substrate-assisted catalysis [1]. Once this glutamate is modified, it is no longer available to activate a further NAD+ molecule and thus only MARylation is possible [1]. A new nomenclature for the PARP family has been proposed that reflects their true transferase rather than polymerase activity, renaming it the ARTD family, for ADP-ribosyltransferase diphtheria toxin-like [2]. This nomenclature also takes into account their resemblance to bacterial MARylating toxins, as the extracellular ARTs [3, 4] have been renamed to ARTC for ADP-ribosyltransferase cholera toxin-like, reflecting the structural homology of the two families to different bacterial toxins. The MARylation performed by these toxins forms an essential part of their pathogenic mechanisms [5].

In addition to the ARTDs and the ARTCs, certain members of the sirtuin family of deacetylases appear capable of MARylation [6]. Of the seven sirtuins, SIRT4 and SIRT6 appear to be able to ADP-ribosylate proteins. While SIRT6 functions also as an NAD+-dependent deacetylase with high substrate specificity [7], no deacetylase activity has been reported for SIRT4, possibly because this enzyme is highly selective and the relevant substrate(s) have not yet been identified. Thus current information suggests that SIRT4 possesses only ART activity.

Recent progress reveals important roles of poly-ADP-ribose (PAR) that extend beyond DNA damage repair as recently reviewed elsewhere [8, 9]. Several modules recognize PARylation, such as the PAR-binding zinc finger, the PAR-binding motif, the WWE domain and the macrodomain [9-12], and two glycohydrolases have been identified that degrade PAR chains but leave the protein terminal ADPr moiety intact [13-16]. Recently, several reports have been published on different functions of MARylation, on modules recognizing mono-ADP-ribose (MAR) specifically and on enzymes capable of hydrolyzing MAR bound to protein as summarized and discussed below (Fig. 1). The potential role of MARylation in cancer biology is discussed in this minireview series in the article by Scarpa et al. [16a].


Figure 1. The MARylation cycle. Summarized is the generation (or writing) of MARylated proteins by post-translational mechanisms, the reading of this modification, and the removal (or erasing) of MAR, defining the reversibility of the MARylation process. (1) An unmodified target protein is depicted. (2) MARylation of proteins can occur either by the addition of ADPr catalyzed by mono-ARTDs or sirtuins using NAD+ as cofactor or by PARG (or ARH3) mediated hydrolysis of PAR chains resulting in MAR attached to the substrate. PARylated proteins (5) are the result of the iterative transfer of ADPr by polymer-forming ARTDs. (3) MARylation can be read specifically by macrodomains, as shown for macro3 of ARTD8, which is postulated to translate the information of this PTM into functional consequences. (4) MARylation can be reversed by distinct hydrolases, i.e. MacroD1, MacroD2 and C6orf130. The catalytic domains of these three enzymes possess a macrodomain fold and hydrolyze the bond between the proximal ADPr residue and the target protein. (X) represents the modified amino acid, which in the case of ARTD10 is most probably glutamate. However, also arginine as well as other amino acids are described as acceptors of MAR as discussed in the text.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Functional roles for MAR

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

Transcription regulation

The first indications that ADP-ribosylation may be involved in the regulation of transcription were studies that identified ADP-ribosylation as a modification of core histone [17, 18]. Much later, publications on the role of ARTD8 (formerly PARP14 or BAL2), a mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase, in regulation of STAT6 activity appeared. STAT (signal transducer and activator of transcription) factors are typically recruited to activated cytokine receptors. Upon ligand binding these are phosphorylated by Janus kinases (JAKs) creating binding surfaces for signaling molecules, including STATs. These are then phosphorylated, enabling them to form dimers and translocate into the nucleus to initiate transcription [19, 20]. ARTD8 was reported to activate STAT6-dependent reporter gene constructs, mediated by its macrodomains and catalytic activity [21, 22]. Upon interleukin 4 stimulation, ARTD8 ADP-ribosylates HDAC2 and HDAC3, leading to their dissociation from the promoter, thereby allowing the STAT6 dimers to bind [23]. ARTD8 furthermore ADP-ribosylates the transcriptional co-activator p100 with thus far unknown consequence and directly interacts with STAT6 to enhance transcription [22, 24].

ARTD14 (formerly PARP7 or TiPARP) expression is upregulated by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin through activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) [25]. Later, ARTD14 was shown to interact with AHR leading to decreased AHR transcriptional activity [26], indicating a negative feedback loop. The zinc finger and the catalytic activity are necessary for ARTD14-dependent repression of transcription, but it remains elusive through which substrates this is mediated. Thus far, only MARylation of histones by ARTD14 could be demonstrated [26], but other target proteins remain to be identified.

Finally, ARTD10 (formerly PARP10) possibly plays a role in regulating MYC-induced transcription. ARTD10 was identified as interaction partner of MYC [27] and this interaction was later demonstrated to take place in the nucleus [28]. How this interaction influences MYC activity has not been further investigated, but one might speculate that it has similar effects on transcription as the ARTD14 interaction with AHR, possibly depending on MARylation of histones or as a direct consequence of physical interaction.

Immunity and inflammation

Several links between the expression of different ARTD family members and inflammatory processes have been established, in particular in relation to various pathogens. During infection by Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV), an alphavirus, one of the genes that is upregulated is the long isoform of ARTD12 (formerly PARP12 or ZC3HDC1). ARTD12 exhibits an inhibitory effect on the replication of VEEV as well as on other alphaviruses and RNA viruses in this study [29]. These findings are in accordance with a publication wherein the role of interferon-stimulated genes in the cellular defense against invading viral pathogens was investigated and ARTD12 was found as one of the genes upregulated to counteract infections [30], although not investigated mechanistically. Also for ARTD13 (formerly ZAP or ZC3HAV1) a role has been proposed in viral immunity. The long isoform of ARTD13 contains in addition to the ART domain also a WWE domain and a CCCH zinc-finger-containing domain, a structure shared with ARTD12 and ARTD14 [31]. ARTD13 binds to different viral RNAs through its zinc fingers as reviewed in [32]. ARTD12's reported function in viral immunity might also be mediated through its zinc fingers.

Additionally, ARTD10 was reported to MARylate NEMO and reduces its poly-ubiquitination, leading to increased I-κB stability and less p65 translocation into the nucleus. ARTD10 thus functions as a repressor of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) signaling [33]. Stimulation by proinflammatory chemokines results in ubiquitination of NEMO, which is part of the IKK complex. Ubiquitination is essential for signal propagation leading to activation of the IKK complex. As a consequence, I-κBα, an inhibitor of NF-κB, is phosphorylated and degraded enabling NF-κB transcription factors such as p65 to translocate into the nucleus and drive target gene expression [34]. Moreover, several studies aimed at defining genes influenced by certain inflammatory stimuli have identified ARTD10 as being upregulated, implying that the protein is required for the immune response [35-37]. Indeed, ARTD10 inhibits VEEV replication, although with a lower efficiency than ARTD12 [29].

Together, these reports strongly suggest that some mono-ARTDs are involved in immunity but leave the description of the exact mechanisms influenced by MARylation open for future investigations.

Stress response

Several lines of evidence imply that MARylation is involved in the regulation of stress responses. ARTD5 (formerly PARP5a or Tankyrase 1), ARTD7 (formerly PARP15 or BAL3), ARTD8, ARTD12 and ARTD13 localize to stress granules (SGs) in response to stress conditions such as heat shock, glycogen deprivation or proteasome inhibition [38]. In these SGs, mRNA-binding proteins such as Ago2 and TIA-1 are ADP-ribosylated, depending on their mRNA-binding domain, indicating that modification takes place within these domains or that the responsible ARTDs are associated via mRNA. Overexpression of ARTD12 and ARTD13 results in a relief of microRNA silencing, a phenomenon that usually occurs upon stress [38]. These ARTDs may thus function to regulate the cellular stress response.

ARTD15 (formerly PARP16) was reported to localize to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) [39, 40]. Here it plays an important role in regulation of the unfolded protein response (UPR) that serves to signal ER stress and can ultimately lead to apoptosis [41]. During ER stress, ARTD15 activity is upregulated, leading to auto-MARylation and MARylation of the stress sensors IRE1α and PERK1, stimulating their activities, which appears necessary for a proper execution of the UPR [39]. Additionally, the C-terminal part of ARTD15 that is localized within the ER lumen seems to influence binding of the inhibitory BiP protein to IRE1α and PERK1, as knockdown of ARTD15 leads to stabilized BiP association and thus inhibited IRE1α and PERK1 activity [39]. Interestingly, MARylation of BiP has also been demonstrated, although on arginine residues by a thus far unknown transferase [42, 43]. One possibility is that ARTCs are involved [4]. These enzymes are located at the outer cell membrane and thus are located in the ER lumen prior to being transported to the cell membrane. ARTCs are mono-ADP-ribosyltransferases and are arginine specific; however, whether they are active in the ER has not been analyzed. The MARylation of BiP destabilizes its closed-lid formation, predicted to lead to a decreased ability to bind substrates based on the location of the modified arginines within the protein. This was confirmed by ADP-ribosylation mimicry mutants that indeed show lower substrate binding. The result of MARylation of BiP is thus inhibition of its activity, leading to an increased UPR and promoting protein folding. The MARylation of BiP appears to be highest in fasting mice and disappears rapidly in response to feeding, indicating that enzymes exist in the ER that mediate this arginine modification but also enzymes capable of removing the modification [43]. It is not known which enzyme might reverse arginine MARylation in the ER. However, recent progress has revealed hydrolases specific for MARylated glutamates.

DNA damage response

SIRT6 is probably best known for its deacetylase activity and its biological functions are diverse [44]. In addition SIRT6 functions also as a nuclear ART [45]. MARylation by SIRT6 appears to be involved in DNA damage repair under oxidative stress [46]. The overexpression of SIRT6 resulted in higher non-homologous end-joining and homologous recombination efficiency, indicating a role for SIRT6 in double-strand break repair. Both enzymatic activities, MARylation as well as deacetylase activities, were necessary for this property. ARTD1 has a well-documented role in the DNA damage response [47] and could be identified as substrate for MARylation catalyzed by SIRT6. This resulted in elevated ARTD1 activity, leading to the conclusion that SIRT6 exerts its function in DNA damage repair by stimulating ARTD1 [46]. Further supporting that MARylation occurs during the DNA damage response is the recruitment of specific macrodomain-containing proteins that recognize MARylation sites as discussed below [48, 49]. Thus SIRT6 appears to regulate genomic stability.

Insulin secretion

The second sirtuin with ART activity is SIRT4, which is localized in mitochondria. It has been suggested that SIRT4 ADP-ribosylates and inactivates glutamate dehydrogenase [50, 51]. This enzyme, which converts glutamate to α-ketoglutarate, thereby suppressing insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells, has been shown to be ADP-ribosylated by an unidentified mitochondrial enzyme [52]. Of note is that the rate constants for ADP-ribosylation of SIRT4 and SIRT6 are very slow and thus it was argued that the physiological relevance of their ART activities requires further investigation [53].

Reversibility of MARylation

Underlining the relevance of MARylation as dynamic PTM is the recent identification of both dedicated readers for MAR [54] as well as hydrolases capable of removing MAR from modified proteins (Fig. 1) [48, 49, 55]. Modules that bind to MAR specifically allow cells to read this signal and probably respond to it through the proteins linked to the recognition modules. An example thereof is the recognition of PARylated Axin by the WWE domain of ubiquitin E3-ligase Iduna (also known as RNF14) that leads to Axin ubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation [56-58]. The identification of three proteins that reverse MARylation [48, 49, 55] indicates that MARylation serves as a transient signal that can be switched on and off, e.g. to regulate glycogen synthase kinase beta (GSK3β) activity [55, 59]. MacroD1, MacroD2 and C6orf130 were previously characterized as O-acetyl-ADP-ribose deacetylase [60, 61] and appear to also share the capacity to hydrolyze MAR from proteins. A mutation of the C6orf130 gene was described in patients with a severe neurological disorder, arguing for non-redundant functions of these three proteins [49]. MacroD1 appears to be predominantly mitochondrial and might thus encounter different target proteins than MacroD2 and C6orf130 [62]. More work is needed to dissect their specific functions in the regulation of MARylation. These reports thus provide firm evidence of MARylation as a reversible PTM that is relevant in diverse biological processes. Further investigation of MARylation has been complicated by the lack of antibodies against MARylation and by the technical challenge in the mapping of modification sites as discussed in the following.

Towards identifying the ADP-ribose acceptor site

For most PTMs it is clear which amino acids are the acceptor sites; however, for ADP-ribosylation this remains controversial (Table 1). To distinguish between the different amino acids as acceptor residues, neutral hydroxylamine treatment has been a prominent tool as it disrupts not only the ester bond between acidic residues and ADPr but also the ketamine bond between arginine or lysine and ADPr, although with different kinetics [63]. ADP-ribosylated proteins with a half-life of about 3 min in neutral hydroxylamine represent ester linkages between acidic residues and ADPr, whereas the half-life of the ketamine bond formed by arginine-linked ADPr is approximately an hour [64]. Both modified arginines and glutamates were found in total protein extracts from rat liver, with MARylation rather than PARylation being the major modification [65]. In rat liver histone preparations, glutamate-linked H2B ADP-ribosylation was also measured [66]. Analysis of nuclear proteins of the slime mold Physarum polycephalum revealed that H2A and H2B are mainly glutamate-ADP-ribosylated whereas H3 and H4 are mainly arginine-ADP-ribosylated as determined with hydroxylamine treatment [67]. ARTD15 supposedly modifies neither acidic nor basic residues but threonine or serine of karyopherin-β1 [40]. This was concluded because the automodification was stable in hydroxylamine and mercuric chloride, which would have cleaved cysteine-linked ADPr. Instead, the linkage seems destabilized by HCl treatment, which disrupts serine- or threonine-ADPr bonds [68].

Table 1. Overview of identified modification sites of different ARTDs. PDE, phosphodiesterase; CID, collision-induced dissociation; ETD, electron transfer dissociation; HCD, higher energy collisional dissociation
EnzymeSubstrateModified siteApplied methodReference
  1. a

    These different mass spectrometry analyses are not equal. For details see the indicated references.

ARTD1ARTD1K498, K521 and K524Mutagenesis [70]
ARTD1ARTD1E190, E456, E461, E488, E491, D578, K579, E807, E809, E883PDE treatment followed by LC-MS/MS (CID)a [72]








K37 and K16

ARH3 treament followed by LC-MS/MS (ETD)a and mutagenesis [92]
ARTD1-E988QARTD1-E988QD387, E488 and E491LC-MS/MS (ESI)a and mutagenesis [71]
ARTD1-E988QARTD1-E988QE3, E147, E168 or E169, E190, E471, E484, E488, E491PDE treatment followed by LC-MS/MS (HCD)a [49]
ARTD2ARTD2K36 and K37Mutagenesis [93]
ARTD10ARTD10Glutamate or aspartateSensitivity to neutral hydroxylamine [1, 55]
ARTD10ARTD10E882Mutagenesis [1]
ARTD10H2BE2Mutagenesis [69]
ARTD15Karyopherin-β1Serine or threonineSensitivity to HCl [40]

Both mass spectrometry and mutagenesis approaches have also been employed to determine modification sites. Mutation of glutamate 882 in ARTD10 leads to decreased automodification [1] and mutation of glutamate 2 of H2B results in reduced modification by ARTD10 [69], both papers defining glutamates as acceptor sites for ARTD10. An ARTD10 mutant in which all lysines were exchanged for arginines could be trans-MARylated, indicating that lysines are not the sites targeted by ARTD10 [55]. Structural considerations suggested that MacroD1, MacroD2 and C6orf130 are glutamate specific, further strengthening the evidence for glutamate modification by ARTD10 [48, 49, 55]. In ARTD1 mutation of K498, K521 and K524 cause a significant decrease in automodification, implying that these lysines are sites automodified by ARTD1 [70]. Contradicting these findings is a report on glutamates within ARTD1 as automodification sites [71], although here an ARTD1 mutant was used that predominantly MARylates. This ARTD1 E988Q mutant was also used in a recent report where glutamates were identified as automodification sites using phosphodiesterase digestion prior to mass spectrometry analysis [49]. Additionally, both a lysine and several glutamates/aspartates were found as automodification sites of ARTD1 by performing LC-MS/MS analysis on automodified ARTD1 treated with phosphodiesterase [72]. Possible in vitro artifacts can occur, in which for example mutation of a certain amino acid leads to a structural change in the protein in such a way that a modification site becomes covered or a binding surface is disturbed. This could result in the false assumption that the mutated site is the modification site. Glycation, the process in which lysines become modified non-enzymatically through the formation of a Schiff base and subsequent Amadori rearrangement [73-75], complicates matters further. Summarizing, these data indicate that no consensus has been reached yet concerning amino acid specificity of the ARTDs.

Paradoxical with the current data on amino acid specificity of the ARTDs, where thus far no arginine specificity has been identified, is the presence of an intracellular arginine-ADP-ribosylhydrolase (ARH1) [76] and the identification of ADP-ribosylated arginines in a phospho-proteome mass spectrometry data set, where only one modified glutamate was identified versus 87 arginines [77]. One possible explanation is that the more stable arginine-linked ADP-ribosylation is measured, whereas the ester bond through which glutamates are modified is too labile for efficient detection in conventional mass spectrometry approaches. Eight of 88 identified ADP-ribosylated peptides were modified by ribose-phosphate [77], indicating that the ADPr moieties are unstable and difficult to measure as summarized before [78]. One could argue that an intracellular ARH1 forms a protection mechanism against arginine-modifying bacterial toxins, which is supported by the finding that mice lacking ARH1 are more sensitive towards the toxic effects of cholera toxin [79], which specifically ADP-ribosylates arginine as reviewed in [80]. However, it remains open whether one of the ARTDs or ARTCs might be able to modify intracellular proteins on arginine or whether another protein family is responsible, such as some sirtuins that have been reported to MARylate arginines [81]. The dynamic arginine-ADP-ribosylation of BiP within the ER also remains unclear concerning the relevant transferase and hydrolase involved [43].

Evidence for intracellular MAR

Due to the lack of antibodies specific against MARylated proteins, direct evidence of intracellular MARylation is difficult to obtain. Multiple reports provide indirect support for the occurrence of MARylation, thereby highlighting its relevance. The MAR-binding macrodomains of ARTD8 have been used to precipitate MARylated proteins from cells such as RAN and NEMO, which was only possible when active ARTD10 was coexpressed [33, 54], strongly suggesting the occurrence of MARylation in cells. That macrodomains can be used as a tool to pull down ADP-ribosylated proteins was also demonstrated with the macrodomain Af1521 from the thermophilic Archaeoglobus fulgidus [82]. Additionally, GSK3β activity could be lowered by coexpressing ARTD10 and, conversely, knockdown of the endogenous ARTD10 led to higher GSK3β activity, thereby also indicating that endogenous intracellular MARylation occurs and regulates GSK3β activity [59]. Overexpression of the hydrolase MacroD2, which could be shown to remove MAR from GSK3β in vitro, also leads to increased GSK3β activity, further supporting the presence of endogenous intracellular MARylation as MacroD2 is MAR specific [55]. Underlining the importance of strictly regulated MARylation is the identification of a mutation in the MAR-hydrolase C6orf130 in patients with severe neurodegeneration [49]. Finally, recruitment of MacroD2 to DNA damage occurs in a pattern differing from the PAR-binding macroH2A1.1 [48]. The hypothesis posed is that MacroD2 is recruited to MARylation occurring at the onset of DNA damage, and then disappears as PARylation becomes dominant, to be recruited again when poly-ADP-ribose glycohydrolase (PARG) mediated degradation of PAR chains has occurred and MARylated residues are left [48]. Although all these reports provide indirect evidence of MARylation, together they make a strong argument for the presence of endogenous intracellular MARylation.

As there are only a few macrodomain-containing proteins encoded in the human genome [9], it has to be considered that further readers of MARylation may exist with unrecognized macrodomain folds. This is not unlikely, as the macrodomain in PARG could not be deduced from its sequence but was only recognized upon solving of its crystal structure [16]. Moreover, the possible existence of other motifs recognizing MARylated proteins has to be considered. It would not be unexpected that additional domains exist that can read MARylation, similar to PARylation or other PTMs that are recognized by multiple domains [9, 83, 84]. Using protein microarrays, approximately 200 targets were identified for ARTD8 and ARTD10 [59]. Assuming that the mono-ARTDs each have approximately 100 substrates and that hydrolysis of PAR by glycohydrolases leads to MARylated proteins, a rough estimation would be that around 1000 MARylated proteins exist. We do not know the exact number of MARylated proteins in cells; one reason is that no robust mass spectrometry protocols have been developed to faithfully screen for MARylated proteins. Although this number is an estimate, it is worth comparing it with other PTMs and the ratio of enzymes to modification sites. For example, acetylation is mediated by roughly 20 enzymes [85] and a mass spectro-metry based approach revealed about 3600 lysine acetylation sites on 1750 distinct proteins [86]. Thus, assuming a comparable complexity between these two PTMs, it is reasonable to suggest the existence of 1000 MARylated proteins. The question that then arises is whether the few macrodomains that have been identified are sufficient to read and erase this PTM. Most probably additional macrodomain folds will be discovered in proteins where the sequence does not reveal a macrodomain, as is the case for PARG [16], but where solving of the structure will provide more insight. This will increase the complexity of readers and erasers; however, we think it is appropriate to hypothesize that further domains exist to deal with MARylation.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

Multiple reports describe roles for MARylation in different signaling pathways such as NF-κB and the unfolded protein response. Together, they highlight the importance of MARylation for cell physiology, underlined by the interference with cell proliferation when manipulated [27, 87, 88] and by disease occurring upon deregulation of MARylation [49]. Recent findings thus outline an intricate system with defined transferases, readers, hydrolases and target proteins that together define MARylation as a dynamic PTM occurring in cells (Fig. 1). The currently available data on localization of the transferases and hydrolases indicate that they have differing localizations, such as MacroD1 in mitochondria [62], ARTD10 in cytoplasmic foci and in the nucleus [27, 28], and ARTD15 at the ER [39, 40]. It is at present largely unknown how these different locations are regulated and how localization influences their activities.

We expect that MARylation is involved in multiple other signaling processes that are still to be uncovered. The challenge for future research will be the development of more sophisticated tools enabling the study of MARylation in cells and the accurate determination of modification sites, to better understand the exact mechanisms through which MARylation exerts its effects. The investigation of the regulation of mono-ARTDs is also an important research question, as it is currently unknown in response to which cues the mono-ARTDs become activated. Inhibitors specific for the single mono-ARTDs are currently not available, but a recently described high-throughput method to study mono-ARTD inhibitors shows promise for future development of specific small molecule inhibitors against these enzymes [89]. Specific inhibitors will not only prove to be essential tools in fundamental research determining the precise roles of MARylation, but might also be developed into therapeutic agents in addition to the currently established ARTD inhibitors [90, 91].


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

We thank Andreas Ladurner and Ivan Ahel for providing manuscripts prior to publication. We apologize to researchers whose work could not be included due to space restrictions. The work in our laboratory was supported by the START program of the Medical School of the RWTH Aachen University and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (LU466/15-1).


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Functional roles for MAR
  5. Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
  • 1
    Kleine H, Poreba E, Lesniewicz K, Hassa PO, Hottiger MO, Litchfield DW, Shilton BH & Luscher B (2008) Substrate-assisted catalysis by PARP10 limits its activity to mono-ADP-ribosylation. Mol Cell 32, 5769.
  • 2
    Hottiger MO, Hassa PO, Luscher B, Schuler H & Koch-Nolte F (2010) Toward a unified nomenclature for mammalian ADP-ribosyltransferases. Trends Biochem Sci 35, 208219.
  • 3
    Laing S, Unger M, Koch-Nolte F & Haag F (2011) ADP-ribosylation of arginine. Amino Acids 41, 257269.
  • 4
    Koch-Nolte F, Kernstock S, Mueller-Dieckmann C, Weiss MS & Haag F (2008) Mammalian ADP-ribosyltransferases and ADP-ribosylhydrolases. Front Biosci 13, 67166729.
  • 5
    Corda D & Di Girolamo M (2003) Functional aspects of protein mono-ADP-ribosylation. EMBO J 22, 19531958.
  • 6
    Flick F & Luscher B (2012) Regulation of sirtuin function by posttranslational modifications. Front Pharmacol 3, 29.
  • 7
    Michishita E, McCord RA, Berber E, Kioi M, Padilla-Nash H, Damian M, Cheung P, Kusumoto R, Kawahara TL, Barrett JC et al. (2008) SIRT6 is a histone H3 lysine 9 deacetylase that modulates telomeric chromatin. Nature 452, 492496.
  • 8
    Gibson BA & Kraus WL (2012) New insights into the molecular and cellular functions of poly(ADP-ribose) and PARPs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13, 411424.
  • 9
    Krietsch J, Rouleau M, Pic E, Ethier C, Dawson TM, Dawson VL, Masson JY, Poirier GG & Gagne JP (2012) Reprogramming cellular events by poly(ADP-ribose)-binding proteins. Mol Aspects Med. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.12.005.
  • 10
    Kalisch T, Ame JC, Dantzer F & Schreiber V (2012) New readers and interpretations of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation. Trends Biochem Sci 37, 381390.
  • 11
    Zaja R, Mikoc A, Barkauskaite E & Ahel I (2012) Molecular insights into poly(ADP-ribose) recognition and processing. Biomolecules 3, 117.
  • 12
    Kleine H & Luscher B (2009) Learning how to read ADP-ribosylation. Cell 139, 1719.
  • 13
    Oka S, Kato J & Moss J (2006) Identification and characterization of a mammalian 39-kDa poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. J Biol Chem 281, 705713.
  • 14
    Niere M, Mashimo M, Agledal L, Dolle C, Kasamatsu A, Kato J, Moss J & Ziegler M (2012) ADP-ribosylhydrolase 3 (ARH3), not poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) isoforms, is responsible for degradation of mitochondrial matrix-associated poly(ADP-ribose). J Biol Chem 287, 1608816102.
  • 15
    Lin W, Ame JC, Aboul-Ela N, Jacobson EL & Jacobson MK (1997) Isolation and characterization of the cDNA encoding bovine poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. J Biol Chem 272, 1189511901.
  • 16
    Slade D, Dunstan MS, Barkauskaite E, Weston R, Lafite P, Dixon N, Ahel M, Leys D & Ahel I (2011) The structure and catalytic mechanism of a poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Nature 477, 616620.
  • 16a
    Scarpa ES, Fabrizio G & Di Girolamo M (2013) A role of intracellular mono-ADP-ribosylation in cancer biology. FEBS J doi: 10.1111/febs.12290.
  • 17
    Chambon P, Weill JD & Mandel P (1963) Nicotinamide mononucleotide activation of new DNA-dependent polyadenylic acid synthesizing nuclear enzyme. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 11, 3943.
  • 18
    Weill JD, Busch S, Chambon P & Mandel P (1963) The effect of estradiol injections upon chicken liver nuclei ribonucleic acid polymerase. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 10, 122126.
  • 19
    Stark GR & Darnell JE Jr (2012) The JAK-STAT pathway at twenty. Immunity 36, 503514.
  • 20
    Mohr A, Chatain N, Domoszlai T, Rinis N, Sommerauer M, Vogt M & Muller-Newen G (2012) Dynamics and non-canonical aspects of JAK/STAT signalling. Eur J Cell Biol 91, 524532.
  • 21
    Goenka S & Boothby M (2006) Selective potentiation of Stat-dependent gene expression by collaborator of Stat6 (CoaSt6), a transcriptional cofactor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 42104215.
  • 22
    Goenka S, Cho SH & Boothby M (2007) Collaborator of Stat6 (CoaSt6)-associated poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity modulates Stat6-dependent gene transcription. J Biol Chem 282, 1873218739.
  • 23
    Mehrotra P, Riley JP, Patel R, Li F, Voss L & Goenka S (2011) PARP-14 functions as a transcriptional switch for Stat6-dependent gene activation. J Biol Chem 286, 17671776.
  • 24
    Goenka S & Kaplan MH (2011) Transcriptional regulation by STAT6. Immunol Res 50, 8796.
  • 25
    Ma Q, Baldwin KT, Renzelli AJ, McDaniel A & Dong L (2001) TCDD-inducible poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase: a novel response to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 289, 499506.
  • 26
    Macpherson L, Tamblyn L, Rajendra S, Bralha F, McPherson JP & Matthews J (2012) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (TiPARP, ARTD14) is a mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase and repressor of aryl hydrocarbon receptor transactivation. Nucleic Acids Res 41, 16041621.
  • 27
    Yu M, Schreek S, Cerni C, Schamberger C, Lesniewicz K, Poreba E, Vervoorts J, Walsemann G, Grotzinger J, Kremmer E et al. (2005) PARP-10, a novel Myc-interacting protein with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity, inhibits transformation. Oncogene 24, 19821993.
  • 28
    Kleine H, Herrmann A, Lamark T, Forst AH, Verheugd P, Luscher-Firzlaff J, Lippok B, Feijs KL, Herzog N, Kremmer E et al. (2012) Dynamic subcellular localization of the mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase ARTD10 and interaction with the ubiquitin receptor p62. Cell Commun Signal 10, 28.
  • 29
    Atasheva S, Akhrymuk M, Frolova EI & Frolov I (2012) New PARP gene with an anti-alphavirus function. J Virol 86, 81478160.
  • 30
    Schoggins JW, Wilson SJ, Panis M, Murphy MY, Jones CT, Bieniasz P & Rice CM (2011) A diverse range of gene products are effectors of the type I interferon antiviral response. Nature 472, 481485.
  • 31
    Schreiber V, Dantzer F, Ame JC & de Murcia G (2006) Poly(ADP-ribose): novel functions for an old molecule. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7, 517528.
  • 32
    Welsby I, Hutin D & Leo O (2012) Complex roles of members of the ADP-ribosyl transferase super family in immune defences: looking beyond PARP1. Biochem Pharmacol 84, 1120.
  • 33
    Verheugd P, Forst AH, Milke L, Herzog N, Feijs KLH, Kremmer E, Kleine H & Lüscher B (2013) Regulation of NF-kappaB signaling by the mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase ARTD10. Nat Commun 4, 1683.
  • 34
    Chen ZJ (2012) Ubiquitination in signaling to and activation of IKK. Immunol Rev 246, 95106.
  • 35
    Mahmoud L, Al-Saif M, Amer HM, Sheikh M, Almajhdi FN & Khabar KS (2011) Green fluorescent protein reporter system with transcriptional sequence heterogeneity for monitoring the interferon response. J Virol 85, 92689275.
  • 36
    Salazar JC, Duhnam-Ems S, La Vake C, Cruz AR, Moore MW, Caimano MJ, Velez-Climent L, Shupe J, Krueger W & Radolf JD (2009) Activation of human monocytes by live Borrelia burgdorferi generates TLR2-dependent and -independent responses which include induction of IFN-beta. PLoS Pathog 5, e1000444.
  • 37
    Yu M, Zhang C, Yang Y, Yang Z, Zhao L, Xu L, Wang R, Zhou X & Huang P (2011) The interaction between the PARP10 protein and the NS1 protein of H5N1 AIV and its effect on virus replication. Virol J 8, 546.
  • 38
    Leung AK, Vyas S, Rood JE, Bhutkar A, Sharp PA & Chang P (2011) Poly(ADP-ribose) regulates stress responses and microRNA activity in the cytoplasm. Mol Cell 42, 489499.
  • 39
    Jwa M & Chang P (2012) PARP16 is a tail-anchored endoplasmic reticulum protein required for the PERK- and IRE1alpha-mediated unfolded protein response. Nat Cell Biol 14, 12231230.
  • 40
    Di Paola S, Micaroni M, Di Tullio G, Buccione R & Di Girolamo M (2012) PARP16/ARTD15 is a novel endoplasmic-reticulum-associated mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase that interacts with, and modifies karyopherin-ss1. PLoS One 7, e37352.
  • 41
    Hetz C (2012) The unfolded protein response: controlling cell fate decisions under ER stress and beyond. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13, 89102.
  • 42
    Pincus D & Walter P (2012) A first line of defense against ER stress. J Cell Biol 198, 277279.
  • 43
    Chambers JE, Petrova K, Tomba G, Vendruscolo M & Ron D (2012) ADP ribosylation adapts an ER chaperone response to short-term fluctuations in unfolded protein load. J Cell Biol 198, 371385.
  • 44
    Beauharnois JM, Bolivar BE & Welch JT (2013) Sirtuin 6: a review of biological effects and potential therapeutic properties. Mol BioSyst, doi:10.1039/C3MB00001J
  • 45
    Liszt G, Ford E, Kurtev M & Guarente L (2005) Mouse Sir2 homolog SIRT6 is a nuclear ADP-ribosyltransferase. J Biol Chem 280, 2131321320.
  • 46
    Mao Z, Hine C, Tian X, Van Meter M, Au M, Vaidya A, Seluanov A & Gorbunova V (2011) SIRT6 promotes DNA repair under stress by activating PARP1. Science 332, 14431446.
  • 47
    De Vos M, Schreiber V & Dantzer F (2012) The diverse roles and clinical relevance of PARPs in DNA damage repair: current state of the art. Biochem Pharmacol 84, 137146.
  • 48
    Jankevicius G, Hassler M, Golia B, Rybin V, Zacharias M, Timinszky G & Ladurner AG (2013) A family of macrodomain proteins reverses cellular mono-ADP-ribosylation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20, 508514.
  • 49
    Sharifi R, Morra R, Denise Appel C, Tallis M, Chioza B, Jankevicius G, Simpson MA, Matic I, Ozkan E, Golia B et al. (2013) Deficiency of terminal ADP-ribose protein glycohydrolase TARG1/C6orf130 in neurodegenerative disease. EMBO J 32, 12251237.
  • 50
    Haigis MC, Mostoslavsky R, Haigis KM, Fahie K, Christodoulou DC, Murphy AJ, Valenzuela DM, Yancopoulos GD, Karow M, Blander G et al. (2006) SIRT4 inhibits glutamate dehydrogenase and opposes the effects of calorie restriction in pancreatic beta cells. Cell 126, 941954.
  • 51
    Ahuja N, Schwer B, Carobbio S, Waltregny D, North BJ, Castronovo V, Maechler P & Verdin E (2007) Regulation of insulin secretion by SIRT4, a mitochondrial ADP-ribosyltransferase. J Biol Chem 282, 3358333592.
  • 52
    Herrero-Yraola A, Bakhit SM, Franke P, Weise C, Schweiger M, Jorcke D & Ziegler M (2001) Regulation of glutamate dehydrogenase by reversible ADP-ribosylation in mitochondria. EMBO J 20, 24042412.
  • 53
    Du J, Jiang H & Lin H (2009) Investigating the ADP-ribosyltransferase activity of sirtuins with NAD analogues and 32P-NAD. Biochemistry 48, 28782890.
  • 54
    Forst AH, Karlberg T, Herzog N, Thorsell AG, Gross A, Feijs KL, Verheugd P, Kursula P, Nijmeijer B, Kremmer E et al. (2013) Recognition of mono-ADP-ribosylated ARTD10 substrates by ARTD8 macrodomains. Structure 21, 462475.
  • 55
    Rosenthal F, Feijs KL, Frugier E, Bonalli M, Forst AH, Imhof R, Winkler HC, Fischer D, Caflisch A, Hassa PO et al. (2013) Macrodomain-containing proteins are new mono-ADP-ribosylhydrolases. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20, 502507.
  • 56
    Callow MG, Tran H, Phu L, Lau T, Lee J, Sandoval WN, Liu PS, Bheddah S, Tao J, Lill JR et al. (2011) Ubiquitin ligase RNF146 regulates tankyrase and Axin to promote Wnt signaling. PLoS One 6, e22595.
  • 57
    Huang SM, Mishina YM, Liu S, Cheung A, Stegmeier F, Michaud GA, Charlat O, Wiellette E, Zhang Y, Wiessner S et al. (2009) Tankyrase inhibition stabilizes axin and antagonizes Wnt signalling. Nature 461, 614620.
  • 58
    Zhang Y, Liu S, Mickanin C, Feng Y, Charlat O, Michaud GA, Schirle M, Shi X, Hild M, Bauer A et al. (2011) RNF146 is a poly(ADP-ribose)-directed E3 ligase that regulates axin degradation and Wnt signalling. Nat Cell Biol 13, 623629.
  • 59
    Feijs KL, Kleine H, Braczynski A, Forst AH, Herzog N, Verheugd P, Linzen U, Kremmer E & Luscher B (2013) ARTD10 substrate identification on protein microarrays: regulation of GSK3beta by mono-ADP-ribosylation. Cell Commun Signal 11, 5.
  • 60
    Peterson FC, Chen D, Lytle BL, Rossi MN, Ahel I, Denu JM & Volkman BF (2011) Orphan macrodomain protein (human C6orf130) is an O-acyl-ADP-ribose deacylase: solution structure and catalytic properties. J Biol Chem 286, 3595535965.
  • 61
    Chen D, Vollmar M, Rossi MN, Phillips C, Kraehenbuehl R, Slade D, Mehrotra PV, von Delft F, Crosthwaite SK, Gileadi O et al. (2011) Identification of macrodomain proteins as novel O-acetyl-ADP-ribose deacetylases. J Biol Chem 286, 1326113271.
  • 62
    Neuvonen M & Ahola T (2009) Differential activities of cellular and viral macro domain proteins in binding of ADP-ribose metabolites. J Mol Biol 385, 212225.
  • 63
    Moss J, Yost DA & Stanley SJ (1983) Amino acid-specific ADP-ribosylation. J Biol Chem 258, 64666470.
  • 64
    Hsia JA, Tsai SC, Adamik R, Yost DA, Hewlett EL & Moss J (1985) Amino acid-specific ADP-ribosylation. Sensitivity to hydroxylamine of [cysteine(ADP-ribose)]protein and [arginine(ADP-ribose)]protein linkages. J Biol Chem 260, 1618716191.
  • 65
    Bredehorst R, Wielckens K, Gartemann A, Lengyel H, Klapproth K & Hilz H (1978) Two different types of bonds linking single ADP-ribose residues covalently to proteins. Quantification in eukaryotic cells. Eur J Biochem 92, 129135.
  • 66
    Burzio LO, Riquelme PT & Koide SS (1979) ADP ribosylation of rat liver nucleosomal core histones. J Biol Chem 254, 30293037.
  • 67
    Golderer G & Grobner P (1991) ADP-ribosylation of core histones and their acetylated subspecies. Biochem J 277, 607610.
  • 68
    Cervantes-Laurean D, Loflin PT, Minter DE, Jacobson EL & Jacobson MK (1995) Protein modification by ADP-ribose via acid-labile linkages. J Biol Chem 270, 79297936.
  • 69
    Moyle PM & Muir TW (2010) Method for the synthesis of mono-ADP-ribose conjugated peptides. J Am Chem Soc 132, 1587815880.
  • 70
    Altmeyer M, Messner S, Hassa PO, Fey M & Hottiger MO (2009) Molecular mechanism of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by PARP1 and identification of lysine residues as ADP-ribose acceptor sites. Nucleic Acids Res 37, 37233738.
  • 71
    Tao Z, Gao P & Liu HW (2009) Identification of the ADP-ribosylation sites in the PARP-1 automodification domain: analysis and implications. J Am Chem Soc 131, 1425814260.
  • 72
    Chapman JD, Gagne JP, Poirier GG & Goodlett DR (2013) Mapping PARP-1 auto-ADP-ribosylation sites by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Proteome Res, doi:10.1021/pr301219h
  • 73
    Caldes C, Vilanova B, Adrover M, Munoz F & Donoso J (2011) Understanding non-enzymatic aminophospholipid glycation and its inhibition. Polar head features affect the kinetics of Schiff base formation. Bioorg Med Chem 19, 45364543.
  • 74
    Cervantes-Laurean D, Jacobson EL & Jacobson MK (1996) Glycation and glycoxidation of histones by ADP-ribose. J Biol Chem 271, 1046110469.
  • 75
    Fedorova M, Frolov A & Hoffmann R (2010) Fragmentation behavior of Amadori-peptides obtained by non-enzymatic glycosylation of lysine residues with ADP-ribose in tandem mass spectrometry. J Mass Spectrom 45, 664669.
  • 76
    Moss J, Oppenheimer NJ, West RE Jr & Stanley SJ (1986) Amino acid specific ADP-ribosylation: substrate specificity of an ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase from turkey erythrocytes. Biochemistry 25, 54085414.
  • 77
    Matic I, Ahel I & Hay RT (2012) Reanalysis of phosphoproteomics data uncovers ADP-ribosylation sites. Nat Methods 9, 771772.
  • 78
    Hengel SM & Goodlett DR (2012) A review of tandem mass spectrometry characterization of adenosine diphosphate-ribosylated peptides. Int J Mass Spectrom 312, 114121.
  • 79
    Kato J, Zhu J, Liu C & Moss J (2007) Enhanced sensitivity to cholera toxin in ADP-ribosylarginine hydrolase-deficient mice. Mol Cell Biol 27, 55345543.
  • 80
    Holbourn KP, Shone CC & Acharya KR (2006) A family of killer toxins. Exploring the mechanism of ADP-ribosylating toxins. FEBS J 273, 45794593.
  • 81
    Fahie K, Hu P, Swatkoski S, Cotter RJ, Zhang Y & Wolberger C (2009) Side chain specificity of ADP-ribosylation by a sirtuin. FEBS J 276, 71597176.
  • 82
    Dani N, Stilla A, Marchegiani A, Tamburro A, Till S, Ladurner AG, Corda D & Di Girolamo M (2009) Combining affinity purification by ADP-ribose-binding macro domains with mass spectrometry to define the mammalian ADP-ribosyl proteome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 42434248.
  • 83
    Musselman CA, Lalonde ME, Cote J & Kutateladze TG (2012) Perceiving the epigenetic landscape through histone readers. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19, 12181227.
  • 84
    Jin J & Pawson T (2012) Modular evolution of phosphorylation-based signalling systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367, 25402555.
  • 85
    Bedford DC, Kasper LH, Fukuyama T & Brindle PK (2010) Target gene context influences the transcriptional requirement for the KAT3 family of CBP and p300 histone acetyltransferases. Epigenetics 5, 915.
  • 86
    Choudhary C, Kumar C, Gnad F, Nielsen ML, Rehman M, Walther TC, Olsen JV & Mann M (2009) Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science 325, 834840.
  • 87
    Herzog N, Hartkamp JD, Verheugd P, Treude F, Forst AH, Feijs KL, Lippok B, Kremmer E, Kleine H & Luscher B (2013) Caspase-dependent cleavage of the mono-ADP-ribosyltransferase ARTD10 interferes with its pro-apoptotic function. FEBS J 280, 13301343.
  • 88
    Chou HY, Chou HT & Lee SC (2006) CDK-dependent activation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase member 10 (PARP10). J Biol Chem 281, 1520115207.
  • 89
    Venkannagari H, Fallarero A, Feijs KL, Luscher B & Lehtio L (2013) Activity-based assay for human mono-ADP-ribosyltransferases ARTD7/PARP15 and ARTD10/PARP10 aimed at screening and profiling inhibitors. Eur J Pharm Sci 49, 148156.
  • 90
    Lord CJ & Ashworth A (2008) Targeted therapy for cancer using PARP inhibitors. Curr Opin Pharmacol 8, 363369.
  • 91
    Ashworth A (2008) A synthetic lethal therapeutic approach: poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors for the treatment of cancers deficient in DNA double-strand break repair. J Clin Oncol 26, 37853790.
  • 92
    Messner S, Altmeyer M, Zhao H, Pozivil A, Roschitzki B, Gehrig P, Rutishauser D, Huang D, Caflisch A & Hottiger MO (2010) PARP1 ADP-ribosylates lysine residues of the core histone tails. Nucleic Acids Res 38, 63506362.
  • 93
    Haenni SS, Hassa PO, Altmeyer M, Fey M, Imhof R & Hottiger MO (2008) Identification of lysines 36 and 37 of PARP-2 as targets for acetylation and auto-ADP-ribosylation. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 40, 22742283.